Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40
Like Tree9Likes
  • 2 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By Bad Robot
  • 1 Post By danhanegan
  • 1 Post By CEngelbrecht
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By CEngelbrecht
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By icewendigo

Thread: How does war solve problems?

  1. #1 How does war solve problems? 
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    I read this in Calvin and Hobbes: "How does people killing each other solve the world’s problems?" (Or something like that.)
    My question is how we get from “You’re protecting a terrorist” to “Thanks for the terrorist” via war. To me, it seems like war is a long campaign of smacking each other until one side is intimidated enough to surrender. Why don’t we just fly in and capture the highest level of government? I’d say a hundred thousand soldiers would be plenty to convince the enemy in a few days, rather than years.
    I’m pretty sure the government has a reason for choosing the extended approach, I just don’t know it.

    Also, I think most wars have been for stupid reasons. (Oil, prevention of another 9/11, etc., in exchange for at least ten thousand deaths if you include the other side.)


    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    Why don’t we just fly in and capture the highest level of government? I’d say a hundred thousand soldiers would be plenty to convince the enemy in a few days, rather than years.
    I’m pretty sure the government has a reason for choosing the extended approach, I just don’t know it.
    Usually, in modern wars, the reason we don't just invade the capital is because of nuclear politics, or because we would rather fight an organized opponent rather than a disorganized insurgency.

    In the Vietnam war, the Soviets and China had made it fairly clear that, for our soldiers to march into North Vietnam would be an act of war against them. So our soldiers stayed in South Vietnam, trying to fight insurgents coming across the border from North Vietnam.

    In the Korea war, or World War II, the allies simply couldn't get at the enemy's capital until they'd beaten their whole army along the way.

    In Iraq, the USA did capture the highest level of government, and then instead of co-opting and making use of their security services, we disbanded them and sent them all home. That in turn created a huge mob of unemployed, discontent, men with guns. That one decision was probably the single, hugest blunder of the whole war.


    Also, I think most wars have been for stupid reasons. (Oil, prevention of another 9/11, etc., in exchange for at least ten thousand deaths if you include the other side.)
    It depends on how valuable you think a human life is.

    If the thing you are worried about is the next generation, instead of just this generation, of human beings, then you might not care quite as much about how many members of this generation die. If you can create a world with fewer bullies in it, and pass that world on to the next generation, then it may well have been worth the sacrifice.

    If you yourself become a bully along the way....... well that kind of defeats the whole purpose. Then it's just a lot of death for nothing.


    John Galt and NNet like this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    ...matter and pixie dust
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,158
    War doesn't really 'solve' problems. It protects nations' self interests, and/or is a collective method of self defense.

    War has been around for centuries, and the same problems still exist today as the root causes of our present 'wars:'

    *greed
    *tyrannical power
    *tyrants who seek world domination
    *bigotry (WWII/Holocaust)
    *radical religious views (ie: the Crusades come to mind)

    Wars don't and can't erradicate those 'problems.'

    And those are the root problems that cause war.

    That said, I'm not against war as a means for a country to protect itself against invaders and outside threats. A country's decision to become involved in a war, then becomes a necessary function of protection--whether it is to protect itself or others who are being oppressed and persecuted.
    Last edited by wegs; August 10th, 2013 at 04:41 PM. Reason: needed to solidify my thoughts better
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    . ... It depends on how valuable you think a human life is. ... .
    Circa 1968: A sargeant said to me "The bullet that's gonna kill you only costs 6 cents."

    Someone else once wrote “The calcium, magnesium, iron and other chemicals in an adult's body were worth 98 cents..."

    ..........
    Countries don't have friends, just assets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    What wars can curtail is entitlement. Most of the people who do horrible things convince them self they are entitled to do those horrible things first. If you severely enough humiliate those people, their claim dies with their reputation. They just look like fools or jackasses for having believed they could hurt people with impunity.

