u/ConstantArtichoke540

Since the beginning of time, humans have been engaged in war with one another. It is not a period that I could remember or have studied throughout my short stint on earth that humans have not been at war. Whether it was over religion, land, resources, etc., men have gone to war and died “honorably” behind what they believed in. With new technology invented to help dismantle populations, one would think that wars would probably ease and everyone could live in eternal peace, but no. Currently we have about 21 active wars going on in the world as I type this up now, along with 56 active armed conflicts. Why are wars so prevalent? After the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, war should have shown mankind that there is another way, yet we choose not to use diplomacy but military strength. The reason why war still persists despite its well-known destructive impact on nations and international order is most importantly because of ideologies. Whether its ideologies about nationalism, religion or revenge… ideologies will always affect whether states will go to war or not. Secondly, in the age of AI there is plenty of disinformation. Finally, war continues to persist for economic resources such as territory, market views (Capitalism/Marxism), and the favorite being oil.                                 
 
Earlier above, I mentioned how ideologies shape war and I would like to put this in context regarding what is going on in the US, as of late. Since Trump first decided to run for office, he’s been running on this slogan: Make America Great Again and recently this has given way to the “America First” movement. Both slogans are meant to focus on the rise of nationalism, which has heavily affected how this administration handles international diplomacy. According to Sapolsky, “Humans can rein in their instincts and build societies that divert group competition to arenas less destructive than warfare, yet the psychological bases for tribalism persist, even when people understand that their loyalty to their nation, skin color, god, or sports team is as random as the toss of a coin. At the level of the human mind, little prevents new teammates from once again becoming tomorrow's enemies.” Sapolsky shows us that even though we as human beings have built cultural and intuitional laws and norms that take our instinct away from violence, we still favor in-group mechanisms and distrust people or groups we are not as familiar with. This is what has given the rise in nationalism politics in America, even though this path has proven to already be destructive to the ideals that we as Americans have taken hundreds of years to build up and perfect. We are a nation of many nationalities and cultures, but as of late our “tribal minds” have taken over and immigrants or someone who doesn’t share the same skin tone as us have become the enemy.
 
Furthermore, in the age of “Post-Truth Geopolitics”, as Citron calls it, there lies a great danger. “Thanks to the rise of "deepfakes" -- highly realistic and difficult-to-detect digital manipulations of audio or video -- it is becoming easier than ever to portray someone saying or doing something he or she never said or did.” I wanted to use this example because I have seen plenty of “deepfake” videos over the past couple of months coming from Iran and even our own white house. I want to stick with Iran because earlier this year, I have witnessed Iran’s use of AI-generated deepfake videos and images as a core component of “soft-warfare”. These AI videos were used as psychological operations designed to reshape global opinion regarding the war, and to cause confusion and influence audiences in the U.S. In these deepfake videos, Iran produced battle footage depicting strikes on Isreal landmarks and U.S. warships that created a false perception of military strength. As I watched, I didn’t realize what the Iranian government could be hoping to gain out of this situation. It wasn’t until a month down the line that I started to notice how crucial this tactic could be. Many Americans are indifferent about the war and who I am to say that Iran’s AI deepfakes aren’t one of the leading causes to this confusion. Even I, after watching the videos thought that Iran videos were affected and if I didn’t know any better, I would have took the bait, especially with everything going on in the U.S. now. It’s hard to trust anybody at this moment in time. According to Citron, “Deepfakes have the potential to be especially destructive because they are arriving at a time when it already is becoming harder to separate fact from fiction.”
 
Lastly, wars continue to persist even though we have the means to live in harmony because governments need resources for their constituents. According to Freedman, “Military power is not only about a nation's armaments and the skill with which they are used. It must take into account the resources of the enemy, as well as the contributions from allies and friends, whether in the form of practical assistance or direct interventions.” I wanted to use this direct quote here because this pretty much summarizes the thinking of powerful governments who have the means to be influential over their neighbors. It’s this nature of always trying to one up the next, kind of like the relationship between siblings fighting for attention. This quote also shows the thinking involved behind the scenes that enables adversaries to engage in an arm’s race. I would like to relay this back to AI systems because this is what is being used to innovate war. As Scharre puts it, “For each country, the real danger is not that it will fall behind its competitors in AI but that the perception of a race will prompt everyone to rush to deploy unsafe AI systems. In their desire to win, countries risk endangering themselves just as much as their opponents.” Countries just want to win! It does not get as simple as that. From competing for the best technology down to the ideals of a nation. Everything is done to say, “I do this better than you.” So, we compete for resources because resources are needed to accomplish these huge goals. Every nation does not have the benefit of Russia or Saudia Arabia to produce half of the world’s oil. Yes, every country has the right to trade resources or to just buy them flat out, but that also depends on relationships that many nations just do not possess.   
 
