4 ms·

I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. These two can appear to be the same

I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. These two can appear to be the same thing especially when it's impossible to separate the resource from the status it symbolizes in the conflicted parties. Add it's often the practical case, in which case war is inevitable. For this reason I like the project of ecological wealth-making as a planetary concern and a sort of pan-cultural tonic. I'm not sure it can apply in time to these particular cases - if someone takes your water, that's a fight. But I do think it's really the only global solution to resource wars. And it's a problem with both a technical and aesthetic solutions. Not gonna be easy tho.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. You're not exactly wrong about status and its perception, but it's more nuanced. Japan in WW2 wanted to colonize Asia for resources, but they were also not happy with their treatment by the Allies after WW1. And Germany in WW2 did invade Norway for iron ore, and wanted Alsace back. And then the Treaty of Versailles. But when somebody takes your water, that is mainly a resource issue. And dams are fragile.
- tehchromic 6y ago
  Agreed. My point tho is not that mercenary interests are not willing to go to war to exploit resources, it's that the their interest in those resources has more to do with their persuit of status than with an underlying need for resources.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    That's not true in the cases I mentioned. Germany and Japan needed those resources, not status. In the case of the Himalayan headwaters, China and all of its neighbors need the same water.
tshaddox 6y ago
> I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. Couldn't it be that the wars are actually fought over resources, but are sold to the public of all involved countries (including the historians and philosophers) as being about status?
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Could it be that wars are fought for no good reason, but that they are always justified in terms of something that sounds attractive or valuable to whoever they're being justified to at the moment? (This is in the context of modern, useless wars, not pre-1950s conquests which were obviously about stealing as much as possible.)
  - unhijo 6y ago
    It could be that wars are fought for many reasons and we cannot abstract a general rule that is valid for all or even most wars.
    - willcipriano 6y ago
      I yearn for the heady days back when politicians used to attempt to justify wars, now the media just pretends we aren't in what seven? of them currently.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Why do you assume no good reasons when there were obvious economic and political incentives for the attacking parties in said "modern, useless wars" conflicts? Note it doesn't have to be one obvious incentive. A government has many parties with differing incentives. But sometimes, a lot of those parties stand to simultaneously benefit from a war. Basically, Hanlon's handgun[0], not Hanlon's razor. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282
- octodog 6y ago
  If you think that historians, philosophers, international relations scholars and the general public have 0 critical thinking skills, you could reach that conclusion. Realistically though, this is not the case. Although many wars are built on lies that may be believable at the outset, the public eventually tends to understand and the mood shifts. We have seen this in Vietnam and Iraq more recently.
Nasrudith 6y ago
Both are essentially about control one way or another essentially - if it is people or objects varies by situation and level of scope between personal and societal. Do they want gold because it gets them prestiege or because of crude evopsych "the trend gets them laid with ideal partners"? Modern resource wars among major powere as a projection personally puzzle me. Raw resources tend to be the cheapest part period and expensive goods have many inferior subsitutes. Essentially even relatively lousy means of acquiring resources like say desalination would be cheaper than first world water wars that often are projected as doomsday scenarios. The undeveloped world engaging in them? That is sadly plausible and unfortunately not exactly novel. History unfortunately shows people will happily screw over the weak and think it actively moral even if it harms themselves while thinking angering the strong immoral even if it makes things better for all. They wouldn't be neccessary for the developed world but they may be tempted if they see a vulnerable enough nation.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. You're not exactly wrong about status and its perception, but it's more nuanced. Japan in WW2 wanted to colonize Asia for resources, but they were also not happy with their treatment by the Allies after WW1. And Germany in WW2 did invade Norway for iron ore, and wanted Alsace back. And then the Treaty of Versailles. But when somebody takes your water, that is mainly a resource issue. And dams are fragile.

tehchromic 6y ago
Agreed. My point tho is not that mercenary interests are not willing to go to war to exploit resources, it's that the their interest in those resources has more to do with their persuit of status than with an underlying need for resources.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  That's not true in the cases I mentioned. Germany and Japan needed those resources, not status. In the case of the Himalayan headwaters, China and all of its neighbors need the same water.

tshaddox 6y ago

> I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. Couldn't it be that the wars are actually fought over resources, but are sold to the public of all involved countries (including the historians and philosophers) as being about status?

whatshisface 6y ago
Could it be that wars are fought for no good reason, but that they are always justified in terms of something that sounds attractive or valuable to whoever they're being justified to at the moment? (This is in the context of modern, useless wars, not pre-1950s conquests which were obviously about stealing as much as possible.)
- unhijo 6y ago
  It could be that wars are fought for many reasons and we cannot abstract a general rule that is valid for all or even most wars.
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    I yearn for the heady days back when politicians used to attempt to justify wars, now the media just pretends we aren't in what seven? of them currently.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Why do you assume no good reasons when there were obvious economic and political incentives for the attacking parties in said "modern, useless wars" conflicts? Note it doesn't have to be one obvious incentive. A government has many parties with differing incentives. But sometimes, a lot of those parties stand to simultaneously benefit from a war. Basically, Hanlon's handgun[0], not Hanlon's razor. -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691282
octodog 6y ago
If you think that historians, philosophers, international relations scholars and the general public have 0 critical thinking skills, you could reach that conclusion. Realistically though, this is not the case. Although many wars are built on lies that may be believable at the outset, the public eventually tends to understand and the mood shifts. We have seen this in Vietnam and Iraq more recently.

Nasrudith 6y ago

Both are essentially about control one way or another essentially - if it is people or objects varies by situation and level of scope between personal and societal. Do they want gold because it gets them prestiege or because of crude evopsych "the trend gets them laid with ideal partners"? Modern resource wars among major powere as a projection personally puzzle me. Raw resources tend to be the cheapest part period and expensive goods have many inferior subsitutes. Essentially even relatively lousy means of acquiring resources like say desalination would be cheaper than first world water wars that often are projected as doomsday scenarios. The undeveloped world engaging in them? That is sadly plausible and unfortunately not exactly novel. History unfortunately shows people will happily screw over the weak and think it actively moral even if it harms themselves while thinking angering the strong immoral even if it makes things better for all. They wouldn't be neccessary for the developed world but they may be tempted if they see a vulnerable enough nation.