    Of course, the opposite outcome is also possible. The entitled person might be vindicated on the battlefield. And that just creates untold problems.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    It depends on your point of view. For instance if your an arms dealer, wars make you rich. So war is in your best financial interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Consider if peace really broke out all over the world--it would be worse than war if many of the underlying problems that starts the war were left unresolved. Unfortunately as horrible as wars are, they are sometimes necessary to resolve differences. Fortunately the fraction of people dying from wars has dramatically dropped in the past half century. I think in large part because peoples and nations are increasingly connected by economics and there's every increasing resources and expertise to both negotiate problem resolution and help with underlying problems related to poverty, lack of education, disease etc.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by NNet View Post
    I read this in Calvin and Hobbes: "How does people killing each other solve the world’s problems?" (Or something like that.)
    My question is how we get from “You’re protecting a terrorist” to “Thanks for the terrorist” via war. To me, it seems like war is a long campaign of smacking each other until one side is intimidated enough to surrender. Why don’t we just fly in and capture the highest level of government? I’d say a hundred thousand soldiers would be plenty to convince the enemy in a few days, rather than years.
    I’m pretty sure the government has a reason for choosing the extended approach, I just don’t know it.

    Also, I think most wars have been for stupid reasons. (Oil, prevention of another 9/11, etc., in exchange for at least ten thousand deaths if you include the other side.)
    Stupid or not wars are have shaped the human race to be what it is today. Much innovation and invention has happened because of necessity to beat an enemy in warfare. We seem to be entering a new type of warfare in dealing with terrorist and international crime syndicates, which will again will reshape the world we live in. In order to deal effectively with these multinational criminal organizations we will need a great deal more cooperation between nations and this can only be good for human race as a whole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    wars, or the piddling police actions of the past 60 years?
    real wars shrink population, destroy infrastructure, lead to famine and disease, and weaken or destroy currencies

    these police actions allow the military to keep an active trained combat cadre, while weapons testing and the biggest damage is to our currency as we finance the fights on credit card debt
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    wars, or the piddling police actions of the past 60 years?
    real wars shrink population, destroy infrastructure, lead to famine and disease, and weaken or destroy currencies

    these police actions allow the military to keep an active trained combat cadre, while weapons testing and the biggest damage is to our currency as we finance the fights on credit card debt
    Yeah! This police action needs to be shared by more nations or we need to start charging for our services. As a tax payer I'm very tired of footing the bill.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    WE can't solve war problem.


    No one wants to anyhow!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    especially with an all volunteer army
    but
    I did notice some kicking and screaming when baby bush activated the national guard and sent them to the fight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.

    Winston Spencer Churchill


    Churchill was not unfamiliar with the conduct of both.


    War is a continuation of politics by other means.

    Carl von Clausewitz

    Another individual who had some knowledge in this arena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    Some wars spontaneously erupt due to long, often mutual hatreds between the combatants. Most wars, however, are fought because somebody with power or influence sees an advantage to be gained. When a dictator sees a chance to grab land or resources or just enhance his prestige, when a group of industrialists see potentially huge profits selling weapons and supplies, when a politician in trouble needs a distraction to get his constituents' minds off his failings, then wars erupt. Its all done in the name of the security of the people, of course, but you have to be a moron to believe the flimsy excuses of those in power. Wars rarely bring any advantage to the hapless soldiers at the sharp end doing the dying.
    NNet likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    wars, or the piddling police actions of the past 60 years?
    real wars shrink population, destroy infrastructure, lead to famine and disease, and weaken or destroy currencies

    these police actions allow the military to keep an active trained combat cadre, while weapons testing and the biggest damage is to our currency as we finance the fights on credit card debt
    Yeah! This police action needs to be shared by more nations or we need to start charging for our services. As a tax payer I'm very tired of footing the bill.
    We also have enough of our own problems we should be concentrating on fixing, and not sticking our nose into places that it does not belong. We are not the world police states of America!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    11
    It depends on the nature of the problem; many have said war is the crucible of invention. Most of our advances have come through military funding. So if you want new toys, or if you want to create an economy around a military industrial complex, war is your method. It also kills off those who disagree with you. Of course you need to be sure you'll win. Otherwise it doesn't solve anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    Its all done in the name of the security of the people, of course, but you have to be a moron to believe the flimsy excuses of those in power.
    Or you have to want to believe them. Probably the majority of Americans who voted to attack Iraq were thinking with their pocketbooks, and not really all too afraid of the nuke angle.

    They were rubbing their hands together dreaming what it might be like if America were to actually own those oil fields. Not considering that maybe our leaders might not want us to own them. (Or rather those who pull our leaders' puppet strings may not want us to own those fields, because they make more money off scarcity than they would off of plenty.)


