Very much so yes. Tiny people want tiny things, while greater persons wish for far greater things. Mind over matter. What is small and what is great does not always correlate in physical size or appeal for attention and admiration, especially these days.

Yet depression is a devastating disorder. It has a high genetic loading. Depression is at least as damaging to quality of life as the other genetic disorders listed. According to the WHO, around 300 million people worldwide are clinically depressed. "Sub-clinical” depression afflicts hundreds of millions more. — David Pearce

The genetic loading aspect aside, which is still potentially addressed by my point, what causes depression? Loss, corruption, or damage of something that once made one happy. What causes happiness? Ability to feel both good and bad, both pleasure and pain. You talk about this "hedonic zero" which admittedly I don't fully comprehend and do wish you to explain in more detail (if not once more).. however there are simple factors in play. People enjoy winning a bet because they had a good chance of not and losing money. People enjoy an evenly matched game of chess for example because of much of the same reasons. Would you enjoy playing a game of chess against a grandmaster other than to say you did so? If as an experienced player would you enjoy playing a game against a complete novice? The answer to these questions are one and the same. David, please watch this, if not the full actual episode and then tell me what you think.

So then for example, you would say if someone was debating policy and leadership quality, but your interlocutor, let's call him "Trump" starts talking about how your a bumbling idiot with kids who take cocaine and are of low character.. this is legitimate argumentation? I don't get your machismo, "who can take a punch". — schopenhauer1

I believe I just explicitly called it nonsense but nevertheless the right crowd will eat it up. In a land of the blind the one eyed man is king, even or especially rather if he only pretends to be. Am I a bumbling idiot? I could be. That implies he'd be willing to compare intellectual works. Do my kids in fact take cocaine and happen to be of low character? Another opportunity for comparison. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Of course, it all circles back to the why a discussion or argument began in the first place and in a political context what the observers and crowd is expecting, entertainment or productivity. Though its usually about swaying opinion, garnishing interest, or sometimes even simply gaining attention.

It is not "my" anything, I already told you or at least implied I find that style of communication revolting. I simply know how some people, who even if are not the majority are unfortunately sizeable enough to not be dismissed entirely, think and go about life.

People like a guy who can take a punch. Or who don't abandon their beliefs under pressure, especially low pressure.

Shallow as this may be, people view leaders as extensions of themselves subconsciously and without knowing it, so, the stronger your leader is perceived to be, the stronger or perhaps more confident you as a follower or whatever you want to call yourself will be. It's all subconscious. I'd even call it nonsense. Yet that would make me the majority. It's how the world works.

Edit: that would make me the minority, sorry.

This implies that it would be okay to throw the sand if people can do it.. Shouldn't they both just not throw the sand? — schopenhauer1

People should "just not" do lots of things. This is why wars are fought. :grin:

I meant the boxing match as something of importance.. We can make the analogy to whatever suits your sense of important. — schopenhauer1

Humor and a sense of projected strength is favored by many. It's disheartening to acknowledge and think about how genuine logic and morality can be defeated and hold less ground in the minds of many. So they don't. :grin:

I suppose the counterargument would be "if candidate B is so smart, correct, confident, and faithful in how his beliefs would hold in true chaos, yet he mentally and emotionally retreats under controlled scrutiny, what torch or rather for how long would he be able to hold it against the views of candidate A", etc.

Is this sand available only to you? Have you become resistant to such sand? If either of these are true you have a clear advantage. I wouldn't participate in a setting I don't find inherently legitimate which implies there are rules in place. The difference between a real debate of importance and a boxing match is that the latter is purely for entertainment and ticket sales while the former is what allows/determines/or dictates something far greater. One would hope at least.

