Did your heart drop?

[MFrohike]

146. No, I just didn't agree with your conclusion

I didn't ignore any of what you wrote, except maybe that I forgot to point out that you emphasized the 21st century and technology in conjunction. That combination led to a natural assumption that you meant the internet, the defining invention/innovation/whatever of the current times, was the agent that brought the world closer, according to your original argument. I simply disputed the idea that the internet, or computers generally, were necessary for world wars to occur.

You actually didn't say that pervasive communications, or climate change, feed into unrest by letting people know the rest of the story (thanks, Paul Harvey). It may be what you meant, but it sure isn't what you said. What you did say, in your original response to the OP was :

"No, we should not withdraw from the rest of the world.

This is the 21st century. A time when both hemispheres of the world are coming together like never before. Technology (and I don't just mean computers) has been the main catalyst. And when two different worlds collide, there will be violence.

To see things only in a single dimension -war is bad- is to ignore what is happening from an historical perspective."

That statement does not necessarily imply a greater awareness of people via things like social media of events occurring in real time nor does it necessarily imply climate change as a driver of change (what a hackneyed phrase, bravo self). You did say that you didn't just mean computers, oops on my part for assuming all you meant was computer-related, but you did directly say that the world, both hemispheres at any rate, was coming together because of technology. You then made the Huntingtonesque claim of the clash of civilizations with the worlds collide bit. Sure, it may not be what you meant, but it's a reasonable assumption to make given all the hype that atrocious "theory" has gotten over the last 20 years.

The Arab Spring was a regional, somewhat worldwide, reaction to one man deciding he had enough. It was not a phenomenon. It was the emotional, and considered, response of individuals through collective action. I think it came from the reasoned and calculated degradation of everyday people by their leaders. It was a response to a series of decisions, actions, and inactions that made history.

I didn't say it's all oil or it's all money. I stated a truism that elites act for power and money, with power being the most important. That's not a simplistic explanation. It's a rule of understanding. If I said "it's all about oil," I'd just be throwing my hands in the air and saying "who knows." That is not what I did. I stated a basic principle that is visible in every time and place and is universal to every culture with the slightest degree of sophistication. Not religious, not economic, not social, but political is the type of animal we call human. Politics means distribution of power and resources or their analogues. Starting from that foundation, all I did was state the blindingly obvious: all elites undertake serious actions, like those under discussion, because they think it will enhance their power (or other methods of keeping score, i.e. money).

I picked specific time periods to point out those periods which were least warlike. I made no claims of no wars. I'm well aware of the Indian Wars and the various wars against the Italian tribes that resulted in the unification of Italy under Rome. I simply said those periods were not as great, on a scale of warmaking, than later periods. That observation tends to undercut your claim that greater homogenity is a precursor for warmaking, when it seems to be the opposite in those two cases.

Since you brought it up twice and I missed it multiple times until this post, what other forms of technology do you think are leading to a greater intersection of the various corners of the world?