SS

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As opposed to ten billion souls in a regimented society swimming in a goo of industrial and agricultural effluent heated by global warming? Or, your descendant could be like Daniel Boone, carving his own future on a virtually empty planet...

It would take two or three generations to reach your frontier bliss. Of course, you and I would both be wiped out on day one, since we live in major cities.

[Ike99]

Most people are conditioned against actually killing each other. It's why such astonishing quantities of ammunition get fired off in the inner city -- and so few actual fatalities result.

People killing people is not a natural activity. If anything we condition people to kill people in our societies by the violence portrayed in movies, books, TV, graphic video games, etc. With all this still it is necessary to condition soldiers to kill other people.

It's also why certain groups which are less thoroughly conditioned -- career criminals, nomadic herders -- make remarkably effective soldiers.

These types of people make effective soldiers because they have the ability to overlook human suffering and kill without hesitation or remourse. But in almost every case this is a graduated, learned activity.

Not something natural.

For example a criminal going to a store shooting a clerk who hesitates to give him the money. In almost every single case as this if one looks into the criminals background he will have a history of escalating violence. On up until he kills the clerk in the store.

As I say, it's an oversimplification to say 'war is bad.' Waging war is a natural human activity. One might as well say building houses is bad.

Of course war is bad. Why is it an oversimplification to say so?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

Most people are conditioned against actually killing each other. It's why such astonishing quantities of ammunition get fired off in the inner city -- and so few actual fatalities result.

People killing people is not a natural activity. If anything we condition people to kill people in our societies by the violence portrayed in movies, books, TV, graphic video games, etc. With all this still it is necessary to condition soldiers to kill other people.

It's also why certain groups which are less thoroughly conditioned -- career criminals, nomadic herders -- make remarkably effective soldiers.

These types of people make effective soldiers because they have the ability to overlook human suffering and kill without hesitation or remourse. But in almost every case this is a graduated, learned activity.

Not something natural.

For example a criminal going to a store shooting a clerk who hesitates to give him the money. In almost every single case as this if one looks into the criminals background he will have a history of escalating violence. On up until he kills the clerk in the store.

As I say, it's an oversimplification to say 'war is bad.' Waging war is a natural human activity. One might as well say building houses is bad.

Of course war is bad. Why is it an oversimplification to say so?

If people killing people is not a natural activity, why does warfare become more endemic as one moves backward along the evolutionary scale of civilization?

It's peace that's unnatural. No healthy pre-modern culture indulged in it for any extended period.

It is we that are the anomaly. We are attempting (rather unsuccessfully) to engage in perpetual peace. This urge comes from four sources:

1. Christian teaching. That's what's largely behind Western mores -- and what's largely behind our perception of peace as a moral good.

2. The increasingly horrific nature of our wars. World Wars One and Two put a lot of people off their feed.

3. Our ability to wage genuinely devastating war at the drop of a hat. Note that this isn't quite as much of an innovation as it might appear. There are regions in the world today that are still deserts largely as a result of the work of the Mongols. Whole peoples that were exterminated to the last man. Amazing what you can do with simple hand tools...

4. The absurd imbalance of power. It's hard to accomplish anything of significance in the face of the fact that the United States has overwhelming military superiority. Warfare can only accomplish whatever the US is prepared to permit it to accomplish. Witness both Serbia's and Iraq's failed attempts at national aggrandizement.

However, to return to the original claim, none of these are 'natural' conditions. On the contrary, they are unnatural, artificial conditions. The 'natural' state would be perpetual, low-level, limited warfare. Sort of like gang warfare.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As opposed to ten billion souls in a regimented society swimming in a goo of industrial and agricultural effluent heated by global warming? Or, your descendant could be like Daniel Boone, carving his own future on a virtually empty planet...

It would take two or three generations to reach your frontier bliss. Of course, you and I would both be wiped out on day one, since we live in major cities.

Well, I could well be on the road. Fair chance.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Foggy

Interesting - ever thought about nukes are used? Ground bursts for
elimination of targets - airbursts to maximize damage - maybe Cobalt 60 enhanced weapons to kill every possible human in an area forever

Reminds me of Teller working out the various theoretically possible nuclear weapons around 1947.

One colleague recalls seeing his list on a blackboard along with the needed delivery system. 'Artillery shell, missile, aircraft, ship...'

The last one was 'backyard.' The idea behind the 'backyard bomb' is that you wouldn't need to take it anywhere: just set it off and it would kill whatever it was on the planet you wanted killed.

Sadly, Teller eventually had to admit that this last wouldn't work. The problem was that above a certain megatonnage, the destructive area of the blast wouldn't increase significantly: all that would happen would be that the chunk of atmosphere overhead would be accelerated into space at an increased velocity.

[ColinWright]

What would be interesting is to work out whether nuclear war would help or hinder the greenhouse effect.

On the one hand, you've got all those inveterate CO2 emitters being done away with, along with their infernal machines.

