Could we stop human behavior of fighting over territory?

[Vistulange]

No, but there is a distinction. How do you define separate groups of people? What is the basis of discriminating on the grounds of "we" and "them"?

In this hypothetical situation, "we" can be family, region, or country. To discriminate them, it shouldn't be any harder than discriminating current-day countries. Any group that belongs to your side and will not impediment your survival off your land.

How do we discriminate among modern countries? Are countries solely the sum of their borders? If not, what defines a member of a country? Likewise, what defines a member of a family or region? I suppose that "family" is one of the social constructs which are more readily adopted by us, and are more difficult to challenge due to parental bonds, but all are socially constructed, through a process of interaction and mutual relationships.

Therefore, I would argue that it isn't unimaginable that - theoretically - an identity of "human" can be created.

[Arcanda]

In this hypothetical situation, "we" can be family, region, or country. To discriminate them, it shouldn't be any harder than discriminating current-day countries. Any group that belongs to your side and will not impediment your survival off your land.

How do we discriminate among modern countries? Are countries solely the sum of their borders? If not, what defines a member of a country? Likewise, what defines a member of a family or region? I would suppose that "family" is one of the social constructs which are more readily adopted by us, and are more difficult to challenge due to parental bonds, but all are socially constructed, through a process of interaction and mutual relationships.

Therefore, I would argue that it isn't unimaginable that - theoretically - an identity of "human" can be created.

Sure, an identity of human can be created, but at some point it will break off and splinter. Who knows what the groups of tomorrow will be? Races, ethnic groups, religious groups, regional groups, alliances, clans, militaries? The point is there will be land necessary to the survival of a group and one day this group will be under attack by another one.

[Estlobies]

Personally, I'm so far removed from it all that I see human existence as entertainment. By that logic, genocide is a most intriguing form of entertainment, which leads me to support it.

It's all fun and games until your loved ones are the ones genocided.

Even then, there are some (myself included) who promote the notion. Heartlessness is quite fun.

'Less of course you have none or you're the one doing the genociding.

Also valid reasoning.

Which is why I don't really care much for genocides. They also tend to upset the international society to a degree that the nazi country of yesterday is the nuclear wasteland of today. Nazi Germany was, after all, the original target of the American nukes until they realized it's so far away it can't even reach the United States without collapsing on itself in the process.

Fair, but since when have genocidal dictatorships that seek to control their populaces been concerned about opinions of the international community?

The rest is history with Japan inadvertently getting what was coming to it for joining the nazis by a country founded on supremacy of the white English and Scots against Irish, Jews and non-whites, who got the slavery-apartheid end of the stick, that is, just another empire which is also getting what's coming to it as the United Nations approves a Russia-China-led foreign intervention to restore democracy in America when the opportunity presents itself. It's never a good idea to be the Trump against the rest of the world.

The subconscious agenda reveals itself. Stupid Bullshit.

[Vistulange]

How do we discriminate among modern countries? Are countries solely the sum of their borders? If not, what defines a member of a country? Likewise, what defines a member of a family or region? I would suppose that "family" is one of the social constructs which are more readily adopted by us, and are more difficult to challenge due to parental bonds, but all are socially constructed, through a process of interaction and mutual relationships.

Therefore, I would argue that it isn't unimaginable that - theoretically - an identity of "human" can be created.

Sure, an identity of human can be created, but at some point it will break off and splinter. Who knows what the groups of tomorrow will be? Races, ethnic groups, religious groups, regional groups, alliances, clans, militaries? The point is there will be land necessary to the survival of a group and one day this group will be under attack by another one.

Yes, that's exactly the point. We construct the identities we associate ourselves with, and they are not a given. There is no definite "human nature", but instead; norms, expectations and the like, established by a long and ever-ongoing process of social interaction between humans. Therefore, it is also possible to willfully change our behaviour regarding other people, constructing a new system of norms, thereby changing the system you are currently taking for granted.

