News Reason for conflicts in the world?

[I_am_learning]

Do you consider this the reason for conflicts in the world-
Political Leaders Love their country men more than people in other countries, they love their family more than their country men and they love themselves and their egos more than anything else.

In more clear sense, I meant that the political leader will love to feed one citizen of their country by stealing food from 10 citizens of another country and starving them to death.

Don't you think patriotism to this extend exits?
I am considering patriotism as the main reason for conflict in the world. Whats wrong if you love all people equally?

 

[Newai]

In more clear sense, I meant that the political leader will love to feed one citizen of their country by stealing food from 10 citizens of another country and starving them to death

Kinda throws a wrench in trade and tourism.

 

[Al68]

Do you consider this the reason for conflicts in the world-
Political Leaders Love their country men more than people in other countries, they love their family more than their country men and they love themselves and their egos more than anything else.

In more clear sense, I meant that the political leader will love to feed one citizen of their country by stealing food from 10 citizens of another country and starving them to death.

Don't you think patriotism to this extend exits?
I am considering patriotism as the main reason for conflict in the world. Whats wrong if you love all people equally?

Your example illustrates theft and criminality, not patriotism. If the perpetrator of the theft claims it as patriotism, that just makes him a liar, too.

 

[I_am_learning]

That was just a pointer of what is actually happening deep inside. I Didn't meant that literally. Anyway that seems like too much of an example.

Why are countries devoting huge time and money in Nuclear weapons?

 

[KingNothing]

Why is there conflict? I can sum it up in just a few words: limited supply, unlimited demand.

 

[Lichdar]

If a representative of a country fights for the rights and resources to maximize the welfare in his country, then that means he's actually doing his job well and appropriately.

 

[I_am_learning]

If a representative of a country fights for the rights and resources to maximize the welfare in his country, then that means he's actually doing his job well and appropriately.

What if he fights for raising the life standard of his already pretty high standered citizens with the country whose citizens are poor?

 

[I_am_learning]

Why is there conflict? I can sum it up in just a few words: limited supply, unlimited demand.

Maybe unequally distributed supply and demands! Do you really think the world conflicts are because the Earth has reached its limit of supply?

 

[Office_Shredder]

What if he fights for raising the life standard of his already pretty high standered citizens with the country whose citizens are poor?

I bet the poor country wishes they had a leader who would do the same thing

 

[Andre]

The reason for conficts in the world?

One word: testosterone

 

[russ_watters]

Why are countries devoting huge time and money in Nuclear weapons?

Deterrence.

 

[Lichdar]

Maybe unequally distributed supply and demands! Do you really think the world conflicts are because the Earth has reached its limit of supply?

Yes; the question begats its own answer. The very reason why conflict is opted as a choice over additional production /is/ that conflict has become more profitable than if the energy is used to extend production.

This is admittedly an oversimplification as the risks are not shared equally by the deciders, but assume a scenario where both you and your neighbor are both feudal lords growing 50 units of rice. Initially, by increasing the number of farmers from your population, you will increase further units of rice produced for the population; however, eventually diminishing returns will kick in and further increasing them as farmers becomes unprofitable. At some point, increasing one more farmer will gain you less rice than if you increased one more samurai to steal rice from your neighbor. Indeed, this can become rapidly profitable - if you had far more samurai and your neighbor had none, you will take /all/ his fields, /all/ his rice and probably double your production potential permanently.

That sucks for your neighbor, sure, but it is the most efficient use of resources both human and material at your disposal.

I believe this also provides an effective means of advancement for the overall species by weeding out the weak; the adversarial system is an effective way of promiting the survival of the fittest, such as it is.

What if he fights for raising the life standard of his already pretty high standered citizens with the country whose citizens are poor?

A person's first responsibility is to his immediate family, then his kin-group, then fictive kin, then his immediate friends, and so gradually outward. Anything else is unnatural and can't be expected to last.