A drop of wine in a vat of sewage is still sewage. A drop of sewage in a vat of wine is also sewage. An analogy for a perfect world, one which we do not live in. People like being spoken to in their own language and level, for some reason makes the speaker seem as if they were more honest by showing negative or "genuine" human emotion. A folly undubutably but a common one. Humor or even shock can override the minds natural defenses and logical senses. Life and thinking can often be unpleasant and hard, so when something is introduced that can if even for a moment alleviate this burden, it is generally well received. More of a war tactic though. You make more mistakes when you're angry and not in a state of calm levelheadedness. Then again, iron sharpens iron. If there's no truth to the statement what merit does it hold? That said, as a prominent and influential figure one should be hesitant about lowering the social bar as it were even further. Of course, this is precisely what some set out to do.

As someone I admire used to say "sounds like a whole lot of kitsch to me."

Generally I don't like them because they've become the go-to weapon for the ignorant when one is losing a logical or moral argument to save face or perhaps continue their misdeeds and corruption of others. The people like what they like however..

Hell is a place where everything once beautiful and pure will become ravaged, vile, and destroyed. Heaven is a place where everything once vile and corrupted may be redeemed and restored. Are these two different places or merely different phases? We may all live on the same planet, but we're worlds apart.

A child is more a spirit in a body than a family progressing device, owned by the parents. — ghostlycutter

Owned by? Heh, you mess up and you'll not only lose said child but your own liberties, if not more.

Children are merely at an age and form in the likeness of a child. — ghostlycutter

I don't get this one. Does the assertion that water is merely at a state and form in the likeness of water make much sense to you? Eh.. maybe it does. But continuing..

Though a child may like it's parents and its role, this is pain suppression, and doesn't contest the practice of child birth as immoral. — ghostlycutter

Not trying to pry but, who on Earth raised you lol. The parent provides controlled discipline, boundaries, and punishment, whereas the real world would provide all these and more yet unrestricted with no limits.

If we could freely change our form, and age, then being a child linked to parents should be their choice, and not the parents choice, or should have a potential cut-off point. — ghostlycutter

We already have too many adult children who weren't raised properly, these are the criminals, the lazy, the dregs, the liars, the thieves, the urchins and overall leeches of society. Might as well make those who brought them here responsible as opposed to the innocent taxpaying citizen.

To conclude, childbirth is immoral but is beautiful art, some may prefer this lifestyle, but that should be a decision for the child to make primarily as it must live in unison with it's parents. — ghostlycutter

What is morality? Why so should we listen to someone born of immorality. After all, you claim doing so is bad. So what makes you begin to think you know anything or your statements, observations, and opinions are anything but immoral and should be ignored, isn't that the basis of your argument after all?

I need an example of something to investigate before I can provide a response. I don't think it is possible to talk about 'truth' in general terms, as it means a range of things. I need details. — Tom Storm

The only thing I questioned, is what you know and I suppose as a result are willing to share. We are similar in this respect, that is to say, you speak from something I assume to be more than a philosophical passing glance, and this is what is unknown to me yet known to you. Now I'm the one who need details.

Beyond that though, my general statement in recent posts was along the lines of what works for you in this moment may not work for you in the next. Or perhaps even that you deny yourself the true destination and yes even journey of enhanced knowledge or virtue, from your own ingrained limitations and belief.

Mine has served me well. — Tom Storm

Ah, here we go. The classic statement. What I do works for the moment for me and me alone. If only you knew how many men greater than you chose these last words in their pursuits here in this life.. though, perhaps your right, in a sense. What doesn't serve you well? Why not? Why doesn't it? Perhaps because it serves another just a little bit better? Does this advance the human condition or merely the human tolerance of life? These are the questions one may only hope to live long enough to ponder.

You see, for some people (I'm one) the journey is way more important and interesting than the destination. — Tom Storm

Perhaps you seek the wrong destination, then. What made you seek what you do? Or even believe or want what you do? Your own human nature? Perhaps.. or perhaps it was your environment and upbringing. Does this world seem to be an ideal place for the best of experiences to be had and formed? The best of ideas and visions of ideal and real desires and pursuits of being both temporal and eternal? Does it?