    Wars rarely bring any advantage to the hapless soldiers at the sharp end doing the dying.
    The only advantage is steady employment. A decent career with fairly low educational requirements, depending on what path a person takes.

    Also some people actually find it exciting to fight to the death. It's perverse in a way, but danger can be addicting. Not a wise addiction, certainly, but a very real one for some people.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    By blowing them up.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    There are too many people in the world. We are a pack animal, but not on the level of ants. War is one of the stress reactions to over-population. Random violence, rape, corruption, etc., are others.
    Everyone is born with human natural instincts to achieve the good life (food, water, exercise, rest; territory; strong pack; high position in social hierarchies; strong offspring), but there is far from enough ressources anymore for all to achieve even a fraction of that, and probably hasn't been since the forming of the earliest cities. The lack of those ressources creates wars.
    War doesn't have to be between nations, it can be between religious fractions, ethnic groups, neighbours, night club guests, who ever is out desperately looking for the good life in this our over-populated hamster cage. Hell, if there's no other excuse available, war can be between sports team supporters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    There are too many people in the world. We are a pack animal, but not on the level of ants. War is one of the stress reactions to over-population. Random violence, rape, corruption, etc., are others.
    Everyone is born with human natural instincts to achieve the good life (food, water, exercise, rest; territory; strong pack; high position in social hierarchies; strong offspring), but there is far from enough ressources anymore for all to achieve even a fraction of that, and probably hasn't been since the forming of the earliest cities.
    I disagree. It's more about distribution and gross inequality of resources than lack of them across the globe. We've had plenty of food to feed our population for at least half a century--but Americans grow fat, while people still starve in the developing world. The good life for an American is a large home with room for each person, and unlimited electricity to run his 60" 3D plasma, or his gas guzzling SUV, while the good life in much of Africa is a home without a dirt floor, enough power to run a refrigerator and a serviceable pair of shoes for each of the kids.

    Kojak, no American's other than Congress voted for the war in Iraq and the ones that supported the notion of war were seriously mislead by political leadership.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; August 25th, 2013 at 05:33 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Kojak, no American's other than Congress voted for the war in Iraq and the ones that supported the notion of war were seriously mislead by political leadership.
    Doing it once was bad enough, but I really hate that we had to do it twice. Bush 1 & 2, may we never have a Bush 3.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    If it was the other way around and the Nigerians had suckered the majority of resources to themselves, they'd grow just as fat and indifferent to them poor and starving Americans. We all piss and shit the same way.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Kojak, no American's other than Congress voted for the war in Iraq and the ones that supported the notion of war were seriously mislead by political leadership.
    Doing it once was bad enough, but I really hate that we had to do it twice. Bush 1 & 2, may we never have a Bush 3.
    Liked Bush 1 a lot--practical, knowingly and for good reason with excellent international support went into Iraq the first time, and compassionate conservatism message was perfect mix of heart and head. Unknown whether Jeb will toss his hat in the right...get the feeling he'd probably be the best off all of them. In any case, the Bush dynasty that has been going strong for 80 years (owe ya...they really do go back that far as big players), is likely to continue in one form or another.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    There are too many people in the world. We are a pack animal, but not on the level of ants. War is one of the stress reactions to over-population. Random violence, rape, corruption, etc., are others.
    Everyone is born with human natural instincts to achieve the good life (food, water, exercise, rest; territory; strong pack; high position in social hierarchies; strong offspring), but there is far from enough ressources anymore for all to achieve even a fraction of that, and probably hasn't been since the forming of the earliest cities.
    I disagree. It's more about distribution and gross inequality of resources than lack of them across the globe. We've had plenty of food to feed our population for at least half a century--but Americans grow fat, while people still starve in the developing world.
    If we follow the optimistic projections, sure. Or if we assume perfect usage with zero waste. (Kind of like my physics teacher assuming a frictionless surface and zero air resistance - great for idealizations, not so great for reality.)

    How much food do you think is getting thrown away right now? Do you know of a way it could all be saved from the dump and given to starving African kids?


    The good life for an American is a large home with room for each person, and unlimited electricity to run his 60" 3D plasma, or his gas guzzling SUV, while the good life in much of Africa is a home without a dirt floor, enough power to run a refrigerator and a serviceable pair of shoes for each of the kids.
    And if we curtailed the population growth, then the good life everywhere on planet Earth could be a large home with room for each person and unlimited electricity to run everyone's 60" 3D plasma, and gas guzzling SUV (using biofuel once food shortages aren't a problem).

