Top Ten Things Aliens Would Find Weird About Humans
Fighting Wars to Achieve Peace
Countries often perceive others’ defensive posture as an offensive warning. This phenomenon is called the security dilemma, where actions taken by one state to enhance its security threaten other nations. This leads to a spiral of hostility and potential conflict. Security dilemma triggers a constant power competition, where no state can ever feel entirely secure. Scholars have long contended that, despite a state’s non-aggressive intentions driven solely by security concerns, its military buildup may still be perceived as aggressive by others.
Many factors drive countries to enhance their defense capabilities. They primarily do so to secure safer national security. However, it’s sometimes a response to geopolitical tensions. Global and regional conflicts, such as Russia’s war in Ukraine, and shifting international alliances often lead countries to increase their defense spending and improve military cooperation to address new or persistent threats. Additionally, national defense forces are often among the most capable first responders during natural disasters like floods, earthquakes, and pandemics, providing essential aid and logistical support both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, the defense industry is a significant source of jobs and economic activity. Military research and development often lead to technological advancements that benefit civilian sectors as well, such as communications and medicine. Moreover, better defense capability boosts economic growth, militaries help secure critical trade routes and ensure the availability of resources, which are vital for a country’s economic well-being, and a strong military can enhance a nation’s standing on the world stage, strengthening its position in international affairs and making it a more desirable ally. Countries often align with military alliances, like NATO, for collective defense, where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. However, other countries view this action as an offensive warning, triggering them to establish a stronger defensive posture.
Furthermore, leaders might see war as the only option when diplomacy fails and the other country is not willing to compromise. Diplomacy and compromise between two or more countries are the core essence that holds peace. However, when these factors are threatened, one country must counterattack in order to secure its own country’s safety and peace. War is often described as the failure of diplomacy, as diplomacy is the process of resolving conflicts through peaceful negotiation, and war is a resort to violence when negotiation fails. The reason why diplomacy fails is due to the belief that the only effective defense is a preemptive offense. This plan has evolved untill today without effective political oversight or diplomatic input. Then, as now, military-to-military interactions within alliances sometimes occurred without adequate supervision by civilian authorities, leading to unmanageable policy disconnects that were revealed only when war actually broke out. Discounting the possibility of war and not wanting it are not enough to prevent it from happening; strengthening the capacity for diplomacy will.
Real peace is not the absence of war but the presence of justice, conditions that make violence unnecessary. When nations substitute dialogue with domination, they manufacture obedience, not harmony. The moral logic collapses: one cannot teach compassion through killing or build trust through fear. The persistence of this paradox reveals that humanity’s problem is not lack of intelligence but lack of imagination. Humans know how to stop wars, yet cannot imagine power without them. Until they redefine security as cooperation rather than control, they will keep mistaking temporary quiet for true peace. Not every war is born of arrogance or impulse. Some, like the fight against tyranny or terrorism, rise from necessity and the defense of justice. But the wars that haunt history, the ones we call mistakes only after the ruins cool, are those driven by emotional desire rather than ethics, fear rather than reason. Humanity’s tragedy is not that it sometimes must fight, but that it so often chooses to when it didn’t have to.
Ending Poverty Through Consumerism
The modern economy tends to treat growth and consumption as equal. It defines prosperity by how much people spend. As wealth inequality grows, individuals tend to consume for status, not for needs or necessities. (frontiers.org). Meanwhile, brands market morality, “buy this, save that”, convincing consumers that shopping is activism. Yet low wages, labor exploitation, and weak taxation remain untouched; the system profits from the very conditions it claims to fix. The wealthy design ethical goods, the middle class buys them to feel clean, and the poor stay producers, never beneficiaries. Studies show inequality drives both status spending and debt, forcing people to sacrifice essentials for symbols. (Frontiers.org)
This is consumerism’s greatest illusion: poverty alleviation sold as a lifestyle. Consumption inequality grows sloer than income inequality (Labour Market Research, 2024), yet spending becomes emptier, more luxurious, more debt, and less well-being. By turning generosity into commerce, humanity mistakes transaction for transformation. Real change begins not with another eco-friendly tote bag but with structural justice, fair wages, equitable taxes, and opportunity.
Saving the Planet by Consuming More Green Tech
As the years pass by, climate change and global pollution intensify. Many companies and organizations are bringing up solutions to mitigate this issue; however, they still “consume” to rectify environmental pollution. Most proposed solutions tend to converge on this point is to make green consumption or sustainable growth. Although it might reduce waste, pollution will never stop destroying Earth unless consumption stops. Some critics argue that green consumption does not fundamentally alter existing consumption patterns; it merely rebrands consumption in a different color while reducing only a fraction of its impact.
Due to GDP and corporate earnings are structurally tied to ever-increasing consumption, a decline in consumption, central to degrowth, becomes politically perilous and strains the viability of the existing economic framework. Politically, degrowth represents instability; therefore, eco-friendly consumption is the most suitable solution. Humans have grown accustomed to technological optimism, the belief that technological advancement alone can absolve them of moral responsibility.
The production of electric vehicles, solar panels, and sustainable fashion remains heavily dependent on the extraction of lithium, cobalt, and nickel. According to the IEA’s research in 2023, obtaining a single ton of lithium requires nearly two million liters of water, a process that has already intensified water depletion and soil contamination in Chile’s Atacama Desert. Paradoxically, consumers often purchase three metal cups merely to avoid the guilt of discarding a plastic one. In this sense, green guilt is frequently masked by green shopping, revealing a psychological tendency to seek moral relief through additional consumption rather than through meaningful behavioral change. Real sustainability comes from restriction, not efficiency.