On the other hand, you've got a lot of simple heat being released, and quite a bit of greenery being incinerated. Of course, the greenery comes back -- but then so do the CO2 emitters.

There was the 'nuclear winter' theory. That was demonstrated to not have the long-term effects claimed -- but perhaps it would reverse the warming trend? In more ways than one -- after all, the necessary war would also greatly reduce the number of CO2 emitters.

We could get the answers to some of these questions by encouraging a limited exchange. Like between Pakistan and India, or Britain and France.

[desert]

However, to return to the original claim, none of these are 'natural' conditions. On the contrary, they are unnatural, artificial conditions. The 'natural' state would be perpetual, low-level, limited warfare. Sort of like gang warfare.

Instead of fighting on the battlefield, why not have countries decide their disputes by playing wargames? The national leaders could have a nice PBEM to see who gets that chunk of territory.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: desert

However, to return to the original claim, none of these are 'natural' conditions. On the contrary, they are unnatural, artificial conditions. The 'natural' state would be perpetual, low-level, limited warfare. Sort of like gang warfare.

Instead of fighting on the battlefield, why not have countries decide their disputes by playing wargames? The national leaders could have a nice PBEM to see who gets that chunk of territory.

I imagine the results would be happily accepted by the winners -- rejected by the losers.

That's what war does, you see. It forces people to accept outcomes they would otherwise reject.

[desert]

What about tactical shooters? And a result of using them to resolve disagreements, would be lag-free servers that can hold thousands of players.
 
Did you ever see a 1980s movie where two stupid CIA(?) agents stop a nuclear war, and at the end they play a boardgame with Soviet diplomats and win Eastern Europe?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

As opposed to ten billion souls in a regimented society swimming in a goo of industrial and agricultural effluent heated by global warming? Or, your descendant could be like Daniel Boone, carving his own future on a virtually empty planet...

It would take two or three generations to reach your frontier bliss. Of course, you and I would both be wiped out on day one, since we live in major cities.

Well, I could well be on the road. Fair chance.

Why do I get the feeling that every Wright Moving van has a secret compartment outfitted with an old blackpowder rifle, 20 lbs of powder, 10 lbs of shot, buckskins, coon cap, and enough cornmeal, coffee and pemmican to last a year?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: golden delicious




It would take two or three generations to reach your frontier bliss. Of course, you and I would both be wiped out on day one, since we live in major cities.

Well, I could well be on the road. Fair chance.

Why do I get the feeling that every Wright Moving van has a secret compartment outfitted with an old blackpowder rifle, 20 lbs of powder, 10 lbs of shot, buckskins, coon cap, and enough cornmeal, coffee and pemmican to last a year?

You forgot the Jim Beam. That's what the second fuel tank is for.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If people killing people is not a natural activity, why does warfare become more endemic as one moves backward along the evolutionary scale of civilization?

I would say forget warfare and go to a more visceral level. When are we more likely to kill? When motivated by our instincts or when acting at our most rational, unnatural level?

Killing each other is part and parcel of human behaviour. Has been since the dawn of the species. It is only recently- when we have been living in extremely contrived and unnatural conditions- that it has been possible to try to abolish violence. Notice the abject failure of these attempts.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: desert

What about tactical shooters? And a result of using them to resolve disagreements, would be lag-free servers that can hold thousands of players.

Did you ever see a 1980s movie where two stupid CIA(?) agents stop a nuclear war, and at the end they play a boardgame with Soviet diplomats and win Eastern Europe?

Again, there's nothing to force the loser to accept the result.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If people killing people is not a natural activity, why does warfare become more endemic as one moves backward along the evolutionary scale of civilization?

I would say forget warfare and go to a more visceral level. When are we more likely to kill? When motivated by our instincts or when acting at our most rational, unnatural level?

Killing each other is part and parcel of human behaviour. Has been since the dawn of the species. It is only recently- when we have been living in extremely contrived and unnatural conditions- that it has been possible to try to abolish violence. Notice the abject failure of these attempts.

There's also the point that legitimizing violence makes it possible to apply moral standards to it. See the mores regulating the limited warfare of the eighteenth century versus the barbarities that invariably seem to accompany the eruption of violence these days.

On another level, I recall an elderly newspaper columnist regretting the decline of the traditional fist fight. You see, men used to fight each other fairly regularly, and it was accepted. It also meant that society was able to impose rules, like no guns or knives. One would even have large urban brawls -- but no guns or knives. The phrase 'paddy wagon' comes from the large vehicles the police had to use to haul off all the contestants when Irish immigrants got going in their version of a block party -- but it was all fists. No guns or knives.

Earlier, one had the elaborate rules and customs governing dueling. Now, of course, fighting is right out -- and if you've got a gun or knife, by all means use it to gain an unfair advantage.

It's possible to make too much of the above -- but I think we'll do better accepting violence/war and establishing norms regarding the activities than we will if we just attempt to deny this aspect of our behavior.

[desert]

War is too expensive. Whats the point of wasting all that junk and money? We could always use swords and spears again, I guess.
 
