If you are scared of bullets

[oneofsix]

War is also for bolstering an economy... All that weaponry and ammunition sitting around doing nothing except depreciating is going to expire sometime anyway, use it up and you can claim capital expenditure, print/spend more money to buy new ones and claim some sort of moral high ground to invade.

So what better way to turn your declining economy around and create jobs, raise the stock index, pay fat bonuses, distract taxpayers and instill a sense of national pride? Start a war...

ruined Germany's economy twice, same for Britain. American dollar diving hence why they are pulling out. war is good for the economy - of the arms makers and dealers, doesn't do a country or it's people much good.

[Tigadee]

Now... but wait and see what happens in two to three years.

The technological advances as a result of warfare (or counter terrorism): Ever smaller increasingly sensitive cameras, ever more powerful and mobile computing/communications devices, super accurate recognition (voice, facial, breath, writing and ears even!), new materials for all kinds of applications, new power sources or more mobile power sources, exoskeletons for the handicapped and aged, 3D printing of organs or limbs...

Some of these are already reality and not new but their progress and/or refinement is more likely moved along as a result of conflict rather than peace.

[oneofsix]

Now... but wait and see what happens in two to three years.

The technological advances as a result of warfare (or counter terrorism): Ever smaller increasingly sensitive cameras, ever more powerful and mobile computing/communications devices, super accurate recognition (voice, facial, breath, writing and ears even!), new materials for all kinds of applications, new power sources or more mobile power sources, exoskeletons for the handicapped and aged, 3D printing of organs or limbs...

Some of these are already reality and not new but their progress and/or refinement is more likely moved along as a result of conflict rather than peace.

Really? Demand moves development along. During WWII the conflict provided a demand but Vietnam didn't. However now the demand is driven by other factors, war didn't demand the iPad. The new power sources are being demanded because of the oil crisis and new consummer technology. The world has changed. War demands and drives better weapons, affluent populations drive and demand better toys and lives. War prevents affluent populations.

[Akzle]

Agreed. There just isn't enough money to use it properly. Was talking with a friend the other day and she was commenting on how there are 3 hard core gardeners in her cul de sac... no problem to them being able to plant out the 1000 or so houses that don't have vege patches around where I live.

muh.
check out on youtube "a million pounds of food off one acre" then tell me people can't be fed.

fortunately i'm seeing more and more schools with vege patches and "community" gardens. good shit.

[Maki]

War prevents affluent populations.

Exactly. Could it be someone does not want "affluent populations" but affluence for him and his cronies? War is the perfect vehicle to achieve this.

Isn't it remarkable that some still believe that soldiers are fighting for their countries, for their mates, freedom, some religion or some such nonsense. They are really fighting for a few $ more into the pockets of the few. Of course this applies for the soldiers allegedly fighting for first world countries. In the countries where the fight is actually taking place some people may in fact be fighting for freedom, to rid themselves of foreign oppression.

If the population were sufficiently affluent, who would sign up to join an army?


It's time to "cut and run", before more people lose their lives for no purpose other than to save the face of a politician.

[Akzle]

It's time to "cut and run", before more people lose their lives for no purpose other than to save the face of a politician.

it was never our place to be there in the first instance. a good deal of our climate would allow us to grow heroin. of course, we could always BUY the shit off the afghanis for a fair price and help fix their economy....

the best way to honour the fallen would be to get the rest out of there before we add to their score in the name of ...?

we're on "peace keeping duties", yet we're going to retaliate to these attacks with an air strike.

i see how that could be mis-interpreted.

i <3 peace.

[mashman]

Really? Demand moves development along.

Really? People with bright ideas for new technology move development along... tis a shame we use it for blowing people apart instead of other more worth while pursuits.

[Maki]

muh.
check out on youtube "a million pounds of food off one acre" then tell me people can't be fed.

fortunately i'm seeing more and more schools with vege patches and "community" gardens. good shit.

Ok, so how many people will the earth support? Let's say the earth can support X amount of people in the extreme, (at least temporarily). That means every man woman and child is engaged in the production of food from dusk till dawn, every square yard of arable land is utilized to the max, the ocean is full of fish farms and the only vestige of nature and wilderness left is confined to zoos. Any climatic event, a strong el Nino for example would nevertheless lead to crop failures, widespread famine, brutal wars and epidemics.

Let's say the earth can support the number Y more comfortably. Let's say that is today's situation which many argue is not sustainable and vast tracts of land are being raped to maximize food production and these will inevitably decline but of course other areas that are now not so intensively cultivated could be utilized at the expense of natural habitats, extinctions and future sustainability. Is this a desirable state of affairs?

Finally let's say that we find a population number Z which could live sustainably, not have to over utilize land, not cause mass extinctions, have plenty in reserve in times when the climate does no cooperate and have resources left over to take care of sick and elderly.

