-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
As long as someone has what somone else wants, there will be war.
Not entirely true. I’m a proponent of the theory that war is a result of inefficient trade. Suppose Canada has some resource that the US wants, call it dilithium crystals. The cost to mine dilithium crystals is X, which is a fixed cost, regardless who does the mining. The cost of going to war with Canada is Y. So as long as the profit margin that Canada wants is less than Y, then it makes no sense to go to war over dilithium crystals.
The causes of war are myriad and complex. It’s not a math equation.
Everything is a math equation 😉
I might have simplified it down a bit (because I don’t expect that everyone knows multivariate differential equations), but I think my argument scales to any level of complexity you care to discuss.
Complexity is one thing, reason is another. I can think of a number of reasons people go to war that doesn’t involve trade.
Furthermore, at this point no one can predict human behavior with multivariate differential equations, or anything else for that matter.
While we’re talking about science, the fundamental laws of nature prevent us from knowing everything. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc.
“I can think of a number of reasons people go to war that doesn’t involve trade.”
Ok, go ahead and list them, along with historical examples. Pro-tip: don’t even bother using the American Revolution or the Civil War, I’ll shoot those down faster than you can read the wikipedia articles.
I’m not saying I can predict human behavior. I’m saying that we can model the cost/benefit analysis of war and show that, given free trade between nation, there is no rational incentive for war. Now you might say, “AHA, what about irrational people?”. And my response would be that irrational people are generally not very good at maintaining the organizational complexity that’s necessary for contemporary war.
The Afghanistan War.
We went to war with them in retaliation to the 9/11 attacks.
You really sound too smart to make such gross generalizations.
“We went to war with them in retaliation to the 9/11 attacks.”
Aren’t you just adorably naive.
I’m talking about the real reasons for wars, not the bullshit that used to make people feel better about it.
Please share with us then reboot what is the real reason for that war? You can’t challenge sambo78 and then respond with “No! You are wrong!” Also I would like to note that sambo78 has been polite this whole discussion and if you would like your opinions to be taken seriously than maybe you should be too.
Haha, you got nothing, so you’re resorting to personal attacks.
Tell me, what WAS the reason for the war? Go ahead, but I’ll shoot it down before you can make another unsupported argument.
That’s basic logic for you. If you make one generalization, all I have to do is raise one counterpoint to defeat your whole argument.
Reboot, you’re being an ass, but most of the time your theory holds. Just don’t ignore facts to protect your sacred cow.
I’m not going to apologize or explain anything. You seriously think that the US has spent billions of dollars to invade and occupy Afghanistan out of revenge? I’ll bet you think that invading Iraq was because of weapons of mass destruction.
So you’re saying I’m wrong, but you refuse to say why.
Gotcha.
And yeah, we invaded because of the 9/11 attacks. They were a direct cause of the war.
“They were a direct cause of the war.”
Literally, L. O. L. “The war”, as in the series of conflicts over who controls Central Asia, has been going on for about two hundred years now. The prize is a trillion dollars worth of mineral resources and an strategic foothold between the Middle East and the Far East.
With regards to my original theory, the obstacle to free trade is that the region has never developed a stable government of its own, so its one of the few cases on Earth where the cost of invading and taking what you want is a less than the cost of negotiating trade with the native people.
I am facepalming at your intellectual dishonesty.
Don’t purposefully conflate several different conflicts.
No how much you try to massage the facts, you can not change the fact that 9/11 happened and our response was to invade Afghanistan.
You’ve been proven wrong. Man up and deal with it. It happens to the best of us.
Honestly, your arrogance ruined this for you from the beginning.
You’re not doing very good at this. Would you like some help?
Really, the way to shatter my argument would be come up with more than just one weak example. Something where, even after the war was decisively one, the victors didn’t gain any territory. World War I: that might be a good example. Everyone knew that no matter who won, they wouldn’t be able to hold any territory gained. The causes of WWI could be described almost completely in terms of social between friction between a monarchy mindset and the realities of industrial warfare.
But don’t actually use that example, you should come up your own instead.
You really have no concept of basic logic, do you?
If you make a sweeping generalization, all I have to do is give a single counter argument to prove you incorrect, which I have done. It’s that simple.
For all your pretentious pseudo-intellectual posturing, you can’t seem to grasp something simple. I don’t believe it’s because you’re stupid, but your fragile ego won’t let you admit you’re wrong.
You keep justifying your statements with unsupported arguments and circular logic. Now you’re moving the goalposts.
Your current argument has two flaws.
One, territory gained at the end of the war has nothing to do with the argument about what causes the war. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Two, your current argument leaves out wars that are lost in the universe of discourse. Do you even realize that?
For instance, we entered Vietnam, lost, and gained nothing, but all that has nothing to do with the REASONS why we entered the war.
Basically, you’re confusing the outcome with the reason for the war.
Try thinking instead of acting like a condescending little bitch.
@The Matrix: Rebooted: you’re saying USA has made money on the recent wars? Or that it was thought to generate a profit?
of course there was money made in all those wars. bullets aren’t free, and neither is that oil that we’re pumping out of their ground.
@Tiki: And the profit margin for the United States? Paying for a war with money borrowed from China doesn’t strike me as particularly wise. Has it decreased the national debt? How much oil would have to be stolen from the desert countries in question to make up for the losses?
^this
You sir, make an excellent and most valid point. Also, any nod to Star Trek is a nod in the right direction. 10 internetz to you friend.