All in all, the only antidote we have to prevent war is diplomacy. I also had this idea in my head that focusing on domestic issues alone will solve everything else. Trump’s presidency has shown me that I was wrong, and it has also shown me how important it is to have a conversation with your neighbors. Yes, you may not agree on everything, but there may be a thing, or two nations could agree on and build the relationship based solely on those ideas. The Russians called this system, d’etat. Regarding nationalism Sapolsky states , “this solidarity has historically been built on strong cultural markers of pseudo-kinship, it is easily destabilized, particularly by the forces of globalization, which can make people who were once the archetypes of their culture feel irrelevant and bring them into contact with very different sorts of neighbors than their grandparents had.” Over the past ten years, I sort of demonized globalization as this bad thing. I thought countries would lose their identity and cultural aspects, but I couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, I think that logic was completely flipped and my false reasoning pertained to the nature of nationalism that has destroyed our country in Trump’s past two terms. In Understanding the Causes of War and Peace, Thomas Ohlson states, “While each former adversary obviously seeks the best possible outcome, the conflict resolution process is fundamentally about addressing the issues at hand by redirecting the existing resources and resolve from conflict to peace, from confrontation to compromise.” Nationalism says no to compromising and only deals with what its people want domestically, which is not sustainable if we want to work at world peace.

Since the beginning of time, humans have been engaged in war with one another. It is not a period that I could remember or have studied throughout my short stint on earth that humans have not been at war. Whether it was over religion, land, resources, etc., men have gone to war and died “honorably” behind what they believed in. With new technology invented to help dismantle populations, one would think that wars would probably ease and everyone could live in eternal peace, but no. Currently we have about 21 active wars going on in the world as I type this up now, along with 56 active armed conflicts. Why are wars so prevalent? After the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, war should have shown mankind that there is another way, yet we choose not to use diplomacy but military strength. The reason why war still persists despite its well-known destructive impact on nations and international order is most importantly because of ideologies. Whether its ideologies about nationalism, religion or revenge… ideologies will always affect whether states will go to war or not. Secondly, in the age of AI there is plenty of disinformation. Finally, war continues to persist for economic resources such as territory, market views (Capitalism/Marxism), and the favorite being oil.                                 
 
Earlier above, I mentioned how ideologies shape war and I would like to put this in context regarding what is going on in the US, as of late. Since Trump first decided to run for office, he’s been running on this slogan: Make America Great Again and recently this has given way to the “America First” movement. Both slogans are meant to focus on the rise of nationalism, which has heavily affected how this administration handles international diplomacy. According to Sapolsky, “Humans can rein in their instincts and build societies that divert group competition to arenas less destructive than warfare, yet the psychological bases for tribalism persist, even when people understand that their loyalty to their nation, skin color, god, or sports team is as random as the toss of a coin. At the level of the human mind, little prevents new teammates from once again becoming tomorrow's enemies.” Sapolsky shows us that even though we as human beings have built cultural and intuitional laws and norms that take our instinct away from violence, we still favor in-group mechanisms and distrust people or groups we are not as familiar with. This is what has given the rise in nationalism politics in America, even though this path has proven to already be destructive to the ideals that we as Americans have taken hundreds of years to build up and perfect. We are a nation of many nationalities and cultures, but as of late our “tribal minds” have taken over and immigrants or someone who doesn’t share the same skin tone as us have become the enemy.
 
Furthermore, in the age of “Post-Truth Geopolitics”, as Citron calls it, there lies a great danger. “Thanks to the rise of "deepfakes" -- highly realistic and difficult-to-detect digital manipulations of audio or video -- it is becoming easier than ever to portray someone saying or doing something he or she never said or did.” I wanted to use this example because I have seen plenty of “deepfake” videos over the past couple of months coming from Iran and even our own white house. I want to stick with Iran because earlier this year, I have witnessed Iran’s use of AI-generated deepfake videos and images as a core component of “soft-warfare”. These AI videos were used as psychological operations designed to reshape global opinion regarding the war, and to cause confusion and influence audiences in the U.S. In these deepfake videos, Iran produced battle footage depicting strikes on Isreal landmarks and U.S. warships that created a false perception of military strength. As I watched, I didn’t realize what the Iranian government could be hoping to gain out of this situation. It wasn’t until a month down the line that I started to notice how crucial this tactic could be. Many Americans are indifferent about the war and who I am to say that Iran’s AI deepfakes aren’t one of the leading causes to this confusion. Even I, after watching the videos thought that Iran videos were affected and if I didn’t know any better, I would have took the bait, especially with everything going on in the U.S. now. It’s hard to trust anybody at this moment in time. According to Citron, “Deepfakes have the potential to be especially destructive because they are arriving at a time when it already is becoming harder to separate fact from fiction.”
 
Lastly, wars continue to persist even though we have the means to live in harmony because governments need resources for their constituents. According to Freedman, “Military power is not only about a nation's armaments and the skill with which they are used. It must take into account the resources of the enemy, as well as the contributions from allies and friends, whether in the form of practical assistance or direct interventions.” I wanted to use this direct quote here because this pretty much summarizes the thinking of powerful governments who have the means to be influential over their neighbors. It’s this nature of always trying to one up the next, kind of like the relationship between siblings fighting for attention. This quote also shows the thinking involved behind the scenes that enables adversaries to engage in an arm’s race. I would like to relay this back to AI systems because this is what is being used to innovate war. As Scharre puts it, “For each country, the real danger is not that it will fall behind its competitors in AI but that the perception of a race will prompt everyone to rush to deploy unsafe AI systems. In their desire to win, countries risk endangering themselves just as much as their opponents.” Countries just want to win! It does not get as simple as that. From competing for the best technology down to the ideals of a nation. Everything is done to say, “I do this better than you.” So, we compete for resources because resources are needed to accomplish these huge goals. Every nation does not have the benefit of Russia or Saudia Arabia to produce half of the world’s oil. Yes, every country has the right to trade resources or to just buy them flat out, but that also depends on relationships that many nations just do not possess.   
 