    Overwhelmingly the population explosions are in third world countries. Most of the industrialized nations have declining populations. Educated parents who want their kids to grow up and attend college (and realize they can only realistically save enough for one or two college funds.)

    However, in spite of the fact we can barely afford our own childrens' educations..... some very wise individuals keep suggesting that "all we have to do" in order to get the third world to stop cranking out 5-10 kid families is get them educations. I suppose we'll just send our own kids to the factory assembly lines, and thereby make available those college funds for the 5-10 kid families of the world. Or well.... probably only a fraction of those kids would still be getting full educations since they outnumber ours.

    So maybe we just spread it real thin, and every child can get a little bit of education?
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Your views are rather dated I'm afraid. Most of the developing world has already dramatically dropped population growth--yet from a resources point of view, it's still more responsible for a developing world family to have three or four kids (more than average), than an American to have one. "Third world" is an antiquated term.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I suppose that's the politically correct way to look at the world now. But I think that takes a lot of hand waving. You may feel free to take a look at the statistics yourself.


    List of countries by population growth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    It's kind of a double standard to talk about global warming as a "real" issue, but overpopulation as a "fake" issue. Even if the world population overall breaks even, it will be a matter of fewer children being born under circumstances likely to result in getting a good education, and more being born under circumstances likely not to result in getting a good education.

    I suppose we shall just bury our heads in the sand and hope. Just like so many people hope world temperatures won't rise.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    [QUOTE=kojax;454465]I suppose that's the politically correct way to look at the world now. But I think that takes a lot of hand waving. You may feel free to take a look at the statistics yourself.


    List of countries by population growth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Not sure what you see in that table. The average is just over 1% per year across the globe and dropping. It's not a politically correct view of the world, it's based on hard numbers with a break even point sometime mid century based on extensive models:


    I will add though that the developing world's population cannot simply copy the extraordinary wasteful means most Americans think they are entitled to--a people who waste more than half their crops, either turning it into fuel, tossing it away for minor cosmetic blemishes, throwing it way once prepared, or feeding inefficient animals so Americans continuing to eat 10 times more meat than we should. America plains alone could feed the entire Western Hemisphere--that isn't some idealistic fantasy based on optimistic projections it's simple math. All this relates to war, because it often comes down to a battle over those gross inequalities between people's in developing nations who see our decadent lifestyle while their own kids starve, and American's who can't wrap their head around why so many developing nation's people hate much of American's way of life. In a smaller way it explains the huge social problems in our nation as well--angry impoverished tea partiers from the mining country of West V, or Alaska to inner city malcontents that distrust the cops because they are symbol of ones protecting the injustice and inequality.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; August 26th, 2013 at 12:31 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Bachelors Degree CEngelbrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Scania, Sweden
    Posts
    428
    Let me tell y'all what war is. First off, human beings are pack animals (and a very social one at that, as much as the wolf/dog), but we are not biologically designed for these ant hills we call big cities (which have their practical and cultural reasons). Living so many specimens on such little territory at once stresses the piss out of us, and as a direct response, we easily fly off at nothing or everything.

    When I was about 14 my school class, in order to teach us something about responsibility, bought a small hamster cage and two hamsters, which we were to tend to between classes (bloody progressive education ...). The mistake was to buy a male and a female, because hamsters are very much like humans: They f***. It's their breeding instinct as well as ours. And hamsters' breeding rate is designed to counter that a certain portion of the offspring will be taken by predators, diseases, natural disasters and the like. Again, kinda like humans. A tiny problem here is that humans have more or less eliminated such threats culturally, and now we are suddenly these 7+ billion instead of perhaps 5 million worldwide all through the stone age. Of course wanting to survive and multiply is our basic survival instinct; we want to survive ourselves, and we want our children to survive, but the success of that leads to overpopulation which in turn stresses us out.
    And all this I saw illustrated in these cute little hamsters in our class, now living in a protected environment, suddenly exploding in numbers. And the stress of a quickly overflowing cage manifested itself: For no apparent reason (other than stress of overcrowding), they attacked each other, bit eacher other, even raped each other. Again, these fluffy, cute little hamsters. I saw female hamsters making raping motions on top of specimens their own direct offspring. I was 14 and my thought immediately went to us (and still does, what with recent events in India, the densest populated nation in the world).
    Even with a second cage and new hamsters to counter inbreeding, there was no solution to the problem, the cute little critters just became more and more, and their stress reaction ran rampant. One day, we came to school and the cages were just gone. And as I recall, us kids didn't even ask why.

