Q: Why Won’t Diplomacy Ever Achieve World Peace?

Answer: VIDEO GAMES. The evidence is all there.

Have you guys ever played any of the Civilization series, or Spore, or any similar game? These games are all about world domination. They’re all about coming to some sort of stasis in the world, achieving some sort of universal balance. This usually happens one of two ways.

First, and easiest, you can just kill everyone. Really hard. Really fast. You’re the human, playing against computers. Chances are you’ve set it on a rather easy setting, and if you haven’t, you’re experienced enough with the game to win. The easiest and fastest way to win in Civilization is to build up an army and conquer the world. Even when conquering the world in Civilization, sure, you negotiate sometimes. But there’s usually an ulterior motive. You’re going to backstab Stalin when you’re done getting all of his spice.

This dude has no chance.

Some people try diplomacy. It ends up sometimes working. It’s a long, hard road, with many sacrifices, and your civilization ends up less territory, less expansion, less population. You achieve world peace, sure, but have you really won?

World peace truly existed, I think, when no one actually knew each other. Way before England tried to go and kill everyone and take over the world with their tea and meat-guns, everyone on the world lived in isolation. There were warring tribes, sure, and perhaps our primitivity was more prone to warfare, but if there was any chance for world peace, I think it would have had to be then. There was hardly a reason to war back then aside from greed. I think modern humanity comforts itself with thoughts that war now has much more moral basis.

We’re just killing because we have to, right guys?