 

[Dale]

Do you consider this the reason for conflicts in the world-
Political Leaders Love their country men more than people in other countries, they love their family more than their country men and they love themselves and their egos more than anything else.

In more clear sense, I meant that the political leader will love to feed one citizen of their country by stealing food from 10 citizens of another country and starving them to death.

Here you are equating patriotism with economic greed and theft and saying that is the sole motivation for conflicts. I think that this is much too simplistic. E.g. I don't think that all islamic terrorists are primarily motivated by economic gain. There is also the desire to dominate and subjugate others and force them into compliance with their worldview. Or the desire to exact punishment and revenge.

Since the majority of conflicts in the world are with muslims I think you need to consider ideology in addition to economics. After all, supply is limited and demand is unlimited for everyone, but not everyone is in armed conflict.

 

[Darken-Sol]

we care more about ourselves than we do others.

 

[Dale]

limited supply, unlimited demand

Thinking more about this I suspect that it is not true. If supply were limited and demands were unlimited then prices would be infinite, right? Since prices are not infinite we must conclude that either supplies are unlimited or demand is limited.

 

[Lichdar]

After all, supply is limited and demand is unlimited for everyone, but not everyone is in armed conflict.

This would not be true, however, even in a perfectly resource driven world. When the price of conflict exceeds the potential gain, then peaceful methods are more efficient. At any point now, you can attempt to break into your neighbor's place and take his HDTV, computer and car keys. However, odds of being arrested or having your head removed by hachet might exceed the value of the potential gain for you - especially if you can gain the same things by working an additional 40 hours or so without risk.

Thinking more about this I suspect that it is not true. If supply were limited and demands were unlimited then prices would be infinite, right? Since prices are not infinite we must conclude that either supplies are unlimited or demand is limited.

Wants are indeed unlimited, but must be constrained by the costs we are willing to sacrifice in order to achieve our wants. I think the confusion is whether demand means 'need' or 'want'; our needs are fairly limited, but our wants are insatiable. Prices are therefore limited by the ability of the market to absorb the price, or at least theoreitcally, by setting the price of the item to the highest value possible that can yet sell to the maximum number of people, so that it will maximize the value for the vendors of the item.

 

[Dale]

Wants are indeed unlimited, but must be constrained by the costs we are willing to sacrifice in order to achieve our wants.

Even if they were free I wouldn't want a thousand cheeseburgers, and I don't want even one blueberry at any price.

 

[Lichdar]

Indeed so, but I will always want more of something. If I have an apartment, I will want a house. If I had a house, I will want a larger house; I may want a second house. If I have a car, I will want more cars; if I had enough cars for myself and my household, I may want a boat. If I have all those things, I may need to protect them and invest in security systems.

Its an endless loop.

 

[Dale]

Indeed so, but I will always want more of something. If I have an apartment, I will want a house. If I had a house, I will want a larger house; I may want a second house. If I have a car, I will want more cars; if I had enough cars for myself and my household, I may want a boat. If I have all those things, I may need to protect them and invest in security systems.

Its an endless loop.

I am not so sure it is endless. There are a finite number of types of products, so if my wants for any given type of product are finite and there are a finite number of types of products then my total wants over all types of products are necessarily finite.

 

[KingNothing]

Thinking more about this I suspect that it is not true. If supply were limited and demands were unlimited then prices would be infinite, right? Since prices are not infinite we must conclude that either supplies are unlimited or demand is limited.

Your logic is correct if you take "unlimited" to mean "infinite", but that is not what is meant here. When I say "unlimited", it means at no point will the demand for resources reach zero. As long humans exist, they will demand some resources. Another way to say it is that there will always be demand for resources, but there will not necessarily always be a supply. Does that resonate with you more?