You confuse the being with it's breath. An eclipse of the Sun with it's disappearance. A newborn's belief of a parent or guardian ceasing to exist due to hands covering the face. In the scope of theism, such philosophies are little more than the speaker becoming an infant in a game of celestial peek-a-boo. You don't have to believe in any of this wild speculation and possibility of course, but if you would choose to use such terms in a serious manner as if you do, well, be sure to know what they mean.

The way I see it there are a few options. Absent of sci-fi spookiness (religion) we'll call it two options. We'll continue as we are, barely getting by in our current diplomatic situations, perhaps they'll be small skirmishes that are quickly condemned due to atrocities denounced by all nations thus guiding our fleeting peaceful existence. Or someone will screw up big time and all out nuclear war will follow.. I'd like to believe it'd destroy all weapons and technology and current status quos (with the expense of most of humanity) .. but it probably wouldn't. Everyone has their secret weapons and bunkers to go to thus ensuring the systems that nearly destroyed everything can and will reform to exactly as they were if not greater. Being gifted with life is being sentenced to die anyhow, so there's always a perpetual aspect of "being screwed" regardless. It just depends on how pleasurable the experience will be before then. Or.. perhaps not? But that's forbidden on these forums, absent of technological mumbo jumbo.

God is already dead. — Fooloso4

Oh but of course. Because if this were to be false... we surely are. And that's not something the mind wishes to comprehend. So it won't. Nothing wrong with such a perspective in the grand scheme of things. Surprises are after all, the spice of life.

Nietzsche himself predicts years of bloodshed noting that the entire system of Western Europe is predicated on Christian values and codes. — Tom Storm

Christian values, are essentially democracy. Giving people, who have no right or reason to have such a freedom, the ability to live and rule alongside those who do. "Salvation". Thoroughly abused, as history shows. Aka "liars".

Theism often seems to behave as barbarism on crystal meth. — Tom Storm

See above, liars. There is no less hesitancy for a soldier of fortune to kill an unarmed person he has been indoctrinated to perceive as a threat under the guise of "God's will" than there is under the guise of "national interest", both have been set in such a way they interconnect with the only intrinsic and universal plea men of all walks of life are capable to understand. that being self-interest and survival.

If you're ill or injured, pain can sometimes be the only thing to inform you something's not quite right. If it becomes merely a vague "numbness" of no severity or actual discomfort, especially if it doesn't scale up like biological pain does.. well, is that really safe? — Outlander

You can't "edit out" human nature, without resulting in either a passive animal or monotonous robot. Do you really think, if this results in the success you envision, those rich and often less-inclined toward human well being will let it continue toward the masses? Why would they? You would simply usher in an age of Greek Mythology and "gods" ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic").

We wouldn't know. If God wants to be three people, or one, or several thousand, that's wonderful. Meanwhile we're all still just ignorant people destined to die and furthermore have no idea what the heck we're really supposed to do or believe anyhow. I'm sure we'll be forgiven if we follow the golden rule, defend the positive virtues that derive what we know to be positive experiences, and stand against and defeat the negative virtues that derive what we know to be negative experiences, regardless of where fate places us.

Without the molecular signature of experience below hedonic zero, there can be no more suffering. It's hard to imagine, I know. — David Pearce

What of the quote "Some of the worst things in my life never even happened" by Mark Twain. The mind is more than malleable enough to deliver levels and depths of suffering on par with physical torture. How will gene editing make us feel toward tragedy, such as death, etc? If we no longer even have the ability to be distraught at that which is tragic.. is this really progress toward humanity? If you're ill or injured, pain can sometimes be the only thing to inform you something's not quite right. If it becomes merely a vague "numbness" of no severity or actual discomfort, especially if it doesn't scale up like biological pain does.. well, is that really safe?

I've heard testimonies of people who became addicted to strong opiate painkillers, some by major surgery, some out of recreation. The pleasure rewired their body so greatly that when they had to come off of them cold turkey it was described as "the worse pain imaginable" as if "[one's] bones were being crushed into dust" throughout the entirety of their body. What if gene-editing doesn't remove suffering but simply re-calibrates it in an unfavorable way?

