by PolestaR » Sun 07 May 2006, 22:11:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', 'I')f you have no resources, only life a healthy body, then you risk your health and life by attacking somebody. A blow to your head delivered in a fraction of a second could end your life, or cripple you with the same net result distributed over longer time. Those who seek cooperation instead of violence will have better chances. Always been like that.
OK.. so if you do things cooperatively that means you have to find some people who have surplus and are willing to give it to you. Now I'm not going to give you a history lesson and think I've done something good like you just did, but there are countless examples in history where cooperation fails simply because there isn't enough to go around. Maybe you're living in some reality I'm not which allows you to see constant surpluses in every part of the world, at every point time. I guess starvation in 3rd world countries is just false media reporting or something.. yeah.. makes sense now.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', 'H')istorically, people band together. If you got several nasty warlords, those who protect their peasants will have a better time than those who kill them. Look at european history the last 1000 years. Lots of wars, but eventually the marauders get spanked by the ones who plan. When you have several competing warlords, people end up supporting the ones who protects them. If you try to attack and damage a village, there is a fair chance that one of your competitors view it as an attack on his property, and act properly.
Swizerland is interesting. They have proud traditions of pure defence. They have been sitting in the middle of the most war-thorn part of the world the last 800 years, crippling everyone who tried to attack them (and happily profiting from selling weapons to all parties in the european wars).
Russia is also interesting. It seem to have a castrating effect to attack Russia. The Swedes tried in the 1600's, and the previously war mongering Swedes ended up castrated. Sweden has been extremely peace-loving ever since. Next were the French in the 1800's. They fussed about a little in Vietnam and Algeria, but they have remained mainly peaceful since having their go at Russia. Last we had the Germans, who got this major shift in mentality after trying their luck in Russia.
I dont think you are stupid. I think you just have a little bad luck when thinking.
So you are equating people 'banding together' as meaning they never attack for resources. So I guess the Iraq war(s) weren't about resources, but freedom. I guess Japan attacking China, the USA, etc wasn't about resources in the 40's. Yeah those are just 2 examples, the further back we go the worse it gets.
I feel sorry for people like you that "know something" and just because you "know something" you think it relates somehow to something else. You lack the reasoning to make true connections, most probably due to whatever John Lennon social programming you received to think "good" only equates to helping one another whilst holding hands and chanting "peace".