Incidentally, regarding some other things in here:
[quote]They thought that just before World War I. But that’s not my final rejection. Evolutionary arguments are a more powerful reason to believe that people will continue to have conflicts. Those that avoid conflict will be out-competed by those that do not.[/quote]
There’s actually a pretty good counter-argument to this, namely the fact that capital is vastly easier to destroy than it is to create, and that, thusly, an area which avoids conflict has an enormous advantage over one that doesn’t because it maintains more of its capital. As capital becomes increasingly important, conflict—at least, violent, capital-destroying conflict—becomes massively less beneficial to the perpetrator of said conflict, doubly so when they actually also likely benefit from the capital contained in other nations as well due to trade.
And that’s ignoring the fact that we’ve already sort of engineered a global scenario where “The West” (the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, and Western Europe, creeping now as far east as Poland) never attack each other, and slowly make everyone else in the world more like them. It is group selection of a sort, and it seems to be working pretty well. These countries defend their capital, and each others’ capital, benefit from each others’ capital, and engage soley in non-violent conflict with each other. If you threaten them, they crush you and make you more like them; even if you don’t, they work to corrupt you to make you more like them. Indeed, even places like China are slowly being corrupted to be more like the West.
The more that sort of thing happens, the less likely violent conflict becomes because it is simply less beneficial, and indeed, there is even some evidence to suggest we are being selected for docility—in “the West” we’ve seen crime rates and homicide rates decline for 20+ years now.
As a final, random aside:
My favorite thing about the Trinity test was the scientist who was taking side bets on the annihilation of the entire state of New Mexico, right in front of the governor of said state, who I’m sure was absolutely horrified.
the fact that capital is vastly easier to destroy than it is to create
Capital is also easier to capture than it is to create. Your argument looks like saying that it’s better to avoid wars than to lose them. Well, yeah. But what about winning wars?
we’ve already sort of engineered a global scenario where “The West” … never attack each other
In which meaning are you using the word “never”? :-D
The problem is that asymmetric warfare, which is the best way to win a war, is the worst way to acquire capital. Cruise missiles and drones are excellent for winning without any risk at all, but they’re not good for actually keeping the capital you are trying to take intact.
Spying, subversion, and purchasing are far cheaper, safer, and more effective means of capturing capital than violence.
As far as “never” goes—the last time any two “Western” countries were at war was World War II, which was more or less when the “West” came to be in the first place. It isn’t the longest of time spans, but over time armed conflict in Europe has greatly diminished and been pushed further and further east.
The problem is that asymmetric warfare, which is the best way to win a war, is the worst way to acquire capital.
The best way to win a war is to have an overwhelming advantage. That sort is situation is much better described by the word “lopsided”. Asymmetric warfare is something different.
Example: Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Spying, subversion, and purchasing are far cheaper, safer, and more effective means of capturing capital than violence.
Spying can capture technology, but technology is not the same thing as capital. Neither subversion nor purchasing are “means of capturing capital” at all. Subversion destroys capital and purchases are exchanges of assets.
As far as “never” goes—the last time any two “Western” countries were at war was World War II, which was more or less when the “West” came to be in the first place.
That’s an unusual idea of the West. It looks to me like it was custom-made to fit your thesis.
Can you provide a definition? One sufficiently precise to be able to allocate countries like Poland, Israel, Chile, British Virgin Islands, Estonia, etc. to either “West” or “not-West”.
Depends on the capital. Doesn’t work too well for infrastructure and human capital, and the west has plenty of those anyway. What the west is insecure about is energy,and it seems that a combination of diplomacy, threat and proxy warfare is a more efficient way to keep it flowing than all out capture.
The example of von Braun and co crossed my mind. But that was something of a side effect. Fighting a war specifically to capture a smallish numbers of smart people is frought with risks.
Incidentally, you can blockquote paragraphs by putting > in front of them, and you can find other help by clicking the “Show Help” button to the bottom right of the text box. (I have no clue why it’s all the way over there; it makes it way less visible.)
There’s actually a pretty good counter-argument to this, namely the fact that capital is vastly easier to destroy than it is to create, and that, thusly, an area which avoids conflict has an enormous advantage over one that doesn’t because it maintains more of its capital.
But, the more conflict avoidant the agents in an area, the more there is to gain from being an agent that seeks conflict.
The more conflict avoidant the agents in an area, the more there is to gain from being an agent that seeks conflict.
This is only true if the conflict avoidance is innate and is not instead a form of reciprocal altruism.
