Stating present conditions doesn't mean it won't, or isn't getting better. Comparatively, despite all the scare mongering, people are much less violent than they were before.

If there's anything more natural than competition, it's evolution. It's my belief that a better system isn't only possible but inevitable. I'm not talking utopia, but history certainly tells us a pattern, and this pattern is leading us to more complex, more efficient, and better systems. I believe that self-interest as a driving force of human civilization (capitalism) will be rendered ineffective.

I think the next major event for humans in the foreseeable future is the depletion of fossil fuels. That's gonna cause a big disruption in the world economy and may lead to some instability.
I don't think we are less violent than before. But nuclear weapons are an excellent deterrent, and most countries have powerful friends that deter invasion.

On the contrary, I think a crisis is an opportunity; a defining moment if you will, for the betterment of our society as a whole. Especially in this circumstance, it would galvanize the economy just as past issues required unity, galvanization, and innovation (world war is a good example). We've overcome larger crises than the depletion of fossil fuels.

I believe this video will be enlightening to you:
TED | Talks | Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence (video)

fxashun wrote:I posted this on a message board awhile back:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the New York Times: "Faced with the prospect of a government unable to pay its bills, the Senate voted on Wednesday to raise the federal debt limit by $800 billion. Though an increase in the debt ceiling was never in doubt, Republican leaders in both houses of Congress postponed action on it last month, until after the elections, to deprive Democrats of a chance to accuse them of fiscal irresponsibility. The bill, if approved by the House in a vote expected on Thursday, would authorize the third big increase in the federal borrowing since President Bush took office in 2001. Federal debt has ballooned by $1.4 trillion over the past four years, to $7.4 trillion, and the new ceiling would allow borrowing to reach $8.2 trillion. With no end in sight to the huge annual budget deficits, which hit a record of $412 billion this year, lawmakers predicted on Wednesday that the new ceiling would probably have to be raised again in about a year."

Also: "The world's wealthiest countries agreed on Tuesday to increase aid to the world's poorest nations by raising their contributions to the World Bank's international development program to $34 billion from $23 billion. ...The United States will provide $950 million this year and about the same amount over the next two years."

If the United States is so far in debt, how could it be considered to be a wealthy nation? President Bush said: "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations." So, who does he think is going to pay for all this debt? We all know that our posterity will be bearing the brunt of the costs. It will bear upon our children, and our children's children, and our children's children's children, and...

Also from the New York Times: "The world's wealthiest nations formally agreed Saturday to cancel at least $40 billion of debt owed to international agencies by the world's poorest lands, most of them in Africa."

So, we, in this generation, are effectively borrowing money to give away, payment of which is the burden of our posterity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, at our expense, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is actively promoting business closing down in this country and re-establishing in the lesser developed countries, receiving not only tax benefits, but having a workforce pay of around 50¢ per hour rather than paying United States pay scales. Our standard of living is being lowered as a result.

I answered him by e-mail a little while ago. My answer was that I think humans occupy both the top rung on the ladder in the animal kingdom-because of our ability to create and use technology; and the bottom rung also because we allow ourselves to respond (or react) to stimuli by emotion. I can think of no other animal cursed with this affliction.

You may be right; Gary, but the original ideas behind the developement of those nuclear weapons was (and still is) to eradicate our own species. Granted, we are smart enough to have created things like this to make it efficient. But does that really make us so smart?
You are correct in that many other animals kill each other for food. But it is only humans that create tools to accomplish the death of others, and actively plan for it. Why is that? I think we are cursed with a trait called emotion that we do not control, that we think (even allow ourselves to believe) that this is justification for the killing of others. Other animals do kill each other for food; but we kill for many other reasons besides this.

I'd rubber stamp this statement.

Emotions are ot a curse, Joe!!! Heck with them we can both appreciate and love. Sure emotions give a heart its humanity. Its tenderness and compassion.

Oh my yes, emotions can be a way to feel the negativity too of our condition.

Still, tis a gift most profound. No curse.

OhDear

I guess it depends on perspective. All good things have a bed aspect. Water is a necessity of life, but you drown or drink yourself to death.

It's the difference between making love with someone you love you being kidnapped and raped in a dark alley.