    And I don't see that outcome as a viable solution to human overpopulation at all. Hitler tried something like that, Pol Pot tried something like that, Rwanda and Yugoslavia went mad in something like that, and those type of "solutions" are all grossly unacceptable. Even the Chinese one child experiment has severe shortcomings, and I have some empathy for that approach. Basically, I don't see any solution to this, even though I think it's the biggest problem we have (it causes everything else, including global warming). 'Cause you can't change human nature. We are drowning in our own succes.
    danhanegan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    [QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;454471]
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I suppose that's the politically correct way to look at the world now. But I think that takes a lot of hand waving. You may feel free to take a look at the statistics yourself.


    List of countries by population growth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Not sure what you see in that table. The average is just over 1% per year across the globe and dropping. It's not a politically correct view of the world, it's based on hard numbers with a break even point sometime mid century based on extensive models:

    It balances, yes. However the increase in one area being balanced by a decrease elsewhere leads to a diminishing average rate of education.

    How do you expect that any of these modern agricultural technologies will be applied? Only educated people have the ability to implement them.



    I will add though that the developing world's population cannot simply copy the extraordinary wasteful means most Americans think they are entitled to--a people who waste more than half their crops, either turning it into fuel, tossing it away for minor cosmetic blemishes, throwing it way once prepared, or feeding inefficient animals so Americans continuing to eat 10 times more meat than we should. America plains alone could feed the entire Western Hemisphere--that isn't some idealistic fantasy based on optimistic projections it's simple math. All this relates to war, because it often comes down to a battle over those gross inequalities between people's in developing nations who see our decadent lifestyle while their own kids starve, and American's who can't wrap their head around why so many developing nation's people hate much of American's way of life. In a smaller way it explains the huge social problems in our nation as well--angry impoverished tea partiers from the mining country of West V, or Alaska to inner city malcontents that distrust the cops because they are symbol of ones protecting the injustice and inequality.
    If the populations of those countries had declined or even remained stable, they might well have achieved a level of subsistence near or equal to ours. With low population density, you can afford to waste resources more.

    The problem is trying to educate a population while newborns are flooding into it. It's like trying to scoop all the water out of a sinking ship with your helmet. If the rate at which water flows in is small, you might actually succeed. If it's a high rate of water flowing in, then you'll most likely see that water level continue rising even while you work yourself to exhaustion scooping it out.

    Here, the problem is trying to educate people faster than they are born. For education to grow, it must be faster than the birth rate. (Once it reaches 100%, it then should begin to only match the birth rate.) If you can't educate faster than the birth rate, then ignorance will increase faster than education. You might be spending billions of dollars per year on education and still see your population becoming increasingly ignorant.
    babe likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Read War is a Racket by Smedley Butler

    War is decided not by the people but by Rulers, the People are LIED to in order to support the war(this includes the MEDIA and Government and Military),
    the reasons given are almost always lies and the real reasons are almost always ones that the public would oppose if they knew.
    DECEPTION start to occur even BEFORE the War starts, we are being fed propaganda by our Media and Gov about a targeted regime,
    so that when War starts, you have a narrative, a fabricated excuse that provides the gov/military the cover needed to start murdering men women and children by the thousands
    and makes you accept the murder of childen, one child murder, anther child killed, another, another, a dozen, a hundred, 300, 500,
    if someone was standing in front of you killing children one by one, you would react, but the Propaganda brainwashes you(us) to accept the war, demonize the enemy,
    invent bogus attrocities , or kill people and say the evil target did it(False Flag), provide facts out of context or arbitrarily focus on the target(for things others do but arent getting attention because they are not targets/on the right side), so we demand for war to be waged or in a worst case to diffuse our collective opposition to War, derail collective organization to oppose the war.

