Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Reason to go to war

  1. Jul 15, 2006 #1
    The reason: "Suppose there are two starving tribes on a field. The potatoes just arrive to feed only one of the tribes, who thus acquire forces to go to the other side of the mountain, where there are more potatoes; but if the two tribes divide in peace the potatoes of the field, the two tribes are not fed enough and will die of starvation. The peace, in this in case is the destruction; the war, is the hope." How do you evaluate it?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 15, 2006 #2
    it's as good a reason as any. war is only a bad thing when it results in the extinction of the human race. the best tribe will win the war and so live on. survival of the fittest basically.
     
  4. Jul 17, 2006 #3
    It's not about the potatoes.

    The problem with your scenario is that even when there is a glut of potatoes they still fight.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2006
  5. Jul 17, 2006 #4
    I would sell spud guns to both sides!
     
  6. Jul 28, 2006 #5
    reason to go to war?

    In regards to war, Reason is the first thing to be abandoned..
     
  7. Aug 14, 2006 #6
    By my answer you will tell that I am a pacifist.

    I don't think there will ever be a good reason to go to war (Unless you are being attacked and need to protect your people). But it is just human nature to fight.

    In most cases, like this one, there is a peacefully political process which will benefit everyone.

    You might not need to divide the potatoes, but what about having both leaders of both tribes meeting and agreeing on a deal.

    Thee deal would look as following, one tribe gets all the potatoes and then they will get the job to go to the other side of the mountain to get enough potatoes and transport them back to both tribes, once both tribes had enough, they can both travel back to the other side of the mountain, and leave peacefully as allied tribes.
     
  8. Aug 14, 2006 #7
    Woah! I like who this guy think ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
     
  9. Aug 14, 2006 #8

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    or you could kill the other tribe (except the women, boys die too to eliminate chance of vengeance), take the potatoes, and migrate over the mountain to where there's more potatoes, and use the other tribes women to breed more people, and build an army and make sure you never have to worry about someone threatening your last stash of potatos again (until of course, your tribe fissions and two tribes are formed, only they both have armies this time. F-U-N!!!
     
  10. Aug 14, 2006 #9
    I don't understand this causality. Since when does getting potatoes mean getting forces?
     
  11. Aug 16, 2006 #10

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    generally, it means militairy power in this situation, since traveling alone can be dangerous with warring tribes.
     
  12. Oct 7, 2006 #11
    One of the replies made me chuckle heartily indeed^^ And it provides an in-depth anwser to the initial question:-)

    Ok problem is there's not enough potatoes, and in one of the posts the poster elaborates that "if tribes divide the potatoes there will be people dying if they go to war they might win and they would have hope to survive"...

    Ok ponder on this and you will get your anwser on your own.



    Okay okay, i'll help a bit...in ANY case there's enough potatoes for certain amount of people and in ANY case a certain amount of people will have to die from famine. Surely, both tribes, although in their respective stone-age thought processes, realize that.

    So, why dont the 2 tribes sit down and reasonably come to a nice solution or a compromise? Why? Well famine is bad, famine with violence is ...very bad. so. why? hehe.

    Why would anyone wanna kill?

    Because either of the tribesmen would prefer to see themselves cut down in pain and anguish than watch any of the people they know and love dying of hunger. some of the tribesmen maybe dont even care about that, they just want food for their bellies to feel better. most primitive, dont you agree?

    They dont know the tribe across the field tho, their women, their children, their men they never hunted with (or picked potatoes) together. They wouldnt wanna kill em but, hey, *we* need to survive. *My* family, *my* children need oil...Khm potatoes! potatoes...yeah...


    But hey, far from eyes far from heart.

    Hmm...haha the reason to go to war, well, all of us is gonna have to know heck more of ourselves than we do at the given moment in history of this little planet.

    Well, generally and simplistic; there will be war until all people have "evolved" to a point at which they will be aware that if someone is starving 10000 kilometers away and if your kids are so fat you have to carry them from chair to bed there's probably a connection in that...

    but hey, maybe you, the bright young scientific minds are aware how it is to bury your child that just turned 3 because you couldnt feed him...maybe you, the future backbone of western civilisation, with all your books with all your tensors and space shuttles and sensors and lasers know how it is to watch your little kid die from torture because it was too expensive to send some international troops to some region who doesnt even have anything of economical value? I'm positive, that from your cosy office posts you can feel and smell war and death and decay as if you were there. I'm sure it's not something to be thought about in a way, for example, you think of some theorem or that. now, is it?