As you may have gathered, I'm a "better the devil you know" kind of guy when it comes to these matters.. a keeper of Pandora's Box, if you will.

For context, consider the previous ethical dilemma of causing the rape of 1 woman in order to prevent the rape of 5 women — Cartesian trigger-puppets

What on Earth are you even trying to begin to talk about? Cool name btw, was wondering where it came from/what it meant to you?

A criminal action is a criminal action and will be neutralized and/or punished to the fullest extent of the law. Any person who does not believe this is a savage and will be punished.. heh, even if they try to duck out and think death will save them.. I am proud to say, this is not so.

No one exists in the future. — Andrew4Handel

Oh but apparently your truths and ideals do. This is encouraging, at least to a discernible degree.

If that's what you wish, let it be so. However! If you're willing to open up this back and forth toward a non-biased third party (myself at first, and of course any who wish to join, let us do so.)

What is your point, refuted or not, and what is his? Philosophy and yes even the most strict of disciplines, science itself, is about making mistakes and then learning from them. With this in mind, will you not continue?

Always! Now weather or not to you in said snapshot of circumstance.. is the question that many attempt to define such definitions upon/

Your views have been found acceptable, and you are free to go. — bongo fury

Oh, if only! A molecule of plague left untreated is as good as an entire world of it, removing circumstantial factors such as state of being and time. No, I'm in it for the long haul I'm afraid. And so are you now, whether knowingly or not.

... and is that one colour, or one each? — bongo fury

Assuming everyone's senses are calibrated the same.. it's one color. Merely different names or words (sounds) to describe it. And even if they weren't, it still is the same properties of what makes what we can perceive as different colors.. so would still be semantics. Kind of like how a door can be both an entry and exit while still never not being a door. It would seem as if you or the viewpoint your espousing attempts to argue that if someone uses a door for a single purpose (entry or exit) it is somehow not a door?

I've always viewed semantics as a distraction from real philosophy. No more than the concept of viewing one of two people arguing the same premise in two different languages, being any more or less correct or incorrect.

If I cut both of you, and you bleed, whatever word, phrase, or as it really is "sound" you assign to the color we all see, is not relevant. The lone exception being if the conical rods in your ocular system (eyes) are deficient or otherwise altered.

Perhaps as a cultural or social custom certain colors are either darker or lighter as far as common appearance. Then, of course, "your" color, that is to say your idea and preconceptions of said color, will be either of a slightly darker or slightly lighter hue than mine. That is about all there is to it.

↪Outlander
yes man-made systems. — Thinking

So, necessary? No. However if you have two places, one with law and order and one with rampant street crime, theft, looming war both civil and external, and no time at all for peace and being alone with one's thoughts.. well, where would you want to live? That's probably why you can live as a king in some countries where in others you're barely middle class with the same net worth.

Necessary is a dirty word. All a human needs as a necessity is air, food, water, shelter, and nominal entertainment to avoid insanity. All of which can be achieved being strapped down on a laboratory table. Of course, this is not ideal. Furthermore, when one sees what another has, if greater, one devalues or perhaps some would say begins to accurately assess one's own less-than-ideal (another dirty word) circumstance, and will no longer be content and thus require or "need" more. So as you can see, it's complicated. Folks want what they don't need, and so need what they don't want. Curious really.

You say the transhumanist vision “scares” you? Why exactly? — David Pearce

While I can't speak for Olivier, I can offer a plausible reason. Unlimited (or perhaps enhanced) pleasure could lead to unlimited (or enhanced) suffering, something that cannot be experienced as of yet. A person or animal can be tortured yes, horrendously even. I recall an old "king" used a method of coating his enemies in sugary substances, tying them to a boat, and sending them adrift in the ocean to be devoured, slowly, by insect larvae and vermin. Quite horrible, as were other forms of torture but nevertheless the human body has a limit to what it can take and will either shut down or succumb to traumatic insanity, thus alleviating the suffering. What Olivier's concern may be is that while you, as a decent person trying to help humanity by creating unlimited or constant pleasure without end, may be abused by those who wish to do the opposite and instead create unlimited and never-ending torment. As you say, the Darwinian life is a nightmare, and so, those who succumbed to it are probably more or less in charge. You wish to give them an indestructible sword, forged out of good belief and benevolence as well as the idea it will always be used for such, but he and others would protest that this is foolish.

