Why modern society is not like back in the days social animal deathmatch behavior to show who deserves to live?

[Wonhun]

Duel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The world suppose to be like this, everyone in this world goes duel to the point to leave one worthy human to survive, which fits the narrative of how social natural animal does. They fight for a deathmatch and only the one who is superior and strongest survive and deserves to live in this world.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Because people trump each other in more than strength these days. I doubt all that many multi millionaires do a lot of manual labour. They may well keep themselves fit though. Still- I imagine it's the most clever or sly who climb to the top in this world.

As for: Why don't we just leave the weak to starve, die or eat one another- it's because we like to think of ourselves as civilised and compassionate. I wonder how compassionate it really is though to let hereditary diseases thrive. Not that I like the idea of eugenics but sometimes I wonder where it will end.

Still- what do you consider 'strength'. Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been likely to beat anyone in a street fight but- would you want to challenge him to a maths or physics test? What if your life depended on working out a maths or engineering problem? Plus- a smart person would simply bring a gun to a sword fight...

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I don't think that killing people is in the best interests of those in power as they can instead exploit other people for their own gain. They want to live comfortably and they can't do that if they just kill their wage slaves

 

[Hvergelmir]

I don't think that killing people is in the best interests of those in power

Neither is it in anyone elses best interest!

The world suppose to be like this, everyone in this world goes duel to the point to leave one worthy human to survive, which fits the narrative of how social natural animal does. They fight for a deathmatch and only the one who is superior and strongest survive and deserves to live in this world.

Your understanding of human behavior is not accurate. Animals generally don't kill members of its own species, unless the member is a threat to the group. Humans have continuously worked towards larger and more stable groups. It's more efficient and a lot safer. Even when a strong warlord comes around (and they too are not alone), they don't stand a chance against organized countries.

Duels where not a rite of passage or anything like that. They were ways to once and for all solve conflicts.
This means that before effective policing where in place, you had the right to challenge the opposition to a one-on-one duel. This as a more civilized alternative to tribe wars - cycles of murder and revenge.

The only reason violence is still around is for the simple fact, that you cannot counter violence without using violence yourself. If I attempt to beat you up and take your things, violence is the only defense that can be deployed without my consent. Instead of the option to challenge me one-on-one, modern countries give you access to a police force which easily overpowers any one individual.

 

[Wonhun]

Neither is it in anyone elses best interest!

Your understanding of human behavior is not accurate. Animals generally don't kill members of its own species, unless the member is a threat to the group. Humans have continuously worked towards larger and more stable groups. It's more efficient and a lot safer. Even when a strong warlord comes around (and they too are not alone), they don't stand a chance against organized countries.

Duels where not a rite of passage or anything like that. They were ways to once and for all solve conflicts.
This means that before effective policing where in place, you had the right to challenge the opposition to a one-on-one duel. This as a more civilized alternative to tribe wars - cycles of murder and revenge.

The only reason violence is still around is for the simple fact, that you cannot counter violence without using violence yourself. If I attempt to beat you up and take your things, violence is the only defense that can be deployed without my consent. Instead of the option to challenge me one-on-one, modern countries give you access to a police force which easily overpowers any one individual.

I generally don't understand why isnt everything a threat to you. Like you said, isnt annihilating all threat is the top priorty for animal? It is either you being defeated or you defeat others. Especially for human population where every one is basically able to replace you in any skills, with the population pool of total 8 billion potential threat who can be superior than you in whatever skills.

Beyond that, just focus on how this affect your daily life, 8 billion people compete you your job, your food, your friend, whatever it is. And they can easily win you with so large population pool. If every single one can replace you completely, why should your boss keep you a job, why should people hire you, why should they sell you food, why should they be your friend. EVERYWHERE IS A THREAT. Only thing you can do is to kill yourself because you have no right and you have no worth to deserve it. People just mock weakling and genetic waste when they demand human basic need like job, home, and love.

Because people trump each other in more than strength these days. I doubt all that many multi millionaires do a lot of manual labour. They may well keep themselves fit though. Still- I imagine it's the most clever or sly who climb to the top in this world.

As for: Why don't we just leave the weak to starve, die or eat one another- it's because we like to think of ourselves as civilised and compassionate. I wonder how compassionate it really is though to let hereditary diseases thrive. Not that I like the idea of eugenics but sometimes I wonder where it will end.

Still- what do you consider 'strength'. Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been likely to beat anyone in a street fight but- would you want to challenge him to a maths or physics test? What if your life depended on working out a maths or engineering problem? Plus- a smart person would simply bring a gun to a sword fight...

If I failed Steven Hawking for physic, he completely replace my worth of existence where I should die and brutally slaughtered for the punishment on my inability to outperform them. If I failed making more money than Elon Musk, if I failed run faster than Usain Bolt, I should die. I just genuinely don't understand what is your reason to debate you should exist in this world when higher power superior being can annihilate your meaning of existance, where war is the best way to achieve this and deliver justice in this world for allowing only who is deserved to live to live. And it is completely your fault if you fail to do so.

