Ask Science
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
view the rest of the comments
Blowing shit up is always easier than understanding the shit you're going to blow up.
No, it really isn't!
Yes, it really is!
Easier, not takes less absolute energy.
Than what do you precisely mean by "easier"?
What else could it mean in this context? It means less mental exhertion and thought. You know, the things understanding requires.
Um, yes it is. This is a very well known general truism. Destruction is almost always easier than creation. For example which do you think is easier, painting a complex painting, or destroying a complex painting?
Certainly spilled milk can't be put back in the milk jug, but I don't think that proves destruction is easier than creation rather it underlines that what makes destruction devastating is that it cannot be reversed in the way the construction of something can.
My point is, why do you narrowly frame the choice as either destroying a complex painting or creating one?
I think history would beg to differ.
How so?
Centuries upon centuries of tribalism and war instead of diplomatic missions. Do ... do you even know the history of humanity??
There's a reason people call modern times the most peaceful time in history ... while there are wars and genocides still going on.
I did not say that war and conflict don't happen, I am asking you to prove that in a general way they are more efficient than adaption, co-operation, co-existence or simple non-engagement and avoidance are as strategies.
It isn't more efficient. That's why I will always call humans dumb and arrogant. That's not the argument being made, either. The argument was that it is easier to destroy, not more efficient.