Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Has there always been this much instability in the world?

Options
  • 13-08-2014 10:11pm
    #1
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users Posts: 6,563 ✭✭✭


    So right now we have:
    • The Civil war in eastern Ukraine
    • The Civil war in Syria
    • The Gaza confilct
    • The Islamic State declaring a Caliphate in Northern Iraq and Eastern Syria
    • Political instability in both Egypt and Libya
    • Border skirmishes between Armenia and Azerbaijan
    • Boko Haram running an anti-government campaign in Nigeria
    • Civil war in South Sudan

    Those are just off the top of my head. There are no doubt many many other conflicts (particularly in Africa). I don't remember as much war and instabiity in so many places at once in the past 20 years.

    Is it just simply a case of more media coverage with social media and 24 hour news stations or has the world genuinely gotten more unstable in the recent past?


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,083 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    I was just thinking this myself the other day, the worlds seems to be rightly fecked up at present.

    I was thinking it was just the fact that we have so much running news too, but maybe not.


  • Options
    #3
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    What we're seeing is the fallout of WW2 and the Cold War.

    As the major European and Soviet powers retreated from positions of great international authority, they left behind a power vacuum that posed a threat to the law and order of many newly independent countries and to the physical safety and security of their people.

    There was once a noble, grand intention for the United Nations to step in and vindicate the human rights of all peoples, but the United Nations too has failed to fill this vacuum.

    Thus in Ukraine, as a neat example, we see the absence of any power figure has reawakened major powers on opposing sides, thereby establishing this surreal re-enactment of the Cold War rivalry into local intrastate conflicts.

    Many of the current global conflicts are testimony to the dangers of the liberal, noninterventionist outlook in international relations which have been so fervently desired by generations of idealistic teenagers.


  • Options
    #4
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    On one hand - looking at the trends from over the past century or so (offhand based on the works of historians like Fergusseon), there is a revision to the historical norms of non-Western/European dominance. The ancient regime empires are not longer a stabilising force (peace is better for trade) and the various relgious-ethnic divisions have re-emerged in the post-Cold war thaw. To paraphrase concepts borrowed from Robert Kagan, we are entering into an era of "pagan" politics - ie where older loyalties based on pre-19th Century norms become more prevalent in the world.

    On the other - bitter and divisive conflicts existed outside the major global wars in the 20thC, but the prevalence of the 24x7 media cycle brings each incident into to a heighten prominence.


  • Options
    #5
    Gringo180
    Registered Users Posts: 9,205 ✭✭✭Gringo180


    conorh91 wrote: »

    Many of the current global conflicts are testimony to the dangers of the liberal, noninterventionist outlook in international relations which have been so fervently desired by generations of idealistic teenagers.

    But look at what has happened in Iraq when the U.S and Britain intervened, and intervened on a pack of lies at that.


  • Options
    #6
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,220 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Referencing recorded history, war is normal and peace abnormal.

    "In the last 3,421 years of recorded history only 268 have seen no war" (Will and Ariel Durant, Lessons of History).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Well of the top of my head, in the early 1990s we had the first intifada, the ira, eta, the gulf war, rwanda, the collapse of the soviet union, the tail ends of uprisings in the eastern block, Yogoslavian civil war, etc.

    So yes, the world has always had lots of conflicts. Even big world events such as world war 2 could be considered as a series of smaller related conflicts across the world. Have a listen to Billy Joels We didnt Start the Fire if you dont believe me!


  • Options
    #8
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    conorh91 wrote: »
    What we're seeing is the fallout of WW2 and the Cold War.

    As the major European and Soviet powers retreated from positions of great international authority, they left behind a power vacuum that posed a threat to the law and order of many newly independent countries and to the physical safety and security of their people.

    There was once a noble, grand intention for the United Nations to step in and vindicate the human rights of all peoples, but the United Nations too has failed to fill this vacuum.