I always hated the “no scarcity = no war” theory of Star Trek.
“The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century… The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.”
Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek: First Contact)
That might explain it.
…Then again, all they seem to do is reroute emergency power or remodulate shield harmonics to fix everything.
Yes, I know about all that horseshit. That should have been evident in my post.
The replicator technology in Star Trek means there is no scarcity. Anyone can more or less make whatever they need at any time. That means a diamond costs about as much as a peanut butter sandwich. All commodities have equal values.
So according to them, with no scarcity there is no war, which is stupid because that assumes scarcity is the only reason to go to war.
After all, there were constant wars between the Federation and the Dominion, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Cardassians… along with various independence movements within the Federation. There’s no scarcity, but the Federation is in constant war.
Yeah, but in general I was talking about Earth in general in Star Trek, which has no conflict. Their rational is that ( god I hate repeating myself), without scarcity there is no war.
I think what is more important is that the Dominion, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Cardassians etc exist in the Star Trek universe. We try and find belonging in groups, right now it can be based on color, religion and nationality etc. In the Star Trek universe it can be based simply on being Human or an Earthling…You arent someone I want to fight because I have more in common with you than space aliens.
Thou shalt not covet. If we all followed that ideology (not to get all religious on anyone) we might be better off. They want what someone else has and they need a valid excuse to go and get it.
A corrupt government would then fly planes into buildings for that reason thinking that the end justifies the means.
IMHO
Replicators don’t take sentimental value into consideration.
(I assume that energy is free in the future, or that would be an issue)
@... korinthian
In the Star trek universe, antimatter can be generated easily. When matter and antimatter collide, they annihilate each other completely, producing nothing but energy. Most energy in the Star Trek universe is generated from matter/antimatter collisions, which is (almost) 100% efficient.
For a scale of reference, a fully functional fusion reactor would produce energy at less than 50% efficiency, and the gas engine in your car produces lower than 10 % efficiency.
No lie, this is actually totally feasible by current science. The problem is we can only create antimatter in stupidly small quantities (I’m talking a few sub-atomic particles), and we can store it for only a short period before it gets annihilated.
So yeah, in their universe they have retarded levels of raw, cheap energy to work with.
Not trying to talk to you like you’re a dumbass. I actually hold you in a higher regard than your average forum dweller. But I don’t know what you know, so I thought I shouldn’t leave out pertinent details.
@Sambo: That’s pretty neat. Thanks.
Your theory is very reasonable however it only works if both countries are certain that this agreement is permanent. Even if Canada has no intentions of jerking the USA around if they get that impression its going to foster hostility, countries do not like having to rely on other countries for resouces. Chances of hostilities increase as the rarity of the resources do as well. So it is perfectly reasonable to go to war with Canada for dilithium crystals if you need to have guaranteed access to them or if you use them for war and Canada is selling them to your enemies etc.
“or if you use them for war and Canada is selling them to your enemies etc.”
You’re saying that you might need to go to war to obtain resources in case you need to go to war. Nice circular reasoning.
I am saying that the resources people want for war may be worth fighting for.
You forget the basics of supply & demand. As long as there is a finite supply of something, and demand is greater then supply, the cost will go up. Regardless of fixed costs.
So when you have a limited supply of say oil, and world wide demand for oil only increases, then prices will go up. If your all about the profit at which you can sell your oil at, your going to come up with ways to increase your supply, even if it means taking it away from others by force.
Also, the Crusades had nothing to do with trade.
Sure. Price of a resource is based on supply and demand, but that itself is a simplified model, right? You could easily take that into account by pricing the resource just below the point where invading your country is a plausible alternative. That’s wouldn’t be violating the principle of supply and demand, merely extending the model.
Also, trade was a critical component to the Crusade. The Muslim conquest of the Byzantine Empire was cutting off trade between Europe and Asia. Losing the Crusades was the whole reason Europeans was motivated to look for a sea route to Asia, which indirectly lead to the discovery of America!
I never liked obama but I like this picture.
Good to know what you thinks. Everybody cares what Casemods things. You are our leader, and your opinion has much sway.
Fucking narcissistic prick.
Thanks, captain obvious.
You don’t need to end obvious statements with sarcastic remarks, though.
I vote we send them all to australia
using star trek as an example to explain why people start wars. what is this world leading too? Get out of your room once in a while…
my opinion is… as long as there is still ignorance there will be war..
As long as we have rocks to throw there will be war.
War… War never changes…
Dude’s got a picnic blanket on his head. Keffiyeh? No thank you I’m trying to stay away from caffeine.
That writing looks like something a grade 9 student would carve into a desk and think himself clever.
All wars happen because of Jews. You can ask Mel Gibson, Eric Cartman, or NK and they will all agree and I see no other reason to continue this cunt fart discussion.
More like, so long as there are human beings there will be war and fucking.
for you?
just war.
Ouch.
I disagree with Puulaahi as often as I punch an underage hooker, but I don’t go for low blows like that.
Religion and Resources baby.
Control. When you have an individual or group that wants to control something of value over & above another, whether it be mineral resources, food, water, energy –even people’s hearts and minds– you’ll have conflict, and you’ll have war.
World peace is a utopian fantasy. Get over it.
“Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” H.G.
[see also: The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom]
as for the reasons: be it trade, religion or eggs broken on the larger end(never!)…if “we” want war, we’ll find a justification. in the end, it really doesn’t matter what it is…all wars are but an outward expression of inner conflicts.
Good quote. Thanks.