Do you think even in ancient times, people being violent and conquering others was really necessary? (Romans, Egypt)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We always talk about how much better we are today, and while not perfect, when looking at the past we look at all the war/violence committed since the dawn of human civilization, so if war/violence broke out back then was okay, do you really think even in the most ancient of ancient times any kinds of violence/warfare could even be considered justified? Do you view what the likes of Sargon of Akkad did anyhow more justifiable then as today?
We always talk about how much better we are today, and while not perfect, when looking at the past we look at all the war/violence committed since the dawn of human civilization, so if war/violence broke out back then was okay, do you really think even in the most ancient of ancient times any kinds of violence/warfare could even be considered justified? Do you view what the likes of Sargon of Akkad did anyhow more justifiable then as today?
Necessary? No.
Conquest is mostly about ego, not progress. I am big, I want to be bigger, whatever.
The only thing that's necessary for our species is to spread life beyond earth. Everything else pales in importance.
Someone like Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein contributed more to the human project than Sargon of Akkad or Ghengis Khan.
The crazy thing is that the earth hasn't changed much in the last 10,000 years. The same resources were in the same places as they are today. We just didn't know how to use them. We were doing it bad.
The best way to insure that the gooks on the other side of the river don't come to take your stuff it to go over there and subjugate them. Famine and drought was not uncommon, so resources were not always guaranteed. Interesting article on the fall of Egypt:
Quote:
Egypt during the Ptolemaic age — from 305 to 30 B.C. — was a flourishing cultural and military powerhouse. Its kings were the successors to Alexander the Great’s empire. They created the Library of Alexandria and built the city’s shining lighthouse — one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.
But the Ptolemaic Empire was also deeply dependent on crops watered by the summer flooding of the Nile. During years when that flooding didn’t happen, harvests were devastated and there was famine and civil unrest.
The best way to insure that the gooks on the other side of the river don't come to take your stuff it to go over there and subjugate them. Famine and drought was not uncommon, so resources were not always guaranteed. Interesting article on the fall of Egypt:
With all the technology we have today there are still droughts and food shortages.
They are diminishing in number. Modern famines are failures of distribution not production, usually because of bad politics. The world has a surplus of food.
No, being violent and conquering is rarely, if ever, necessary. The problem is humanity is trapped in a low state of consciousness, and has been for thousands of years. Part of that trap is we notice this low state of consciousness in other people, but not in ourselves.
They are diminishing in number. Modern famines are failures of distribution not production, usually because of bad politics. The world has a surplus of food.
So they should have just built a time machine and gotten tech from the future?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.