[Andy_B]

Not really a PC sentiment, but it seems like it's true.

It's probably not an accident that the minute nuclear weapons made state-on-state direct warfare between major powers obsolete, proxy wars and terrorism became all the rage.

It also seems like the rise of war metaphors in business and dating advice and shit correlates pretty well with the decline of formal warfare between large states.

At some point, it's inevitable you'll get into verbal fights with other men... Question is, how do you handle it? Actually fighting every fight that presents itself doesn't seem smart; dudes who are overly combative seem pretty miserable. But how do you show you're not willing to participate, without actually backing down? With a joke?

[RawGod]

(07-24-2012 08:04 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  

Not really a PC sentiment...

To the internment camp with you.

[Andy_B]

(07-24-2012 08:42 AM)RawGod Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 08:04 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  

Not really a PC sentiment...

To the internment camp with you.

[ccurtis189]

It's an inevitable consequence of human nature and the struggle for resources.

[Kitsune]

(07-24-2012 09:54 AM)ccurtis189 Wrote:  

It's an inevitable consequence of human nature and the struggle for resources.

Yep.

Limited resources. Your value as a human being is basically equivalent to the amount of resources you can acquire for your lineage.

War isn't necessary, but it is a way to achieve this.

[hoops330]

(07-24-2012 10:54 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  

(07-24-2012 09:54 AM)ccurtis189 Wrote:  

It's an inevitable consequence of human nature and the struggle for resources.

Yep.

Limited resources. Your value as a human being is basically equivalent to the amount of resources you can acquire for your lineage.

War isn't necessary, but it is a way to achieve this.

That means economics is the basic issue at hand...finite amounts of land, capital, labor to satisfy unlimited wants.

[RichieP]

Economics has only been an issue the past 10,000 years (after agriculture and explosive population growth) We had hundreds of thousands of years before that living in small tribes that wandered around, maybe interacted marginally but largely didnt bother each other.

As hunter-gatherers we lived in small 15-150 person tribes (which we're evolved for). Aggression, anger, killer instinct, strength etc are healthy human capacities - necessary for hunting, defense against predators, stabilising inter-tribal disorder etc. I think alot of what drives war and conflict in civilisation comes from extreme version of these healthy capacities though. More pathological disorder that we've developed with civilisation and over-population (due to agriculture), than functional healthy trait.

[Giovonny]

Of course not..

War is not central to men, its central to survival for all humans and animals.

Its bullshit that men get labeled as violent and women are presumed to be non-violent. Thats bullshit. They are more cruel then us. Imagine if women ruled the world and controlled the militaries, there would be more government sponsored senseless violence, more petty disputes and more of the viscous cycle of revenge.

Who would you rather control the guns? The logical or the emotional?

What do animals do when they feel threatened or are hungry? They attack. Did men cause this instinct?

No.

Blame it on God or mother nature or whatever you want to call it. Violence is a natural result of the struggle for finite resources. If all the men disappeared, women would go to war for gold, pearls, silk, and diamonds.

[teh_skeeze]

It's already been said, but I will reiterate: All wars are fought for economic reasons.

I'm sure we'd all agree that, as men, it is our purpose to gather resources. War is one of the ways to do so. The problem is that the people fighting the wars today aren't profiting from the spoils. Instead those go to the chickenhawks in power.

[Andy_B]

(07-24-2012 12:01 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

Of course not..

War is not central to men, its central to survival for all humans and animals.

Its bullshit that men get labeled as violent and women are presumed to be non-violent. Thats bullshit. They are more cruel then us. Imagine if women ruled the world and controlled the militaries, there would be more government sponsored senseless violence, more petty disputes and more of the viscous cycle of revenge.

Who would you rather control the guns? The logical or the emotional?

What do animals do when they feel threatened or are hungry? They attack. Did men cause this instinct?

No.

Blame it on God or mother nature or whatever you want to call it. Violence is a natural result of the struggle for finite resources. If all the men disappeared, women would go to war for gold, pearls, silk, and diamonds.

I'm just talking about overt forms of conflict. Obviously women compete with each other, but it seems to indirect and passive-aggressive to be labelled as war.

[bface]

War destroys resources and ergo does not make sense economically.

There have been long periods of peace and trading in human history, but of course that's boring and thus most history books focus on wars etc.

Some people profit from wars (usually the ones lobbying...) but it is bad for an economy anyways (see broken window fallacy).

Often fighting is overcompensation. A reasonable man will avoid conflict if possible because it preserves precious resources.

[Andy_B]

(07-24-2012 01:17 PM)bface Wrote:  

War destroys resources and ergo does not make sense economically.

If you wipe out a big enough population you can just take all their resources, so even if a portion are destroyed, they are now shared amongst a smaller group, and therefore (relatively) more abundant.