    This means that when you read the news paper, watch CNN, etc, you are being lied to and deceived by people that appear credible, to shape your perception and manufacture your support for WAR

    Theres often no debate about war, but in rare instances where there is, the debate is usually confided inside the Propaganda Narrative, the false premise people base their opinion on

    Today in our (bogus/framed) debate, we ask, base on fact(LIE) #1 being true, then should we or should we not go to war?
    a ) LIE #1 is true, but I oppose the war because this or that
    b ) LIE # 1 is true, and thats one of the reasons we must wage war!


    It is highly likely that NATO/Warmongering-Anglo-Zionists/West have fostered the civil war in Syria, that the "rebels"(or Nato special forces/intelligence/rogue agents/israeli agents) will be using Chemical weapons and say that the Target used it, the Media will certainly parrot the call that the "Target did it" and so the very atrocities committed by War Criminals from the West (Civil War/Chemical weapons) will be used as an excuse to justify further military aggression.


    "War is one of the stress reactions to over-population. "
    I could not disagree more with this statement.
    Last edited by icewendigo; August 26th, 2013 at 09:01 AM.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Let me tell y'all what war is. First off, human beings are pack animals (and a very social one at that, as much as the wolf/dog), but we are not biologically designed for these ant hills we call big cities (which have their practical and cultural reasons). Living so many specimens on such little territory at once stresses the piss out of us, and as a direct response, we easily fly off at nothing or everything.
    I don't think you can blame it on the cities. Warfare is common among hunting gathering societies. Kennewick Man had a Cascade point embedded in his hip. Otzi the ice man was a homicide victim. Etc.
    Last edited by Harold14370; August 26th, 2013 at 08:46 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht View Post
    Let me tell y'all what war is. First off, human beings are pack animals (and a very social one at that, as much as the wolf/dog), but we are not biologically designed for these ant hills we call big cities (which have their practical and cultural reasons). Living so many specimens on such little territory at once stresses the piss out of us, and as a direct response, we easily fly off at nothing or everything.

    When I was about 14 my school class, in order to teach us something about responsibility, bought a small hamster cage and two hamsters, which we were to tend to between classes (bloody progressive education ...). The mistake was to buy a male and a female, because hamsters are very much like humans: They f***. It's their breeding instinct as well as ours. And hamsters' breeding rate is designed to counter that a certain portion of the offspring will be taken by predators, diseases, natural disasters and the like. Again, kinda like humans. A tiny problem here is that humans have more or less eliminated such threats culturally, and now we are suddenly these 7+ billion instead of perhaps 5 million worldwide all through the stone age. Of course wanting to survive and multiply is our basic survival instinct; we want to survive ourselves, and we want our children to survive, but the success of that leads to overpopulation which in turn stresses us out.
    And all this I saw illustrated in these cute little hamsters in our class, now living in a protected environment, suddenly exploding in numbers. And the stress of a quickly overflowing cage manifested itself: For no apparent reason (other than stress of overcrowding), they attacked each other, bit eacher other, even raped each other. Again, these fluffy, cute little hamsters. I saw female hamsters making raping motions on top of specimens their own direct offspring. I was 14 and my thought immediately went to us (and still does, what with recent events in India, the densest populated nation in the world).
    Even with a second cage and new hamsters to counter inbreeding, there was no solution to the problem, the cute little critters just became more and more, and their stress reaction ran rampant. One day, we came to school and the cages were just gone. And as I recall, us kids didn't even ask why.

    And I don't see that outcome as a viable solution to human overpopulation at all. Hitler tried something like that, Pol Pot tried something like that, Rwanda and Yugoslavia went mad in something like that, and those type of "solutions" are all grossly unacceptable. Even the Chinese one child experiment has severe shortcomings, and I have some empathy for that approach. Basically, I don't see any solution to this, even though I think it's the biggest problem we have (it causes everything else, including global warming). 'Cause you can't change human nature. We are drowning in our own succes.
    How are we not "designed" for our cities "ant hills"? After all, we did build them....didn't we?
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    As Harold pointed out there's very little association between war and population density...it fact the most rural societies are often the most violent.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Read War is a Racket by Smedley Butler

