It only applies to men currently, of course and my understanding is that not registering may cause someone to not be eligible for certain government benefits or student financial aid but not sure if it's true or not. They had a big thing at my high school about registering where they said all that stuff. This was in the 90s also. It seemed like it was supposed to be like a rite of passage like picking your class ring but I doubt it's like that anymore.
As an officer I joined up out of patriotism and the desire to do something important, but most of the other ranks I met joined up because the army was a way out of the poverty trap and a good way for a poor boy without much education to make something of himself. which goes back to what i was saying about prosperity - had they had the option of getting a decent job back home they might have taken it, but for many escaping unemployment was a choice between the forces or crime
I managed to slide in between Vietnam and Desert Storm. I had to register (they called it Selective Service), and got a free pair of tube socks for it, but I never got called up. I was in my 40's when Desert Storm hit, and never got the call for that one either.
Oh man, I'll never forget the time I went down to the offices to sign up with the Army, and nobody was home in the office. The guy in the Marine office called me in there and persuaded me to sign up with them instead, and the same day he drove me to Missouri, to a huge brick building that looked like a prison where big groups of guys were marching around. I went in to take what they call the Battery Tests (sounds pretty brutal), and as we sat on a wooden bench groups of extremly shifty-looking characters all chained together in leg irons were brought in and put on other benches. He told me they were the ones offered military duty rather than going to prison. That's when I thought about it a little more and decided I didn't want to be a Marine after all (what was I even thinking, I'm not tough or strong, I was just too much of a softie to tell him no when he was giving me his spiel). He took it quite well, I thought he was going to be angry after driving me all the way out there, but he was extremely professional. I guess that's the job though.
I never othered to look this up myself, so now I'm surprised. As someone who mainly knows America through the movies, I kinda just assumed there was still a draft. (Yeah, that sounds like you should just close the window, but I think the sentence is correct, and no better version comes to mind.) *grinder I recall reading that this was something of an issue during WW2. Just not enough people because America didn't expect to get caught up in another war. Something like that. That's how they wound up with a whole bunch of young officers, and subsequently ruined a chapter of another book I was writing. All that comes to mind is WW2, for obvious reasons. But my knowledge of wars certainly doesn't stretch far enough to think of other "morally right" wars. Anytime I delve a little deeper it turns out wars start because "you have that thing I want to have." Or God. When you have nothing, or are made to believe you have nothing, you lose nothing. You don't hear a lot of war stories about a Fortunate Son in the trenches. I figure access to knowledge (and, let's be honest, the will to seek out such knowledge) would be a great factor in the prevention of war. This is a difficult one for me. And if I sound judgmental, it's not intended so. Patriotism doesn't mean a lot to me. If a country can offer what I think I need for a nice life, I don't care which country it is, and I figure the longer you spend in any country, the more you will see its flaws anyway. The only times I see the word patriotism come up, with the exception of above, it sounds like rhetoric (provided I'm using that word correctly). Borderline propaganda? "It's your patriotic duty." It's obviously just a legitimate word, but it has taken on sort of an extra charge. Maybe it's just me. I have the same thing with "jew." It just describes a certain people, but in my ears it sounds like I'm calling someone a bad name. Probably because of WW2 movies. It's kind of amazing to me that this isn't already the case. Or rather, it isn't that amazing, but it still should already be so. We did a couple of thousands of years of the fighting thing. The novelty should have worn off by now. I'm actually screwing around with belief systems and religion in general in my main story. I began penning this WIP because I got stuck on the other one. While I'm all for having fun with belief systems, this story already sits on a premise so ridiculous that everything else needs to be grounded. Seth MacFarlane said that about Ted. Paraphrasing: "It doesn't matter that the bear can talk if everything else is normal." I'm willing to expand on the WIP, but I fear it'll turn this thread into a help-me-write thread. Wouldn't enough oppression result in a war anyway? Call it a revolution if they want to feel better about it, but it would still look a lot like a war. Starship Troopers. In the book it's stated that if you don't fight, you don't get citizenship. If I recall correctly, anyway. It's been a while since I read it. You can live in the country, but until you've done a tour of duty, you don't get citizen rights. Voting is the one that stuck in my mind, but there was more. Either way, what I was building up to was: Seriously? That's an actual thing?
Well, drafts will come when the country needs it. US is fortuitous enough to not need to force service at the moment. Because god, or in the name of god? Theology is the result of culture, not the reverse. Outlaw religion, and I'll instead brandish my scimitar or holy longsword in the name of... Stan, or Jeff, or Eugene but for the exact same reasons. Inter-hierarchical intolerance will exist whether the spaghetti monster does or not. These will always seem irrational to us outsiders, because we're not the ones that believe them. Don't get me wrong, if everyone had the same belief system as myself, there would basically be no wars, and blue jeans and poutine would get the international credit they deserve while crucifixes go die in the attic. Though you'd have to erase a lot of culture to accomplish such, which is sort of evil from a modern perspective. Would these hypothetical overlords have any scruples about that? Perhaps not, if it means saving lives (the lives will all look quite similar in the end—not big deal until I find out my culture is part of the problem).
In starship troopers long in the past there’s been a military coup after the government fell into chaos and the army plus veterans decided that enough was enough Thus in their new system if you haven't served you don’t vote…
Human beings, as currently packaged, come with a range of ingredients that, along with the lofty, include narcissism, psychopathy, xenophobia, predatory, and on and on, things that have always and will always lead to conflict, violence and war. To eradicate war, you must change the recipe, with genetic selection, extensive indoctrination a la that future history A Brave New World, eradication of want and free access to unlimited tofu. When all that fails, as it will, your powers that be concoct just the right dose of narcotics to slip into the water supply.