All in all, the only antidote we have to prevent war is diplomacy. I also had this idea in my head that focusing on domestic issues alone will solve everything else. Trump’s presidency has shown me that I was wrong, and it has also shown me how important it is to have a conversation with your neighbors. Yes, you may not agree on everything, but there may be a thing, or two nations could agree on and build the relationship based solely on those ideas. The Russians called this system, d’etat. Regarding nationalism Sapolsky states , “this solidarity has historically been built on strong cultural markers of pseudo-kinship, it is easily destabilized, particularly by the forces of globalization, which can make people who were once the archetypes of their culture feel irrelevant and bring them into contact with very different sorts of neighbors than their grandparents had.” Over the past ten years, I sort of demonized globalization as this bad thing. I thought countries would lose their identity and cultural aspects, but I couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, I think that logic was completely flipped and my false reasoning pertained to the nature of nationalism that has destroyed our country in Trump’s past two terms. In Understanding the Causes of War and Peace, Thomas Ohlson states, “While each former adversary obviously seeks the best possible outcome, the conflict resolution process is fundamentally about addressing the issues at hand by redirecting the existing resources and resolve from conflict to peace, from confrontation to compromise.” Nationalism says no to compromising and only deals with what its people want domestically, which is not sustainable if we want to work at world peace.

My cousin is an English major who earned her master’s in English a couple of years ago, and she told me to find my own philosophy.

Sadly, I started to relate more towards Russian Classical literature such as Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche.

I related to Dostoyevsky because of his deep admiration within living in isolation. He advocated for dealing with the worst of yourself and overcoming your deepest vulnerabilities.

It’s very hard to live with your mistakes you’ve dealt with in life. In his book, Thoughts from the Underground Man, Dostoyevsky promoted “an isolated, bitter, and hyper-conscious man who rejects societal norms, rationalism, and utopian progress in favor of absolute free will.”

I found myself picking up on these negative virtues that ultimately made me a better individual.

One of Nietzsche main philosophies was known as the “Will of Power” where “He argued that the fundamental driving force in humans is not merely survival, but the drive for growth, mastery, self-overcoming, and control over one's environment.”

I found this to relate to Dostoyevsky’s philosophy that promoted free-will and his rejection of societal norms, which heavily resonated with me.

What do you agree with or disagree with within this philosophy?

My cousin is an English major who earned her master’s in English a couple of years ago, and she told me to find my own philosophy.

Sadly, I started to relate more towards Russian Classical literature such as Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche.

I related to Dostoyevsky because of his deep admiration within living in isolation. He advocated for dealing with the worst of yourself and overcoming your deepest vulnerabilities.

It’s very hard to live with your mistakes you’ve dealt with in life. In his book, Thoughts from the Underground Man, Dostoyevsky promoted “an isolated, bitter, and hyper-conscious man who rejects societal norms, rationalism, and utopian progress in favor of absolute free will.”

I found myself picking up on these negative virtues that ultimately made me a better individual.

One of Nietzsche main philosophies was known as the “Will of Power” where “He argued that the fundamental driving force in humans is not merely survival, but the drive for growth, mastery, self-overcoming, and control over one's environment.”

I found this to relate to Dostoyevsky’s philosophy that promoted free-will and his rejection of societal norms, which heavily resonated with me.

What do you agree with or disagree with within this philosophy?

My cousin is an English major who earned her master’s in English a couple of years ago, and she told me to find my own philosophy.

Sadly, I started to relate more towards Russian Classical literature such as Dostoyevsky. I found Nietzsche, who is a German philosopher, to be relatable also.

I enjoyed Dostoyevsky because of his deep admiration within living in isolation. He advocated for dealing with the worst of yourself and overcoming your deepest vulnerabilities.

It’s very hard to live with your mistakes you’ve dealt with in life. In his book, Thoughts from the Underground Man, Dostoyevsky promoted “an isolated, bitter, and hyper-conscious man who rejects societal norms, rationalism, and utopian progress in favor of absolute free will.”

I found myself picking up on these negative virtues that ultimately made me a better individual.

One of Nietzsche main philosophies was known as the “Will of Power” where “He argued that the fundamental driving force in humans is not merely survival, but the drive for growth, mastery, self-overcoming, and control over one's environment.”

I found this to relate to Dostoyevsky’s philosophy that promoted free-will and his rejection of societal norms, which heavily resonated with me.

What do you agree with or disagree with within this philosophy?