    War is decided not by the people but by Rulers, the People are LIED to in order to support the war(this includes the MEDIA and Government and Military),
    the reasons given are almost always lies and the real reasons are almost always ones that the public would oppose if they knew.
    DECEPTION start to occur even BEFORE the War starts, we are being fed propaganda by our Media and Gov about a targeted regime,
    so that when War starts, you have a narrative, a fabricated excuse that provides the gov/military the cover needed to start murdering men women and children by the thousands
    and makes you accept the murder of childen, one child murder, anther child killed, another, another, a dozen, a hundred, 300, 500,
    if someone was standing in front of you killing children one by one, you would react, but the Propaganda brainwashes you(us) to accept the war, demonize the enemy,
    invent bogus attrocities , or kill people and say the evil target did it(False Flag), provide facts out of context or arbitrarily focus on the target(for things others do but arent getting attention because they are not targets/on the right side), so we demand for war to be waged or in a worst case to diffuse our collective opposition to War, derail collective organization to oppose the war.
    I know well that you love that book.

    However, another reason why they may start the propaganda early is to make sure the party they are threatening knows they're ready to actually attack. That the people are behind them. If that party backs down to their demands, they'll let the fuss die down. It's not an inevitable outcome.

    If they didn't lay out the propaganda first, before issuing their threat, then the party they are threatening would laugh and say "You're people would never get behind that!!!" So the threat has to be set up properly first.

    You've got to have the powder keg all set up, so it can be set off by a single lit match. Otherwise your opponent just thinks you're speculating. "Don't cross me, or else I'll go out and get a bunch of gun powder and heap it all up right here and then some time next week I'll set it off!!!!" As opposed to "See all this gun powder I already went out, gathered, and amassed???? Don't cross me or I'll set it off right now!!!"




    "War is one of the stress reactions to over-population. "
    I could not disagree more with this statement.
    You do agree that the motive is economic, though, right?

    Overpopulation creates economic trouble. Economic trouble creates desperation.

    Greedy, but already wealth people are not motivated by the economic trouble, but they are enabled by it. They'd start a war during times of plenty if they could, but they can't. It's peoples' desperation that makes them willing to overlook the inconsistencies in the casus belli.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    However, another reason why they may start the propaganda early is to make sure the party they are threatening knows they're ready to actually attack. That the people are behind them. If that party backs down to their demands, they'll let the fuss die down. It's not an inevitable outcome.

    If they didn't lay out the propaganda first, before issuing their threat, then the party they are threatening would laugh and say "You're people would never get behind that!!!" So the threat has to be set up properly first.

    You've got to have the powder keg all set up, so it can be set off by a single lit match. Otherwise your opponent just thinks you're speculating. "Don't cross me, or else I'll go out and get a bunch of gun powder and heap it all up right here and then some time next week I'll set it off!!!!" As opposed to "See all this gun powder I already went out, gathered, and amassed???? Don't cross me or I'll set it off right now!!!"
    You assume theres something the victim can do to avoid the attack, which is great leap of faith except when the casus belli is a BS shite. The US is planning a strike before the investigation into the most-likely false-flag Chemical attack reveals who actually did it, which shows its a sham, and that its not a threat at all, but warmongering propaganda to provide cover for what is already being planned regardless of what the victim does, only the shite will be adjusted to the victims actions.
    Imo.

    "You do agree that the motive is economic, though, right?

    Overpopulation creates economic trouble. Economic trouble creates desperation.

    Greedy, but already wealth people are not motivated by the economic trouble, but they are enabled by it. They'd start a war during times of plenty if they could, but they can't. It's peoples' desperation that makes them willing to overlook the inconsistencies in the casus belli."
    No, I dont agree with that either. Is China deep in economic trouble because its population is high? Theres more people in China yet its not invading and bombing a new country around the world each weekend, the US is less populated and bombs a new place each time McDonnalds introduces a new happy meal toy set. I dont have time to debunk the whole Overpopulation meme.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    As Harold pointed out there's very little association between war and population density...it fact the most rural societies are often the most violent.
    Appalachia?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    As Harold pointed out there's very little association between war and population density...it fact the most rural societies are often the most violent.
    Appalachia?
    (nods) One of many examples. Though I think what Harald was more referring to is studies on tribal societies in Africa, the Amazon and Indonesia that often are so violent that violence by another person accounts for nearly half the male deaths. Though I've been a Soldier most of my adult life, been shot at, had my truck hit by improvised explosives, and rocketed multiple times--I've still lived an amazingly peaceful life compared to that of a typical tribal culture.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and Mainland relocated to the Bay Area.
    Posts
    13,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    As Harold pointed out there's very little association between war and population density...it fact the most rural societies are often the most violent.
    Appalachia?
    (nods) One of many examples. Though I think what Harald was more referring to is studies on tribal societies in Africa, the Amazon and Indonesia that often are so violent that violence by another person accounts for nearly half the male deaths. Though I've been a Soldier most of my adult life, been shot at, had my truck hit by improvised explosives, and rocketed multiple times--I've still lived an amazingly peaceful life compared to that of a typical tribal culture.
    *S*
    Happy you survived. I often learn from many of you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    However, another reason why they may start the propaganda early is to make sure the party they are threatening knows they're ready to actually attack. That the people are behind them. If that party backs down to their demands, they'll let the fuss die down. It's not an inevitable outcome.

