Do you think Peace comes after Development or Development comes after Peace?

[CrystalAce]

Do you think Peace comes after Development or Development comes after Peace?


It's not an Einstein question. It's just to bring awareness. You may think it's an absurd question for if there's peace there's development or if there's development there's peace. Peace and development may seem quite inseparable term. But let me remind here that "Peace" refers to the state of calm, quiet surrounding with no violence occuring and "Development" refers to the gradual growth, improvement in the surrounding (say, infrastructures). So, which requires more priority? Peace or development?
Let's say, even if you believe peace and development can be achieved simultaneously, that is not the option here. Even if you try to bring up peace and development simultaneously, one of them comes forward in your top priority. So, which do you think comes up first: peace or development?
Further explanation after Day 1:
Apparantly, it seems you people fail to get the real picture here.
The main point here is do you bring out peace first by eradicating extremists/other hinderances or rather do you carry out development works first like building infratructures?
Even if you say, it's like choosing to walk with right or left leg, here peace and development have radically different meaning. It's quite a radical question. So, yes I can see that many of you may dissagree with this topic. But even so, the topic is not wrong at all. You may say, "how can you achieve peace by eradicating extremists/other hinderances?" , but that's the first step of bringing out peace either by force or by diplomatic solutions. You may say, "how can you carry out developmental works when there's no peace?", well, you focus mostly,heavily on it's security only within it's perimeter and so, can carry out developmental works.
Actually, both of these cases have been occuring in different parts of the world throughout human's history. Both of these cases have occured in the past, is occuring now and may occur in the future. Now, I'm not going through all of that. So, simply which do you support?
As for the third option, it seems many of you disagree with it. Well, I too disagree with it. Actually, it was to see how many of you would think irrationally in this topic and would choose the third option. So, it seems, you people have at least seen through that picture.
Actually, there's no third option here. Peace and development are the fruits of freedom. Everyone loves freedom. If you do not want freedom, then you are just a slave to someone or someone's principles. Peace and development are the greatest achivements of freedom. So, choosing the thrid option would be wrong ,and would surely prove you are a thick-headed person. So judge yourself and choose.

[Magical Soul]

Without peace tere is no development.

[Aizmov]

Both are untrue.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Neither, and your third poll choice is wrong too. Conflict causes development. Peace is stagnation.

[Diocletian]

Is there anyone to be jealous of? Youcan't have any of those options with jealousy lurking around.

[ichimoku_fanboy]

this is hard to answer, because people wont change anything if it doesnt threaten a way of life, whether it bea daily routine or habbit, or stopping total extinction, nothing changes if the world around it doesnt demand it, so i say development comes from loss, and that brings peace

[kajikun16]

neither because it's always depends on a people or person to make peace a reality

[Shinn Kamiyra]

I do believe I'm going to have to take the initiative of my fellow posters and say neither to your initial question. However, with regard to the concepts of peace and development themselves, I would have to say that development comes out as more of a top priority in my book. In my experience, 'peace' leads people to leading more carefree lives, dulling their senses and abilities in light of the inevitable conflict that follows every human being throughout his/her life. Call it presumptous of me if you will; 'tis just my opinion.

Neither, and your third poll choice is wrong too. Conflict causes development. Peace is stagnation.

Pardon me a moment; however, I wonder if you might satisfy my curiosity and answer a question of mine. In what sense do you believe conflict causes development? Is it an inevitable consequence of conflict for development to occur?

[sunnyside]

I went with development.

But really it's like asking weather you walk first using your left foot or your right foot.

You have to alternate improvements in both in order to get anywhere. Focus on only one without the other and you get neither.

[Aizmov]

Pardon me a moment; however, I wonder if you might satisfy my curiosity and answer a question of mine. In what sense do you believe conflict causes development? Is it an inevitable consequence of conflict for development to occur?

It is obvious. Weapons are a clear example of how conflict accelerates technological development!
Even the Internet started because of the conflict with USSR (Cold War). It was the other project that no one cared about. It started right around the same time the Apollo program started.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Pardon me a moment; however, I wonder if you might satisfy my curiosity and answer a question of mine. In what sense do you believe conflict causes development?

Do people satisfied with the status quo rock the proverbial boat? Of course not. The dissatisfied are the cause of all change.

Is it an inevitable consequence of conflict for development to occur?

Depends largely but what you mean by development. Was Nazi Germany development? They seemed to think so. But if you mean development in some big picture 1000 years later sense, no, of course not.

[Shinn Kamiyra]

It is obvious. Weapons are a clear example of how conflict accelerates technological development!
Even the Internet started because of the conflict with USSR (Cold War). It was the other project that no one cared about. It started right around the same time the Apollo program started.

