I looked at the premise of his book that this article seems to connect with, and it basically boils down to “History shows that societies becomes a lot more peaceful and productive after periods of war.”
Wow, who’d’ve thought that things get better for the people who survive a war? It’s a good thing we can apply survivorship bias to the whole of human history with such confidence like that.
So it’s not that war makes things better, but that we become better off after we stop fighting? We become better off after we decide fixing our problems peacefully is a good idea? Brilliant.
It’s also not true when you consider all the times war follows war and societies see decades if not centuries of decline involving numerous civil wars. On top of that, when war is not devastating for those that start it, it does not inspire them to change; rather it becomes part of their norm.
“There’s less death from warfare and economic production diverted to support said warfare when people aren’t fighting wars” is a helluva argument in favor of fighting wars to improve lives and benefit the economy.
It’s like a financial advisor telling you that you should blow all your money in the casino, then quit gambling and start saving.
Is that compared to the war itself, or the time before it? I have a doubt. We were all told that we were in a historic era of peace before things kicked off this month, so the bar is set pretty high. Plus, even after the dust settles, the entire Northern hemisphere will likely still be up to its collective asses in fascists with way too much power to turn around and do it again.
That was not how I read the article at all. What it is arguing is essentially that people benefit from the presence of order, especially when it includes larger numbers of people, but that historically such order only tends to come about through warfare. By all means disagree with this—though you might consider reading the article if you haven’t so that you are responding to its actual points—but it has nothing to do with people doing better merely because they have survived the war.
Artist putting the dove of peace in there should be shamed, too. Mf’er thinks they have some design porn going on there when all it is is selling out to oppressors
This is also still peddling the false “30 year life expectancy” that is completely not true when accounting for the high infant mortality, so the initial premise is false.
For general context, the opinion piece was published April 2014. Bezos owned The WaPo at the time and had since 2013. Author is Stanford historian and archaeologist Ian Morris.
Thanks for sharing the link in the interest of fact and transparency.
I looked at the premise of his book that this article seems to connect with, and it basically boils down to “History shows that societies becomes a lot more peaceful and productive after periods of war.”
Wow, who’d’ve thought that things get better for the people who survive a war? It’s a good thing we can apply survivorship bias to the whole of human history with such confidence like that.
So it’s not that war makes things better, but that we become better off after we stop fighting? We become better off after we decide fixing our problems peacefully is a good idea? Brilliant.
It’s also not true when you consider all the times war follows war and societies see decades if not centuries of decline involving numerous civil wars. On top of that, when war is not devastating for those that start it, it does not inspire them to change; rather it becomes part of their norm.
“There’s less death from warfare and economic production diverted to support said warfare when people aren’t fighting wars” is a helluva argument in favor of fighting wars to improve lives and benefit the economy.
It’s like a financial advisor telling you that you should blow all your money in the casino, then quit gambling and start saving.
Is that compared to the war itself, or the time before it? I have a doubt. We were all told that we were in a historic era of peace before things kicked off this month, so the bar is set pretty high. Plus, even after the dust settles, the entire Northern hemisphere will likely still be up to its collective asses in fascists with way too much power to turn around and do it again.
The “historic era of peace” is a lie.
In truth, we live in an era of constant wars, we’re just so dominant that they don’t happen on our soil.
That was not how I read the article at all. What it is arguing is essentially that people benefit from the presence of order, especially when it includes larger numbers of people, but that historically such order only tends to come about through warfare. By all means disagree with this—though you might consider reading the article if you haven’t so that you are responding to its actual points—but it has nothing to do with people doing better merely because they have survived the war.
He seems like not a great guy.
WTF this is a real article
Of course it was WAPO
It says it right at the top …
Artist putting the dove of peace in there should be shamed, too. Mf’er thinks they have some design porn going on there when all it is is selling out to oppressors
I will do one better and provide a link to an archived copy of the article so you all can read it for yourselves!
deleted by creator
This is also still peddling the false “30 year life expectancy” that is completely not true when accounting for the high infant mortality, so the initial premise is false.
Stanford has a lot to answer for these days.