[Arcanda]

Sure, an identity of human can be created, but at some point it will break off and splinter. Who knows what the groups of tomorrow will be? Races, ethnic groups, religious groups, regional groups, alliances, clans, militaries? The point is there will be land necessary to the survival of a group and one day this group will be under attack by another one.

Yes, that's exactly the point. We construct the identities we associate ourselves with, and they are not a given. There is no definite "human nature", but instead; norms, expectations and the like, established by a long and ever-ongoing process of social interaction between humans. Therefore, it is also possible to willfully change our behaviour regarding other people, constructing a new system of norms, thereby changing the system you are currently taking for granted.

I think that there is a considerable core of past experience, past memories, that will always remain in human nature. You can change traditions and borders, but war is inevitable, and war's primary reason is often because one needs something that he doesn't have and so he goes forth and looks for it in a neighbor's land. A "human identity" can be created but at some point it is bound to break down. It may be worth it for its first moments, but I doubt it.

[Vistulange]

Yes, that's exactly the point. We construct the identities we associate ourselves with, and they are not a given. There is no definite "human nature", but instead; norms, expectations and the like, established by a long and ever-ongoing process of social interaction between humans. Therefore, it is also possible to willfully change our behaviour regarding other people, constructing a new system of norms, thereby changing the system you are currently taking for granted.

I think that there is a considerable core of past experience, past memories, that will always remain in human nature. You can change traditions and borders, but war is inevitable, and war's primary reason is often because one needs something that he doesn't have and so he goes forth and looks for it in a neighbor's land. A "human identity" can be created but at some point it is bound to break down. It may be worth it for its first moments, but I doubt it.

Right, I'm not disputing the bit about "they have something I don't have, I want it". I'm challenging the very concept of "they" and "I" in that phrase. You are spot-on in stating that there is a considerable core of past experience, memories and expectations, and those are all what we call socially constructed norms. Over time, certain norms are deconstructed and new ones are constructed.

For example, a common "European" identity would have been quite unimaginable about a century ago, aside from a few fringe thinkers here and there. Nowadays, the concept of a "European" is very well embedded in our minds, and though there is considerable debate as to what actually constitutes "European identity", something more than a simple geographic concept (which isn't - "Europe" as a geographic concept...isn't, but instead another socially constructed idea) comes to mind. Likewise, the identity of "Roman" means nothing to us nowadays, unless you happen to refer to Rome, the capital of Italy; but about two thousand years ago, it would have meant something far more different than what it means today.

Identities change, evolve, exist and lose meaning throughout time, all as a result of human interaction. The "considerable core of past experience, past memories" that you mention have been forged over time. Think of it as a Prisoners' Dilemma game, with both players being assumed to be rational actors.

If the game is played only once, the rational choice would be "confess", leading to a suboptimal, but still better-than-worse outcome. However, if the game is iterated, the rational choice becomes "stay silent", as the players can now play tit-for-tat: If Prisoner A confesses in the first round, Prisoner B will also confess in the second round, thereby preventing the most optimal outcome from being reached. However; if Prisoner A stays silent, then Prisoner B will stay silent, and the outcome with most utility will be reached consistently. Practically speaking, human interaction can be likened to an infinitely iterated game of Prisoners' Dilemma, for a simple explanation.

[Arcanda]

I think that there is a considerable core of past experience, past memories, that will always remain in human nature. You can change traditions and borders, but war is inevitable, and war's primary reason is often because one needs something that he doesn't have and so he goes forth and looks for it in a neighbor's land. A "human identity" can be created but at some point it is bound to break down. It may be worth it for its first moments, but I doubt it.

Right, I'm not disputing the bit about "they have something I don't have, I want it". I'm challenging the very concept of "they" and "I" in that phrase. You are spot-on in stating that there is a considerable core of past experience, memories and expectations, and those are all what we call socially constructed norms. Over time, certain norms are deconstructed and new ones are constructed.