 

[Scythe]

It's still like that, we just got better at pretending it's not.
We turned deathmatches into ruining careers and life, who can outwit your coworker. Screw each other over, steal their ideas and work. Stomp everyone else to the ground for profit. Worker exploitation, the list goes on.
The real deathmatches continue as well, look at america, it's a fucking mess. Everyone's got guns and killing each other or at least injuring. Armed robbery, violence for the sake of it, or whatever. Not just america too, it's everywhere.
Humans just got better at pretending they are different, because they got laws and shit but really, the deathmatches continue.

 

[Wonhun]

It's still like that, we just got better at pretending it's not.
We turned deathmatches into ruining careers and life, who can outwit your coworker. Screw each other over, steal their ideas and work. Stomp everyone else to the ground for profit. Worker exploitation, the list goes on.
The real deathmatches continue as well, look at america, it's a fucking mess. Everyone's got guns and killing each other or at least injuring. Armed robbery, violence for the sake of it, or whatever. Not just america too, it's everywhere.
Humans just got better at pretending they are different, because they got laws and shit but really, the deathmatches continue.

The truth of the universe is always having been The Law of the Jungle. It is just sugar coated with hypocrisy to sounds like they are not but in fact it is a strategy of playing dumb to get ahead, which is like pretending to be a prey to lower one's guard and defeat their predator. I just hate the act that everyone gaslighting it is not. Superior being insult and humiliating people to show who is the boss and who is deserved to live. The only worthless function can be associated with its trash value of inferior being is to be recycled as a food waste and fed up the superior.

 

[cloudyskye]

Because people trump each other in more than strength these days. I doubt all that many multi millionaires do a lot of manual labour. They may well keep themselves fit though. Still- I imagine it's the most clever or sly who climb to the top in this world.

As for: Why don't we just leave the weak to starve, die or eat one another- it's because we like to think of ourselves as civilised and compassionate. I wonder how compassionate it really is though to let hereditary diseases thrive. Not that I like the idea of eugenics but sometimes I wonder where it will end.

Still- what do you consider 'strength'. Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been likely to beat anyone in a street fight but- would you want to challenge him to a maths or physics test? What if your life depended on working out a maths or engineering problem? Plus- a smart person would simply bring a gun to a sword fight...

Off topic but I have to throw it in. Did you know he was supposed to have a big sword fight for that scene? But he woke yp with a cold and he told spielberg he wasn't doing it so he just pulled out his gun instead.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Off topic but I have to throw it in. Did you know he was supposed to have a big sword fight for that scene? But he woke yp with a cold and he told spielberg he wasn't doing it so he just pulled out his gun instead.

Ha ha- that's brilliant!

 

[Hvergelmir]

Like you said, isnt annihilating all threat is the top priorty for animal?

No - avoidance tend to be the better strategy. If the threat dissipates on its own, or if it can be handled by, that's better from a purely rational standpoint. Unless the threat is lethal an immediate, bonding and mating takes precedence in most species.

EVERYWHERE IS A THREAT.

I'm not stealing your friends, mates, or resources. Neither is any arbitrary Chinese factory worker, or a German brick layer.
Challenging us to a duel would be misguided. Pitching us against one another would fail. Sending your ultimate fighter to challenge us, would just get us to hide.
I'm in no way a pacifist, but most people need a reason to fight, and a good chance at winning.

Duels were quite rare, even when they were allowed.

Only thing you can do is to kill yourself because you have no right and you have no worth to deserve it. People just mock weakling and genetic waste when they demand human basic need like job, home, and love.

Your inferiority complex does in no way motivate a worldwide death match, to determine the ultimate fighter worthy of a life in solitude in a dead world riddled with corpses. This entire thread is grossly misguided.

I think the best you can do it to start a new thread, asking for solutions to your particular issues: "What value does one have, when there's always someone better?", or whatever core issue you're struggling with.
Proposing a global death match won't get you anywhere, and also won't make you feel better.

Hvergelmir, out.

 

[Wonhun]

I think the best you can do it to start a new thread, asking for solutions to your particular issues: "What value does one have, when there's always someone better?", or whatever core issue you're struggling with.
Proposing a global death match won't get you anywhere, and also won't make you feel better.

Hvergelmir, out.

That's a total loser cop out instead of fixing the problem in the first place where everyone is superior and a threat to you.

No - avoidance tend to be the better strategy. If the threat dissipates on its own, or if it can be handled by, that's better from a purely rational standpoint. Unless the threat is lethal an immediate, bonding and mating takes precedence in most species.


I'm not stealing your friends, mates, or resources. Neither is any arbitrary Chinese factory worker, or a German brick layer.
Challenging us to a duel would be misguided. Pitching us against one another would fail. Sending your ultimate fighter to challenge us, would just get us to hide.
I'm in no way a pacifist, but most people need a reason to fight, and a good chance at winning.

Like how history and war and strategist work, threat need to be eliminated before it grow stronger and stronger to the point it can completely outperform you. It is always now or never for getting your enemy removed from the table.
They may not compete with you for now with what physically happen in this world. But they can definitely outperform you when given a situation they need to apply their full force to attack you, which needs to be taken care of and hence a global deathmatch to clear all of them out. Either I win or they lose, there is no choice which drives everyone to fight it to the full extent to avoid being ruled by superior who can dominate your entire life if they want and steal everything from you.