Reason for conflicts in the world?

[G037H3]

Patriotism is obedience to a governmental authority.
Nationalism is placing the goals of your genetic group above your own interests.

If you care to look up the meaning of the word "nation", you will see that a nation is genetic, not geopolitical.

(Quick distinction written for the benefit of those who may not know of these things)

 

[Dale]

...And human conflict ends at that point, too.

Clearly.

So, do you agree now that demand is not unlimited? That each human has a finite demand for any given type of resource, and there are a finite number of types of resources, and even integrated over all time (regardless of whether or not it is meaningful to do so) there are a finite number of humans.

Rational Decisions
This is why the supplies don't have to reach zero in order for a conflict to arise. The cost of producing/harvesting more of your resources simply has to eclipse the cost of a conflict which is expected to produce an equal amount of resources.

This is the key statement and is correct, IMO. As you said, supplies don't have to reach zero, and furthermore neither does demand have to be unlimited. The finite supply and finite demand only need to make the cost of production greater than the cost of conflict.

 

[I_am_learning]

Talked enough for the reasons! Can somebody talk about the solutions (if they exist)?

 

[russ_watters]

Patriotism is obedience to a governmental authority.
Nationalism is placing the goals of your genetic group above your own interests.

If you care to look up the meaning of the word "nation", you will see that a nation is genetic, not geopolitical.

Why don't you do that: none of those is correct!

 

[russ_watters]

Talked enough for the reasons! Can somebody talk about the solutions (if they exist)?

The west has been at peace with each other for 60 years, which is unprecedented in the history of the world. So modeling the rest of the world after what the West has accomplished would seem to be the solution.

 

[KingNothing]

So, do you agree now that demand is not unlimited?

This is what I said:

a growing human population's demand over all time, is not limited.

This is the assumption made. A population of zero is not a growing population. Obviously humans will die out at some point...But I think trying to come up with theories that can explain (or are even congruent with) the end of human existence is asking a bit much.

I would still contend that even in a finite amount of time, there is infinite demand. People will always want their products to be faster, easier, prettier, etc. All those things take resources to improve upon.

 

[Dale]

I would still contend that even in a finite amount of time, there is infinite demand. People will always want their products to be faster, easier, prettier, etc. All those things take resources to improve upon.

Sure, it takes resources to improve something, but not an infinite amount of resources. Your position wrt infinite demand is not only untenable but unnecessary.

 

[I_am_learning]

The west has been at peace with each other for 60 years, which is unprecedented in the history of the world. So modeling the rest of the world after what the West has accomplished would seem to be the solution.

Oh! Yeah, I had overlooked that point. I had been assuming there is conflict all over the world.
Seems like most of the conflicts are between or within poor countries. And Conflicts make them even poorer. The vicious cycle repeats, I think.

 

[klimatos]

Societies fight for the same reasons that individual humans fight. Individual humans fight for the same reasons that most mammals fight: territory, mates, or simply to prove who is "king of the hill".

This would not be a problem if the weapons that societies possesses were not so awesome and far-reaching. World War II killed fifty million people and destroyed trillions in property. And for what?

The roots of world conflict can be seen--in miniature--in any local high-school basketball game. My school is better than your school! Why? Because it's MINE!

 

[Andre]

One may look around a bit in the concept of groupthink to see parallels. This goes especially for the element of

Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

The same seems to happen on a scale of nations where stereotyping is about the other race, the other nationalities, the other religions, heathens, etc.

I think there are also elements based on the bit more complex the enemy of my enemy is my friend concept.. One can unite a loosely uncoherent group or several groups, by scapegoating a potential common opponent, and thus creating a vicious enemy image.

I would not go as far to consider this to be the main activity of politicians -especially during election campaigns-, but you know you recognise that mechanism when you hear him saying "If you are not with us, you are against us.".

So I guess this is an important mechanism for conflicts in the world: create a vicious enemy to gather friends around you who will adore you for being such a courageous leader.

See also 'flaming wars', polarization and..

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. This is true even of the pious brethren who carry the gospel to foreign parts. H.L. Mencken

 

[kraphysics]

The statements in the OP are too vague to be of any use. In general what I find is that all situations(conflicts) in this case, must be taken on a case by case basis. It makes no sense to provide some vague reason for all conflicts because usually, the explanation is intrinsically tied to some fundamental characteristic that humans have. Practically this offers no solution and contributes absolutely nothing. It is a philosophical exercise that is irrelevant to the issue, in my opinion.

