Holos
Senior Member
For the last few years any media scavenging would report the increasing measures towards the management of international conflicts reminiscent of the civil disorder reflected from the 20th century (1900s) military ventures and even prior.
Those measures could all be categorized as governmental intervention, as the many governments of the world would be perceived as having different purposes for the people of the whole world, but only under the perspective of citizens nationally restricted, instead of citizens internationally commensurate, since all human beings naturally organize themselves to thrive by associating to foreign groups with the intention to live in an all contributive threatless world.
It seems now, even by 2016 and an article of Time magazine, published on February, that the standard language in the media is the long obsolote, antithetically defeating and oxymoronic tautology " to fight wars".
The article, however, has nothing to do with the military, but is a strict apology to general employment and technology. No one really wants to be payed or ensure their safety by exposing themselves to imminent destruction or violence so uncontrolled it can only be resolved through retaliation.
Fighting wars is indeed a modern conceptualization of providing national security, but we are already long past that failed political strategy. I don't intend here to argue either in favor or against military strategies. My intention with this thread is to discuss about effective war resolutions, my position being of political consideration prior to military consideration since we've already had too many nervous fingers pressing wrong triggers and wrong buttons in a needlessly destructive chain effect. A fight is a small war. A war begins with a small fight. The cycle is repetitive if militarism is not properly backed by impartially functioning politics.
They key for our time, the 21st century, to finally resolve the continuously revolving damages of war as largely unrestrained and heavily invested militarism is techonology and how it relates to employment.
The February Times article is sharing an interesting data collection of how there is an apparent paradox between technological progress and employment rate. According to the article, technological progress has consistently continued to be developed while employment rate has been unstable, resulting in so called depressions by economical analysts. The problem, however, has less to do with monetary remuneration than it has to do with the inertial deviation of focus initiated by and thus necessarily requested back to the disruptions of international and transnational conflicts.
I propose this inertial obligatory attraction to conflict that is and has already been moderately discontinuing can be done through the media instead of through the military, as the military has failed so many times for so many years. Very simple pragmatics can be applied to improve the general international state of affairs. We can, for example, substitute a myriad of oxymoronic tautologies non conducive to efficient analytical employment of already developed technology, such as "to fight wars", for expressions which may readily provide a working solution to be applied in improvement of the informing media or technology, such as "war resolutions".
Any thoughts?
Those measures could all be categorized as governmental intervention, as the many governments of the world would be perceived as having different purposes for the people of the whole world, but only under the perspective of citizens nationally restricted, instead of citizens internationally commensurate, since all human beings naturally organize themselves to thrive by associating to foreign groups with the intention to live in an all contributive threatless world.
It seems now, even by 2016 and an article of Time magazine, published on February, that the standard language in the media is the long obsolote, antithetically defeating and oxymoronic tautology " to fight wars".
The article, however, has nothing to do with the military, but is a strict apology to general employment and technology. No one really wants to be payed or ensure their safety by exposing themselves to imminent destruction or violence so uncontrolled it can only be resolved through retaliation.
Fighting wars is indeed a modern conceptualization of providing national security, but we are already long past that failed political strategy. I don't intend here to argue either in favor or against military strategies. My intention with this thread is to discuss about effective war resolutions, my position being of political consideration prior to military consideration since we've already had too many nervous fingers pressing wrong triggers and wrong buttons in a needlessly destructive chain effect. A fight is a small war. A war begins with a small fight. The cycle is repetitive if militarism is not properly backed by impartially functioning politics.
They key for our time, the 21st century, to finally resolve the continuously revolving damages of war as largely unrestrained and heavily invested militarism is techonology and how it relates to employment.
The February Times article is sharing an interesting data collection of how there is an apparent paradox between technological progress and employment rate. According to the article, technological progress has consistently continued to be developed while employment rate has been unstable, resulting in so called depressions by economical analysts. The problem, however, has less to do with monetary remuneration than it has to do with the inertial deviation of focus initiated by and thus necessarily requested back to the disruptions of international and transnational conflicts.
I propose this inertial obligatory attraction to conflict that is and has already been moderately discontinuing can be done through the media instead of through the military, as the military has failed so many times for so many years. Very simple pragmatics can be applied to improve the general international state of affairs. We can, for example, substitute a myriad of oxymoronic tautologies non conducive to efficient analytical employment of already developed technology, such as "to fight wars", for expressions which may readily provide a working solution to be applied in improvement of the informing media or technology, such as "war resolutions".
Any thoughts?
