Join the new world

sand timer ... for ? 😃

It is an old gift for day of armed forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The gift was presented by women from my university. With a gift there was a gift card 🙂

Ema, watch Kaidan, Ringu, Ju-On, Dark water 2002
Best J-Horror in the World 😉

umm, sound good but, not better not. I'm so afraid of horror films.

And yes....
¨/\_/\ ♥
>^,^ ¨¨/ \
’¨(__)__

cute :3

o7

Windows XP rulezzz 😃

Yeah, SP3 )))
I was lazy to reinstal it on Windows 7, so there work only 3.5 GB RAM from 8.

Nicely put that the real 'benefit' of war isn't really about conquest nor loot nor destruction nor killing. Nevertheless, I disagree that it is as if the only (or any) motor of "progress". In my opinion, first fortifications of humans were about protection against wild animals, especially stone walls then against elements (fire, wind, floods) tho very similarly with tight wooden walls on a hill and no forest around anyhow. Likewise, several spears provided better protection against wolves than a catapult etc., and similarly in regard to hunt (in days of unsufficient agriculture (with domesticated animals)).
Also, no need for human caused violence for philosophers and others to realize that death exists. Nevertheless, arguably it is "need for survival" which was and is very relevant to many a thing. And in my opinion, in addition to that there still is something that makes even a human in the garden of Eden... well, some would probably say evolve, some would say strife for perfection, or simply put, something which makes humans explore and build.

I agree.
Progress is movable by a set of factors, including laziness, fear, pride, curiosity, self-realization, ambitions, thirst of the power, talent, etc... Need to survival (fear) is strong factor. The fear can be motivated by dangerous animals or war. The fear of animals moved progress in the ancient time. The fear of war moves progress still.
Cold war (fear of real war) brought a set of technologies which we use now. Military development advances civil development for 10-15 years.

Anyway, war have a lot of faces, the greatest number from which are awful.

Result of my reflections:
- the fear of war is useful generally - that's good.
- war bears destructions and death - that's bad.

Somehow so...

No fear is needed for me to come to a logical conclusion that if I don't go buy me some food within the next hour or so there won't be much anywhere where to purchase food around here. And me doing so is arguably progress since I am sort of standing still at the moment. Of course, if someone else were here I might be afraid of getting hurt if I don't go purchase food. But even a relation or household "working" based on fear would seem rather low-life.
Also, there are plenty of animals which do shelter and collect food, such as for winter and/or offspring. Because of that it is of course easy to argue that the motivator for these animals (and humans) to do so is based on instinct/s. Nevertheless, there is also the argument that the primary motivator is cultural (or simply put, that the motivation is in imitation of what parent's did/do). In any case, the concept of war is not one animals would understand, yet they they do a lot of what humans do and are also capable of finding solution to a problem. Also, on the issue of that what made humans differ a lot to animals, that is the use of symbols and letters, if it is argued that the start of that was out of a need, it is in my opinion easier to argue that such was from needs associated with agriculture and groups of persons living together than it is to argue that such was as to clearify position/s and so.

Anyhow, not sure what progress you mean was in the cold war? Economic development was arguably ideology based during those days, but neither humanism, human rights, free market, communism are outright about any need for fear of war or so. The issue of being able to self-defend was (once again) raised with a war, and that is the 2nd world war in which Axis countries and Soviets conquered many a place, so arguably an issue of attempting to learn from past mistakes. Tho sure, the issue at the core of what you are on about is "what is an adequate defense" (if we assume political failure).

o7

v+

v

http://www.erepublik.com/uk/article/love-and-harmony-2431593/1/20
v+s)