I'm hoping for a nice, healthy interstellar colonization era. 
 
 

[Ike99]

On another level, I recall an elderly newspaper columnist regretting the decline of the traditional fist fight. You see, men used to fight each other fairly regularly, and it was accepted. It also meant that society was able to impose rules, like no guns or knives. One would even have large urban brawls -- but no guns or knives. The phrase 'paddy wagon' comes from the large vehicles the police had to use to haul off all the contestants when Irish immigrants got going in their version of a block party -- but it was all fists. No guns or knives.

Many times their were guns and knives/swords but there was always a sence of honor. That´s what is missing today that was present before.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: desert

War is too expensive. Whats the point of wasting all that junk and money? We could always use swords and spears again, I guess.

I'm hoping for a nice, healthy interstellar colonization era.

One could say the same about almost anything past about $4000.00 per capita per year. It's all unnecessary.

War -- unlike four-bedroom houses, mountain cabins, and new cars -- is exciting and interesting. It creates good stories, helps to address overpopulation, and stimulates technological development. Finally, where would we be without it? Want to play TOAW scenarios based on the mores of middle-class conspicuous consumption in the 1950's?

War's great stuff. Should involve only the participants, be voluntary, occur only in one's youth, involve about a 5% chance of a fatal outcome and about a 20% chance of an honorable but not grossly crippling wound, and consume about a year of one's life with perhaps a month of active danger.

Given those limitations, I'm all for it. In short, the institution needs to be improved, not abolished.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Ike99

On another level, I recall an elderly newspaper columnist regretting the decline of the traditional fist fight. You see, men used to fight each other fairly regularly, and it was accepted. It also meant that society was able to impose rules, like no guns or knives. One would even have large urban brawls -- but no guns or knives. The phrase 'paddy wagon' comes from the large vehicles the police had to use to haul off all the contestants when Irish immigrants got going in their version of a block party -- but it was all fists. No guns or knives.

Many times their were guns and knives/swords but there was always a sence of honor. That´s what is missing today that was present before.

There you go. And those duels produced remarkably few fatalities. Swords, though, tend to confer an advantage on the aristocracy. However, pistols at thirty yards is fairly random and considerably fairer than Russell Crowe challenging Woody Allen to fisticuffs.

Really, dueling with single shot, black powder pistols should be brought back. Upset? Well, either live with it or challenge your opponent. None of this nonsense with drive-by shootings and lawsuits.

[desert]

John Locke would weep if he could read this. Notice how there is no evidence of "war' until around the beginning of the Neolithic. And war would never help lower the population, unless you want to have another WW2, which you don't, because they make people lose their stomach for war. No one will fight a war just for the sake of letting off steam. War is for politics, money or land. If you look back far enough, you could include slaves. People are in favor of war until the casualties start to climb. Just look at the Iraq War, or the Vietnam War.
 
In my opinion, there could be a time when war is obsolete. Think of the Indus River valley.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: desert

John Locke would weep if he could read this. Notice how there is no evidence of "war' until around the beginning of the Neolithic.

? American Paleolithic tribes that engaged in warfare more or less continually. The Sioux, The Arapaho, The Crow, The Cheyenne, The Apache, The Paiute... The rest that come to mind were either neolithic or I know so little about them that I can't positively affirm that they fought all the time, but I've no knowledge of any tribe that actually avoided waging war.

Paleolithic cultures almost invariably practice warfare. The only exceptions are such 'refugee' cultures as the Bushmen and the Pygmies -- who themselves were produced when their forebears were driven out of more habitable areas by warfare -- and such groups as the Australian aborigines, who have to deal with an environment so inhospitable that staying alive is a full-time job. Given reasonable facilities and a wholesome childhood, however, paleolithic man goes at it hammer and tongs.

And war would never help lower the population, unless you want to have another WW2, which you don't, because they make people lose their stomach for war. No one will fight a war just for the sake of letting off steam.

Au contraire. The Mongol invasions halved the population of Iran. As to letting off steam, what the hell do you think we started the Spanish-American War for? The sugar?

War is for politics, money or land.

No. Often such motives are offered as justifications. However, absent a basic visceral desire for war itself, differences arising out of such motives can usually be settled non-violently. See, for example, our various disputes with Spain and Britain from 1815 through 1898. Absent an actual desire for war on the part of at least one party, it usually proves eminently avoidable. The same observation could be made about the Soviet-American confrontation from 1945 through 1991. No direct superpower war. Why? Neither side ever actually wanted it.

If you look back far enough, you could include slaves. People are in favor of war until the casualties start to climb. Just look at the Iraq War, or the Vietnam War.

Again, nonsense. Most stayed firmly in favor of World War One -- and indeed, grew only more determined -- as the butcher's bill grew. Had casualties been enough to stop anyone, the war would indeed have ended before the leaves fell. By your logic, World War Two should have ended about mid-1942.

In my opinion, there could be a time when war is obsolete. Think of the Indus River valley.

Okay, I thought of the Indus River Valley. Nothing happened.