    Thus in Ukraine, as a neat example, we see the absence of any power figure has reawakened major powers on opposing sides, thereby establishing this surreal re-enactment of the Cold War rivalry into local intrastate conflicts.

    Many of the current global conflicts are testimony to the dangers of the liberal, noninterventionist outlook in international relations which have been so fervently desired by generations of idealistic teenagers.

    We aren't seeing the fall out from ww2 or the Cold War. the Cold War never ended. NATO and the EU expanding and gobbling up former Soviet states - they did that for the craic. which sort of rules out your retreating European and soviet power theory too . and your Ukraine theory is way off aswell. just as a matter of interest which current global conflicts are testimony to the dangers of a nonintervention moar war is good policy?


  • Options
    #9
    sin_city
    Registered Users Posts: 899 ✭✭✭sin_city


    I connect all of this to the end of the US empire and the end of the US dollar as the reserve currency...but it is also a little more.

    I believe the Niall Ferguson is correct in saying that we are living through the end of western dominance ended the 1000 period of the dark ages and began with the renaissance and the age of exploration.

    I’m not saying that it’s over for Europe but the last 6 reserve currencies of the world have been in order – Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands, France, Britain and now the US dollar.

    With this usually comes vast influence and empire of some sort….So yes, What we are living through is a big deal just as the end of the Soviet Union from the Afghan war to the early 90s was a big deal


  • Options
    #10
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Historically, peace always tended to be a short break from the regularity of war. The West is still in its long peace time tbh in contrast to what it has experienced in the past.


  • Options
    #11
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    Stuff like this has gone on since the dawn of civilisation it's just with 24 hour news outlets and the internet we are much more aware of what's going on around the world.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    Stuff like this has gone on since the dawn of civilisation it's just with 24 hour news outlets and the internet we are much more aware of what's going on around the world.

    Exactly.


  • Options
    #13
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    conorh91 wrote: »
    What we're seeing is the fallout of WW2 and the Cold War.

    As the major European and Soviet powers retreated from positions of great international authority, they left behind a power vacuum that posed a threat to the law and order of many newly independent countries and to the physical safety and security of their people.

    There was once a noble, grand intention for the United Nations to step in and vindicate the human rights of all peoples, but the United Nations too has failed to fill this vacuum.

    Thus in Ukraine, as a neat example, we see the absence of any power figure has reawakened major powers on opposing sides, thereby establishing this surreal re-enactment of the Cold War rivalry into local intrastate conflicts.

    Many of the current global conflicts are testimony to the dangers of the liberal, noninterventionist outlook in international relations which have been so fervently desired by generations of idealistic teenagers.

    Liberal non-interventionist? Tony Blair, the 'great' interventionist was a liberal unless I am much mistaken.


  • Options
    #14
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    sin_city wrote: »
    I connect all of this to the end of the US empire and the end of the US dollar as the reserve currency...but it is also a little more.

    I believe the Niall Ferguson is correct in saying that we are living through the end of western dominance ended the 1000 period of the dark ages and began with the renaissance and the age of exploration.

    I’m not saying that it’s over for Europe but the last 6 reserve currencies of the world have been in order – Portugal, Spain, The Netherlands, France, Britain and now the US dollar.

    With this usually comes vast influence and empire of some sort….So yes, What we are living through is a big deal just as the end of the Soviet Union from the Afghan war to the early 90s was a big deal

    Good post. all empires eventually fall either consumed from within or challenged then defeated by an up and coming hegemon/s. sometimes competing up and coming powers will unite toward the greater power. the world has shifted from unipolar to multipolar the sooner the Americans realise and accept this the safer the world will be and better for all of us. the question is will they accept it or fight it. the world in the past has known long periods of relative peace like Pax Romana in the 1st and 2nd century ad that lasted some 200 hundred years and even more recently after the British defeated Napoleon Pax Britannica. that lasted nearly one hundred years from the early 1800s up until world war 1. in both cases they were the dominant hegemons of their time with no challengers which is why there was relative peace. that isn't the case today the Russians and to a lesser extent the Chinese are coming and able to influence and challenge American interests or what Americans perceive as their interests with no business having an interest like Ukraine .we've seen this happening in different parts of the world too it's already happened. how the Americans react - this is the great question of our time. and from what I'm seeing it doesn't look good. the Americans are clearly in an aggressive posture toward Russia crazy as that is and pivoting their foreign policy to Asia pacific in an attempt to check and contain the Chinese. confrontation it would appear is on the horizon. certainly if things continue on their present course. nothing lasts forever.