Also, there are humane ways of harvesting animals for meat (instant kill). Outlawing of meat is unlikely to be agreed upon by any majority anytime soon.

For me, love is the ultimate sacrifice. It is the surrender of all of yourself - your health, your safety, your vulnerabilities, ego etc anything you could possibly offer for the well-being and prosperity of another. It is cherishing of someone or something with such high regard that you would put it all on the line to protect said thing. — Benj96

You're not incorrect. However, most love is myopic and counter-productive when espoused with primal emotion and in line with "one's jollies". What I mean by that is that which ultimately benefits you, emotionally, the idea of "sacrifice" is false, as doing so ultimately brings you a form of joy, pleasure, and euphoria, you would not experience if you had not done so. This lesser, youthful form is what I would call jollies. Only a proxy of, the illusion of not, merely looking out for number one, the self. Protection or sacrifice toward that or who elevates the self and provides for ones primal needs, is hardly a sacrifice at all, merely another vacuous self interest.

If you sincerely care for the well-being of a child for example, you will not allow them to do what is counterproductive to their own well-being and overall progression simply because it makes them happy or what they believe is their own well-being and prosperity. If as you say, you cherish someone or something, you will set aside your self-serving interests (requited admiration, short-term happiness or bliss) for something far greater. If you are not willing to do this, to be sad yourself, or witness that which is cherished to be in a temporarily sad or less-successful state in order to ensure a much less myopic and grander form of well-being, well, you are and have never not been in love, but with yourself.

Compare to Socrates' famous saying: "the only thing I know, is that I know nothing". The entire story of humanity and innovation and discovery is about people believing things that were wrong, and then finding it out later. In a world still ravaged by suffering, ill-will, and contempt, why would this stop anytime soon?

The ignorant man believes that he is wise and knows all there is or at least all he needs to know. Not to be confused with the diligent scholar who knows he knows more than he would have without his academic pursuits and perhaps more than most.

A wise man believes there is more to know and more that is not yet understood. A mystic also believes this, yet seeks to narrow down, at least to a degree, where such knowledge can be found.

Where does pleasure from from? Does animal pleasure count? Why wouldn't animal suffering then? Animals won't kill themselves off, so what exactly are you proposing here. Why wouldn't life just re-create itself from whatever means it did in the first place? How can you be so sure life doesn't exist on other planets and so requires extermination there as well? Shouldn't we continue life so we can strive to become technologically advanced enough to exterminate all life as we know it across the entire universe? (I'm assuming that's your silent motive here :wink:)

It is a bit ironic you mention that computer was invented without any competition — IuriiVovchenko

I didn't mean without controlled, civil competition, a far cry from the days of cavemen and all out war. Curious times those days were. Who's to say what their purpose was in human history and why God allowed such monsters to rise to power, all we know is to avoid such atrocities in the future. After all, "when evil sees itself, it shall die".

Noted philosophers? After my initial introduction (from my favorite book "Philosophy for Dummies", largely mentioning Plato, Socrates, etc.) I tended to avoid reading works of others, If I come up with something worthwhile and "oh wow that sounds like what so and so says", all I want to be able to say is "How curious, never read 'em."

I wouldn't cast the die so quickly however, as far as the main argument for control being ethics. Do you think the inventor of the computer or Internet just "did it real fast" in between fighting off his fellow man and bashing them and getting bashed over the head? History tells us quite another tale. In fact, it would seem those who would stand steadfast by brute strength and domination over his fellow man when he can do so from his own might, if allowed to, would remain in primordial rags equipped with primordial weapons such as clubs and other blunt instruments. Whereas the thinker, who has no desire to dominate his fellow man but by output of his benevolent and sometimes innovative works that would help all mankind progress, and so would be dominated by such brutes without external intervention, clothes mankind is progress and prosperity. So I would ask you now, which of these is truly the weaker and pitiful amongst the two? By merely answering through the Internet, and on the computer, inventions that were forged by brain not brawn, the answer would appear to be quite clear.

