On 4/26/05, Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 07:53 PM 26/04/05 -0400, Maru wrote: > >On 4/26/05, Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Agreed. Further, I think I can describe what it takes, namely an > > > expanding > > > economy, to keep a population in a mode where it extends "human" to > > > all. In stone age times where there was plenty of room to expand, it was > > > not good for your genes to go out trying to kill neighbors. Different > > > situation when the future looks bleak and you are facing the problem of > > > your children starving. > >.... > > > Keith Henson > > > >Your generalization is weak, Henson: there are plenty of examples of > >civilizations going on the war path without a bleak future. Germany, > >circa WWI- they went to war at least partially *because* they were > >doing so very well, and felt they weren't getting their share of > >international influence. Not because their economy was crashing, or > >threatening to. > > The psychological traits leading to war (through xenophobic memes) evolved > in the stone age. There it served the function of reducing the population > of hominids who had "escaped" their predators, perhaps as long as 2.65 > million years ago when or ancestors started making sharp edges by breaking > rocks. > > Mapping these traits into the modern world is not easy, but I would say > that tribes and nations who *start* wars generally do it after a build up > of xenophobic memes. And the conditions for that class of memes to thrive > is a bleak outlook. (It makes sense that *anticipation* of bad times would > be selected because there is probably an advantage to attacking first if > the whole area is subject to similar ecologic woes.)
True; I'd imagine that attacking early is in fact good for all sides. It would be kinda like being stranded on a desert island, and offing a few people before you absolutely had to- the remainder would be in better health, and the food supply would maintain them even better (because it would not have been stressed by an oversupply of starving people). Or at least that is what my intuition tells me. > "Bleak future" generates "unprovoked" attacks. Of course humans also jump > into war mode when they are attacked. I have not looked into the income > per capita trends in Germany prior to WW I or the public perception of the > future. I seem to remember that war as being both sides fearing attack. I don't recall a climate of fear but Germany was, as far as I know, fearing a Slavic gang up on them. But perhaps someone better versed in modern history (like Gautam) could set us aright. > >Japan, prior to WW2, went rampaging through the Pacific. Was their > >economy crashing as well? > > I think if you look at the data, a rapid rise in population was pushing > down income per capita during the years leading up to the war. /is still looking for the data. > >US- just about any war. See the Civil War. Was the enthusiasm on > >both sides for a blood bath a result of disastrous, prolonged > >depression? > > That one I have researched. The south was anticipating an economic > disaster because it was clear that one way or another slavery was going to > go. Directly or indirectly slavery was a large factor in the income of the > white population in the south. The war didn't do that much damage to the > south, but the economy took better than 100 years to recover from the loss > of slaves and it could be said it never has. Really? I had always been told that it was the brutality of war, destruction of land, evsiceration of finances, loss of life etc which caused the South's malaise. That and backward gov.'t policy. Huh. Learn something everyday. > Of course the evolutionary *point* of wars was to kill a lot of the > population to get it back into ecological balance. Wars in the last > century or so don't hold a patch on biblical wars where they killed all the > loosers except the young virgins (and sometimes even them). > > >What about the French Revolution? Historians agree that at the time, > >everybody, peasants included, were doing economically better than > >previously (Although it is true the vast bulk of gains were going to > >the upper classes. But the lower people did gain). What unleashed the > >Terror? Not the expectation of a deep depression. > > I have not looked into the details of the run up in that instance. Perhaps > someone on this news group can suggest some pointers? The number to plot > would be projected income per capita. A sharp drop after an extended run > up is perhaps the most likely to set off social disruptions. I got that from Crane Brinton's 'Anatomy of Revolution' if that helps at all. > If the economic growth (particularly in food) is below the population > growth, a country is headed for trouble. You already knew that. It is > instructive that some 30 years before the steam went out of the IRA, the > Irish birth rate dropped by almost half to near replacement. After a long > delay, economic growth got ahead of population growth and support for the > IRA dwindled. And equally instructive that the crime rate in New York City dropped 20-30 years after Roe vs Wade. > I really don't know if war is the norm and it is inhibited by opportunity > to do other things, or if war is the exceptional case when a population is > under stress. I, and most here would like to believe the latter. I think that the relative peacability of First world nations is suggestive evidence, anyways. > Keith Henson ~Maru _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