The war in Ukraine has allowed the innovation of the weaponization of drone usage. This war is being called the “First Major Drone War”. These changes emphasize mass, cheap, and expendable systems over traditional high-end platforms, with significant tactical, strategic, and ethical implications. It is seen as a benefit in new war tactics to both sides, and the question is, is this humane? Should war far be stripped down to soldiers being blown up into pieces of limb from limb? Of course not! Soldiers should have the right to die a death of dignity and not in the face of cowardly individuals blowing soldiers up from thousands of miles away. Many believe that these targeted attacks will decrease casualties, and that has proven to be the case, but when will it be enough? With the killing of World Leaders being targeted, is this the right course of action to take? I don't think so. These war tactics should only be used to gather intel in war time situations and not to bomb soldiers who have an extremely hard time evading pursuit. Even the United States has taken part of drone usage in recent years to ward off attacks against terrorist organizations while limiting civilian casualties. This paper shows why the use of drones should not be allowed in a “just war”. 

 

According to, Daniel Brunstetter in ‘The Implications of Drones on the Just War Tradition’, he states, “We argue that drones offer the capacity to extend the threshold of last resort for large-scale wars by allowing a leader to act more proportionately on just cause. However, they may be seen as a level of force short of war to which the principle of last resort does not apply; and their increased usage may ultimately raise jus in bello concerns.” (Daniel Brunstetter and Megan Braun, 4)  

 

Jus in bello is defined as, “the law of armed conflict (also called international humanitarian law or IHL) that sets out the conduct of parties during hostilities. It applies equally to all belligerents, regardless of who started the war or whether the war’s justification is morally or legally sound.” (What are jus ad bellum and jus in bello? | International Committee of the Red Cross).  

 

Even though drones have had the opportunity to show that is has been a tremendous success, the use of Kamikaze style techniques that were first used by the Japanese and then later on by terrorist in the Middle East, should be outlawed given the fact that these deadly strikes which were looked at as inhumane. I bring this example up because in nature it is the very same thing when it comes to flying a drone directly into enemy forces, which I don't think any ordinary citizen who stands on moral principles or anyone who is in their right mind believe drones are to be used in a just war. This invites the question that I am trying to attack. Are military drones meant to be used in a “Just War”? I’m here to argue against this from a moral and just standpoint, to prove even though drones may be cheap in efficient, they will cause more unjust wars because these attacks are being used to target politicians and world leaders along with war fighters in the battlefield who don't stand a chance against winning a fight against a drone. From the looks of it, there were an existential number of new wars being fought because governments don’t have to worry about the risk of losing a mass number of soldiers from their military force. Drone usage will change the landscape of war forever, and I am not doubting that the use of drones will not be effective. That is not the point being argued. The point is that many generals are not thinking of the repercussions of this new form of fighting. There are regimes all over the world who support terrorist organizations and who is to say that this technology will not end up in the wrong hands. If so, will these people attack civilian hospitals, schools, residencies, or places of worship? In my guess, of course they will. The use of drones will continue this everlasting usage of war that we have citizens of the world have been trying to stray away from since the fall of the Soviet Union and the Nazi regime. 

 

Obama defined in a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech that, “The concept of a ‘just war’ emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.” And this is the key reason today that government officials redefined the rules of a just war to fit in the notion that drones are a net plus to warfare because of limited damage and sparing civilians from damage, but civilians are still dying in rather large numbers considering drone strikes are supposed to be “safe”. In Ukraine, “In 2025 alone, short-range drones killed 580 civilians and injured over 3,200.” “Groups like The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimate that CIA and US military drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia killed between 385 and nearly 1,000 civilians over roughly two decades.” “Africa (2021–2024): A report by Drone Wars UK documented over 943 civilian deaths from state-operated drone strikes across six African countries (including Ethiopia, Somalia, and Mali) between late 2021 and late 2024.” (Civilian Deaths from Drone Strikes | Lawfare) 

Yes, there are benefits to drone usage as I mentioned earlier. These benefits are persistent surveillance, targeting in real-time, and because of smaller munitions. Drone usage also dismisses the force of a full-scale invasion like the wars in the Middle East we’ve come accustomed to. In other words, drone usage is great for what the military is trying to accomplish, but is what military forces strive for a benefit to mankind and our evolution? 

Everyone should know about the fuss being made of the forthcoming “surveillance state”. There’s flock cameras, that tracks license plates, vehicle car make and model or even features such as bumper stickers.

There is an estimated 70 million to over 82 million in cameras centered across the US, averaging out at 1 camera to every 4.6 people.

Meta has recorded over 9 million sales of you including earlier 2023-2024 releases. And that’s being modest.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we all know that the governments tracks are private information through the NSA, which breaches financial laws. By the way, Snowden has been in exile for over 13 years due to his whistleblowing.

This brings forth an ethical issue that we all have to take very seriously and cautiously. We have to prevent people’s private lives being shared and technically surveilled for potential evidence that will make or break a legal case.

I know some might not agree, but we still are a democracy. Thanks to the fourth amendment,
US citizens are protected from bad and unfair searches and seizures by the government in their homes and belongings.

But this brings forth the case, can Meta glasses or any other form of camera devices that’s also due to the recent streaming up spike?

And also does being recorded by Bluetooth devices allow the citizen to be protected under the belongings of the individual being his private space.

