NationStates

We form groups and fight for territory. Apparently some other species do it sometimes. For us "territory" is held by force, because history shows us groups of humans can and will force others off of territory, and the strongest force is controlled by politics and governments. So we fight, one way or another, over politics and government, and then generally some impoverished people are killed or maimed, soldiers are killed or maimed, and the territory moves toward equilibrium. Some times it takes many years, or even generations for the territory to reach even temporary stability. The stability has never shown to be perpetual.

With the exception of some youtubers broadcasting from their bunker in the back of the laundry room of an apartment building their grandparents own, most Americans rightfully do not fear violation of their territory, as foreign occupation of the mainland US is extremely unlikely. The price of that: Nuclear weapons. Our fight for territory has risen such that if all of its most powerful weapons were used, it could end civilization. Even the wars of the Gods did not destroy the entire world. Ours could.

Our natural human behavior of fighting for territory now endangers the very value of territory itself, that you can live on it and from its resources. The fight is not just nuclear. Its biological, chemical, cybernetic. Information itself weaponized in a way that can destroy infrastructure in ways no bomb can.

It is also natural that a species behavior, if not adaptable quickly enough, can result in its own extinction. It is also natural that some species can change, adapt. Human can adapt mass behavior very quickly and effectively through culture and technology, which drive and amplify one another.

Do you think the tendency of we moon-walking primates to fight over territory could be overcome, changed, adapted? And how?

I think yes, but it will involve nano-threaded brain implants connecting us to a human species-wide neural network, and the other changes in us that will occur cotemporaneously will be so abstract and fundamental that the meaning of the behavior will be relegated to history, read only once by those who come after us.

I think we're getting there, slowly. Certainly, we're far better about it than we used to be.

Alvecia wrote:I think we're getting there, slowly. Certainly, we're far better about it than we used to be.

I'm unversed in history, but that which I've read seems to indicate we fought incessantly and sometimes viciously in the past. How much of our improvement in that regard would you estimate comes from weapon technology (nuclear weapons preventing global conflict, etc), domestic technology (fertilizers and machines producing enough that we don't need to fight over things as much), and/or culture (whatever cultural expression makes people less like to fight)? Other things?

No

No, there will always be fighting over territory. Especially as the infinite expanses of space are opened up to us.

I don't think so,

Mammals do what mammals do.

Thermodolia wrote:No

Bummer.

Edreland wrote:No, there will always be fighting over territory. Especially as the infinite expanses of space are opened up to us.

So Warhammer 40K is right? In the grim dark future there is only war? There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods

Well......fuck.

Ethel mermania wrote:I don't think so,

Mammals do what mammals do.

Thanks for reminding me of this

Ethel mermania wrote:I don't think so,

Mammals do what mammals do.

Could the mammal brain be technologically influenced to intercept this behavior? Would doing so change us so fundamentally, would we be human?

If such a procedure existed, some decades or centuries out, would it be humane to use it on those who did not consent?

The short answer is no. And it remains the best possible means of resolving an intractable dispute. The victor has always had a right to the spoils of war.

Yagon wrote:

Alvecia wrote:I think we're getting there, slowly. Certainly, we're far better about it than we used to be.

I'm unversed in history, but that which I've read seems to indicate we fought incessantly and sometimes viciously in the past. How much of our improvement in that regard would you estimate comes from weapon technology (nuclear weapons preventing global conflict, etc), domestic technology (fertilizers and machines producing enough that we don't need to fight over things as much), and/or culture (whatever cultural expression makes people less like to fight)? Other things?

I wouldn't know enough to give numbers, but as in all things, a combination of several factors (those included) is likely the closest answer.

Slowly. Maybe.

Hopefully.

Saiwania wrote:The short answer is no. And it remains the best possible means of resolving an intractable dispute. The victor has always had a right to the spoils of war.

I worry it is not the best for the soldiers and civilians (including children) that die or are horribly traumatized in war. And as our weapon technology escalates, it may not be best for the survival of our species and its surrounding ecosphere.

The winner of a violent conflict having the right to take what they want from the loser seems essentially to be the practical outcome of history that, as of now, might makes right, or at least dictates policy statements on what will be treated as right. Bummer for those not inclined to violently taking from others (albeit not those in their own in-group).

If technology offered an alternative, you would be opposed or not participate?

