It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by quantum_flux
I have a theory based on zero sum games that (1) war is an inefficient use of precious resources and (2) that each war presents the opportunity of either losing or perhaps deficit winning whereby the outcome from the spoils gained is much less than the resources expended in fighting the war in the first or perhaps forming a trade pact with the other side. Anyhow, any civilization that attempts too much wars will probably wipe themselves out, plus making new enemies is never a smart survival move either, ergo a warlike civilization is much more likely to go extinct in the long run than a peaceful civilization, plus they are much less likely to advance technologically as quickly as a peaceful civilization (just look at the dark ages when there was a war all the time, every side was weakened by that). Starting wars is thereby the cause of demise for any civilization, and thereby it is much less likely a warlike civilization will advance to the point of traveling the galaxies.
ALSO of note is that the process of doing scientific research makes civilizations more capable of resolving their situations without resorting to primitive zero sum games such as war. Their competition for resources will probably be much more subtle than blowing things up. They will probably try to hack and brainwash us into giving them what they want instead.edit on 10-1-2011 by quantum_flux because:
Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by RizeorDie
War is defined as a confrontation between two States.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
but "where there is a will there is a way," and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union ...
Originally posted by mnemeth1
War is nothing more than two States fighting for control over the tax farm, where humans are cattle to be milked for their productive resources. To the common man, ultimately there is no difference over who the farmer is.