(no sociopath)

[bface]

(07-24-2012 01:23 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

If you wipe out a big enough population you can just take all their resources, so even if a portion are destroyed, they are now shared amongst a smaller group, and therefore (relatively) more abundant.

(no sociopath)

Good you added that last bit

This might be true for natural resources, but there are many manufactured goods too. Imagine how many people it takes to create a simple pen.

Every time you reduce population, you reduce the living standard of the whole (if there was no overpopulation beforehand of course). This is why laisser-faire countries with a lot of immigrants do really well.

But then with war, thankfully, the whole population is not wiped out usually. But you still lose a lot of lives, usually the productive young ones and you destroy a lot of resources/work capacity too.

[kdolo]

Long ago I figured out that one of the purposes of war is simply to reduce sexual competition.

Who starts wars historically ???

Old men (kings.emperors.pharoahs, generals, etc.)

Who fights the wars and dies fighting them ???

Young men.

What is left behind typically ??

land, resources, and ........women - young/old/widows/ .......

Ancient tribal chiefs must have figured out that in order to keep control and run of the females that periodically he would have to
kill off the younger males and/or distract them - dissipate the testerone or kill it off.

War: "Old men talk while young men die:

[kosko]

War is largely feminine. I will go into detail in another post I have saved.

Men were given the gift of aggression and strength

BUT

The rationality to only use it when needed... life or death.

The tenants of war conflict with the desires and tropes of Males.

The desire to "Stuff" and salugther fellow men outside of any class or cultural base that would effect a mans life is feminine.

The ancient God of Slaughter Agrona, is a female.

War is Femine.... Not Masculine.

This is why when the Male dominated military and research during the cold war used rationality to delude themselves into a possible war push.
Their rationality actually kept them from fighting because it served no good to either side. Male rationality kept us from literally destroying all of mankind with a nuclear war.

[kdolo]

(07-24-2012 03:14 PM)kosko Wrote:  

War is largely feminine. I will go into detail in another post I have saved.

Men were given the gift of aggression and strength

BUT

The rationality to only use it when needed... life or death.

The tenants of war conflict with the desires and tropes of Males.

The desire to "Stuff" and salugther fellow men outside of any class or cultural base that would effect a mans life is feminine.

The ancient God of Slaughter Agrona, is a female.

War is Femine.... Not Masculine.

This is why when the Male dominated military and research during the cold war used rationality to delude themselves into a possible war push.
Their rationality actually kept them from fighting because it served no good to either side. Male rationality kept us from literally destroying all of mankind with a nuclear war.

Exactly ...War in many ways is the height of feminine or even beta behavior.

The rational typically is: since I can't earn what I want or control or convince those who have what I want to give it to me at the price I am willing to pay by peaceful honorable means, I will destroy them using extreme violence.

In this way war is the triumph of the feminine/beta

[Giovonny]

(07-24-2012 03:14 PM)kosko Wrote:  

War is largely feminine.

Thank you kosko!!!

Secure men try to find a solution through non violent means. Pussy type guys will resort to violence right away.

I first learned this through a friend that had survived the mean streets of south central LA.

He told me..."the ones you gotta watch out for are the bitch type of men. They will kill you quick because they know they can not compete with you. They don't want to confront you face to face and deal with the facts"

Killing someone is the easy way out. And usually, it's a pussy move. Real men try to handle to situation properly. Killing is only a worst case scenario.

Art of War-The best generals can win a victory without even fighting a battle.

[Basil Ransom]

(07-24-2012 08:04 AM)Andy_B Wrote:  

It also seems like the rise of war metaphors in business and dating advice and shit correlates pretty well with the decline of formal warfare between large states.

That's been going for ages. In Sir Gawain and The Green Knight, the hunting scenes are metaphorical parallels to the seduction scenes.

(07-24-2012 11:22 AM)RichieP Wrote:  

We had hundreds of thousands of years before that living in small tribes that wandered around, maybe interacted marginally but largely didnt bother each other.

Nope, false. Prehistoric humanity was brutal. About 0.5% of the population died from warfare every year. Link.

Quote:

Not so many women as men die in warfare, it is true. But that is because they are often the object of the fighting.

Hobbes 1, Rousseau 0.

[porscheguy]

Traditional war was good for men if you were on the winning team and didn't get killed. It was guaranteed pussy and profit as soon as the fighting was done, and once you returned home victorious, your elevated social status guaranteed you more pussy and profit.

In 2012, war is not such a good idea. It's only profitable for those who hold government contracts because pillaging is forbidden, and fucking the local widows can get you a court martial. There's no change in social status or recognition for serving. If anything, you'll get less pussy because your wife/girlfriend will roll out on you while you're gone.