Which of these numbers is most desirable? Why impose the misery and destruction X number of human beings would cause rather than the harmony and balance that the number Z would bring? I don't see any arguments for having too many people apart from the one where a dictator wants his followers to have more children in order to multiply the ranks of his supporters, be it a dictator of a country or religious organization. Apart from that I can see no rational reason why burdening the planet with an unsustainable number of human beings is desirable.

Due to widespread droughts and crop failures in the northern hemisphere this summer I believe you are going to see the consequences of over population very soon indeed. The starving people are not going to be sustained by theories that there is enough for everyone. We will soon see how lucky we are to live down here in a relatively sparsely populated country where it is easy to grow food. Most of the worlds population is not as fortunate.

[oneofsix]

you notice that as the population grows, towns and cities have to grow and these of course will be built where the better farming land is so it is this good farm land that gets built out first. Australia is a good example, all the population is around the fertile outside of the country, not the arid middle.

[Tigadee]

Really? Demand moves development along. During WWII the conflict provided a demand but Vietnam didn't. However now the demand is driven by other factors, war didn't demand the iPad. The new power sources are being demanded because of the oil crisis and new consummer technology. The world has changed. War demands and drives better weapons, affluent populations drive and demand better toys and lives. War prevents affluent populations.

True enough... As a sci-fi fan, I might even say that sci-fi is what drives a lot of technological development, look at the Star trek communicator and PADD vs mobile phones and tablets, or voice/face recognition software, wi-fi,...

[oneofsix]

True enough... As a sci-fi fan, I might even say that sci-fi is what drives a lot of technological development, look at the Star trek communicator and PADD vs mobile phones and tablets, or voice/face recognition software, wi-fi,...

Live long and prosper.

[imdying]

True enough... As a sci-fi fan, I might even say that sci-fi is what drives a lot of technological development, look at the Star trek communicator and PADD vs mobile phones and tablets, or voice/face recognition software, wi-fi,...

What a load of shit, sci-fi doesn't drive that at all.

[bogan]

True enough... As a sci-fi fan, I might even say that sci-fi is what drives a lot of technological development, look at the Star trek communicator and PADD vs mobile phones and tablets, or voice/face recognition software, wi-fi,...

I know right, after the moon landing we have just gone bigger and better, oh wait

[mashman]

Ok, so how many people will the earth support? Let's say the earth can support X amount of people in the extreme, (at least temporarily). That means every man woman and child is engaged in the production of food from dusk till dawn, every square yard of arable land is utilized to the max, the ocean is full of fish farms and the only vestige of nature and wilderness left is confined to zoos. Any climatic event, a strong el Nino for example would nevertheless lead to crop failures, widespread famine, brutal wars and epidemics.

Let's say the earth can support the number Y more comfortably. Let's say that is today's situation which many argue is not sustainable and vast tracts of land are being raped to maximize food production and these will inevitably decline but of course other areas that are now not so intensively cultivated could be utilized at the expense of natural habitats, extinctions and future sustainability. Is this a desirable state of affairs?

Finally let's say that we find a population number Y which could live sustainably, not have to over utilize land, not cause mass extinctions, have plenty in reserve in times when the climate does no cooperate and have resources left over to take care of sick and elderly.

Which of these numbers is most desirable? Why impose the misery and destruction X number of human beings would cause rather than the harmony and balance that the number Y would bring? I don't see any arguments for having too many people apart from the one where a dictator wants his followers to have more children in order to multiply the ranks of his supporters, be it a dictator of a country or religious organization. Apart from that I can see no rational reason why burdening the planet with an unsustainable number of human beings is desirable.

Due to widespread droughts and crop failures in the northern hemisphere this summer I believe you are going to see the consequences of over population very soon indeed. The starving people are not going to be sustained by theories that there is enough for everyone. We will soon see how lucky we are to live down here in a relatively sparsely populated country where it is easy to grow food. Most of the worlds population is not as fortunate.

Build indoors and control that climate.
Build up so that the land is used most efficiently.
Use water from desalination plants to feed hydroponic gardens.

= fuckloads of food.

As for overpopulation... asking people to stop having too many kids might be a good start. Teaching kids at school that overpopulation has a bad affect on all things living might do the trick too... but why bother when there's war to be had and there's never enough money to achieve such a simple step forwards in evolution. Ditch the cash and it's ALL very doable!

[allycatz]

Ex SAS friend of mine sent me this comment yesterday re the deaths.....he like many of his colleagues are finding it hard to see how re-con crew are on the battle lines as in the case of the last two deaths, when one soldier was killed after being sent to assist our SAS crew

"questions must be asked ....they have made so may experience people redundant over the last 2 years we are seeing the result of inexperienced commanders and sadly ) warrant officers who are only interested in career advancment than standing up to thier Colonels poor decisions ..as is there job ... rather than putting themselves in the position of being the moral compass for thier battalion commanders ---"