[hunterb100]

ConciselyVerbose, on 31 July 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Conflict, or disagreeing, is one of the most valuable attributes of humanity. If everyone permanently agrees nothing changes.

Conflict and disagreement are different.
Two people can disagree on which soup is their favourite. They can happily discuss why they think so without conflict.

Ridding the world of sadness would be a personal effect. We would have no (theoretically) suicide, depression, etc. The world would be a happier place.
Ridding the world of conflict would be an effect on human society. No, this does not get rid of disagreeing on things and simply discussing them. It gets rid of violence, wars, fights, expressed anger, etc.

[ConciselyVerbose]

But when you disagree on the right way to do something, there will be conflict. Else you don't care.

[supersloth]

hunterb100, on 31 July 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Ridding the world of sadness would be a personal effect. We would have no (theoretically) suicide, depression, etc. The world would be a happier place.

it would actually probably make you forget what happiness is. with nothing for comparison, how would you know that you feel good if this is how you always feel? every ying needs a yang.

[hunterb100]

supersloth, on 31 July 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

hunterb100, on 31 July 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Ridding the world of sadness would be a personal effect. We would have no (theoretically) suicide, depression, etc. The world would be a happier place.

it would actually probably make you forget what happiness is. with nothing for comparison, how would you know that you feel good if this is how you always feel? every ying needs a yang.

You still have emptiness, anger, etc. In thinking about it more, it would effectively dull human emotion on the scale of happiness.

[dorknexus]

you can't have happiness without sadness, you can't have conflict without harmony. they are one in the same. just like hot and cold represent points in a continuous spectrum of temperature. happiness is defined in terms of sadness, and sadness in terms of happiness. you wouldn't know what one was without the other. this question has no meaning.

just like it's not possible to have existence without non-existence. they go together.

This post has been edited by dorknexus: 31 July 2013 - 04:42 PM

[modi123_1]

Exactly supersloth! It's like every rose has its thorn... or like every night has its dawn... and just like every cowboy sings his same sad old song

Spoiler

[hunterb100]

In retrospect I should not start threads at 2:00 AM... Oh well.

[modi123_1]

Heh.. how would you know joy if you don't know regret from starting this thread... ?!

[ishkabible]

You guys are forgetting another path that Mark Twain, and perhaps others even older writers, thought of in one of his stories long ago, Mania. Everyone could be happy with conflict, with some truly horrible things occurring, and what ever else you can think of. Happiness is a state of mind that doesn't necessarily require the environment of a person to be pleasant in order to exist; it can be induced directly with no regard for the environment.

This would however leave no reason for innovation/invention, thought, new ideas, or even using the ideas we already have. I think invention and thought are the truly wonderful things of people so I wouldn't give everyone mania if I had the option as it would destroy the true, and perhaps only, beauty of man. Pain drives innovation, the thought that you could have something better, something more, is what fuels new ideas. If everything was perfect this fuel would not exist.

This post has been edited by ishkabible: 31 July 2013 - 05:10 PM

[baavgai]

Puppies are happy. They really aren't much good for anything, but they're happy.

Most innovation comes from tortured people. Absolute contentment doesn't drive a whole lot of change.

[farrell2k]

I was under the impression that by "conflict" the OP meant violence.

[supersloth]

baavgai, on 31 July 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

Puppies are happy. They really aren't much good for anything, but they're happy.

they are good for being ADORABLE PUPPIES and that is good enough.

[BenignDesign]

Amen, Brother sloth!

[hunterb100]

farrell2k, on 31 July 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I was under the impression that by "conflict" the OP meant violence.

By conflict on all levels I mean no fighting, wars, violence, etc. I don't mean you can't have a disagreement on something and not care. We would not have bullying, fights (No UFC or MMA or any of those for the people that like those, ahah) for the singular persons level, on a political level we wouldn't have wars, confrontations, etc. Imagine no Cold War (Forget for now it was somewhat a result of WWII, which in context would not have existed). The US and USSR would continue original plans of a joint space project, two immensely powerful nations; instead of competing, working together. Hell, we might have been on the moon in '65 or before. On the singular scale, there would be no verbal/physical hate or bullying against people of all kinds. The LGBTQ community would have such lower suicide and depression rates. People would acknowledge that they were LGBTQ and either have no thoughts on it or be happy or whatever but my point is they would not confront them about it and start harassing or bullying them.

[ConciselyVerbose]

Conflict is also how we hone ourselves to get better. You hate your rival team and work your balls off to beat them? That's much more motivation than just going to the weight room.

Without conflict we would be a race full of pussies.