Would there still be wars?

[Capt. Haddock]

Ok, various different threads concerning the causes of conflict have got me thinking.

For all the talk of religious and cultural conflicts, I am of the belief that humans are fundamentally greedy creatures. I think we fight over stuff: land, oil, money, gold, diamonds, cattle, water, etc. Cultural and religious differences are only the backdrop: the excuses we make to legitimise our violence or the criteria we use to distinguish friend from foe.

But this leads me to a question:

If, hypothetically, we lived in a world where there were no shortages, a world of unlimited abundance where all we could possibly need or want was there for the taking, with little or no effort: would there still be wars?

What would people fight about?

 

[kai]

Ok, various different threads concerning the causes of conflict have got me thinking.

For all the talk of religious and cultural conflicts, I am of the belief that humans are fundamentally greedy creatures. I think we fight over stuff: land, oil, money, gold, diamonds, cattle, water, etc. Cultural and religious differences are only the backdrop: the excuses we make to legitimise our violence or the criteria we use to distinguish friend from foe.

But this leads me to a question:

If, hypothetically, we lived in a world where there were no shortages, a world of unlimited abundance where all we could possibly need or want was there for the taking, with little or no effort: would there still be wars?

What would people fight about?

religion?

 

[Capt. Haddock]

religion?

Why would we fight over religion?

Yes, because we have that now. Unfortunately, to share is not enough, we have to have more than the next guy and we have to have control over the resources. That's what wars are about, control.

But we don’t live in a world of unlimited resources. Scarcity is what makes resources valuable in the first place. Resources are not evenly distributed. Some places have lots of gold but not enough water, other places have lots of water, but not enough oil, etc.

Let’s assume we all had one of those replicators like the ones on Star Trek, where you could push a button and get a cup of coffee, a steak, a beachfront condo, or a Mercedes Benz.

What good would control give you? What would you want anybody else to give you or do for you that you couldn’t get by merely pressing a button on the replicator?

 

[Booko]

But we don’t live in a world of unlimited resources. Scarcity is what makes resources valuable in the first place. Resources are not evenly distributed. Some places have lots of gold but not enough water, other places have lots of water, but not enough oil, etc.

No, we don't live in a world of unlimited resources. But we do live in a world that has more resources than we seem to think we have. Because of those control issues, that lack of equitable use of resources, some people (like us) get to live in luxury unknown by any of our ancestors anywhere, while others live in blinding poverty.

I hardly need to tell you about how our interference in Latin American countries has had the effect of making people poorer than they need be.

Let’s assume we all had one of those replicators like the ones on Star Trek, where you could push a button and get a cup of coffee, a steak, a beachfront condo, or a Mercedes Benz.

We don't even need unlimited resources to examine a scenario where war doesn't happen. When was the last time one of the United States declared war on another state?* (The Civil War was not between individual states, and was not about resources.)

Why not?


*Hint: It involved Michigan.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Yes there would still be wars, or at least conflict. I don’t think the cause of conflict is greed, I think it is evolution. Nature is a struggle and the strong survive. The animal in us wants to continue this struggle, to get out there and spread the genetic make up in order to continue the struggle.

What makes us human is the desire to end that struggle and exist in peace with one another. But the animal is still there, under the surface, and will always seek out a reason to continue the struggle.

I think one great ability of humanity is to redirect the struggle into more productive channels. Scientific research and exploration is, to me, a redirection of the animalistic struggle for survival. It is here that we will find the end to war. The more ways we find to redirect the struggle the less reason we will have to fight. Simply supplying every human want or need will not be enough to satisfy the animal within.

 

[Smoke]

If, hypothetically, we lived in a world where there were no shortages, a world of unlimited abundance where all we could possibly need or want was there for the taking, with little or no effort: would there still be wars?

What would people fight about?

Land and religion.

We cannot allow our ancient homelands to fall under Presbyterian control, and the Presbyterians must be enlightened with the true religion.

