05-26-2020, 10:21 AM
** 26-May-2020 World View: The Futility of War
Well, maybe I'm stubborn, but this isn't a political or ideological
issue. To the contrary, I've examined thousands of generational
events going back thousands of years, and I haven't noticed any
differences in the way that generational eras change in different
ages. There might be changes in detail or in social trends -- for
example, you won't have college students rioting in an Awakening era
in an age where there are no colleges -- but the core principles
remain the same.
So I've looked at thousands of examples. I believe that if there were
any change from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age, then I
would have noticed it. And if I had noticed it, I would have pointed
out it, and even noted that it was a significant discovery.
For example, I have discovered that Awakening eras are different in a
predictable way depending on the whether the preceding crisis war was
an internal or external war. This is actually a very significant
discovery, though no one gives a shit. Perhaps it will be noticed
after I'm dead. (As the Bee Gees said, "I started a joke, which
started the whole world crying. But I didn't see that the joke was on
me, oh no. ... 'Til I finally died, which started the whole world
living! Oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.")
So my point is that if there were differences over the centuries in
going from one age to the next, then I would have noticed it, and if I
had noticed it, I would have declared it as a signficant discovery.
But no such thing has happened.
There are very good reasons why there shouldn't be any differences.
There is one thing that is true of most animals (including humans) at
all times in history -- that the food supply grows exponentially, but
the population grows exponentially even faster. In the case of
humans, this means that at regular intervals there have to be
genocidal wars to kill off enough people so that there will be enough
food and water for the survivors. This is true in the Agricultural
Age, the Industrial Age, and any other age, even in an age with
nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons make no difference except, of
course, that they will be used.
As I've recently suggested, almost 20 years of Generational Dynamics
have made me a believer in the futility of war. That doesn't mean
that I've become a left-wing antiwar pacifist. I remain a fatalist.
Actually wars are necessary to kill off enough people so that there's
enough food and water for everyone else. So wars are futile but
necessary.
Wars are like earthquakes. An earthquake occurs when there is too
much accumulated stress on the fault line between major tectonic
plates. The earthquake isn't good or bad, but it's absolutely
necessary because it's needed to relieve the stress along the fault
line in the earth's crust.
Similarly, genocidal crisis wars occur when there's too much
acculumulated stress on the fault line between different ethnic groups
because of population growth. The genocidal crisis war isn't good or
bad, but it's absolutely necessary because it's needed to relieve the
stress along the fault line between ethnic groups.
There's another similarity between earthquakes and genocidal wars.
Earthquakes kill a lot of people and flatten a lot of buildings, but
over the next couple of decades everything gets rebuilt and things go
back to the way they were. Nothing has really changed. Earthquakes
are futile but necessary.
Similarly, genocidal crisis wars kill a lot of people and topple a lot
of governments, but over the next few decades, by the end of the
Awakening era, things spring back to the way they were. Nothing has
really changed. Genocidal crisis wars are futile but necessary.
One example is the old joke that if the Nazis had won the war, then
today everyone in France and Britain would be speaking German. That's
really ridiculous. The Nazis lost the war, but the same thing
happened with Russia taking control of Eastern Europe, and according
to the logic of the old joke, everyone in all Eastern European
countries should be speaking Russian today. That's obviously not
true, and by the Unraveling era, pretty much everything had sprung
back to the way it was, including the reunification of Germany.
Similarly, Hitler's "Thousand Years" would not have lasted even two
generational eras.
So if there's a world war with nuclear weapons, then in the decades
after it ends, people in China, Japan, the US, and other countries
will pore through the rubble and rebuild their cities in the same way
that the Japanese rebuilt Hiroshima. Nothing will really change. War
with nuclear weapons is futile but necessary. That's the way the
world works.