Reciprocal altruism is an ESS where pure altruism is not because you cannot take advantage of it in this way; if you become belligerent, then everyone else turns on you and you lose. Thus, it is never to your advantage to become belligerent.
Agreed. The word ‘avoid’ and the group selection-y argument made me think it was a good idea to raise that objection and make sure we were discussing reciprocal pacifists, not pure pacifists.
Incidentally, regarding some other things in here:
[quote]They thought that just before World War I. But that’s not my final rejection. Evolutionary arguments are a more powerful reason to believe that people will continue to have conflicts. Those that avoid conflict will be out-competed by those that do not.[/quote]
There’s actually a pretty good counter-argument to this, namely the fact that capital is vastly easier to destroy than it is to create, and that, thusly, an area which avoids conflict has an enormous advantage over one that doesn’t because it maintains more of its capital. As capital becomes increasingly important, conflict—at least, violent, capital-destroying conflict—becomes massively less beneficial to the perpetrator of said conflict, doubly so when they actually also likely benefit from the capital contained in other nations as well due to trade.
And that’s ignoring the fact that we’ve already sort of engineered a global scenario where “The West” (the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, and Western Europe, creeping now as far east as Poland) never attack each other, and slowly make everyone else in the world more like them. It is group selection of a sort, and it seems to be working pretty well. These countries defend their capital, and each others’ capital, benefit from each others’ capital, and engage soley in non-violent conflict with each other. If you threaten them, they crush you and make you more like them; even if you don’t, they work to corrupt you to make you more like them. Indeed, even places like China are slowly being corrupted to be more like the West.
The more that sort of thing happens, the less likely violent conflict becomes because it is simply less beneficial, and indeed, there is even some evidence to suggest we are being selected for docility—in “the West” we’ve seen crime rates and homicide rates decline for 20+ years now.
As a final, random aside:
My favorite thing about the Trinity test was the scientist who was taking side bets on the annihilation of the entire state of New Mexico, right in front of the governor of said state, who I’m sure was absolutely horrified.
Capital is also easier to capture than it is to create. Your argument looks like saying that it’s better to avoid wars than to lose them. Well, yeah. But what about winning wars?
In which meaning are you using the word “never”? :-D
The problem is that asymmetric warfare, which is the best way to win a war, is the worst way to acquire capital. Cruise missiles and drones are excellent for winning without any risk at all, but they’re not good for actually keeping the capital you are trying to take intact.
Spying, subversion, and purchasing are far cheaper, safer, and more effective means of capturing capital than violence.
As far as “never” goes—the last time any two “Western” countries were at war was World War II, which was more or less when the “West” came to be in the first place. It isn’t the longest of time spans, but over time armed conflict in Europe has greatly diminished and been pushed further and further east.
The best way to win a war is to have an overwhelming advantage. That sort is situation is much better described by the word “lopsided”. Asymmetric warfare is something different.
Example: Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Spying can capture technology, but technology is not the same thing as capital. Neither subversion nor purchasing are “means of capturing capital” at all. Subversion destroys capital and purchases are exchanges of assets.
That’s an unusual idea of the West. It looks to me like it was custom-made to fit your thesis.
Can you provide a definition? One sufficiently precise to be able to allocate countries like Poland, Israel, Chile, British Virgin Islands, Estonia, etc. to either “West” or “not-West”.
Depends on the capital. Doesn’t work too well for infrastructure and human capital, and the west has plenty of those anyway. What the west is insecure about is energy,and it seems that a combination of diplomacy, threat and proxy warfare is a more efficient way to keep it flowing than all out capture.
Depends on the human capital. Look at the history of the US space program :-/
At the moment. I’m wary of evolutionary arguments based on a few decades worth of data.
The example of von Braun and co crossed my mind. But that was something of a side effect. Fighting a war specifically to capture a smallish numbers of smart people is frought with risks.
Opportunistic seizure of capital is to be expected in a war fought for any purpose.
Incidentally, you can blockquote paragraphs by putting > in front of them, and you can find other help by clicking the “Show Help” button to the bottom right of the text box. (I have no clue why it’s all the way over there; it makes it way less visible.)
But, the more conflict avoidant the agents in an area, the more there is to gain from being an agent that seeks conflict.
This is only true if the conflict avoidance is innate and is not instead a form of reciprocal altruism.
Reciprocal altruism is an ESS where pure altruism is not because you cannot take advantage of it in this way; if you become belligerent, then everyone else turns on you and you lose. Thus, it is never to your advantage to become belligerent.
Agreed. The word ‘avoid’ and the group selection-y argument made me think it was a good idea to raise that objection and make sure we were discussing reciprocal pacifists, not pure pacifists.