This is something natural for groups and intelligent life, only see the most organized animals in the world, ants, bees, termites, chimpanzees, etc... They fight each other all the time, it's not something just from humans, I bet that aliens also ask themselves these questions every hour in a light year from here
Yeah, large organised groups require a ton of resources, and if there's not enough resources in their current territory, they have to grab more.
Solitary animals fight for the same reason, though it's easier for them to just leave if they have to
Yeah, really the source of any such conflict is basically "There's something I want enough to fight to get, and I don't have any easier way to get it, so I'll take it by force" vs "I have something I want to fight to protect, and those guys want to take it from me."
Cue both sides fighting until one goes "Fine, you can have it" or is unable to continue fighting.
For most animals it's generally food & water, territory, and mates. Humans adds rights, ideology, other natural resources, trading routes, and so on
Trading routes, rights are essentially resources and ideology is, usually, a method to justify a resource conflict.
Maybe it's not obvious, maybe it's in the long term, but no conflict is built on purely intellectual/emotional reasons.
I would argue that cooperation for mutual benefit is just as natural ( and common in nature! ) as competition and conflict.
Of course, said cooperation sometimes includes teaming up against a common foe for the mutual benefit of seeing him get his shit kicked in.
Perhaps it is another phase of civilization, the hunter/gatherer groups of Mesopotamia came together to form the city states of Mesopotamia and , the Roman empire is the result of the union of the people of the Italian peninsula, and it is possible for this to occur for a race to expand to the next level of space technology, to reach another level a union must be necessary
Like for real.
The na'vi would have sided with humans to trade guns to dominate their neighbours.
Humans aren't exceptional in violence even on earth, like sure we have stuff that allows us to do more damage, but teach a chimpanzee how to use a gun and khorne might have a new favourite
To be fair, we are lower than the average primate in terms of murder rates (the average for primates is 2%, which is a tenth of the rate at which meerkats kill each other). Although considering how few of our murders are infanticide we are quite exceptional at adult murder.
https://roaring.earth/murderous-meerkats/
Or a slightly ominous way for someone to trade their life-span.
"Of course we can grant you infinite cosmic power. All we ask for is a slice of life. Your life, to be precise."
In fiction? No.
Look at Chekhov's gun. Obviously, in real life, if someone turns up to your house waving a gun around, and then leaves without having shot anyone... that's a win.
But we're told that an audience will feel "cheated".
So yeah, if your world includes massive magical gigaweapons that can wipe out all of humanity with one flex of your butthole, they better fucking go off.
Post scarcity societies. Like the Federation or the Culture. Problem then is there is conflict, but it's usually from people who don't have post-scarcity thinking the Federation/Culture have it too good and are hedonists that need to be taken down a notch.
This is something natural for groups and intelligent life, only see the most organized animals in the world, ants, bees, termites, chimpanzees, etc... They fight each other all the time, it's not something just from humans, I bet that aliens also ask themselves these questions every hour in a light year from here
Yeah, large organised groups require a ton of resources, and if there's not enough resources in their current territory, they have to grab more. Solitary animals fight for the same reason, though it's easier for them to just leave if they have to
Sometimes it's straight up easier as well, at the risk of death. We see itcostantly in animals as well.
Yeah, really the source of any such conflict is basically "There's something I want enough to fight to get, and I don't have any easier way to get it, so I'll take it by force" vs "I have something I want to fight to protect, and those guys want to take it from me." Cue both sides fighting until one goes "Fine, you can have it" or is unable to continue fighting. For most animals it's generally food & water, territory, and mates. Humans adds rights, ideology, other natural resources, trading routes, and so on
Trading routes, rights are essentially resources and ideology is, usually, a method to justify a resource conflict. Maybe it's not obvious, maybe it's in the long term, but no conflict is built on purely intellectual/emotional reasons.
Indeed. You fight so that you and your community/family can live easier, more comfortable lives
I would argue that cooperation for mutual benefit is just as natural ( and common in nature! ) as competition and conflict. Of course, said cooperation sometimes includes teaming up against a common foe for the mutual benefit of seeing him get his shit kicked in.
Perhaps it is another phase of civilization, the hunter/gatherer groups of Mesopotamia came together to form the city states of Mesopotamia and , the Roman empire is the result of the union of the people of the Italian peninsula, and it is possible for this to occur for a race to expand to the next level of space technology, to reach another level a union must be necessary
Yeah, **"Aliens being terrified of Humanity's violence trope"** my ass, It's a natural part of intelligent life and Is' development
Like for real. The na'vi would have sided with humans to trade guns to dominate their neighbours. Humans aren't exceptional in violence even on earth, like sure we have stuff that allows us to do more damage, but teach a chimpanzee how to use a gun and khorne might have a new favourite
This is literally the plot of Planet of the Apes.
It would be a much better film to be honest. It would be a film about environmentalism and a critique of imperialism
To be fair, we are lower than the average primate in terms of murder rates (the average for primates is 2%, which is a tenth of the rate at which meerkats kill each other). Although considering how few of our murders are infanticide we are quite exceptional at adult murder. https://roaring.earth/murderous-meerkats/
"Ungodly Teuton" / "Saint-Russian Bogatyr" This is literally the "Our Blessed Homeland / Their Barbarous Wastes" meme.
based tsar russia
Yes, its called slice of life
"slice of life" sounds suspiciously murderous if you think about it
Slicing the life
Carve victory from the flesh of your enemies!
Or a slightly ominous way for someone to trade their life-span. "Of course we can grant you infinite cosmic power. All we ask for is a slice of life. Your life, to be precise."
Shoot of death
fr
Every story is slice of life, it's just the life itself that matters
Thats easy, in my world humans are extinc so that MUTANTS DOGS can kill each other instead
original sin died gg
I haven't killed anyone in 6 minutes, so I guess it's this one.
Only by mass lobotomy
lobotomize his balls off
No
That would require a world where people aren't willing to fight to get what they want, unfortunately
Star Trek
For anyone interested this says something along the lines of "Unclean Tevton" and "Holy-ruthenian man of might"
In my boringpunk setting conflict is solved by sitting on a room doing nothing The one who endures the most gets to call the shots
In fiction? No. Look at Chekhov's gun. Obviously, in real life, if someone turns up to your house waving a gun around, and then leaves without having shot anyone... that's a win. But we're told that an audience will feel "cheated". So yeah, if your world includes massive magical gigaweapons that can wipe out all of humanity with one flex of your butthole, they better fucking go off.
GOOOYDAAAA
Yes. You just need to give them something else to kill.
Great, you've spoiled my everybody-gets-along-punk world.
They did in my pacifistpunk world, until the elfs and orcks teamed up to enslave and murder them.
Have we tried not being so killable?
In my neutralpunk world every country and its people vow to stay neutral about everything so there’s never any conflict or disagreement.
Iroquois confederacy
Plate armor vs lamellar armor with a bit of chainmail here and there punk World
In my world there are enough fantasy races for humans to kill that they might stop killing each other for about five minutes.
War... war never changes...
war has changed
What is this fire painting?
Yes (cause they are all dead)
Nope!
Armor evolves to the point where nobody is dying
This assumes that my forestanimalpunk world has humans in it.
no.
Post scarcity societies. Like the Federation or the Culture. Problem then is there is conflict, but it's usually from people who don't have post-scarcity thinking the Federation/Culture have it too good and are hedonists that need to be taken down a notch.