I understand how it is. The balance of insanity threatening the whole species. But, see the point is that it would be way better to negotiate without a finger on a trigger. That trigger might one day happen to be under a very shaky or mentally unstable finger... I'd prefer a world free of weapons. But that's only my lunacy... cheers!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Haha. I get your point @velimir.
A world without weapons would be a world without humans.
A large part of how humans evolved from an ancestor perhaps somewhat like some of the modern apes is because we started to use weapons, thought up by our larger brains.
These weapons, likely started out by throwing rocks instead of faeces as chimps do. When it was seen that rocks worked better than faeces, an arms race started that would have involved big sticks and bones. With that the proto-humans could have fought off larger predators instead of just running and climbing and hoping none of them got caught.
All the rest of the discoveries and inventions would have followed after that because having weapons meant that less time would have been needed for guarding the group and running, more time would have been available for eating.
Weapons also provided meat which is higher in protein than vegetable matter. That in turn allowed for more brain development and more evolution towards modern man.
Without weapons, none of it would have been possible.
The problem now is that those weapons are used not just for defending and hunting, but also for war and murder.
I really understand how you see it. You made very remarkable points.
The first time humans came up with weapons were for hunting animals, not for killing each other or raiding and pillaging but for hunting. So it would be impossible to see a world without weapons.
Even if we found another alternative to hunting with weapons we would still invent weapons because some lustfull jealous guy is going to attack someones family and they need to protect themselves. So it is entirely impossible not to have weapons. I mean we turned our body, rocks, tree branches, plants and even water into a weapon, (drowning someone or something for those who are wondering).
Great one @velimir. I really like your view point. Only if the majority of the world could see this.
Many weapons have other uses, so unclear if those things wouldn’t exist. For instance, driving a truck into a crowd is using the truck as a weapon, so would your world have trucks? Would it have stones? Knives? Dynamite has significant civil uses.
But to your question. The police would have no weapons. No guns, no batons. To apprehend people, the police would have to be faster, bigger and stronger than the assailant. They’d have to corner an assailant, because without being able to threaten to shoot, the assailant would run away. The assailants would not have guns, but there’s still likely be a lot more crime. Prison escapes would be more common, or prisons would have to be a lot more locked down. No risk of being shot if you climb the fence.
It’d be much harder to protect the President because without weapons, if people for instance swarmed the President on stage, it could get very messy very quickly as the Presidential protectors would need to literally engage in fisticuffs with the attackers.
Theft would likely be more common, particularly by larger groups of people who would ransack a place and run.
War is where things get somewhat murky with your question, because it’s unclear exactly what weapons would no longer exist. Would blockades be more common (and literally blockades, where ships would probably ram each other?). Invading bands of people might simply create fires everywhere.
As I said guys... Without a change in collective mindset, we are where we are. And will stay there for quite a while :D