  • Options
    #15
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    It often seems that the modern world is in tatters. However, the sad reality is that humans have always been an incredibly violent species. As I understand it, there has always been a a conflict somewhere in the world.

    These days, we have the ability to view and listen to account from all over the world. This has had the effect of making the globe seem smaller, so conflicts far from one's location no longer seem far away.


  • Options
    #16
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brussels Sprout wrote: »
    ...............

    Is it just simply a case of more media coverage with social media and 24 hour news stations or has the world genuinely gotten more unstable in the recent past?

    Social media and 24 hour news stations, tbh.


  • Options
    #17
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    WakeUp wrote: »
    even more recently after the British defeated Napoleon Pax Britannica. that lasted nearly one hundred years from the early 1800s up until world war 1. in both cases they were the dominant hegemons of their time with no challengers which is why there was relative peace.

    Um, during this time the usa had several wars (including with britans dominion, canada), france and germany had a war, the Irb, most of south america fought for and gained independence, garibaldi rebelled against austrohungary and unified italy, russia expanded its borders etc.


  • Options
    #18
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Um, during this time the usa had several wars (including with britans dominion, canada), france and germany had a war, the Irb, most of south america fought for and gained independence, garibaldi rebelled against austrohungary and unified italy, russia expanded its borders etc.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%9399

    It's only remembered as la Belle Époque because few of those wars were actually in Europe, or involved the use Gatling guns against pointy sticks. Truth is, war is the norm and we're just more aware of it due to mass media nowadays.

    Now, on the other hand, the Romans kept the peace, relatively speaking...


  • Options
    #19
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%9399

    It's only remembered as la Belle Époque because few of those wars were actually in Europe, or involved the use Gatling guns against pointy sticks. Truth is, war is the norm and we're just more aware of it due to mass media nowadays.

    Now, on the other hand, the Romans kept the peace, relatively speaking...

    Can't argue with that. war has always happened and probably always will. peace is usually relative as you pointed out few of those wars were in Europe. and the Romans were well the Romans. though in the age of nuclear weapons war and proxy war between the nuclear powers really should be consigned to the dustbin. that would be the smart sensible thing to do . alas mankind in certain ways is neither smart not evolved and is no better than a rabid animal. that's probably unfair on the animal actually. just because war is the norm doesn't mean it should be the norm. why is it the norm. who decided that. that's the question I would ask. there is nothing normal about war it's barbaric and senseless a euphemism for mass slaughter. yet it's the norm. says it all really. if things don't change, soon enough I would think, one day mankind will destroy this planet and most if not everything on it. chaos and destruction seem to be inherent to many a leader/followers "nature". if mass slaughter is the norm here on planet earth, eventually, we are phucked.


  • Options
    #20
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    WakeUp wrote: »
    just because war is the norm doesn't mean it should be the norm. why is it the norm. who decided that.
    Charles Darwin.


  • Options
    #21
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Charles Darwin.

    Charles Darwin decided on behalf of our entire species that war is "normal" that's it then case closed. Charlie said so. mass slaughter of people is normal. but it isn't normal it's abnormal and barbaric. war is normal because Charles Darwin said so that made me chuckle actually. that's funny. and he's wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    Not to mention what's going in Somalia and the Congo.


  • Options
    #23
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #24
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users Posts: 6,563 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Charles Darwin decided on behalf of our entire species that war is "normal" that's it then case closed. Charlie said so. mass slaughter of people is normal. but it isn't normal it's abnormal and barbaric. war is normal because Charles Darwin said so that made me chuckle actually. that's funny. and he's wrong.

    woosh!