 

[skippy1729]

Do you consider this the reason for conflicts in the world-
Political Leaders Love their country men more than people in other countries, they love their family more than their country men and they love themselves and their egos more than anything else.

In more clear sense, I meant that the political leader will love to feed one citizen of their country by stealing food from 10 citizens of another country and starving them to death.

Don't you think patriotism to this extend exits?
I am considering patriotism as the main reason for conflict in the world. Whats wrong if you love all people equally?

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Golda Meir, 1957.

 

[pergradus]

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Golda Meir, 1957.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

 

[Darken-Sol]

we could have a world arena where rulers settled disputes man to man. i doubt any leader would wage war if his butt were on the line. any country who broke the rules would forfeit its right to exist.

 

[Office_Shredder]

any country who broke the rules would forfeit its right to exist.

Why would any nation capable of enforcing this agree to these rules?

 

[Darken-Sol]

Why would any nation capable of enforcing this agree to these rules?

who knows, honor maybe? the rest of the world could make them? i just thought it would make people less eager to go to war, while also satisfying our blood lust.

 

[OmCheeto]

who knows, honor maybe? the rest of the world could make them? i just thought it would make people less eager to go to war, while also satisfying our blood lust.

Star Trek, episode 23. A Taste of Armageddon.

The crew of the Enterprise visits a planet whose people fight a computer simulated war with a neighboring enemy planet. The crew finds that although the war is fought via computer simulation, the citizens of each planet have to submit to real executions inside 'disintegration booths' based on the results of simulated attacks. The crew of the Enterprise is caught in the middle and are told to submit themselves voluntarily for execution after being 'killed' in an 'enemy attack'.

I believe the moral of the story was that if war is made too sterile and clean and no one has to look at blood and guts and brain bits, it will go on forever. Even after no one alive knows what started the fight, nor why they are still killing each other, other than, it's just the way it is supposed to be.

My apologies for not reading through the entire thread before posting, but this one just jumped out at me.

 

[OmCheeto]

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Golda Meir, 1957.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Sounds like Andre's quote to me:

If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years.

I don't find anything absurd about either one of those quotes. hmmm... Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't find anything absurd about either one of those quotes. hmmm... Maybe I'm missing something.

Golda's comment is absurd because it's so naive. (It was the 50's...)
It seems to suggest war is entirely their doing. America loves its children yet still meddles in the politics and future of Middle Eastern nations. If they loved their children more, would they decide their children don't need oil to power their cars?

Andre's is naive in the same way, yet spoken in the 21st century.

 

[OmCheeto]

I can't believe no one mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania" .

The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact that he wishes to be powerful rather than charming, and seeks to be feared rather than loved. To this type belong many lunatics and most of the great men of history.

Alexander the Great

During his final years, and especially after the death of Hephaestion, Alexander the Great began to exhibit signs of megalomania and paranoia. His extraordinary achievements, coupled with his own ineffable sense of destiny and the flattery of his companions, may have combined to produce this effect.

 

[Andre]

I can't believe no one mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania" .

Not everybody is a megalomaniac and if such a person got the power he wants too, he still had to convince a large group of people that he should be the leader in the holy war against the made-up enemy, as I elaborated upon here. He would not stand a chance if the world around him reacted as Dr Spock

One could also consider that group think is the same as herd instinct as ultimately it's groups against groups, etnic, race, nationalities, anything you can make your own group distinctive of others.

Think also about primitive survival instincts, the urge to survive as individual, to have offspring survive and have the group (species, tribe, etc) survive.

Maybe think a bit about naivity too.

 

[OmCheeto]

Not everybody is a megalomaniac and if such a person got the power he wants too, he still had to convince a large group of people that he should be the leader in the holy war against the made-up enemy, as I elaborated upon here. He would not stand a chance if the world around him reacted as Dr Spock

One could also consider that group think is the same as herd instinct as ultimately it's groups against groups, etnic, race, nationalities, anything you can make your own group distinctive of others.

Think also about primitive survival instincts, the urge to survive as individual, to have offspring survive and have the group (species, tribe, etc) survive.

Maybe think a bit about naivity too.

Hmmm... I imagine you are referring to Dr. Benjamin Spock, but the google image selection makes sense too:

We always referred to him as "Mr Spock".

I am as usual, in general agreement with your analysis, and would expand upon my thoughts, but as always, am late for work. Ciao!

 

[DaveC426913]

We always referred to him as "Mr Spock".

So did the rest of the world - before the internets came along and every idiot could attach any old metadata to an image.