We have examples of the Tech CEO who got caught cheating at a Cold Play concert and losing their jobs. Isn’t this too much to place the responsibility on the individual to avoid being recorded doing day to day tasks?

Even if you’re committing adultery, who is a random person to have the power, in their hands to record you, potentially holding you on blackmail. I’m not defending the Epstein class but private everyday citizens.

I believe Meta Glasses are dangerous to society by helping produce a mass surveillance state through frequent recorded activity. We are in the digital age and soon we will be fully immersed into are gaming and our phones.

Everyone should know about the fuss being made of the forthcoming “surveillance state”. There’s flock cameras, that tracks license plates, vehicle car make and model or even features such as bumper stickers.

There is an estimated 70 million to over 82 million in cameras centered across the US, averaging out at 1 camera to every 4.6 people.

Meta has recorded over 9 million sales of you including earlier 2023-2024 releases. And that’s being modest.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we all know that the governments tracks are private information through the NSA, which breaches financial laws. By the way, Snowden has been in exile for over 13 years due to his whistleblowing.

This brings forth an ethical issue that we all have to take very seriously and cautiously. We have to prevent people’s private lives being shared and technically surveilled for potential evidence that will make or break a legal case.

I know some might not agree, but we still are a democracy. Thanks to the fourth amendment,
US citizens are protected from bad and unfair searches and seizures by the government in their homes and belongings.

But this brings forth the case, can Meta glasses or any other form of camera devices that’s also due to the recent streaming up spike?

And also does being recorded by Bluetooth devices allow the citizen to be protected under the belongings of the individual being his private space.

We have examples of the Tech CEO who got caught cheating at a Cold Play concert and losing their jobs. Isn’t this too much to place the responsibility on the individual to avoid being recorded doing day to day tasks?

Even if you’re committing adultery, who is a random person to have the power, in their hands to record you, potentially holding you on blackmail. I’m not defending the Epstein class but private everyday citizens.

I believe Meta Glasses are dangerous to society by helping produce a mass surveillance state through frequent recorded activity. We are in the digital age and soon we will be fully immersed into are gaming and our phones.

Friedrich Nietzsche viewed herd mentality by what he called “herd instinct” or “slave morality” which he would describe it has a “herd morality” formed by the weak and oppressed against the power and actions of the oppressor. So, traits such as humility, meekness, and sympathy were labeled as virtues and labeling the ruler’s strength as evil.

Nietzsche believes that the values I just listed above stemmed from a “slave morality, and believed these weak and fearful people created the ideology to undermine and bring down those who are strong and/or exceptional.

Slave morality for Nietzsche laid the foundation for what we now consider to be universal ethical principles, such as compassion, humility, and equality. For Nietzsche though, these values are not regarded as universal truths. Instead being the product designed to suppress individuality and enforce conformity. The Last Man” as Nietzsche likes to call it.

The “Last Man” is a person who is comfortable with life and one who takes no risk. Nietzsche considered this a “dull” person who wants only basic comfort.

Nietzsche elaborates and explains how joining the crowd strips you of your identity. Therefore, you start become a mere tool for the group. Nietzsche believes the only way out of this is solitude. He believes people must spend time with themselves to escape the pressure of the crowd.

Schopenhauer also agrees with Nietzsche, both with negative views on the topic. Schopenhauer viewed it as a profound human weakness. He argues that crowds prefer comfort and conformity (people conform because they don’t know how to think for themselves) and avoids true independent thinkers.

The herd despises those who are able to stick out from the crowd and formulate or analyze their own ideas. The real offense to the group comes from the bodacious act of individual reasoning. Schopenhauer Society rather favors safe traditions and comfort than hard truth.

Friedrich Nietzsche viewed herd mentality by what he called “herd instinct” or “slave morality” which he would describe it has a “herd morality” formed by the weak and oppressed against the power and actions of the oppressor. So, traits such as humility, meekness, and sympathy were labeled as virtues and labeling the ruler’s strength as evil.

Nietzsche believes that the values I just listed above stemmed from a “slave morality, and believed these weak and fearful people created the ideology to undermine and bring down those who are strong and/or exceptional.

Slave morality for Nietzsche laid the foundation for what we now consider to be universal ethical principles, such as compassion, humility, and equality. For Nietzsche though, these values are not regarded as universal truths. Instead being the product designed to suppress individuality and enforce conformity. The Last Man” as Nietzsche likes to call it.

The “Last Man” is a person who is comfortable with life and one who takes no risk. Nietzsche considered this a “dull” person who wants only basic comfort.

Nietzsche elaborates and explains how joining the crowd strips you of your identity. Therefore, you start become a mere tool for the group. Nietzsche believes the only way out of this is solitude. He believes people must spend time with themselves to escape the pressure of the crowd.

Schopenhauer also agrees with Nietzsche, both with negative views on the topic. Schopenhauer viewed it as a profound human weakness. He argues that crowds prefer comfort and conformity (people conform because they don’t know how to think for themselves) and avoids true independent thinkers.

The herd despises those who are able to stick out from the crowd and formulate or analyze their own ideas. The real offense to the group comes from the bodacious act of individual reasoning. Schopenhauer Society rather favors safe traditions and comfort than hard truth.

