Why war?

[K. A. Pital]

Why do human nations resolve conflicts over territory or resources by killing each other? It seems a needlessly violent way to resolve a conflict.

Because violence is the only way to take something from someone that he does not want to give, if all other ways (bribery, threats or assassinations) have utterly failed. In case of natural resource constraints, that leads to violent competition.

Ages (or rather, countless millenia) of violent competition then enshrine the acceptability of violence and war as one of it's forms in the human psyche, and now humans can go to war even if neither party is in immediate danger of starvation or extinction.

Simple enough explanation?

[Shroom Man 777]

Why do human nations resolve conflicts over territory or resources by killing each other? It seems a needlessly violent way to resolve a conflict. I can think of a more peaceful way nations can resolve conflict without spilling any blood. Perhaps, for instance, rival nations could hold some kind of competition (e.g. sports, multiplayer computer games, etc.), and whoever wins the competition gets the resources or territory. People would therefore be able to resolve disputes peacefully while still exercising their competitive nature.

If some Korean beat me in a game of Star Craft and because of that I cannot get any land/oil/water/food, or if Hussein Bolt gets dibs on a profitable trading route because he can run faster than me, I'm not going to give a fuck about his Special Olympic Gold Medal. I'm going to stave his skull in with my caveman rock and keep it for myself if I can get away with it.

There are limits to the empathy and sympathy of humans. People, and the people of countries, who go to war over any particular thing might not particularly care about the feelings and sufferings of the "enemy" who they're killing and raping.

Look at how human nations, and human people, were so eager to systematically slaughter people who they didn't even have cause for conflict with - like what happened in Nazi Germany, and in all other shitholes throughout time and space.

People are tribalistic. Yes, we want to be happy and yes, we want others to be happy together with us. But if they are different, if they are "not one of us", then sometimes - LOTS of times - it is acceptable for us to hurt them, if it profits us.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think today, humanitarian aid to stricken countries like Haiti or tsunami-afflicted Asia or hurricaned New Orleans, is a relatively modern phenomenon that hasn't often happened historically. But this is because of mass media, because of TV and the news. In the vast majority of human history, you won't really hear or see or care much about dying assholes in some far away land. But today, you can see them dying and drowning and starving on TV and that kind of changes things. A little bit. Maybe.

[Darth Wong]

Why do human nations resolve conflicts over territory or resources by killing each other?

For the same reason that an armed robber will threaten, assault, maim, or murder another human being for the money in his wallet: because he's an asshole.

It seems a needlessly violent way to resolve a conflict.

This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Violence is not an attempt to "resolve a conflict". It is an attempt to achieve some material goal, such as resource acquisition (that's what they call it when nations rob each other at gunpoint).

I can think of a more peaceful way nations can resolve conflict without spilling any blood.

And a would-be robber could potentially ask you politely for your money, by appealing to your charitable nature.

Perhaps, for instance, rival nations could hold some kind of competition (e.g. sports, multiplayer computer games, etc.), and whoever wins the competition gets the resources or territory.

This is like saying that when confronted with a bully, you should challenge him to a game of Wii Sports, and if you win, you get to keep your lunch money.

People would therefore be able to resolve disputes peacefully while still exercising their competitive nature.

People don't want to "resolve disputes peacefully". People want to resolve disputes in their favour, whether this is done peacefully or not.

[Rye]

It can be done a lot easier with a lot less human suffering and damage to the environment my way. Your way you have millions of babies starving while your pipe dreams are dying from radiation poisoning half way to Mars.

Explain to me how you expect to lower the population without causing lots of suffering. I could use a good laugh.

1) Create new virus that makes most people sterile.
2) Release.
3) Repeat as necessary.

[Formless]

It can be done a lot easier with a lot less human suffering and damage to the environment my way. Your way you have millions of babies starving while your pipe dreams are dying from radiation poisoning half way to Mars.

Explain to me how you expect to lower the population without causing lots of suffering. I could use a good laugh.

1) Create new virus that makes most people sterile.
2) Release.
3) Repeat as necessary.

Ah, the Shep Solution, I see.

At least Surleth's idea didn't come off of the Evil Overlord List.

[[R_H]]

1) Create new virus that makes most people sterile.
2) Release.
3) Repeat as necessary.

Ah, the Shep Solution, I see.

At least Surleth's idea didn't come off of the Evil Overlord List. [/quote]

The Shep Solution (TM) would more than likely involve a large number of nuclear weapons and wholesale destruction. Compared to that, Rye's solution is downright benign.

[Formless]

1) Create new virus that makes most people sterile.
2) Release.
3) Repeat as necessary.

Ah, the Shep Solution, I see.

At least Surleth's idea didn't come off of the Evil Overlord List.

The Shep Solution (TM) would more than likely involve a large number of nuclear weapons and wholesale destruction. Compared to that, Rye's solution is downright benign.

No, because there is a few small but significant problems with his solution:

1) most people would consider being forcibly sterilized a form of suffering. Ever wonder why eugenics is considered bad?

2) what effect will this have on pregnant women? Or do you really think it will only attack men?

3) (these next three points are crucial, so pay attention) there are no existing diseases that can leave you sterile that do not also run a significant risk of killing you.

4) even if you can engineer a disease that can leave you sterile but won't kill you, it WILL make you very, very sick. This means it will more than likely have an impact on the world economy if it goes pandemic-- and if you want it to actually impact the world population, you want it to go pandemic.

5) again assuming that you can engineer a disease that will leave you sterile but won't outright kill you, you are releasing a disease out into the wild. Diseases in the wild like to mutate into something more deadly, or more virulent, or often both. The Flu, staff infections that laugh in the face of anti-biotics, HIV-- all are excellent examples. In the former situation, you might as well have started dropping nukes at random; in the other, it could easily run out of control and, while you will drop the human population, you might drop it permanently by virtue of everyone being sterile.

For fucks sake, disease is on everyone's list of things that could easily lead to a human extinction event. There is a reason you don't dick around with bioweapons; they cannot be controlled. What he is proposing must be considered a de facto Shep Solution even if he isn't talking about nukes. After all, what else do you call a solution to worldwide overcrowding that involves the use of a WMD?