So, would you say that war, which is obviously one of the greatest conflicts known to humankind, also one of the greatest catalysts for technological development? If so, then might we take into account that the end justifies the means in that this technology is, at one point or another, used to help benefit humankind? I suppose, given the circumstances of people who were driven to develop said technologies, one cannot blame them. Still, do you really think this a proper course by which the future of human civilization should be paved?

[Aizmov]

So, would you say that war, which is obviously one of the greatest conflicts known to humankind, also one of the greatest catalysts for technological development?

Yes.

If so, then might we take into account that the end justifies the means in that this technology is, at one point or another, used to help benefit humankind?

As someone now benefiting from the trickle down of war technology into civilian applications yes.
But if I were someone directly affected by the war, I'd say no. Depends on how you look at things.

I suppose, given the circumstances of people who were driven to develop said technologies, one cannot blame them. Still, do you really think this a proper course by which the future of human civilization should be paved?

There in no proper course.

[Datenshi]

So, would you say that war, which is obviously one of the greatest conflicts known to humankind, also one of the greatest catalysts for technological development? If so, then might we take into account that the end justifies the means in that this technology is, at one point or another, used to help benefit humankind? I suppose, given the circumstances of people who were driven to develop said technologies, one cannot blame them. Still, do you really think this a proper course by which the future of human civilization should be paved?

Keep in mind that, although it is the case as it has been stated time and time again in this thread that many technological advancements has been furthered by the cause of war (the Internet is a frequently cited example), it is far from the case that war is the only or greatest "catalyst for technological development", as you termed it.

Many scientific and technological discoveries were made by people working for commercial, humanitarian, religious, or, for lack of better word, aesthetical purposes ("One giant leap for mankind..."). It is true that revolutionary acheivements in technology were by and large sponsored and utilized by the military, the most glaring example being the space race against the backdrop of the Cold War, but that doesn't necessarily mean the people primarily involved had war first in mind, and I'm cautious of overplaying war's role in the rise of modern civilization in that context.

Remember that there are many instances when the scientific foundation of technology was made without military use in mind, and utilized for war later in history (like nuclear power).

In fact, I believe religion had as much to do with scientific advancement than war in early modernity; especially the idea of seeing science as a method of unravelling God's masterpiece. That doesn't mean religion will be as essential in further advancement of technology today, and the same rings true of war. Saying war was and always will be the greatest catalyst for technological advancement is, in my mind, a gross simplification of the complexities of human civilization.

The same goes for peace as well, in that although some fields of technology would have had no room to grow outside of times of peace, and in a society enjoying a certain amount of peace and prosperity; such as technology concerning entertainment or information, which would require the appropriate infrastructure or sufficient level of education among the receiving population, that does not necessarily mean peace is a prerequisite for technological advances. Hence, as many people have already pointed out repeatedly, the question posed in the original post is rather moot because the premise is flawed.

[Aizmov]

Remember that there are many instances when the scientific foundation of technology was made without military use in mind, and utilized for war later in history (like nuclear power).

First Nuclear fission experiment was in Germany in 1934. German scientists escaped to the USA, and in 1941 the Manhattan Project was started. That's not much of a history before finding a military use for it.

it is far from the case that war is far from the only or greatest "catalyst for technological development", as you termed it.

Can you name any?
I'd say the free market is a catalyst for competition and thus development, but when I look around, plenty of what I use now is a product of WWII, Vietnam War or the Cold War. Sure the technology has improved! The concept is pretty much the same.
It boils down to competition, and war is the ultimate form of competition.

[Datenshi]

First Nuclear fission experiment was in Germany in 1934. German scientists escaped to the USA, and in 1941 the Manhattan Project was started. That's not much of a history before finding a military use for it.

I wasn't pointing to the people involved in actual technological developments regarding nuclear power in my previous post, but the scientists who laid it's theoretical foundations. Perhaps I should have made a clearer distinction between actual technological utilization and theoretical groundwork. Or I don't know, maybe you will tell me that the scientists who were working out how nuclear energy worked had a clear idea of the military significance of what they were discovering. As I said before somewhere, I don't profess to have a professional knowledge on either science or mathematics, so keep in mind you're talking to an utter layman here.

Can you name any?

I thought I already did.

A particular example I have in mind is Sankai Yoshiyuki, an Professor at Tsukuba University in Japan and inventor of the HAL 5 powered exoskeleton suit. I was listening to an interview with him a while back, and he said he was influenced by the robots in Isaac Asimov's novels and Tezuka Osamu's manga at a young age (the HAL 5 was designed for assisting the disabled and the elderly). He also said he was approached by the U.S. Government and the South Korean Government who wanted to utilize his technology for military purposes, but that he refused them all straight out of hand.

I suppose this could classify as what I previously cited as a humanitarian or aesthetic motivation for technological innovation, as opposed to competitive (perhaps, since we might as well be cynical, commercial motivation as well).

