Correction: the Youtube link should point to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpwSNiLV-nw, not the current location (a previous video of yours).
Celer
6/23
5/23
Monthly Shorts 8/21
Monthly Shorts 4/23
Monthly Shorts 3/23
Monthly Shorts 1&2/23
I wish I knew! Nobody has yet explained it to me, nor do I have any theories I am particularly confident in.
Monthly Shorts 12/22
Monthly Shorts 11/22
Monthly Shorts 10/22
Monthly Shorts 9/22, and An Essay in Defense of Technodeterminism
Monthly Shorts 8/22
Monthly Shorts 7/22
Monthly Shorts 6/22
Monthly Shorts 5/22
Monthly Shorts 4/2022
This is deeply unconvincing. We didn’t have a great power war in the 60s or the 70s because that would have meant nuclear war. High-level US government officials in internal documents describe Russia as an existential threat. Russian government documents, as I understand it, reflect terror of American willingness to use nukes. We haven’t had a war between the US and China yet, but estimates of that holding true over the next five years are less confident than I’d like.
“Most wars have ultimately been fought over land because land determines food production and food production was a matter of life and death.”
It seems like you’re explaining the actions of kings with the preferences of peasants (and I am very unconvinced that a victorious war was better for the average peasant than peace), and I don’t see that as particularly persuasive.
Priors are relative to how much evidence can be shared. There may not be agreement in a single conversation, but they should expect movement towards a common belief, though there are degenerate counter-cases. For example, perhaps both parties share a base rate and have different pieces of information that push in the same direction.
How do you expect journalism to work? The author is trying to contribute one specific story, in detail. Readers have other experiences to compare and draw from. If this was an academic piece, I might be more sympathetic.