For example, a common "European" identity would have been quite unimaginable about a century ago, aside from a few fringe thinkers here and there. Nowadays, the concept of a "European" is very well embedded in our minds, and though there is considerable debate as to what actually constitutes "European identity", something more than a simple geographic concept (which isn't - "Europe" as a geographic concept...isn't, but instead another socially constructed idea) comes to mind. Likewise, the identity of "Roman" means nothing to us nowadays, unless you happen to refer to Rome, the capital of Italy; but about two thousand years ago, it would have meant something far more different than what it means today.

Identities change, evolve, exist and lose meaning throughout time, all as a result of human interaction. The "considerable core of past experience, past memories" that you mention have been forged over time. Think of it as a Prisoners' Dilemma game, with both players being assumed to be rational actors.

If the game is played only once, the rational choice would be "confess", leading to a suboptimal, but still better-than-worse outcome. However, if the game is iterated, the rational choice becomes "stay silent", as the players can now play tit-for-tat: If Prisoner A confesses in the first round, Prisoner B will also confess in the second round, thereby preventing the most optimal outcome from being reached. However; if Prisoner A stays silent, then Prisoner B will stay silent, and the outcome with most utility will be reached consistently. Practically speaking, human interaction can be likened to an infinitely iterated game of Prisoners' Dilemma, for a simple explanation.

But even granted that we could, at some point, totally deconstruct local identities (notwithstanding that with all the identities that have come and gone, man's instinct to fight wars to protect its tribe/land has never faltered, everywhere on earth): then, even while considering the other party "human", the other party may at some point threaten your possessions: and identity or not, when one's vital needs go unanswered for, war would come as the result.

[Vistulange]

Right, I'm not disputing the bit about "they have something I don't have, I want it". I'm challenging the very concept of "they" and "I" in that phrase. You are spot-on in stating that there is a considerable core of past experience, memories and expectations, and those are all what we call socially constructed norms. Over time, certain norms are deconstructed and new ones are constructed.

For example, a common "European" identity would have been quite unimaginable about a century ago, aside from a few fringe thinkers here and there. Nowadays, the concept of a "European" is very well embedded in our minds, and though there is considerable debate as to what actually constitutes "European identity", something more than a simple geographic concept (which isn't - "Europe" as a geographic concept...isn't, but instead another socially constructed idea) comes to mind. Likewise, the identity of "Roman" means nothing to us nowadays, unless you happen to refer to Rome, the capital of Italy; but about two thousand years ago, it would have meant something far more different than what it means today.

Identities change, evolve, exist and lose meaning throughout time, all as a result of human interaction. The "considerable core of past experience, past memories" that you mention have been forged over time. Think of it as a Prisoners' Dilemma game, with both players being assumed to be rational actors.

If the game is played only once, the rational choice would be "confess", leading to a suboptimal, but still better-than-worse outcome. However, if the game is iterated, the rational choice becomes "stay silent", as the players can now play tit-for-tat: If Prisoner A confesses in the first round, Prisoner B will also confess in the second round, thereby preventing the most optimal outcome from being reached. However; if Prisoner A stays silent, then Prisoner B will stay silent, and the outcome with most utility will be reached consistently. Practically speaking, human interaction can be likened to an infinitely iterated game of Prisoners' Dilemma, for a simple explanation.

But even granted that we could, at some point, totally deconstruct local identities (notwithstanding that with all the identities that have come and gone, man's instinct to fight wars to protect its tribe/land has never faltered, everywhere on earth): then, even while considering the other party "human", the other party may at some point threaten your possessions: and identity or not, when one's vital needs go unanswered for, war would come as the result.

The expectation of violence and the reception of violence have constructed this system of norms we live in. In the iterated game, humanity elected to "confess". With this awareness, it would theoretically be possible to shift expectations and deconstruct the norm of expecting and delivering violence, if humanity elects to "stay silent" in the game. So no, if the social norm of violence and war were deconstructed, it would be quite difficult for the norm of violence and war to be constructed yet again - look how difficult it is to deconstruct the one we are in, right now.

[Gospel Power]

Don't know yet

[Donut section]

a united communist world would solve this problem

Because everyone but the glorious leader would have starved to death?