Living Longer but Feeling Less Alive
Medical, nutritional, and technological advancements have increased the overall lifespan to its highest point. However, social isolation, deteriorating mental health, and lapses in attention had significantly dropped objective happiness. OECD data indicate that levels of loneliness among older adults in advanced economies have been on a steady rise since the 2010s. Humans succeed in increasing the quantity of life rather than the quality of life time.
Most people spend 6 to 7hours a day looking at screens. Some of them exist in a state of disconnection, even as they inhabit an illusion of being connected. A longevity society is merely one in which survival has been extended; it does not guarantee a deeper or more meaningful life. Advances in medical technology may prolong biological time, but they do not inherently restore human meaning. Without the renewal of social bonds, the quality of time, and a sense of purpose, a longer life risks becoming profoundly empty. Humans can fight death, but they have already lost to the meaning of life.
Connecting the world but isolating people
Social Networking Sites (SNS) connect the world by bridging geographic, political, and economic borders, allowing people to communicate and share information globally. However, SNS isolates people by displacing authentic, face-to-face interactions and fostering a false sense of connection through superficial online relationships. This paradox of social media means platforms designed to connect people can, with excessive use, lead to greater feelings of loneliness.
Social Networking Sites have created isolation through substituting real-world interaction by making people spend excessive time online, reducing opportunities for in-person socializing, which includes essential human experiences like eye contact and physical presence. Another factor that isolates people is that it curates content and comparison. Users are often exposed to unrealistic or curated portrayals of others’ lives, leading to feelings of inadequacy, self-doubt, and low self-esteem. This constant comparison can exacerbate existing insecurities.
While SNS can also help individuals connect and find support systems, especially during times of physical separation, the potential for negative impacts on perceived social isolation is a significant concern related to excessive or unbalanced use.
Teaching creativity through standardized tests
In a world where creativity is important, and education aims to improve students’ creativity and critical thinking skills in problem solving, the education system makes standardized test that has one determined answer, and transfers the answer to a score. The problem with standardized tests it only have one answer, require memorization, and even short answer responses are judged based on the grader’s bias. In this way, students’ creativity is judged by subjective criteria, when judging creativity itself doesn’t make sense.
The education system demands quantifiable results. Questions that require memorization and a certain way of thinking can never make students think critically. Creativity and critical thinking are learning about the sense that transcends rules. Creativity matters because it drives innovation and problem-solving, enhances personal growth and emotional well-being, and is a highly in-demand skill for career success. It enables individuals and organizations to be more adaptable, overcome challenges, and find new ways to approach tasks and situations.
Demanding equality while worshiping fame and wealth
The world pursues equality, yet idolizes fame and wealth simultaneously. This highlights a significant societal contradiction and tension.
Modern culture, especially the media on social networking platforms, often glorifies celebrities and the rich. This associates their status with success, happiness, and power. Some people are motivated to be like them, not for the hard work they put in, but for the lifestyle they are living and the recognition they receive. At the same time, there are strong movements and philosophical arguments that fight for greater equality, social justice, and fairness. The tension arises because the accumulation of immense wealth and fame often inherently involves or contributes to significant inequality. A society that praises equality theoretically should work against extreme disparities in wealth and influence, rather than celebrating them. Various philosophical and religious traditions have warned against the worship of material possessions and emphasized the importance of humility, generosity, and focusing on humanity over money for a long time.
Ultimately, the dynamic points to a widespread social disconnect, where abstract ideals of fairness conflict with deeply ingrained cultural desires for individual success as defined by material gain and public recognition.
Creating jobs that destroy the future
Modern economies define success by GDP and employment growth, not by what kind of jobs are being created. Unemployment rate comes as a bigger threat to politicians than ecological collapse. Thus, they subsidize industries even though they are harmful to the environment. Short-term political cycles reward immediate job numbers over long-term sustainability. Humans applaud job creation in coal, plastic, or arms industries as a form of economic recovery, while ignoring that those same jobs are destroying the future job field. The system celebrates activity itself, factories running, markets humming, without asking what they produce. It’s a self-destructive feedback loop: work to live, live to consume, consume to destroy the planet, then work again to fix it.
Real employment value should be measured by its contribution to ecological and social stability, not just income. Transitioning to sustainable work requires redefining growth and integrating climate cost into labor metrics. Without ethical frameworks, the future of work becomes the work that ends the future rather than extending it..
Defending freedom by restricting it
In a democratic society, the concept of defending freedom by restricting it works by placing limits on individual liberties to protect the greater collective freedom, security, and rights of others. It involves the philosophical and legal justification. This argues that some restrictions are necessary to prevent the subversion or destruction of the very framework that guarantees freedom. One’s freedom can clash with another’s; therefore, freedom is not absolute. Restrictions help ensure that the enjoyment of freedom is distributed among many people.
In essence, the logic is that a society without any restrictions would quickly devolve into a state where the strongest or most ruthless would use their unchecked freedom to oppress others, leading to a net loss of freedom for the majority. Therefore, some limitations are imposed to preserve the legal and social framework that makes general freedom possible.
Building borders in a globalized world
Building in a globalized world has therefore created many paradoxes. Growing global connections result in increasing physical and virtual fortification of borders. This trend is often referred to as the return of border walls, driven by concerns over security, economic pressures, and migration. It contradicts the aspect of a borderless world. Though globalization allows for the free movement of goods, capital, and people across borders, the number of border walls has increased sixfold since the end of the Cold War. This evidences conflict between the global movement and the ongoing desire for states to keep control of their territory and manage who enters.
Border fortifications often divert migration flows to more hazardous routes. They are criticized for being inhumane responses that completely disregard the causes of displacement. In essence, border building in a globalized world does not amount to a denial of global interdependence. Instead, it is a contradictory attempt by states to manage the implications and seek out control in a period of dramatic alteration in which they can feel exposed.
By: Jiwon Park
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
About the Author
