[ennui2]

One of the patterns here is to conflate all conflict on the world stage as 'evidence' of peak-oil doom.

This from National Geographic makes my rebuttal to that.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016 ... picks=true

One scholar calculated that if you went back and chose any century at random in the past 5,000 years, about 96 years of that random 100 would show large scale conflict in one part of the globe or another. The first thing that The Iliad underscores is that violence seems to be in our genes. Whatever we do, war drags us in, even presidents who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. You can’t escape it.

It's true that resources are a backdrop to wars, but it's in our genes. Even when we were hunter-gatherers, there was low-grade inter-tribal warfare. There isn't necessarily more war now than in the past and I don't think you can point to it as a "proof" of peak-oil doom, certainly not with oil prices being in the crapper.

[onlooker]

Yes I would agree with this main thesis. It seems to be part of our nascent evolution into homo sapiens and as homo sapiens. To say it is in our genes is to say the aggressive impulse is in our genes. On the other hand, I do think in the modern day and age, war is seen as more unacceptable by the masses than at previous times. I think we are gradually evolving away from it. This addresses the argument of nature vs nurture. Some think we are almost pre-programmed to act in a certain way and cannot really change these urges. Others and I include myself feel much of our evolution is tied inextricably to your customs and culture. If collectively and consciously people can agree to change their culture then I think much progress can be made to address this aggression instinct we have. However, I think a key is for it to be a universal change, for to allow splinter groups to foster and practice aggression would allow a sort of contagion of this ethos and behavior.

[ennui2]

I do think in the modern day and age, war is seen as more unacceptable by the masses than at previous times.

I don't think so. I think the rise of asymmetrical warfare (insurgencies and terrorism) has made conventional warfare and rules of conduct ala the Geneva conventions useless. I think the brain is ultimately about tribalism and selective empathy/outrage. Depending on your team, bombing a Sbarros or beheading a journalist or randomly knifing civilians in Tel Aviv is seen as OK, whereas dropping a bomb from a drone to kill a militant leader is not.

I also found out that there's something in the brain's wiring that happens before you kill somebody. It's like a berserker rage. The empathic portions of the brain shut themselves off temporarily which is what allows you to kill. That's what crimes of passion are all about. The guilt only comes later (with PTSD, etc...) This is part of our evolutionary adaptation. Everyone thinks they're incapable of killing until they are placed into a survival situation, then they do it.

But I think this is why armchair quarterbacking on the part of the peanut gallery fails to really understand what happens in the field of combat. Same deal with police facing down an armed criminal. Those are extreme situations and the brain just doesn't behave in a standard way during those situations. It's also why things like the My Lai massacre happen, or lynchings. Pretty much the whole zombie horde things, the torches and pitch-forks. Humans have demons lurking within waiting for the right mixture of circumstances. Those who can resist this brain-stem impulse to fight are a rare breed.

[onlooker]

No doubt Ennui we have the animalistic/reptilian part of our brain. Upon the right circumstances it will come out. I still opine that the current crop of humans is more civilized than previous crops and thus war is seen as more distasteful than it was in the past. I also, believe that this barbaric/brutal side to us is activated mostly for defensive purposes. In a Mad Max scenario it is difficult to distinguish between defensive and offensive motivations as this scenario is played out in an extreme law of the jungle environment. Basically, my point being that the large majority of us are not wont to be sadistic and just go on rampages for the fun of it.

[onlooker]

One effect of War is that people get very angry at the aggressors or simply not foreigners or rivals. That certainly is the case in the Middle East whereby US especially has intervened and interfered there for quite some time and of course especially now. The most egregious offense though from the point of view of native populations is the killing of innocent civilians. So I have this link that shows that Civilian Casualties Hit New High in 2015 in Afghanistan. So yes this indiscriminate murder and butchery is bound the anger some sufficient to become terrorists. Here is link: https://unama.unmissions.org/civilian-c ... -high-2015

[JV153]

One effect of War is that people get very angry at the aggressors or simply not foreigners or rivals. That certainly is the case in the Middle East whereby US especially has intervened and interfered there for quite some time and of course especially now. The most egregious offense though from the point of view of native populations is the killing of innocent civilians. So I have this link that shows that Civilian Casualties Hit New High in 2015 in Afghanistan. So yes this indiscriminate murder and butchery is bound the anger some sufficient to become terrorists. Here is link: https://unama.unmissions.org/civilian-c ... -high-2015

Post-2001, after the, uh, "lightning struck tower" there has been a lot of trouble in the Middle East.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... sMkwCdaTJk

[ennui2]

The fact is that #1 victims of terrorism are other muslims. Look at all of the various bombings in the middle-east. Bombers assassinate some guy, then they add salt to the wound by bombing the funeral. Then you have ISIL sawing people's heads off with rusty knives and posting the videos online. I just can't buy any one-sided argument that attempts to brand the US/West as 'the bad guy' with no commensurate accountability on the other side. Conflict is perpetuated by both sides, and with asymmetrical warfare, the "underdog" that some here love to coddle are by far the most inhuman and brutal.