    If they didn't lay out the propaganda first, before issuing their threat, then the party they are threatening would laugh and say "You're people would never get behind that!!!" So the threat has to be set up properly first.

    You've got to have the powder keg all set up, so it can be set off by a single lit match. Otherwise your opponent just thinks you're speculating. "Don't cross me, or else I'll go out and get a bunch of gun powder and heap it all up right here and then some time next week I'll set it off!!!!" As opposed to "See all this gun powder I already went out, gathered, and amassed???? Don't cross me or I'll set it off right now!!!"
    You assume theres something the victim can do to avoid the attack, which is great leap of faith except when the casus belli is a BS shite. The US is planning a strike before the investigation into the most-likely false-flag Chemical attack reveals who actually did it, which shows its a sham, and that its not a threat at all, but warmongering propaganda to provide cover for what is already being planned regardless of what the victim does, only the shite will be adjusted to the victims actions.
    Imo.
    Well...it's usually more of a shake down. If they concede to the massively unfair terms they're being presented with, the attack will be withheld (for the simple reason that it then becomes more profitable to hold off.)

    Very rarely would anyone give a powerful nation a legitimate reason to invade, at least not in purpose.


    "You do agree that the motive is economic, though, right?

    Overpopulation creates economic trouble. Economic trouble creates desperation.

    Greedy, but already wealth people are not motivated by the economic trouble, but they are enabled by it. They'd start a war during times of plenty if they could, but they can't. It's peoples' desperation that makes them willing to overlook the inconsistencies in the casus belli."
    No, I dont agree with that either. Is China deep in economic trouble because its population is high? Theres more people in China yet its not invading and bombing a new country around the world each weekend, the US is less populated and bombs a new place each time McDonnalds introduces a new happy meal toy set. I dont have time to debunk the whole Overpopulation meme.
    America's warmongering does make for a good counter point. All we need here is a recession that puts people a few dollars short of the prosperity of the previous decade to get us war ready.

    It creates a poor ratio of wealth-to-expectations of wealth. Which has nearly the same psychological effect as if people were starving, I guess.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    As Harold pointed out there's very little association between war and population density...it fact the most rural societies are often the most violent.
    Appalachia?
    (nods) One of many examples. Though I think what Harald was more referring to is studies on tribal societies in Africa, the Amazon and Indonesia that often are so violent that violence by another person accounts for nearly half the male deaths. Though I've been a Soldier most of my adult life, been shot at, had my truck hit by improvised explosives, and rocketed multiple times--I've still lived an amazingly peaceful life compared to that of a typical tribal culture.
    You can't look at overpopulation as a simple acres-to-people ratio. Because then you're ignoring the quality of the acreage, and the means available to those people of extracting resources efficiently.

    Lebanon is often held up as a shining example of a successful country with poor acres-to-population ratio, but coincidentally it also happens to have the best acres-to-arable land ratio of any nation in the Middle East. It's high quality acreage.

    I doubt the abundant land near those tribes is highly productive land. Especially if they're hunter gatherers, because hunting and gathering is very nearly the least efficient use you can make of land on an acres-to-production basis.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Can getting fuels from space solve our energy problems?
    By mmatt9876 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2013, 08:41 AM
  2. What problems does organic agriculture solve?
    By Winfried in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 312
    Last Post: September 5th, 2012, 06:15 AM
  3. Using Quantum Computers to Solve NP problems
    By guymillion in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 26th, 2012, 09:34 AM
  4. Metric Prefix Use of formulae to solve problems Please Help
    By scienceteacher in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 8th, 2008, 07:28 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •