Taking a look at world peace critically
I wrote this thinking about how people think that world peace is something worth moving towards in a lot academic spheres. It is being used to justify modern continued injustice and i have a lot of problems with that. I think that this more 'peaceful' world isn't that great of one if it comes at the sacrifice of our many current problems we face today. I look at few major academic theorists like Ian Morris and Pinker. I was thinking of actualy discussing both in more detail but i just gave their wiki sums for their books though i have read them becaause i was a little lazy. i should change that in a possible follow up but i wanted to hear what people thought about this before that. https://diogenesoftoronto.wordpress.com/2018/06/05/a-closer-look-at-world-peace/
This is a pretty galaxy brain take. Wars make people pretty unhappy. Happiness, prosperity, and genuine flourishing generally require a lack of war. Historically war was even worse, because the nice modern norms about not massacring or enslaving enemy civilians didn't apply (though of course these norms varied by time period and region.)
I would argue that peace through strength can exist, but it generally only applies internally. A large, successful empire is going to have a nice, peaceful and prosperous heartland but will likely have conflicts on its borders. Unless you're Japan and can just chill on your island (plus or minus some failed invasions of Korea. And discounting everything post 1900 of course.) Even in the modern era, part of the reason the international rules against war are effective is the threat of a superpower putting economic sanctions on you or just wrecking your shit.
Democratic peace theory argues that democracies don't fight each other, which doesn't preclude colonial wars. However, a 2003 article in the journal of conflict resolution argues that democracies are also less likely to engage in colonial wars, when accounting for certain other factors.ยน Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall, so non-University people probably can't access it.
In regards to your Jason Hickel quote, it's interesting to note that this capital outflow is basically entirely driven by asia, most of the outflow happened post 2000, and has been happening during a period of significant economic growth in developing countries.
JSTOR is one of the few places that allows people to have a free account and access to a certain number (I think three at last count --Edit: NEVERMIND SIX. WE UP TO SIX BABY. I have no idea when that happened. That's NEW!) of free articles at a time. You revoke access to an article when you want to read a new one, basically. Might be limited to three-per-month or something too.
Point is! JSTOR links should be fine for non-University people if they're willing to set up a free account. That's how I've slowly kept up reading on a lot of nerdy historical topics over the years without necessarily dropping the $80+ or whatever the membership costs these days.