Theoretically yes. A system of government that holds all those groups, and not only allows people to peacefully argue over territory but can actually resolve it. Additionally allowing groups of people to claim out a certain chunk of territory for themselves and maintain a local government. It’s doable, the problem is nobody wants to actually get us to that point

Territory is resources. We still can’t make people not fight over resources. Even if we could, I always nice to have more resources and territory, such as when the Soviet Union made Eastern Europe a bunch of buffer states.

So no.

It's not human behavior, if most humans on the planet do not partake in it consciously. Competition over resources endangers our survival if not risking outright extinction as it does for other species than humans. People never want war, because they don't benefit from it in any real way. The jobs gotten are imaginary and a state can be funded easily with a solid industrial base and participation in the international market without need for imperialism and harsh taxation or fear of the economic failures caused by financial capitalism.

Alvecia wrote:

Yagon wrote:
I'm unversed in history, but that which I've read seems to indicate we fought incessantly and sometimes viciously in the past. How much of our improvement in that regard would you estimate comes from weapon technology (nuclear weapons preventing global conflict, etc), domestic technology (fertilizers and machines producing enough that we don't need to fight over things as much), and/or culture (whatever cultural expression makes people less like to fight)? Other things?

I wouldn't know enough to give numbers, but as in all things, a combination of several factors (those included) is likely the closest answer.

There may not be data from which to quantify an answer, but I would guess that you're correct.

Deads Heads wrote:It's not human behavior, if most humans on the planet do not partake in it consciously. Competition over resources endangers our survival if not risking outright extinction as it does for other species than humans. People never want war, because they don't benefit from it in any real way. The jobs gotten are imaginary and a state can be funded easily with a solid industrial base and participation in the international market without need for imperialism and harsh taxation or fear of the economic failures caused by financial capitalism.

What? Resource completion is what keeps species (or at least the lucky ones) alive. Those who lose die. Natural selection baby.

And to say that most people don’t compete for resources today is to not under stand things such as the job market and capitalist economy.

Acquire more territory.
If we shifted toward space colonialism, it might fix shit. Or it might prompt more wars, it depends on whether individual colonies are worth fighting over, or if it's less effort to just move a little further along and colonize the next part.

No.

It isn't just some primal instinct to defend and hold territory. It's about resources in that territory.

Most non-state, inter-ethnic conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, occur over shrinking pastureland on which to graze ever-multiplying herds of cattle. It has everything to do with environmental degradation and nothing to do with a desire to actually capture and hold acreage.

No. It's sad but true


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqzLPjnhvzk

Sovaal wrote:

Deads Heads wrote:It's not human behavior, if most humans on the planet do not partake in it consciously. Competition over resources endangers our survival if not risking outright extinction as it does for other species than humans. People never want war, because they don't benefit from it in any real way. The jobs gotten are imaginary and a state can be funded easily with a solid industrial base and participation in the international market without need for imperialism and harsh taxation or fear of the economic failures caused by financial capitalism.

What? Resource completion is what keeps species (or at least the lucky ones) alive. Those who lose die. Natural selection baby.

And to say that most people don’t compete for resources today is to not under stand things such as the job market and capitalist economy.

That is not what natural selection means, not even as a gross over-simplification of 'winners win, losers lose'. Tying competition to natural selection is capitalist ideology, not evolutionary science. Competition is not a factor in survival, an efficient or even safe way to attempt survival. Competing to acquire resources requires resources in of itself.

I said most people don't want war, because they don't benefit from it in any real way. I also said that competing for resources puts our species at risk for extinction. To be precise, necessitating competition is the dangerous part.

Krasny-Volny wrote:No.

It isn't just some primal instinct to defend and hold territory. It's about resources in that territory.

Most non-state, inter-ethnic conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, occur over shrinking pastureland on which to graze ever-multiplying herds of cattle. It has everything to do with environmental degradation and nothing to do with a desire to actually capture and hold acreage.

Also, I really like your signature. Thanks for supporting me by the way.

If resources scarcity, or uneven resource distribution, can't be solved first, removing what is essentially part of the survival instict isn't going to change much.

So long there is one apple and two hungry guys, they're going to fight over that apple. By removing the will to fight for it, they're just going to starve both. (please don't take this literally, no, they still starve if the eat half of it each)

Rather than manipulating basic human behavious, it could be more effective and clean to remove the need for a fight, by either increasing availability of resources, or by better planning their use to reduce wastes, or by avoiding some from hoarding. But it would be no simpler.