7 ms·

People really fear war and economic sanctions, everyone around me are watching live currency exchange quotes and stock markets. Noboby around me supports the in

People really fear war and economic sanctions, everyone around me are watching live currency exchange quotes and stock markets. Noboby around me supports the invasion or even understands why it's happening. It's like an abbyss between the head of the state and the people. Can't say for everyone of course.

bcrosby95 5y ago
Most people just want to live a relatively normal life with friends and family in their own little corner of the world. Unfortunately the vast majority of us are subject to the whims of those with greater power and ambitions.
- warner_of_doom 5y ago
  We live and benefit from nation-states. We didn't choose that structure, but it is "natural" and just the way it is -- until we have some major technological breakthrough that changes that.
  - kragen 5y ago
    According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state#History_and_origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state#History_and_origi..., "Most theories see the nation state as a 19th-century European phenomenon, facilitated by developments such as state-mandated education, mass literacy and mass media. However, historians[who?] also note the early emergence of a relatively unified state and identity in Portugal and the Dutch Republic." Humans have been burying their dead for 100,000 years, living in cities for 12000 years, organizing states for 5700 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Age_state_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Age_state_societies), and organizing nation-states for 200 years. That is, for roughly the first 94000 years of humanity, there were no cities and no states; for the first 6000 years of cities, there were no states; and for the first 5500 years of states, there were no nation-states. Even today, many people live in non-nation-state countries like the United States, Bolivia, and India. It's not "natural", it's not "just the way it is", we probably don't benefit from it, and it's probably not even technologically determined.
    - dotancohen 5y ago
      That is an extreme liberal viewpoint, which often flourishes on Wikipedia. Not everything authoritatively stated on Wikipedia is fact, even if there is a link in the footer to someone who says so. Nation-states were by far the dominant political entities up until the age of exploration, around the 15th century. Name any ancient society, with the stark exception of the Romans they are all nations or nation-states. The Egyptians, the Hebrews, the Ethiopians, the Persians, the Chinese, the Greeks, all nations or nation-states. Today, it is fashionable to pretend that race doesn't exist as an effort to remove racial barriers. The goal is noble, but the rewriting of history is profane.
      - s3tz 5y ago
        Don't want to sound mean or anything, but you should read more in depth on these "nation" states before taking that position.
        dotancohen 5y ago
        You don't sound mean, rather, I would appreciate enlightenment. I'm familiar with some of them, such as the Hebrews (I'm a Hebrew), Greeks (studied a bit, but not in an academic setting), Ahmans (which I call Persians for a modern audience), but I don't pretend to be an expert. I called them nations because they were a people of a common race. For instance, the ancient Greeks have described the features of the Perisans whom they fought at Marathon - and from this description it is clear that a Greek could identify another person as Greek or Persian. Hence, they are different nations. And even today the Ethiopians retain very distinct features. My country (Israel) has many Ethiopians, I believe that we are the only Western nation to welcome African immigrants as equals. And would any Westerner argue that the Chinese have physical features distinct from those with European heritage? Does that not qualify - for you - as a different race? If you are referring to the Proto-Indo-Iranian ancestors, then I counter that their descendants have diverged. If you meant something else, I am always grateful for corrections or enlightenment.
        kragen 5y ago
  - y42 5y ago
    Something to create international connections, kind of a network, where people meet and exchange opinions or knowledge, without any border, no matter what nationality. Yeah, that would be great. I would call it "Internet"!
  - adastra22 5y ago
    Nation states are an incredibly recent phenomenon, and not something we have always lived with or are in any way natural or immutable.
    - warner_of_doom 5y ago
      I think they just developed with scale.
      - adastra22 5y ago
        It’s actually more something that was invented in the treaties of Westphalia and which allowed the idea of the nation-state to scale in a way that prior forms of government could not. (With a few notable exceptions! Ancient Rome was basically a nation state, as was the Islamic empire in its height. Not coincidentally these both became large, stable empires.)
- narrator 5y ago
  "You may not be interest in war, but war is interested in you." - Trotsky
  - skissane 5y ago
    Like many other famous quotes, it appears Trotsky himself never actually said this – although he did say something similar about "dialectics", which later got transferred to the more enduring topic of "war" – https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/08/02/interested-war/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/08/02/interested-war/
    - narrator 5y ago
      It's a fair translation since the dialectic to him meant all countries would eventually become communist by revolution which in most cases meant some sort of civil war.