Of course, control can lead to perpetual chaos, the kind that could never be achieved without control or civility if you will, alone. Perhaps these inventions made to benefit mankind will instead by usurped by the same brute force and chaos they sought to prevent or make irrelevant, and result in the perpetual enslavement of mankind. Such as the scientific formula that spawned the nuclear bomb. How ironic. If not tragic. Though I suppose, if those who choose or perhaps must live this way wish to make their move, it's better they do so now than before the brilliant may create something of much greater potential and destructive magnitude. How curious life here on Earth is.

Even chaos is a system. Everything we know, believe, or desire is the result of what is gathered by our senses and processed by our brain, neither of which are infallible to distortion, be it internal or external (bias, trickery or deception).

Or are you referring to man-made systems such as society and manners, educational systems, law and order, etc.?

Systems of progression are generally helpful. For example, someone who's never managed a supermarket of any size would probably be terribly inefficient or even completely incompetent performing the job of regional manager of a supermarket chain. While someone who has extensive knowledge and experience in doing so would be wasting their efforts managing a small corner store. You start small, become proficient, then progress to the next level. The core principle behind progression is not really a man-made system as it's found all across the natural world but many man-made systems incorporate it if are not derived from it altogether.

It's hard to be any more specific with such a broad term so open to interpretation imo. There's always room for improvement I'd imagine. Beyond that times change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. If a system is not adaptable, dynamic, or flexible, one may arise one morning to find it has gone the way of the dinosaurs.. or Blockbuster, for example. :grin:

Wouldn't this create two classes of humans, dividing us, ie. enhanced and naturals? They will be smarter and more blissful yes, but what's to stop them from becoming incredibly stronger as well? Won't the stronger group (transhumans) oppress the other? How do we know "transformation" won't become mandatory? Take the pandemic, there is talk of non-vaccinated persons becoming a threat to public safety. Who's to say the natural human form won't be declared a threat by the enhanced transhumans due to its tendency to pick up diseases and be put into camps to live as the savage relics of a time now past that they are? Wouldn't this halt or alter evolution entirely, denying us the beauty and potential of what nature has to offer, the most significant being what created you and allowed you to know and believe all you do? Perhaps your naturally evolved form will solve this or allow you to come up with even better ideas. What would you say to convince those who hold these both non-religious and non-bioconservative views?

Echoing concern, if there is technological enhancement, won't this be vulnerable to hacking (smart cars can be hacked and controlled, brakes disabled, etc.) or man-made or natural EMPs? Wouldn't this device allow a transhuman to be murdered or "disabled" with no evidence?

Also, where does one draw the line between a human with significant technological/genetic enhancements, a true cyborg or laboratory experiment, and a mere robot/non-human abomination?

Best,

As Einstein said, "it's all relative". Nothing is perfect or absolute, only a fool would go about life with such a predisposition. However, some things are more rational or rather are closer to what one expects or demands of reality and the world around them than others. Knowledge, science, and logic has always been about testing the limits of pragmatism, or rather living by it, and seeking and testing it alongside long-held beliefs and ideas. Some theories produce greater works than others, this is the scientific process and perhaps the essence of pragmatism and maybe even ingenuity or possibly life itself. Who knows. Hm.. some may even say, the only non-rational decision one can make is choosing to blindly abide by, that is to say never deviate or rather consider the possibility of deviating from, what was rational or otherwise has worked in the past.

Again, who knows? That one shot you take in the dark may strike a target that is not present in the light of what is known or understood. Is this not how all invention and innovation came to be?

We live in a junk culture and food era... — javi2541997

I would argue we live in the "set it and forget it" age. No it started with just turkeys. Then it expanded to children (video games and TV/V-chip parenting). Then commerce (order nearly anything whilst sitting on your couch and get it delivered to your doorstep in no time at all). Then social interaction as a whole (social media, status updates, online dating, etc.). Now finally it may reach the last frontier, human anatomy and biology itself. I always knew that Ron Popeil was the Antichrist. I just never could prove it.