Friedrich Nietzsche viewed herd mentality by what he called “herd instinct” or “slave morality” which he would describe it has a “herd morality” formed by the weak and oppressed against the power and actions of the oppressor. So, traits such as humility, meekness, and sympathy were labeled as virtues and labeling the ruler’s strength as evil.

Nietzsche believes that the values I just listed above stemmed from a “slave morality, and believed these weak and fearful people created the ideology to undermine and bring down those who are strong and/or exceptional.

Slave morality for Nietzsche laid the foundation for what we now consider to be universal ethical principles, such as compassion, humility, and equality. For Nietzsche though, these values are not regarded as universal truths. Instead being the product designed to suppress individuality and enforce conformity. The Last Man” as Nietzsche likes to call it.

The “Last Man” is a person who is comfortable with life and one who takes no risk. Nietzsche considered this a “dull” person who wants only basic comfort.

Nietzsche elaborates and explains how joining the crowd strips you of your identity. Therefore, you start become a mere tool for the group. Nietzsche believes the only way out of this is solitude. He believes people must spend time with themselves to escape the pressure of the crowd.

Schopenhauer also agrees with Nietzsche, both with negative views on the topic. Schopenhauer viewed it as a profound human weakness. He argues that crowds prefer comfort and conformity (people conform because they don’t know how to think for themselves) and avoids true independent thinkers.

The herd despises those who are able to stick out from the crowd and formulate or analyze their own ideas. The real offense to the group comes from the bodacious act of individual reasoning. Schopenhauer Society rather favors safe traditions and comfort than hard truth.

Friedrich Nietzsche viewed herd mentality by what he called “herd instinct” or “slave morality” which he would describe it has a “herd morality” formed by the weak and oppressed against the power and actions of the oppressor. So, traits such as humility, meekness, and sympathy were labeled as virtues and labeling the ruler’s strength as evil.

Nietzsche believes that the values I just listed above stemmed from a “slave morality, and believed these weak and fearful people created the ideology to undermine and bring down those who are strong and/or exceptional.

Slave morality for Nietzsche laid the foundation for what we now consider to be universal ethical principles, such as compassion, humility, and equality. For Nietzsche though, these values are not regarded as universal truths. Instead being the product designed to suppress individuality and enforce conformity. The Last Man” as Nietzsche likes to call it.

The “Last Man” is a person who is comfortable with life and one who takes no risk. Nietzsche considered this a “dull” person who wants only basic comfort.

Nietzsche elaborates and explains how joining the crowd strips you of your identity. Therefore, you start become a mere tool for the group. Nietzsche believes the only way out of this is solitude. He believes people must spend time with themselves to escape the pressure of the crowd.

Schopenhauer also agrees with Nietzsche, both with negative views on the topic. Schopenhauer viewed it as a profound human weakness. He argues that crowds prefer comfort and conformity (people conform because they don’t know how to think for themselves) and avoids true independent thinkers.

The herd despises those who are able to stick out from the crowd and formulate or analyze their own ideas. The real offense to the group comes from the bodacious act of individual reasoning. Schopenhauer Society rather favors safe traditions and comfort than hard truth.

Friedrich Nietzsche viewed herd mentality by what he called “herd instinct” or “slave morality” which he would describe it has a “herd morality” formed by the weak and oppressed against the power and actions of the oppressor. So, traits such as humility, meekness, and sympathy were labeled as virtues and labeling the ruler’s strength as evil.

Nietzsche believes that the values I just listed above stemmed from a “slave morality, and believed these weak and fearful people created the ideology to undermine and bring down those who are strong and/or exceptional.

Slave morality for Nietzsche laid the foundation for what we now consider to be universal ethical principles, such as compassion, humility, and equality. For Nietzsche though, these values are not regarded as universal truths. Instead being the product designed to suppress individuality and enforce conformity. The Last Man” as Nietzsche likes to call it.

The “Last Man” is a person who is comfortable with life and one who takes no risk. Nietzsche considered this a “dull” person who wants only basic comfort.

Nietzsche elaborates and explains how joining the crowd strips you of your identity. Therefore, you start become a mere tool for the group. Nietzsche believes the only way out of this is solitude. He believes people must spend time with themselves to escape the pressure of the crowd.

Schopenhauer also agrees with Nietzsche, both with negative views on the topic. Schopenhauer viewed it as a profound human weakness. He argues that crowds prefer comfort and conformity (people conform because they don’t know how to think for themselves) and avoids true independent thinkers.

The herd despises those who are able to stick out from the crowd and formulate or analyze their own ideas. The real offense to the group comes from the bodacious act of individual reasoning. Schopenhauer Society rather favors safe traditions and comfort than hard truth.

Marx believed that communism was inevitable, don’t get me wrong. But, he did not call for the rise of Communism like Lenin’s “Internationale” and his predecessor Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country”foreign policy. Marx was not an economic genius but more of a philosopher and political theorist.

Marx believed there was a five step process that builds up to communism, which I describe as a state of anarchy where the people are stateless, eventually leading to class warfare.

These five steps start at Feudalism, which was a social system in Medieval Europe, where the nobility held the lands from the crown for military service.