I'd say the free market is a catalyst for competition and thus development, but when I look around, plenty of what I use now is a product of WWII, Vietnam War or the Cold War. Sure the technology has improved! The concept is pretty much the same.
It boils down to competition, and war is the ultimate form of competition.

I'm not saying that war had nothing to do with technological development, that would be absurd; and I agree it's had a profound impact on our technological landscape today. I'm simply stating that it's equally absurd to say we would have no technological advancement at all without war. There are forms of competition other than war; you've already cited the free market.

[CrystalAce]

Apparantly, it seems you people fail to get the real picture here.
The main point here is do you bring out peace first by eradicating extremists/other hinderances or rather do you carry out development works first like building infratructures?
Even if you say, it's like choosing to walk with right or left leg, here peace and development have radically different meaning. It's quite a radical question. So, yes I can see that many of you may dissagree with this topic. But even so, the topic is not wrong at all. You may say, "how can you achieve peace by eradicating extremists/other hinderances?" , but that's the first step of bringing out peace either by force or by diplomatic solutions. You may say, "how can you carry out developmental works when there's no peace?", well, you focus mostly,heavily on it's security only within it's perimeter and so, can carry out developmental works.
Actually, both of these cases have been occuring in different parts of the world throughout human's history. Both of these cases have occured in the past, is occuring now and may occur in the future. Now, I'm not going through all of that. So, simply which do you support?
As for the third option, it seems many of you disagree with it. Well, I too disagree with it. Actually, it was to see how many of you would think irrationally in this topic and would choose the third option. So, it seems, you people have at least seen through that picture. It was just a peel from a bannana.
Actually, there can be no third option here. Peace and development are the fruits of freedom. Everyone loves freedom. If you do not want freedom, then you are just a slave to someone or someone's principles. Peace and development are the greatest achivements of freedom. So, choosing the third option would be wrong ,and would surely prove you are a thick-headed person.

[Aizmov]

The main point here is do you bring out peace first by eradicating extremists/other hinderances or rather do you carry out development works first like building infratructures?

Peace was never attained and probably never will be.
There are no such thing as extremists or hindrances, as if they are a well-known target to be removed, and on what basis do you label people? History is written by the victor. What the Allies after WWII considered as war crimes and war criminals, were considered heroes in the eyes of their people.

A particular example I have in mind is Sankai Yoshiyuki, an Professor at Tsukuba University in Japan and inventor of the HAL 5 powered exoskeleton suit. I was listening to an interview with him a while back, and he said he was influenced by the robots in Isaac Asimov's novels and Tezuka Osamu's manga at a young age (the HAL 5 was designed for assisting the disabled and the elderly). He also said he was approached by the U.S. Government and the South Korean Government who wanted to utilize his technology for military purposes, but that he refused them all straight out of hand.

I suppose this could classify as what I previously cited as a humanitarian or aesthetic motivation for technological innovation, as opposed to competitive (perhaps, since we might as well be cynical, commercial motivation as well).

What you mentioned is an exception to The General Law of How Things Work.
A lot of people who work on military technology, will claim that at some point they never intended for it to be used in such manner.
People can claim their own reasons, but it'll always role down to ego and pride (and greed).



I wonder if I'm coming out as cynical.

[Mitchyru]

The world needs to develop to a good state, in which peace can be an inhabitant.

[CrystalAce]

Peace was never attained and probably never will be.
There are no such thing as extremists or hindrances, as if they are a well-known target to be removed, and on what basis do you label people? History is written by the victor. What the Allies after WWII considered as war crimes and war criminals, were considered heroes in the eyes of their people.
.

Well, there's no such thing as 100% perfect in this world. Even in rocket science, 100% accuracy is not acchievable, but still they are able to carry out their quite unnerving functions i.e. to send rockets to space. Likewise perfect peace and calm is not quite achieveable, but still you have got the essence of peace, cause you've got freedom as you are typing, what you think, online, right now. If there's freedom then, there's definately peace. Without peace in mind, how can there be freedom, huh? What you have got right now is the freedom of expressions. So, don't go racketing around bluntly saying peace was never attained.
As for the part about the victors writing the history, well, you've got to choose which side you want to be or belong to, victors or losers? Then, you yourself have to choose whom to label extremists on what basis? Whether as a victor, you want to label yourself as hero or war criminal and your enemy/losers as extremists or freedom-fighters, as a victor you decide yourself on that !

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Apparantly, it seems you people fail to get the real picture here.
The main point here is do you bring out peace first by eradicating extremists/other hinderances or rather do you carry out development works first like building infratructures?

What's so great about peace?

Never mind that, as anyone who's paid attention to the last 100 years of human history would know, that killing extremists is the surest way to breed more extremists.

As for the third option, it seems many of you disagree with it. Well, I too disagree with it. Actually, it was to see how many of you would think irrationally in this topic and would choose the third option. So, it seems, you people have at least seen through that picture. It was just a peel from a bannana.