Maybe unequally distributed supply and demands! Do you really think the world conflicts are because the Earth has reached its limit of supply

No, not because its reached its limit...but because it is limited. Eventually a country may reach a point where it is more economically feasible to make a play for another country's resources than it is to harvest more of their own supply. For example, do you think Britain would have ever taken over South Africa if it weren't rich in gold, diamonds, and other minerals? Of course not. At that point in time the British stood to gain more by taking over another's resources, than to make use of their own limited resources.

Of course, this line of thinking only explains rational conflicts - decisions made under the belief that the outcome of entering conflict is more favorable than the outcome of not entering conflict. I believe most major conflicts are as such - but, as Michael Caine says - "some men just want to watch the world burn."

 

[I_am_learning]

I am not so sure it is endless. There are a finite number of types of products, so if my wants for any given type of product are finite and there are a finite number of types of products then my total wants over all types of products are necessarily finite.

Its practically endless. Don't believe?, ask Bill Gates!

 

[Lichdar]

Its practically endless. Don't believe?, ask Bill Gates!

Have you also concluded, then, that conflict is a rational and reasonable expectation in such a world with limited supply and unlimited wants?

 

[I_am_learning]

Have you also concluded, then, that conflict is a rational and reasonable expectation in such a world with limited supply and unlimited wants?

So, it seems that the correct step towards resolving the world's conflict is by limiting human desires/wants, may be by spiritual teachings

 

[Lichdar]

So, it seems that the correct step towards resolving the world's conflict is by limiting human desires/wants, may be by spiritual teachings

Good luck with that.

 

[Dale]

Your logic is correct if you take "unlimited" to mean "infinite"

Yes, that is the usual meaning.

Another way to say it is that there will always be demand for resources, but there will not necessarily always be a supply. Does that resonate with you more?

Not really, there is always a supply of resources, otherwise they wouldn't be resources. But Lichdar's comments about prices (post 12) do resonate with me. For low-supply/high-demand resources the price will be high, and for such resources violence and theft may be seen as the most feasible way of obtaining the resource. His statements (except for the ones about infinite wants) don't require infinite demand nor a zero supply to explain conflict, simply a high demand and a low supply. Or more accurately, an inelastic supply and demand curve wrt peaceful means of increasing supply.

However, even so, I think that this trivializes human violence. Although greed is certainly a motive for violence it is not the only motive. Other motives include self-defence, defence of others, freedom, vengance, power, ideology, and I am sure others. The most successful violent movements have been the ones that used multiple motives, for instance the various Marxist revolutions which used greed, ideology, and power motives. And today it is clear that ideology and vengance are big parts of the islamic terrorist movement.

My point is only that greed is not the sole source of conflict.

 

[KingNothing]

Well then, I'm glad you can agree with someone who is saying what I'm saying, even if you don't want to agree with me.

 

[Alfi]

My point is only that greed is not the sole source of conflict.

I'll agree with that.
What uncle ED said to my little Donnie is not going to be forgotten ...
If he ever steps near us again ...well .. It's War !

 

[Dale]

Well then, I'm glad you can agree with someone who is saying what I'm saying, even if you don't want to agree with me.

You are making me out to seem capricious. I didn't agree with him where he was saying what you were saying (specifically when he was talking about infinite wants or where you were talking about unlimited demand). I agreed with him only when he was simply talking about the cost of violence vs the cost of production.

 

[KingNothing]

I agreed with him when he was simply talking about the cost of violence vs the cost of production, which I don't think you ever mentioned.

Here's what I am saying:

Limited Supply:
The resources we have are finite, and in many situations, the production and/or harvesting rates of the resources are, too. For example, lumber. Here in Minnesota, there is plenty of wood, but the rate at which we can harvest it without significantly damaging the environment is limited.

Unlimited Demand:
The demand for said resources is, over time, unlimited. This isn't just limited to things people want, but also human needs such as food and water. Even if a single person's demand over the course of their life is finite, a growing human population's demand over all time, is not limited. In mathematical terms:

Cost of Production
As resource supplies get depleted, it generally become more difficult and more expensive to harvest them. Think of it like drinking a soda: it's a lot easier to get the few first sips than to get the very last few drops. You'll probably throw the cup away with a few drops still sticking to it. This would not occur in a world having unlimited supply and unlimited production of resources.