Hear hear. Not only that, but life itself, not just for human beings or animals, makes it pretty much impossible to live free of conflict. Even if you separate everybody to the extent of each one living completely alone, there would still be conflict within each one. Put people together and the conflict will become one against another and group against group in various ways, often including physical conflict. Maybe the only way would be to lobotomoze everybody and let them all live like animals, but it would sort of defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? A world with no conflict is a world with no life, or a silly simplistic fantasy. Even plants and single-celled creatures have to compete for resources. Plus, if you remove all conflict through some Twilight Zone device, then how do you have a story, considering story is built on conflict?
Of course I guess the question wasn't "How to create a world without war," but rather in what ways might it be attempted. Maybe if we didn't have physical bodies (didn't need resources)? Lol, but I'm getting way too philosophical about this, sorry. I guess that doesn't help.
I don't like this abstract/ metaphysical way of thinking about it- "the universe is full of strife, so war is eternal". This is tantamount to the elevation of war to a cosmological principle, or a god. It's not a good idea to stray too far from specifics. Yes everyone has conflict in their life but I don't need to murder someone to make things interesting. Conflict is part of life, but does it have to include young people massacring each other, people dying in bombings and sieges, children growing up in places infested with mines or poisoned with depleted uranium? How many people need to die horribly to satisfy this need for dramatic tension? Forget about the battling amoebas, think about the mangled bodies of toddlers being dug out of rubble. Is it really so hard to imagine life being worthwhile without this? Likewise there is no need to lean on generalities about human nature- it is not some general human nature that wages war but states, politicians, armies, and they have specific reasons for doing so. And when we get away from abstractions, we can see many continuities in human society, but also many profound changes- in economy, politics, culture, religion, etc.- through the ages. Institutions and thoughts (eg the subservience of woman) that seemed carved in granite have melted away, sometimes virtually overnight. I see no reason to assume that a vibrant and beautiful society free of coercion, domination, and violence is impossible.
If we look at war and compare it to the universe, then destruction and death (war) is a natural part of life and the universal state of things. If we somehow reach a civilization level that can manipulate and change the laws of the universe, then perhaps we can free ourselves from war? (Perhaps with some interesting consequences.) If we all became gods in a sort of near-infinite universe, then war and death could be conquered. I believe it is possible to create long lasting peace, we succeeded with it in most of Europe now for several decades. But any such peace is probably just temporary. At least for us as we are now.
But it is a good idea to step back, look at things from a higher perspective, and try to get a more philosophical angle on them. I agree, you can't write the story from a philosophical concept (I even said as much above), but it can serve as a basis for thinking about it. Not at all, just a reminder that the idea that we can somehow completley do away with war is unrealistic. Now who's getting philosophical, and engaging in emotionalism? You're not thinking practically about it now. Well true, and yet human nature remains what it is regardless. Just because there are specifics doesn't make the larger realities go away. Why not think about both? Plus, I wasn't just talking about human nature but about nature itself, including all animals and plants. Can you tell us how to make conflict go away, for any kind of life? I wish I could, I wish anybody could, But ultimately all you did was say "War is terrible, it's worthwhile wanting to get rid of it." Of course, we all agree on that. But there's no sense losing the forest for the individual trees. And adding in a lot of emotional hand-wringing doesn't solve anything. I just wanted to bring a broader perspective in that hadn't been considered yet. That doesn't mean I'm heartless or callous. We can have emotions and still look at the bigger picture at times.
I find it interesting that we see complex human-made systems as unnatural, or separate from the human condition.
This reminds me of the logical paradoxes the ancient Greeks were losing their mind over. For example "What happens when an Unstoppable Force meets an Unmovable Object" Another citation comes to mind, too "Bill, who was a pacifist, was killed by Roy, who wasn't".
Probably not, as they'll be too busy writing Equilibrium 2. I refuse to give credit to something that sounds like poo. My army will call your army at the earliest convenience. That sort of hits the nail on the head. Over here, there's a big housing shortage. So more houses need to be built. And then I see some guy being interviewed in the middle of only forest, and he's going "It's too busy. We're full." And we also can't build because of the carbon emissions. We need windmills (which nobody wants around their house) and electric cars (but you're not gonna put all those chargers in my damn street). Yes, the world needs to be better. No, don't bloody bother me with it. We're pretty much our own banana peel. Or like recent history. Like whatshisname with the silly moustache tried. I could probably make a more intelligent comment if the only Brave New World I know wasn't an Iron Maiden album. Conflict, I think, is not the problem. If I get cut off in traffic, I'm ready to chase the bastard down and burn his house with his wife and children inside. Right up until the next traffic light where he turns out to be a single mom desperately trying not to crash while keeping two unruly little asshats quiet in the backseat. The kneejerk response is generally aggression. But it doesn't have to become a war. Conflict is part of life. It's natural. But I believe we're supposed to have evolved to become reasonable. Not everybody got the memo, and those are the people who will get out at that traffic light to assault the single mother. Those would be the people who might butterfly effect us right into a war. Currently, lots of reasons. Most of them with some form of currency sign in front of it. Maybe it would be possible if big changes are made, both in life and living, and in our way of thinking and doing. But the goal should not be to live free of conflict, the goal should be to live free of the kind of conflict that affects people who have nothing to do with the conflict. It doesn't matter if they are unnatural. Things turn the way they do, but it should be unnatural to sit and accept it, instead of reviewing it a couple of times to see if the way really is the most sensible way. I think I wanted to say something else to this when i clicked 'quote,' but I don't remember what. The Slow-Mo Guys probably have something on that in 25,000 fps and 4k.
