NATION

PASSWORD

Could we stop human behavior of fighting over territory?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Yagon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1771
Founded: May 27, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Could we stop human behavior of fighting over territory?

Postby Yagon » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:45 am

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.

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16143
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Father Knows Best State

Postby Alvecia » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:48 am

I think we're getting there, slowly. Certainly, we're far better about it than we used to be.
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
Yagon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1771
Founded: May 27, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Yagon » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:54 am

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?

User avatar
Thermodolia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 42254
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Thermodolia » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:55 am

No
Male, centrist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, loves dogs particularly German Shepherds, give me any good Irish or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA:
Ambassador to the GA Jon Æthr
Ambassador to the SC Eve Šanœ

RIP Dya

User avatar
Edreland
Attaché
 
Posts: 73
Founded: Jan 22, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Edreland » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:56 am

No, there will always be fighting over territory. Especially as the infinite expanses of space are opened up to us.
Edreland
Founded originally February 2014
Sir Alexander Forbes
Ambassador to the WA

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 89013
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:56 am

I don't think so,

Mammals do what mammals do.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Yagon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1771
Founded: May 27, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Yagon » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:57 am

Thermodolia wrote:No


Bummer.

User avatar
Yagon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1771
Founded: May 27, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Yagon » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:59 am

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.

User avatar
Thermodolia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 42254
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Thermodolia » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:00 am

Ethel mermania wrote:I don't think so,

Mammals do what mammals do.

Thanks for reminding me of this
Male, centrist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, loves dogs particularly German Shepherds, give me any good Irish or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA:
Ambassador to the GA Jon Æthr
Ambassador to the SC Eve Šanœ

RIP Dya

User avatar
Yagon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1771
Founded: May 27, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Yagon » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:01 am

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?

User avatar
Saiwania
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13948
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
New York Times Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:11 am

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.

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16143
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Father Knows Best State

Postby Alvecia » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:12 am

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.
Last edited by Alvecia on Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27548
Founded: Dec 18, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:13 am

Slowly. Maybe.

Hopefully.
❤BITTEN BY THE VAMPIRE QUEEN OF COOKIES❤ NSwiki WA Ambassador: Silver Zephyr. NS's sexyest user 2016 Male 18-29 NSG 2016 Award for Humour 2018 award for most friendly poster (tied with Luminesa)
WBC 38 Postseason team, WBC 40 Postseason Quarterfinalist team, WBC 41 Semifinalists, WBC 42 Third place
Democrats 2018 Democrats 2020 Trump is irredeemable
Rainbow dash Is best pony.Scootalove is best love.A love letter to NS

User avatar
Yagon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1771
Founded: May 27, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Yagon » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:17 am

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?

User avatar
Internationalist Bastard
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19485
Founded: Aug 09, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Internationalist Bastard » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:17 am

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
Call me Alex, I insist
I am a girl, damnit
Slut Pride. So like, real talk, I’m a porn actress. We’re not all bimbos
“Whatever you are, be a good one” Abe Lincoln

User avatar
Sovaal
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12369
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sovaal » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:18 am

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.

Dirty centrist
Unapologetic Jon Snow supporter
"Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak.” - George Orwell

User avatar
Deads Heads
Attaché
 
Posts: 90
Founded: Feb 12, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Deads Heads » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:18 am

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.
NSG's resident deadheadist. HA! HA!! Beware.
Abraxim wrote:
Deads Heads wrote:Because God is evil, at least according to the standards we, the puny worms beneath him, put up. Not only does he allow evil to exist but propagates evil in his words and actions. Therefore, there really are no good Christians, when you get right down to it. All you find is ignorance-praising tyrant worship out of fear of eternal torture in a lake of fire by a ghost and his minions at the end of the world or hatred towards those upon whom the punishment will be enacted. Or both.

Heavenly Father,

I pray that the person who believes the opinion above comes to know you, and you can take away the blindness in his heart.

In the name of Jesus Christ, our only true Lord.

Amen.

User avatar
Yagon
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1771
Founded: May 27, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Yagon » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:18 am

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.

User avatar
Sovaal
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12369
Founded: Mar 17, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sovaal » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:20 am

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.

Dirty centrist
Unapologetic Jon Snow supporter
"Rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak.” - George Orwell

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Post Czar
 
Posts: 45943
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:35 am

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.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
British Nationalist And Syndicalist.
Why we can't have nice things.

User avatar
Krasny-Volny
Minister
 
Posts: 2521
Founded: Nov 20, 2010
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Krasny-Volny » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:38 am

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.
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.

User avatar
Mega Mexico
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 143
Founded: Jul 13, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Mega Mexico » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:42 am

ALL RIGHT LISTEN UP YOU ONE-LIFESPAN, THREE DIMENSIONAL, FIVE SENSE SKIN PUPPETS! FOR ONE TRILLION YEARS I'VE BEEN TRAPPED IN MY OWN DECAYING DIMENSION, WAITING FOR A NEW UNIVERSE TO CALL MY OWN. THE NAME IS BILL, BUT YOU CAN CALL ME YOUR NEW LORD AND MASTER FOR ALL OF ETERNITY!
[_★_] Join the revolution!
Feel free to telegram me!

User avatar
Deads Heads
Attaché
 
Posts: 90
Founded: Feb 12, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Deads Heads » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:42 am

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.
NSG's resident deadheadist. HA! HA!! Beware.
Abraxim wrote:
Deads Heads wrote:Because God is evil, at least according to the standards we, the puny worms beneath him, put up. Not only does he allow evil to exist but propagates evil in his words and actions. Therefore, there really are no good Christians, when you get right down to it. All you find is ignorance-praising tyrant worship out of fear of eternal torture in a lake of fire by a ghost and his minions at the end of the world or hatred towards those upon whom the punishment will be enacted. Or both.

Heavenly Father,

I pray that the person who believes the opinion above comes to know you, and you can take away the blindness in his heart.

In the name of Jesus Christ, our only true Lord.

Amen.

User avatar
Mega Mexico
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 143
Founded: Jul 13, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Mega Mexico » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:44 am

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.
ALL RIGHT LISTEN UP YOU ONE-LIFESPAN, THREE DIMENSIONAL, FIVE SENSE SKIN PUPPETS! FOR ONE TRILLION YEARS I'VE BEEN TRAPPED IN MY OWN DECAYING DIMENSION, WAITING FOR A NEW UNIVERSE TO CALL MY OWN. THE NAME IS BILL, BUT YOU CAN CALL ME YOUR NEW LORD AND MASTER FOR ALL OF ETERNITY!
[_★_] Join the revolution!
Feel free to telegram me!

User avatar
Lost Memories
Diplomat
 
Posts: 539
Founded: Nov 29, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Lost Memories » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:11 am

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.

Next

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aellex, Arkhane, Bluquse, Dogmeat, Dooom35796821595, Eastern Holy Roman Empire, Estanglia, Firaxin, Freezic Vast, Galloism, Hammer Britannia, Heloin, Infected Mushroom, Liriena, Majestic-12 [Bot], Maltropia, Nocturnalis, Orilya, Philjia, Rage Issues, San Lumen, Shrillland, Sicaris, Stonok, Telconi, The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp, The Empire of Pretantia, The Great Imperator Jeffrey, The New California Republic, The Russian Democratic Republic, The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord, Upper Westphalia, Uxupox, Valgora, Vassenor, Wopruthien

Remove ads