    Maybe You will start thinking on Your own, and maybe You will see that all the modern cars, computers and all the other **** is being built from the resources from all across the globe, resources given to us by our planet, to All of us, not just the west-us, or the muslim-us, or the science-us.

    So far, no matter your job, occupation, IQ, electro-gadgets and 12 different bachelors degrees...

    You are just a tribesman in one of the tribes...


    Do not dare to presume that modern wars or international relations are on a level any higher than in the examplary tribe from stone age.

    A secreatary of state, president, interior, exterior and crapterior ministers have taken the places of the tribal leader and his advisors.

    Tribesmen have been replaced by "individuals" in "free societies".

    Well, there is one thing...we HAVE mechanized the banana picking. huzzah...
     
  13. Oct 8, 2006 #12

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    People don't just go to war over "potatoes". That was Marx's view but it's insufficient. There are also cherished beliefs; we must crush those heretics: "Kill them all, and God will know his own" (St Dominic). And there is the desire to rule thos lesser tribes without the law. This was the reason for Hitler's attack on the Poles and Russians: Slavs were for him inferior, destined to serve the master race.
     
  14. Oct 8, 2006 #13

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I've always been puzzled over the fact that everyone who explicitly state themselves to belong to a superior race also feel immensely threatened by those pesky inferiors..
     
  15. Oct 8, 2006 #14

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Y'know, coming from someone who's clearly reaping the benefits of western modernization (the internet, for example), that makes this a pretty bull**** argument :rolleyes:

    The economy is one of the driving factors in preventing war; agricultural and industrial innovations permit people to live together without feuding nearly as much over resources (8 million people hunting for food? In an area the size of NYC? You couldn't fit that in an area the size of new york state).

    The poor economic situation in many parts of the world is not because people in America or Europe don't send troops.... who sent troops to build and stabilize the US? How about the USSR? Or let's look at how well China has been doing recently? Can you not see them in 30 or 40 years living in the modern era? The reason is leadership, and the drive to be successful.... the west has that, and Africa, the middle east, etc. doesn't. Nothing is stopping Nigeria from using oil to become a wealthy nation except corruption and apathetic feelings amongst the populous about that corruption. Europe went through its monarchies, America had its revolution, the USSR overthrew its czar, China revolted straight through WWII, you can go back farther in time if you really feel like it, the point is the same.
     
  16. Oct 14, 2006 #15

    0rthodontist

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    France

    No, technology, and the safety & wealth in which to develop it
    It's never that simple
     
  17. Oct 14, 2006 #16

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, France joined in fighting against Great Britain. France didn't leave a peackeeping force behind to stabilize the nation afterwards.


    China 40 years ago was neither safe, wealthy, nor technologically advanced. No safe, wealthy nation with technology has millions of people starve to death like during China's Great Leap Forward period.

    No, but I think it's obvious that the average Nigerian is never going to see progress as long as the government continues to steal every dime of oil profit, and nobody does anything about it
     
  18. Oct 14, 2006 #17

    0rthodontist

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    France removed a then-oppressive regime. Whether it's internal or external is not relevant for the purposes of development

    China has demonstrated that it has enough wealth and safety to develop some technology. China was once the safest, wealthiest, most technological country. It did lack external reasons to advance (nothing challenged it). Then G.B. came along and ruined everything
    Like G.B. stole every dime of profit from its american colonies and nobody did anything about it until France fought our revolutionary war for us

    Leadership is innate and unremarkable. You always get leaders in any group of people. It's human nature. In the Dark Ages, there were leaders. It's technology that advances people
     
  19. Oct 16, 2006 #18

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ummm... I'd kill for potatoes if I was a tribesman.

    I'd probably also just kill the other tribe anyway, since their shamans have been cursing my children and making them sick.
     
  20. Oct 16, 2006 #19

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I'd kill the women. The young men should be put to the spear first..
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2006
  21. Oct 17, 2006 #20

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't mean to sound like a breeder, but you have to keep some form of incubation around.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Reason to go to war
  1. The war on Hannukah (Replies: 23)

  2. The war is over! (Replies: 10)

  3. Reasoning about reason (Replies: 3)

  4. Robotic war (Replies: 10)

Loading...