What do you think?

[Nihilism]

What do you think about conflict being the driving force of humanity? For example, company x will compete for dominance in its field, but company y is on par thus conflict.

Fiction stories can have multiple realistic aspects, but what stories capture best is conflict.

Conflict drives character growth! Conflict drives our world!

 

[ArcadiaBlade]

By comparing our current state of the world. The only way for us to progress realistically is not Conflict but 'Threat'. Conflict may only be just expansion to progress but fear can change a person to improving both the company and his own well-being.

Conflict can only suck up the blood of the common people but having a threat can lead to progress.

The main example would be the two Major Gaming Companies such as 'EA' and 'Activision'.

When you see the comparison, you can tell that they both have conflict with one another(EA's Battlefield and Activision's Call of Duty) but not once did it gave interest of improvement but began to shift into which company can suck more money into their wallets.

They make up progress here and there but did it really improve the overall game genre at all? No.

From my understanding of how a company works, they see the gamers as 'Wallets' and their view only satisfy their own vision without improving the entire gaming ecology at all.

So, in conclusion, conflict is just violence through oppression and not progress. Threat induces progress for humanity in whole.

Our ancestors were once in conflict with animals because we view them as threat in the past, now, we cattle them because we can see that it is more efficient than just hunting. We invent different things because we see that there is a hidden threat that someone would stole our ideas. Now, we just see that our lives became peaceful that threat became insignificant and only saw conflict as a means of progress.

Thats it for my Ted Talk and just so all you know, I wasted my 1 digit braincell just to think of this idea.

 

[Ilikewaterkusa]

I do

What do you think about conflict being the driving force of humanity? For example, company x will compete for dominance in its field, but company y is on par thus conflict.

Fiction stories can have multiple realistic aspects, but what stories capture best is conflict.

Conflict drives character growth! Conflict drives our world!

I don’t think. But the fusion of capitalism, meritocracy and liberalism has created the monster that is egoism and that shall tear at the soul of society. Competition should never be the driving force of humanity on part of its entropic properties so as an alternative I propose acceptance. Co-existence. To accept the conditions and adapt to them, rather than seeking to change them.

Conflict can only suck up the blood of the common people but having a threat can lead to progress.

The main example would be the two Major Gaming Companies such as 'EA' and 'Activision'.

When you see the comparison, you can tell that they both have conflict with one another(EA's Battlefield and Activision's Call of Duty) but not once did it gave interest of improvement but began to shift into which company can suck more money into their wallets.

They make up progress here and there but did it really improve the overall game genre at all? No.

From my understanding of how a company works, they see the gamers as 'Wallets' and their view only satisfy their own vision without improving the entire gaming ecology at all.

So, in conclusion, conflict is just violence through oppression and not progress. Threat induces progress for humanity in whole.

Our ancestors were once in conflict with animals because we view them as threat in the past, now, we cattle them because we can see that it is more efficient than just hunting. We invent different things because we see that there is a hidden threat that someone would stole our ideas. Now, we just see that our lives became peaceful that threat became insignificant and only saw conflict as a means of progress.

Thats it for my Ted Talk and just so all you know, I wasted my 1 digit braincell just to think of this idea.

I don’t believe in progress.

 

[TheEldritchGod]

People avoid pain and seek pleasure.
That is the primary motivation of humanity.

 

[Redemit]

I posted this elsewhere but would simply also like to add that yes conflict is the driving force behind humanity we are constantly in conflict with ourselves and our environment think about it we are hungry and therefore we must fight the land and sea and the animals to feed ourselves this leads us to develop better tools and techniques for hunting and gathering we're constantly in conflict with our environment and so we build better homes for better comfort if we were a peaceful people we would all still be living in straw and mud huts eating raw berries but because we're constantly fighting for something we are constantly progressing

We talking technologically socially or philosophically?

I could argue that technology is always advancing regardless of peace or war but it does make some very interesting leaps during war that would not come about during peace

I could also say that "peace" which doesn't actually exist in our world at any time is never lasting it is a kind of stagnation and rot built on a slowly crumbling foundation of bones and blood and the only reason why it exists at all is generally because people are weary of war for a Time but peace will always leads to us back to war eventually

But what about philosophically now there is an interesting question when people and society are facing some form of mortal threat they become very introspective and philosophical they start seeing things differently they start learning things that they never bothered to learn before they start valuing things that they never value before war is death and death has an interesting way of making us value life and everything else that we hold dear

If you ever want to read something truly interesting read some of the letters from world war I and world war II written by soldiers in the trenches and on the front lines a lot of these people didn't even have a high school equivalent education and get the letters that they wrote back home and the diaries that they wrote are very thought-provoking

 

[LostLibrarian]

They make up progress here and there but did it really improve the overall game genre at all? No.

Though to be fair: the decisions in those companies aren't made by game designers or developers, but by businessmen. So their goal isn't to improve the overall genre or the games, but rather to see the gamers as wallets and get as much money out of them. So DLCs, lootboxes, "games as service" and even NFTs would become "improvements"