Why waste time learning anything? Just Google it bro. Why learn a skill or trade or how to do anything of use? Just call the guy, man. Etc., etc.

There is no world court, no impartial and non-biased scrutiny. — baker

Oh but there's greater. It just hasn't been implemented here yet. So, yeah you're right.

Or maybe that's an idle fantasy the losers tell themselves. Perhaps homo homini lupus is simply as good as it gets, and that's it.
Sorry, I'd like to believe you; I used to think that way as well, until recent events made me radically reconsider my stance. — baker

Could be. So circumstance dictates your reality. And if something were to work in your favor or ever begin to support the premise, you'd jump ideological ships yet again. Yeah.. that's typically how it goes here. Perhaps, as the song goes, we're all just dust in the wind. A man should be firmly grounded in something, even as the tides rise and fall. But to each their own.

Hate or hatred rather is merely the normal reaction experienced when one perceives something or someone that either has, is currently, may, or will, take away, disrupt, or corrupt what one loves or is in love with, be it life, love or anything in between. Unfortunately, most cases are terribly vain and counterproductive. What they often inevitably result in at least.

So might makes right. Some people become the winners, some the losers. — baker

It makes right if it benefits you. Conquest, besting or outwitting another, or otherwise doing something you would not wish to be done to yourself, etc. If not, it's wrong. Criminal activity, terrorism, cheating, etc. Hypocrisy is a pledge one takes and a lifestyle one embraces, one that can be sustained with adequate numbers and resources, but if ever placed under impartial and non-biased scrutiny won't stand for much.

We've all won things, we've all lost things. Unless the winner decides to flip the game board over, perhaps out of fear, you just try, try again. Or perhaps you mean in the context of peoples and nations? Eh, the same applies. Unless you live in a dictatorship, of course. Which is the equivalent of flipping the game board over after a single victory.

It goes without saying that the winners are happy, convinced they are living worthwhile, meaningful lives.
And that the losers, the underdogs are not. But they still live, somehow, they keep going. — baker

Right so peoples and nations. A man without a conscious is no man at all, just another beast of the Earth. They will busy themselves with worldly pleasures, material pursuits, and other vain pastimes until they expire, at which point another will surely take their place. Going through the motions of life absent of a conscious or empathy for one's fellow man, what do you have? A purposeless, transient being who knows only to steal, kill, and destroy. One who will never truly know the finer things in life that do not come with a price tag or physical value, for he will be too busy defending that which does, with mind, body, and soul. A life with little more compassion outside of that which serves the self.

Sure in a war scenario the losing party may experience great hardship, perhaps constant torment or even torture if not death. This is unfortunate. Not much redemption can be found in such a case. Save for the existence of a God and the knowledge, though often fleeting, that one will be rewarded for his good deeds and sacrifice, and so others punished for their misdeeds and disregard for human life. In which case, regardless of absolute existence, one knows they're right and with every breath and ounce of motivation they can muster, serve a cause greater than any enemy force on Earth. For the enemy will seek to demoralize, by refusing to be so, you fight the good fight, and show the enemy that the very enemy of God, is the man in the mirror.

Besides. A cycle of violence is exactly that- a cycle. It doesn't end. Power is a pendulum, not a single stone tablet unchangeable. No winners have never been losers, and no losers have never been winners. Why would either have a motivation to make war if this was not true? We see "reality" as set in stone and able to be fully comprehended when in fact it is mere circumstance, a snapshot or photograph of how the state of affairs happens to be in that moment of time. Sort of like how we thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and those who disagreed were charged with heresy. Or like how the idea of men flying through the skies, communicating messages halfway around the world in an instant, or breathing underwater was pure and utter insanity. Things change. Those who are unprepared, complacent, or set in their ways, have the most to lose. Pride comes before the fall.