Rational Decisions
This is why the supplies don't have to reach zero in order for a conflict to arise. The cost of producing/harvesting more of your resources simply has to eclipse the cost of a conflict which is expected to produce an equal amount of resources. This is what another poster had said about farmers and samurais. Colonization is an extremely common example of such a conflict - Britain didn't colonize South Africa because they had just lost their very very last diamond. Rather, the cost of the conflict was less than the cost of acquiring more diamonds without conflict. They could have just bought some more from other countries, right?

Resources, resources, resources
Many, many things are resources: manpower, land, air, fresh water, knowledge, food, etc.

Summary
Say you are sitting at McDonald's with a friend, both drinking soda. You guys absolutely love soda and don't value your friendship much at all. You are perfectly happy drinking your own, but when you get down to the last few drops (limited supply), it's tough to get it out. So because you value soda higher than your friendship, you steal your friend's (conflict). Even though you may be satisfied for now, someday your son might make a play on his son's soda (unlimited demand).

Do I think this explains every conflict? Of course not. But I do think it explains a lot of them. By the way, what I said is the economic concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity" .

 

[Dale]

Unlimited Demand:
The demand for said resources is, over time, unlimited. This isn't just limited to things people want, but also human needs such as food and water. Even if a single person's demand over the course of their life is finite, a growing human population's demand over all time, is not limited. In mathematical terms:

I agree with what you are saying except for this part. First, it doesn't make sense to integrate demand over time in this context, the high integrated demand for warp-speed hyperdrives a billion years from now is irrelevant to conflicts today. Second, even if it did make sense, under any set of assumptions where you could possibly reach an infinite demand over time you would also necessarily have an infinite production over time.

Economic motivations for conflict can easily be justified and explained without introducing unrealistic concepts like unlimited demand.

 

[KingNothing]

Economic motivations for conflict can easily be justified and explained without introducing unrealistic concepts like unlimited demand.

Do you believe that there will be a point in time where man's demand for (all) resources reaches zero?

 

[Dale]

Yes, when mankind is extinct.

 

[G037H3]

Learn about nationalism. A healthy nation is a collective organism which seeks to conquer other nations and take their resources.

 

[KingNothing]

Yes, when mankind is extinct.

...And human conflict ends at that point, too.

 

[AwesomeSN]

Sounds to me like you're describing nationalism and that's the cause of conflict, rather than patriotism.

 

[G037H3]

Patriotism is obedience to a governmental authority.
Nationalism is placing the goals of your genetic group above your own interests.

If you care to look up the meaning of the word "nation", you will see that a nation is genetic, not geopolitical.

(Quick distinction written for the benefit of those who may not know of these things)

 

[Dale]

...And human conflict ends at that point, too.

Clearly.

So, do you agree now that demand is not unlimited? That each human has a finite demand for any given type of resource, and there are a finite number of types of resources, and even integrated over all time (regardless of whether or not it is meaningful to do so) there are a finite number of humans.

Rational Decisions
This is why the supplies don't have to reach zero in order for a conflict to arise. The cost of producing/harvesting more of your resources simply has to eclipse the cost of a conflict which is expected to produce an equal amount of resources.

This is the key statement and is correct, IMO. As you said, supplies don't have to reach zero, and furthermore neither does demand have to be unlimited. The finite supply and finite demand only need to make the cost of production greater than the cost of conflict.

 

[I_am_learning]

Talked enough for the reasons! Can somebody talk about the solutions (if they exist)?

 

[russ_watters]

Patriotism is obedience to a governmental authority.
Nationalism is placing the goals of your genetic group above your own interests.

If you care to look up the meaning of the word "nation", you will see that a nation is genetic, not geopolitical.

Why don't you do that: none of those is correct!

