[FoRK] War is a failed policy

Adam L Beberg <beberg at mithral.com> on Thu Apr 26 14:23:02 PDT 2007

J. Andrew Rogers wrote on 4/26/2007 12:38 PM:
> I have carefully qualified "warfare" above because most people use an 
> inappropriate and specious definition.  You can just as easily have 
> extremely aggressive warfare where no one dies as killing fields.  The 
> object of warfare is rarely to kill other people, so it would be 
> spurious reasoning to define warfare in those terms

Animals only fight for one reason, to kill off or marginalize (to die on 
their own) members until the resources support the population. Usually 
that's females, but humans are "smart" so we fight over oil and chunks 
of carbon instead.

No wonder then that countries with low birth rates are so peaceful and 
successful, there is no need at all for conflict. All the countries with 
high birthrates are the opposite. They also strictly control immigration.

The reason it's obsolete is we stopped doing it right. No one dies (we 
can't even find the bad guys) so conflicts cannot end - ever. Genocide 
(usually fairly symmetric) has always been the only form of war that 
works at all, and up until a century or so ago, was how all war worked. 
And now that King Bush screwed up the "war" for oil in Iraq by not 
killing anyone that didn't want us taking all their oil (the only way to 
ever "win"), guess what's resuming - genocide Shi'a vs. Sunni, because 
they have 10 kids each and live in a desert.

In case noone has been paying attention, there is a genocide right here 
in the U.S. In Los Angeles the blacks and the illegal aliens (mexicans) 
are going at it, kill on sight. They are fighting over the only jobs 
there - selling drugs. Guess how many kids they have.

Just wait until peak oil, peak water, and global warming get going. Lets 
just hope bird flu hits and takes out it's random 2/3, it's so much less 
messy and the ones left will still have a civilization.

Adam L. Beberg

More information about the FoRK mailing list