Marx believes under feudalism, noble jobs, such as doctors were appreciated more and Capitalism made things more transactional. This meant there would be no human connection and we would only be valuable to one another as revenue generators.
He believed feudalism acted in the exact opposite.

Then there’s mercantilism. This is classified in the benefits of profitable trading; commercialism.

The third step comes capitalism and as we all know it is an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owner’s for profit. Capitalism fosters imperialistic tendencies because we tend to look at the world as a market.

According to Marx, under capitalism the workers are commodities subjected to supply and demand. This is where the problem with the division of labor comes in. The division of labor reduces the level of skill required. (i.e, factories, watch makers) And the more you divide labor, the more employers could push down the wages along with more automation because this will also push down wages. Of course, this will cause a surplus of workers. High unemployment means lower wages that causes the middle class to get destroyed the most in the process.

Marx believed this would lead to a sub-subsistence wage is a pay rate that is too low to cover your absolute basic cost of living, such as food, water or shelter.

Marx noted that this would bring the revolution that brings socialism THEN communism.

Humans feel important when they work according to Marx. People strive to feel meaningful in their work or whatever hobbies they have.

After capitalism you have socialism as the next step in the process. Socialism I would describe it as social organizations that advocate that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The last step in the cycle would be communism. I would describe communism as the theory advocating for class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Think of what Elon is trying to do with Universal Income.

Marx actually believed democracy is the system that gives the greatest access to political access. He even believed socialism did not incentivize innovation.

Marxist theorist considered the reasoning for the Soviet’s downfall, was jumping from feudalism to socialism.

I listed Marx’s five step theory that shows a society moves in cycles, repeating the process.

What do you think about this interpretation?

Marx believed that communism was inevitable, don’t get me wrong. But, he did not call for the rise of Communism like Lenin’s “Internationale” and his predecessor Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country”foreign policy. Marx was not an economic genius but more of a philosopher and political theorist.

Marx believed there was a five step process that builds up to communism, which I describe as a state of anarchy where the people are stateless, eventually leading to class warfare.

These five steps start at Feudalism, which was a social system in Medieval Europe, where the nobility held the lands from the crown for military service.

Marx believes under feudalism, noble jobs, such as doctors were appreciated more and Capitalism made things more transactional. This meant there would be no human connection and we would only be valuable to one another as revenue generators.
He believed feudalism acted in the exact opposite.

Then there’s mercantilism. This is classified in the benefits of profitable trading; commercialism.

The third step comes capitalism and as we all know it is an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owner’s for profit. Capitalism fosters imperialistic tendencies because we tend to look at the world as a market.

According to Marx, under capitalism the workers are commodities subjected to supply and demand. This is where the problem with the division of labor comes in. The division of labor reduces the level of skill required. (i.e, factories, watch makers) And the more you divide labor, the more employers could push down the wages along with more automation because this will also push down wages. Of course, this will cause a surplus of workers. High unemployment means lower wages that causes the middle class to get destroyed the most in the process.

Marx believed this would lead to a sub-subsistence wage is a pay rate that is too low to cover your absolute basic cost of living, such as food, water or shelter.

Marx noted that this would bring the revolution that brings socialism THEN communism.

Humans feel important when they work according to Marx. People strive to feel meaningful in their work or whatever hobbies they have.

After capitalism you have socialism as the next step in the process. Socialism I would describe it as social organizations that advocate that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The last step in the cycle would be communism. I would describe communism as the theory advocating for class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Think of what Elon is trying to do with Universal Income.

Marx actually believed democracy is the system that gives the greatest access to political access. He even believed socialism did not incentivize innovation.

Marxist theorist considered the reasoning for the Soviet’s downfall, was jumping from feudalism to socialism.

I listed Marx’s five step theory that shows a society moves in cycles, repeating the process.

Marx believed that communism was inevitable, don’t get me wrong. But, he did not call for the rise of Communism like Lenin’s “Internationale” and his predecessor Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country”foreign policy. Marx was not an economic genius but more of a philosopher and political theorist.

Marx believed there was a five step process that builds up to communism, which I describe as a state of anarchy where the people are stateless, eventually leading to class warfare.

These five steps start at Feudalism, which was a social system in Medieval Europe, where the nobility held the lands from the crown for military service.

Marx believes under feudalism, noble jobs, such as doctors were appreciated more and Capitalism made things more transactional. This meant there would be no human connection and we would only be valuable to one another as revenue generators.
He believed feudalism acted in the exact opposite.

Then there’s mercantilism. This is classified in the benefits of profitable trading; commercialism.

The third step comes capitalism and as we all know it is an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owner’s for profit. Capitalism fosters imperialistic tendencies because we tend to look at the world as a market.

According to Marx, under capitalism the workers are commodities subjected to supply and demand. This is where the problem with the division of labor comes in. The division of labor reduces the level of skill required. (i.e, factories, watch makers) And the more you divide labor, the more employers could push down the wages along with more automation because this will also push down wages. Of course, this will cause a surplus of workers. High unemployment means lower wages that causes the middle class to get destroyed the most in the process.

Marx believed this would lead to a sub-subsistence wage is a pay rate that is too low to cover your absolute basic cost of living, such as food, water or shelter.