(05-23-2020, 08:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: > The biggest difference is that I am looking for a basic pattern
> transformation with nukes and computers. You have incorporated
> many observations of one age, and tried to apply them in
> another. I don’t think you can. The basic pattern would shift, but
> you are still looking at how things were before the change. Thus,
> if anything, you are not seeing how technology drives progress
> enough. The process of how nuclear powers step closer to crisis
> confrontation would be very different from in the Industrial
> Age. Yet, you are still looking at xenophobia rather than the much
> changed way that governments send messages to each other these
> days. You are stubbornly refusing to see that nukes
> traumatize.
Well, maybe I'm stubborn, but this isn't a political or ideological
issue. To the contrary, I've examined thousands of generational
events going back thousands of years, and I haven't noticed any
differences in the way that generational eras change in different
ages. There might be changes in detail or in social trends -- for
example, you won't have college students rioting in an Awakening era
in an age where there are no colleges -- but the core principles
remain the same.
So I've looked at thousands of examples. I believe that if there were
any change from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age, then I
would have noticed it. And if I had noticed it, I would have pointed
out it, and even noted that it was a significant discovery.
For example, I have discovered that Awakening eras are different in a
predictable way depending on the whether the preceding crisis war was
an internal or external war. This is actually a very significant
discovery, though no one gives a shit. Perhaps it will be noticed
after I'm dead. (As the Bee Gees said, "I started a joke, which
started the whole world crying. But I didn't see that the joke was on
me, oh no. ... 'Til I finally died, which started the whole world
living! Oh, if I'd only seen that the joke was on me.")
So my point is that if there were differences over the centuries in
going from one age to the next, then I would have noticed it, and if I
had noticed it, I would have declared it as a signficant discovery.
But no such thing has happened.
There are very good reasons why there shouldn't be any differences.
There is one thing that is true of most animals (including humans) at
all times in history -- that the food supply grows exponentially, but
the population grows exponentially even faster. In the case of
humans, this means that at regular intervals there have to be
genocidal wars to kill off enough people so that there will be enough
food and water for the survivors. This is true in the Agricultural
Age, the Industrial Age, and any other age, even in an age with
nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons make no difference except, of
course, that they will be used.
As I've recently suggested, almost 20 years of Generational Dynamics
have made me a believer in the futility of war. That doesn't mean
that I've become a left-wing antiwar pacifist. I remain a fatalist.
Actually wars are necessary to kill off enough people so that there's
enough food and water for everyone else. So wars are futile but
necessary.
Wars are like earthquakes. An earthquake occurs when there is too
much accumulated stress on the fault line between major tectonic
plates. The earthquake isn't good or bad, but it's absolutely
necessary because it's needed to relieve the stress along the fault
line in the earth's crust.
Similarly, genocidal crisis wars occur when there's too much
acculumulated stress on the fault line between different ethnic groups
because of population growth. The genocidal crisis war isn't good or
bad, but it's absolutely necessary because it's needed to relieve the
stress along the fault line between ethnic groups.
There's another similarity between earthquakes and genocidal wars.
Earthquakes kill a lot of people and flatten a lot of buildings, but
over the next couple of decades everything gets rebuilt and things go
back to the way they were. Nothing has really changed. Earthquakes
are futile but necessary.
Similarly, genocidal crisis wars kill a lot of people and topple a lot
of governments, but over the next few decades, by the end of the
Awakening era, things spring back to the way they were. Nothing has
really changed. Genocidal crisis wars are futile but necessary.
One example is the old joke that if the Nazis had won the war, then
today everyone in France and Britain would be speaking German. That's
really ridiculous. The Nazis lost the war, but the same thing
happened with Russia taking control of Eastern Europe, and according
to the logic of the old joke, everyone in all Eastern European
countries should be speaking Russian today. That's obviously not
true, and by the Unraveling era, pretty much everything had sprung
back to the way it was, including the reunification of Germany.
Similarly, Hitler's "Thousand Years" would not have lasted even two
generational eras.
So if there's a world war with nuclear weapons, then in the decades
after it ends, people in China, Japan, the US, and other countries
will pore through the rubble and rebuild their cities in the same way
that the Japanese rebuilt Hiroshima. Nothing will really change. War
with nuclear weapons is futile but necessary. That's the way the
world works.