bcrosby95 5y ago

Most people just want to live a relatively normal life with friends and family in their own little corner of the world. Unfortunately the vast majority of us are subject to the whims of those with greater power and ambitions.

warner_of_doom 5y ago
We live and benefit from nation-states. We didn't choose that structure, but it is "natural" and just the way it is -- until we have some major technological breakthrough that changes that.
- kragen 5y ago
  According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state#History_and_origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state#History_and_origi..., "Most theories see the nation state as a 19th-century European phenomenon, facilitated by developments such as state-mandated education, mass literacy and mass media. However, historians[who?] also note the early emergence of a relatively unified state and identity in Portugal and the Dutch Republic." Humans have been burying their dead for 100,000 years, living in cities for 12000 years, organizing states for 5700 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Age_state_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Age_state_societies), and organizing nation-states for 200 years. That is, for roughly the first 94000 years of humanity, there were no cities and no states; for the first 6000 years of cities, there were no states; and for the first 5500 years of states, there were no nation-states. Even today, many people live in non-nation-state countries like the United States, Bolivia, and India. It's not "natural", it's not "just the way it is", we probably don't benefit from it, and it's probably not even technologically determined.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    That is an extreme liberal viewpoint, which often flourishes on Wikipedia. Not everything authoritatively stated on Wikipedia is fact, even if there is a link in the footer to someone who says so. Nation-states were by far the dominant political entities up until the age of exploration, around the 15th century. Name any ancient society, with the stark exception of the Romans they are all nations or nation-states. The Egyptians, the Hebrews, the Ethiopians, the Persians, the Chinese, the Greeks, all nations or nation-states. Today, it is fashionable to pretend that race doesn't exist as an effort to remove racial barriers. The goal is noble, but the rewriting of history is profane.
    - s3tz 5y ago
      Don't want to sound mean or anything, but you should read more in depth on these "nation" states before taking that position.
      - dotancohen 5y ago
        You don't sound mean, rather, I would appreciate enlightenment. I'm familiar with some of them, such as the Hebrews (I'm a Hebrew), Greeks (studied a bit, but not in an academic setting), Ahmans (which I call Persians for a modern audience), but I don't pretend to be an expert. I called them nations because they were a people of a common race. For instance, the ancient Greeks have described the features of the Perisans whom they fought at Marathon - and from this description it is clear that a Greek could identify another person as Greek or Persian. Hence, they are different nations. And even today the Ethiopians retain very distinct features. My country (Israel) has many Ethiopians, I believe that we are the only Western nation to welcome African immigrants as equals. And would any Westerner argue that the Chinese have physical features distinct from those with European heritage? Does that not qualify - for you - as a different race? If you are referring to the Proto-Indo-Iranian ancestors, then I counter that their descendants have diverged. If you meant something else, I am always grateful for corrections or enlightenment.
        kragen 5y ago
- y42 5y ago
  Something to create international connections, kind of a network, where people meet and exchange opinions or knowledge, without any border, no matter what nationality. Yeah, that would be great. I would call it "Internet"!
- adastra22 5y ago
  Nation states are an incredibly recent phenomenon, and not something we have always lived with or are in any way natural or immutable.
  - warner_of_doom 5y ago
    I think they just developed with scale.
    - adastra22 5y ago
      It’s actually more something that was invented in the treaties of Westphalia and which allowed the idea of the nation-state to scale in a way that prior forms of government could not. (With a few notable exceptions! Ancient Rome was basically a nation state, as was the Islamic empire in its height. Not coincidentally these both became large, stable empires.)
narrator 5y ago
"You may not be interest in war, but war is interested in you." - Trotsky
- skissane 5y ago
  Like many other famous quotes, it appears Trotsky himself never actually said this – although he did say something similar about "dialectics", which later got transferred to the more enduring topic of "war" – https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/08/02/interested-war/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/08/02/interested-war/
  - narrator 5y ago
    It's a fair translation since the dialectic to him meant all countries would eventually become communist by revolution which in most cases meant some sort of civil war.