 

[russ_watters]

Talked enough for the reasons! Can somebody talk about the solutions (if they exist)?

The west has been at peace with each other for 60 years, which is unprecedented in the history of the world. So modeling the rest of the world after what the West has accomplished would seem to be the solution.

 

[KingNothing]

So, do you agree now that demand is not unlimited?

This is what I said:

a growing human population's demand over all time, is not limited.

This is the assumption made. A population of zero is not a growing population. Obviously humans will die out at some point...But I think trying to come up with theories that can explain (or are even congruent with) the end of human existence is asking a bit much.

I would still contend that even in a finite amount of time, there is infinite demand. People will always want their products to be faster, easier, prettier, etc. All those things take resources to improve upon.

 

[Dale]

I would still contend that even in a finite amount of time, there is infinite demand. People will always want their products to be faster, easier, prettier, etc. All those things take resources to improve upon.

Sure, it takes resources to improve something, but not an infinite amount of resources. Your position wrt infinite demand is not only untenable but unnecessary.

 

[I_am_learning]

The west has been at peace with each other for 60 years, which is unprecedented in the history of the world. So modeling the rest of the world after what the West has accomplished would seem to be the solution.

Oh! Yeah, I had overlooked that point. I had been assuming there is conflict all over the world.
Seems like most of the conflicts are between or within poor countries. And Conflicts make them even poorer. The vicious cycle repeats, I think.

 

[klimatos]

Societies fight for the same reasons that individual humans fight. Individual humans fight for the same reasons that most mammals fight: territory, mates, or simply to prove who is "king of the hill".

This would not be a problem if the weapons that societies possesses were not so awesome and far-reaching. World War II killed fifty million people and destroyed trillions in property. And for what?

The roots of world conflict can be seen--in miniature--in any local high-school basketball game. My school is better than your school! Why? Because it's MINE!

 

[Andre]

One may look around a bit in the concept of groupthink to see parallels. This goes especially for the element of

Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

The same seems to happen on a scale of nations where stereotyping is about the other race, the other nationalities, the other religions, heathens, etc.

I think there are also elements based on the bit more complex the enemy of my enemy is my friend concept.. One can unite a loosely uncoherent group or several groups, by scapegoating a potential common opponent, and thus creating a vicious enemy image.

I would not go as far to consider this to be the main activity of politicians -especially during election campaigns-, but you know you recognise that mechanism when you hear him saying "If you are not with us, you are against us.".

So I guess this is an important mechanism for conflicts in the world: create a vicious enemy to gather friends around you who will adore you for being such a courageous leader.

See also 'flaming wars', polarization and..

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. This is true even of the pious brethren who carry the gospel to foreign parts. H.L. Mencken

 

[kraphysics]

The statements in the OP are too vague to be of any use. In general what I find is that all situations(conflicts) in this case, must be taken on a case by case basis. It makes no sense to provide some vague reason for all conflicts because usually, the explanation is intrinsically tied to some fundamental characteristic that humans have. Practically this offers no solution and contributes absolutely nothing. It is a philosophical exercise that is irrelevant to the issue, in my opinion.

 

[skippy1729]

Do you consider this the reason for conflicts in the world-
Political Leaders Love their country men more than people in other countries, they love their family more than their country men and they love themselves and their egos more than anything else.

In more clear sense, I meant that the political leader will love to feed one citizen of their country by stealing food from 10 citizens of another country and starving them to death.

Don't you think patriotism to this extend exits?
I am considering patriotism as the main reason for conflict in the world. Whats wrong if you love all people equally?

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Golda Meir, 1957.

 

[pergradus]

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us." Golda Meir, 1957.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

 

[Darken-Sol]

we could have a world arena where rulers settled disputes man to man. i doubt any leader would wage war if his butt were on the line. any country who broke the rules would forfeit its right to exist.

 

[Office_Shredder]

any country who broke the rules would forfeit its right to exist.

Why would any nation capable of enforcing this agree to these rules?