Why is war bad already?

Getting shot hurts.

>>1519782

Because it is the wasteage of resources to support games of elite control.

The problem is that competition between elites is a feature embedded into human social systems. Therefore you will always have war until society becomes completely stratified.

Which might be a reality with genetic engineering. Someone who can think 100 steos ahead will demolish someone who can only think 5 steps ahead. He will keep demolishing.

Advantages upon advantages will be manufactured for a dream of perfect order.

>>1519838
>Because it is the wasteage of resources to support games of elite control.

And this is bad because...?

>The problem is that competition between elites is a feature embedded into human social systems. Therefore you will always have war until society becomes completely stratified.

>Which might be a reality with genetic engineering. Someone who can think 100 steos ahead will demolish someone who can only think 5 steps ahead. He will keep demolishing.

>Advantages upon advantages will be manufactured for a dream of perfect order.

Nothing you said is bad in itself. It's just how it is.

>>1519838
>Because it is the wasteage of resources to support games of elite control.

It bugs me that so many people fall for this meme. I think it is because it appeals to people's narcissism and fatalism at the same time. You get to pretend you are smart because you 'understand' the 'deeper truths' and simultaneously absolve yourself of needing to do anything about it because "it's the elites man, there's nothing I can do."

The fact of the matter is war can benefit the populace as a whole. At the end of the Third Punic War, Rome destroyed Carthage. Carthage was never again a serious military threat to Rome. This was a benefit for the average Roman citizen because if you remember that if there is a third there must be a first and a second. Carthage was a threat and had harmed Romans before. When invading armies invade they sack and pillage and loot and steal, and rape and disrupt trade and all sorts of bad things. The average roman citizen benefited in gaining security by going to war against Carthage in the third punic war.

Now I will agree that sometimes elites can benefit from war, but infrequently the primary, let alone sole cause of war.

Wars aren't fought by armies but by societies because all armies need food, weapons, materiel, transport, logistics etc. The only way any sort of extended military campaign can last is if it has support of the society behind it.

>>1519885

Ah, so are you saying a description of societies as families of organisms would be a more accurate description than a simple "ELITE|MASS|" description of social dynamics?

I still think the elite class of any society has an overwhelming disproportinate bias towards waging war as a means to an end in a game they envision. They interpret what a society "needs" and how it responds (if they have adequate control).

Almost never will the ruling class contemplate solutions which involve a downgrade in status and power, even if they would be "valid" solutions for a society.

>>1519901
I think what he means is that if the society as a whole let itself be mobilized for war, it's because most members of it, and not only the elite, see a benefit with an eventual victory. Perhaps the elite gains more, but still the average Joe gains enough to agree with the sacrifices asked to him.

>>1519782
What an interesting face.

>>1519838
You act as if only elites via for power. War will always be a part of humanity because we fundamentally don't like other people.

>>1519901
>Ah, so are you saying a description of societies as families of organisms would be a more accurate description than a simple "ELITE|MASS|" description of social dynamics?

I think relying on an analogy to describe something as complex as a society is dangerous. It can help for certain analyses but poses a significant risk of reductionist thinking if that becomes the archetype for how one understands society in all facets.

I am not sure whether or not you have ever studied and legal theory on corporations, but corporations are legally created entities. But the problem arises in how to describe them. Obviously corporations don't think or feel, yet they can own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued, and be prosecuted criminally. So how do you describe them? A corporation is made when you create a corporate charter and file it and some additional documentation with the secretary of state in your State, (assuming US). But that piece of paper isn't the corporation really.

Many people seek to describe the corporation as really a nexus or network of contracts or interests. The investor in the corporation wants to see a return on his investment so he gives money or captial to the corporate entity in exchange for the change to vote on major corporate decisions and s share of the profit of the corporation. The Manager, usually the founder of the corporation is the guy who has the underlying idea and vision for how to run the corporation. He also will run the day to day issues of the business. He invests his time and hopes to get paid handsomely if the corporation succeeds. The employee is willing to trade his time for money or a wage. He is willing to work at the orders of the manager, but expects to be paid regardless of whether or not the business is ultimately successful. The corporation is where these different interests meet because they have overlap in how they can mutually beneficial for each other.

Society=Corp on steroids.