  • Options
    #25
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Charles Darwin decided on behalf of our entire species that war is "normal" that's it then case closed. Charlie said so. mass slaughter of people is normal. but it isn't normal it's abnormal and barbaric. war is normal because Charles Darwin said so that made me chuckle actually. that's funny. and he's wrong.
    And the World is 8,000 years old...

    Charles Darwin simply pointed out that certain traits are beneficial to a species where it comes to natural selection. Aggression, with respect to control of resources is one of those traits. As Robert A. Heinlein wrote once, when one of his characters argued that violence never solved anything, the response was "just ask the Carthaginians".

    Unfortunately, pacifism tends to be rewarded with extinction. It might be morally wrong, but in practical terms, it's right.


  • Options
    #26
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    If there is a element that makes the current regional mayhem feel a bit more depressing than usual its the element of religious nuttery. When two or more tribes have gone to war in the past they have done so on the understanding of particular set goals being achieved which were based largely on control of an area however with ISIS and associated types it feels more existential - convert or die is as stark a demand as one can make.


  • Options
    #27
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I heard but not read of Mr. Pinker's work on this. Offhand, his conclusions would depend on the evidential sources, which hopefully might take into account a number of factors.
    One the nature of tribal violence. Whilst it was endemic, it only rarely lead to distabilising loses due to in-built customs that limited inter-tribal violence[source: book on early warfare]. Hence the Wesetern way of total war was unknown to them
    The other is the under reporting of state figures on violence. For instance not only was the generated Ukrainian famine of the the 30s not reported in the domestic internal records of the time, Stalin had the census takers shoot[source: Bloodlands by Synder].
    Thus whilst there are more people living to-day in a peaceful environment, there is also more people present living. The percentage of them uneffected by violence might be more interesting to compute.


  • Options
    #28
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #29
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    And the World is 8,000 years old...

    Charles Darwin simply pointed out that certain traits are beneficial to a species where it comes to natural selection. Aggression, with respect to control of resources is one of those traits. As Robert A. Heinlein wrote once, when one of his characters argued that violence never solved anything, the response was "just ask the Carthaginians".

    Unfortunately, pacifism tends to be rewarded with extinction. It might be morally wrong, but in practical terms, it's right.

    Not sure the world is only 8000 years old, you think?..

    See this is interesting. he might have pointed out what is beneficial and what isn't but if you're saying or Charlie is saying that mass slaughter (war)is normal ( natural) who is it natural for? everyone? or just the select few. because I don't have any natural inclinations to go out and commit mass slaughter and anyone who does or harbours such natural tendencies, in my humble opinion, is a few cards short of a full deck and that's being nice. If our species all of us together didn't fight or kill each other and we were all pacifists how would this lead to our extinction? who would sort us out..or extinct us? leaving unearthly and natural disasters aside..the ninja Kangaroos maybe?..how would that work...


  • Options
    #30
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Hayte
    Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭Hayte


    Brussels Sprout wrote: »
    Is it just simply a case of more media coverage with social media and 24 hour news stations or has the world genuinely gotten more unstable in the recent past?

    Not necessarily any of the above. The internet has changed the way people get informed about conflict and inform others.

    I recently checked into a thread on another forum focused on recent conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa and one poster lives in Kisangani (Democratic Republic of Congo), whilst another lives in Benin (Nigeria). There was a guy who was working in Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania) for about a year.

    You get information from these people that 20 years ago was unreachable, and alot of it is so specific, it would never fit into a tv broadcast or newspaper report due to concision. You get information which is so incidental on the surface that you wouldn't ordinarily think about it or even think to ask (like why so many people in DRC carry multiple SIM cards and why a 128 kbps wimax connection costs the equivalent of $130 per month). The world is a much smaller place now. Conflict seems alot closer to home when any time of day, you can talk to people who are near to it (or in it).


Advertisement