BenJepheneT
Light Up Gold - Parquet Courts
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2019
- Messages
- 5,344
- Points
- 233
Therein lies the paradox, isn't there? Subjects can lay in dormancy under peace, but when said subjects are human, that's impossible.why must struggle be violent? not seeing progress in that at all. why not struggle for your fellow beings instead of against them? and the ages of rome and america being decadent... are the ages of greater expansion. how far did rome's borders expand after the death of Kaesar and the abolution of the republic? how many innocents have america bombed in this millennium alone? Rome was not in peace when it fell, it merely had delegated its defense to mainly non-romans along with a plethora of other factors. peace and gluttony are called decadent... i see it as a species having no concern for hunger, no worry of their neighbor stabbing them in the back and therefore rest is warranted. bombing a school, pumping mustard gas into the trenches, taking women as sex slaves... that's not decadent? war's not decadent? At times you have to defend what's yours, but that's not noble, that's practical. but to set out and attack another nation, another people, wholesale massacre, taking out of eyes, smashing babies against concrete.... how is that something our species needs to 'progress?' All i see in scenarios like that are chimps hunting each other through the forest.
Humans are ambitious creatures. When we're at rock bottom, we long for the surface. When we're at the surface, we want to reach the skies. When we reach the skies, we wish to rocket to the moon. When we're at the moon, all there's left is to reach the stars. It's not as simple as worry not about hunger; when hunger is no issue, we'd normally gravitate towards eating MORE food. With the advent of getting more food, the possibility of your neighbor WANTING your food to be his food grows, and thus we sleep behind locked doors in case Uncle Jeff gets funny ideas.
Rome fell because it grew too big for itself, and with its absolution it paved way to bigger systems to accommodate for a greater population. America dropped the sun twice on the innocents because had they didn't, it would've been their innocents. See a pattern here? War happens not for war, but out of necessity, or at least perceived necessity.
I agree with OP's phrase, not as a mission, but as an inevitability. Progress is mandatory, it's what keeps us humans human. It's the path of said progression that leads to war. WWII is because not everyone is on board with Cracker Barrel as an ethnostate. Cold War because of ideological differences threatening one another. WMDs because people wanted more oil and resources for further technological advancements, be it for corporate or public gain. Our species doesn't want this, but our species grew too big for ourselves. We didn't throw mustard gas down trenches because we wanted to. We did it because the other team would've done the same to us. When the other team lost, we progressed on their graves to make sure they wouldn't rise again.
War is inevitable. When there's 7 billion of the same fuckheads on the same rock, conflict is bound to uappen. Progress in war isn't the goal, it's the outcome, and the necessary step to winning said war.
And you've mentioned struggling for your fellow men? Well shit, they've struggled pretty well for themselves in the streets of Minneapolis/on January 6th, and it's all for their "fellow men". In a way, no one was fighting for progress. They were fighting because the other team represented degeneracy.
Your idea of peace worked when civilization was just twenty dudes in a village working on a farm. As with human nature, two of the twenty dudes fucked and bred one child who had a different idea of peace in mind. You COULD systematically educate said child and the rest of the children to instate your idea of 'peace', but some guys with cool uniforms and rad moustaches tried that and guess how that turned out.