Translation: I am going to telegraph my punches. I will then congratulate you for seeing through my clever ruse. Why? Because I have a huge ego.

Actually, there can be no third option here. Peace and development are the fruits of freedom. Everyone loves freedom. If you do not want freedom, then you are just a slave to someone or someone's principles. Peace and development are the greatest achivements of freedom. So, choosing the third option would be wrong ,and would surely prove you are a thick-headed person.

Freedom is conflict. Freedom does not produce peace, it merely does not promote violence. Anyone who's paid even fleeting attention to crime statistic can attest this. I can very easily bring peace to a city with a thousand AK-47s and 999 friends to use them, because if you want peace you come down on freedom like the fist of an angry god. Similarly, freedom simply doesn't hinder development. Doesn't really promote it, you're probably thinking capitalism.

[Aizmov]

Well, there's no such thing as 100% perfect in this world. Even in rocket science, 100% accuracy is not acchievable, but still they are able to carry out their quite unnerving functions i.e. to send rockets to space. Likewise perfect peace and calm is not quite achieveable, but still you have got the essence of peace, cause you've got freedom as you are typing, what you think, online, right now. If there's freedom then, there's definately peace. Without peace in mind, how can there be freedom, huh? What you have got right now is the freedom of expressions. So, don't go racketing around bluntly saying peace was never attained.
As for the part about the victors writing the history, well, you've got to choose which side you want to be or belong to, victors or losers? Then, you yourself have to choose whom to label extremists on what basis? Whether as a victor, you want to label yourself as hero or war criminal and your enemy/losers as extremists or freedom-fighters, as a victor you decide yourself on that !

The people who cut off one guy's head or two or three or five or ten.
The people spend billions developing flying war machines to bomb innocent civilians.
How are they different?

Hint: one of them controls the news and information you get to hear

[Shinn Kamiyra]

There are no such thing as extremists or hindrances, as if they are a well-known target to be removed, and on what basis do you label people? History is written by the victor. What the Allies after WWII considered as war crimes and war criminals, were considered heroes in the eyes of their people.

It's rather endearing that you're trying to view a situation from different perspectives; however, let's try to slow it down a bit and back up a few steps. Rather, I'd like to hear more on this theory of yours about history being written by the victor. Do you mean victory in war? If so, then that might be something of a controversial topic all on its own. If not, then in what sense do you mean? Color me naive, but I think history tends to span its tremendous expanse from more than just the perspective of 'victory'.

What's so great about peace?

-Blink- Not much that I can think of other than the potentially naive hope that less innocent people will have to die.

[Datenshi]

What you mentioned is an exception to The General Law of How Things Work.

But don't you think that's too much of a, ah, generalization?

A lot of people who work on military technology, will claim that at some point they never intended for it to be used in such manner.
People can claim their own reasons, but it'll always role down to ego and pride (and greed).

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I still hold that that doesn't necessarily equate with war. Certainly there are situations besides military conflict where innovative people act according to principles like pride and greed.

Going back to the topic at hand:

Apparantly, it seems you people fail to get the real picture here.
The main point here is do you bring out peace first by eradicating extremists/other hinderances or rather do you carry out development works first like building infratructures?

Before we go any further, I want to ask a question about the premisis of the original post:

Let's say, even if you believe peace and development can be achieved simultaneously, that is not the option here. Even if you try to bring up peace and development simultaneously, one of them comes forward in your top priority.

Why do you say this; why exactly is it not an option here? Why dismiss any possibility of the simultaneous acheivement of peace and development out of hand? I'm not saying one or the other, but I want to know what made you arrive at that view.

If there's freedom then, there's definately peace.

As Manhattan_Project_2000 already said, that's simply not true. If each and every person has the right to express and act according to his or her own distinctive principles, they will be bound to clash with each other.

[-akichan-]

Well, the only thing I can ever see between developement and peace is the people. I've seen many people from countries where are still in process of developement, and the people there are HORRIBLE! They are not fully educated, no manners, and act like total idiots out there. And for those that lives in countries that are fully developed and still developing to higher levels are much nicer. I don't know if it is the economy that affect the most or not, but the people is what I can see. People from poor country where is starting to develope are causing lots of trouble, such as the tainted milk that killed so many people? robbing? fake eggs?

We all want peace, but come to think of it, even if a country is fully developed, that still doesn't mean there is peace. I see no peace at all, because people are causing lots of troubles.

If there's freedom then, there's definately peace

Lol...I don't see that...There's freedom in this country, but I see no peace. Depends on how free is the freedom. Americans has freedom to do almost everything, then they could do ANYTHING. You can say that some places are "more peaceful" meaning that comparing to another country that this is better. So if you say that there's freedom, there's definately peace. You think the US is peaceful? You see peace in this country, but I don't.