Marx noted that this would bring the revolution that brings socialism THEN communism.

Humans feel important when they work according to Marx. People strive to feel meaningful in their work or whatever hobbies they have.

After capitalism you have socialism as the next step in the process. Socialism I would describe it as social organizations that advocate that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The last step in the cycle would be communism. I would describe communism as the theory advocating for class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Think of what Elon is trying to do with Universal Income.

Marx actually believed democracy is the system that gives the greatest access to political access. He even believed socialism did not incentivize innovation.

Marxist theorist considered the reasoning for the Soviet’s downfall, was jumping from feudalism to socialism.

I listed Marx’s five step theory that shows a society moves in cycles, repeating the process.

Marx believed that communism was inevitable, don’t get me wrong. But, he did not call for the rise of Communism like Lenin’s “Internationale” and his predecessor Stalin’s “Socialism in One Country”foreign policy. Marx was not an economic genius but more of a philosopher and political theorist.

Marx believed there was a five step process that builds up to communism, which I describe as a state of anarchy where the people are stateless, eventually leading to class warfare.

These five steps start at Feudalism, which was a social system in Medieval Europe, where the nobility held the lands from the crown for military service.

Marx believes under feudalism, noble jobs, such as doctors were appreciated more and Capitalism made things more transactional. This meant there would be no human connection and we would only be valuable to one another as revenue generators.
He believed feudalism acted in the exact opposite.

Then there’s mercantilism. This is classified in the benefits of profitable trading; commercialism.

The third step comes capitalism and as we all know it is an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owner’s for profit. Capitalism fosters imperialistic tendencies because we tend to look at the world as a market.

According to Marx, under capitalism the workers are commodities subjected to supply and demand. This is where the problem with the division of labor comes in. The division of labor reduces the level of skill required. (i.e, factories, watch makers) And the more you divide labor, the more employers could push down the wages along with more automation because this will also push down wages. Of course, this will cause a surplus of workers. High unemployment means lower wages that causes the middle class to get destroyed the most in the process.

Marx believed this would lead to a sub-subsistence wage is a pay rate that is too low to cover your absolute basic cost of living, such as food, water or shelter.

Marx noted that this would bring the revolution that brings socialism THEN communism.

Humans feel important when they work according to Marx. People strive to feel meaningful in their work or whatever hobbies they have.

After capitalism you have socialism as the next step in the process. Socialism I would describe it as social organizations that advocate that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The last step in the cycle would be communism. I would describe communism as the theory advocating for class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Think of what Elon is trying to do with Universal Income.

Marx actually believed democracy is the system that gives the greatest access to political access. He even believed socialism did not incentivize innovation.

Marxist theorist considered the reasoning for the Soviet’s downfall, was jumping from feudalism to socialism.

I listed Marx’s five step theory that shows a society moves in cycles, repeating the process.

Out of the French Revolution came the “Declaration of the Right of Man, which is a fundamental document of the French Revolution, not a traditional book, but a text outlining universal rights such as, liberty, equality, and property, which was influenced by the enlightenment thinkers, such as Rousseau.

Everything Burke talks about, comes down to tradition, such as, chivalry, which comes from tradition. For Burke, it is the social norm. For example, giving up your seat to the elderly.

Religion for Burke is passed on as tradition and thought religion was the source of all good. Burke says man is a religious animal wired by nature to be connected to a higher truth.

He believed atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts, and if you take away religion, people will replace it with something else. (i.e, Individualism and celebrity worship)

Burke believed granting the church responsibility because the church was a check on responsibility.

For Burke, religion is really important to society.

Although this may not be a popular belief, religion impaled us to think about generations that come afterwards, known as “forward thinking”.

Burke supported the America Revolution because it had already established its own traditions and customs. Unlike during the French Revolution when things were being built from the ground up from upending the entire system, which he considered a horrendous idea.

Burke says the French revolution was offensive and dangerous because the reasoning was fallible and untried, which shows his conservative views on the tried & untried.

Out of the French Revolution came the “Declaration of the Right of Man, which is a fundamental document of the French Revolution, not a traditional book, but a text outlining universal rights such as, liberty, equality, and property, which was influenced by the enlightenment thinkers, such as Rousseau.

Everything Burkes talks about, comes down to tradition, such as, chivalry, which comes from tradition. For Burke, it is the social norm. For example, giving up your seat to the elderly.

Religion for Burke is passed on as tradition and thought religion was the source of all good. Burke says man is a religious animal wired by nature to be connected to a higher truth.

He believed atheism is against, not only our reason, but our instincts, and if you take away religion, people will replace it with something else. (i.e, Individualism and celebrity worship)

Burke believed granting the church responsibility because the church was a check on responsibility.

For Burke, religion is really important to society.

Although this may not be a popular belief, religion impaled us to think about generations that come afterwards, known as “forward thinking”.

Burke supported the America Revolution because it had already established its own traditions and customs. Unlike during the French Revolution when things were being built from the ground up from upending the entire system, which he considered a horrendous idea.

Burke says the French revolution was offensive and dangerous because the reasoning was fallible and untried, which shows his conservative views on the tried & untried.