 

[Capt. Haddock]

[/font]No, we don't live in a world of unlimited resources. But we do live in a world that has more resources than we seem to think we have. Because of those control issues, that lack of equitable use of resources, some people (like us) get to live in luxury unknown by any of our ancestors anywhere, while others live in blinding poverty.

It is a combination of greed and scarcity which leads to scenarios where some feast while others starve. But what if everybody feasted? That’s the question.

We don't even need unlimited resources to examine a scenario where war doesn't happen. When was the last time one of the United States declared war on another state?* (The Civil War was not between individual states, and was not about resources.)

Why not?


*Hint: It involved Michigan.

Well, if it involved Michigan, those devious Latvian devils must have had something to do with it.

I don’t know why not. I think if this country wasn’t as prosperous as it is, and if there weren’t foreign threats and enemies, there could very easily be internal conflict here. Not necessarily between states, more likely it would be racial or class warfare.

, I think it is evolution. Nature is a struggle and the strong survive. The animal in us wants to continue this struggle, to get out there and spread the genetic make up in order to continue the struggle.

.

OK, that makes sense. But isn't the imperative to pass along our genes more of an individual imperative? To be very crude, conflict over spreading our genetic make up can be boiled down to conflict over access to attractive sex partners. People fight over sex partners all the time, but more on a one-to-one scale. It's harder to imagine armies heading off to war in search of boo-tay as opposed to booty...but I suppose it might happen. The vikings were known for a bit of rape and pillage. Bush wars in Africa also very often involve large-scale rape.

 

[kai]

Why would we fight over religion?

But we don’t live in a world of unlimited resources. Scarcity is what makes resources valuable in the first place. Resources are not evenly distributed. Some places have lots of gold but not enough water, other places have lots of water, but not enough oil, etc.

Let’s assume we all had one of those replicators like the ones on Star Trek, where you could push a button and get a cup of coffee, a steak, a beachfront condo, or a Mercedes Benz.

What good would control give you? What would you want anybody else to give you or do for you that you couldn’t get by merely pressing a button on the replicator?

the superiority complex!

 

[Jon]

The vikings were known for a bit of rape and pillage. Bush wars in Africa also very often involve large-scale rape.

So thats why it's called "Bush Wars"
: hamster :

 

[michel]

Ok, various different threads concerning the causes of conflict have got me thinking.

For all the talk of religious and cultural conflicts, I am of the belief that humans are fundamentally greedy creatures. I think we fight over stuff: land, oil, money, gold, diamonds, cattle, water, etc. Cultural and religious differences are only the backdrop: the excuses we make to legitimise our violence or the criteria we use to distinguish friend from foe.

But this leads me to a question:

If, hypothetically, we lived in a world where there were no shortages, a world of unlimited abundance where all we could possibly need or want was there for the taking, with little or no effort: would there still be wars?

What would people fight about?

Sex, which is the real "base" of all the other reasons you gave above.

Freud wasn't far wrong about what motivates us; the most important of our needs is survival. That includes the survival by reproduction; to achieve that the best way entails finding the 'best' mate.

To find the 'best' mate, we need to be more 'attractive' than our fellow man; one of the best ways to do that is to have the best prospects (good job, good money); the whole whirligig just stems from that one need: Survival.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Ok, various different threads concerning the causes of conflict have got me thinking.

For all the talk of religious and cultural conflicts, I am of the belief that humans are fundamentally greedy creatures. I think we fight over stuff: land, oil, money, gold, diamonds, cattle, water, etc. Cultural and religious differences are only the backdrop: the excuses we make to legitimise our violence or the criteria we use to distinguish friend from foe.

But this leads me to a question:

If, hypothetically, we lived in a world where there were no shortages, a world of unlimited abundance where all we could possibly need or want was there for the taking, with little or no effort: would there still be wars?

What would people fight about?

They will still fight for mate, the survival of the selfish gene instinct, the force of the nature to ensure continuing propagation of the species of the strongest.

War was there to ensure the group of the same genetic pool survive and multiply. So there is always a need to compete between two male to get the female to propagate HIS own gene. So this individual need will continue on........