Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

paradoxbox

What are acceptable losses?

64 posts in this topic

well, the original question is:

 

" Would you consider this acceptable or not, and if not, what are your strategies to reduce losses? Especially needless losses like swimming tanks and brainless IFV's marching into the middle of an open plain. "

 

in the united states, i'm not aware of any sort of figure or number that commanders all the way down to ncos are told x number of losses means you do what? (retreat, do nothing and wait, ask for help, stay in place, and so on)

 

there is no hard and fast rule to answer this question, and this would be obvious why for multiple reasons. but the question itself asks not what is doctrine anyway, but whether you the user thinks what is acceptable or not.

 

then we get to the kind of second part where this went when people start talking about about national goals and strategies, which is why i answered the way did. granted my answer my tend to be seem esoteric, but there is a purpose to why i say what i do especially when it gets to the point where it becomes the 'those who are willing to sacrifice are the ones who usually are predicted to win" this is not true, by itself that does nothing; you could have cannon fodder willing to die, but that wouldn't necessarily win against a stealth bomber or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

 

you implied it- you were alluding to something, now it's all innocent. and i just fell off the onion wagon.

 

it's been rather clear what i have been responding to and it is tied in; back in world war 2 on average there were ten service and supply troops for every line soldier in the field, some 20 years ago it was about 20. i don't know what the calculation looks like today, it's not something i follow. in world war 2, education standards were also rather low on average; these days it's nigh impossible for enlisted men not have at least a high school diploma; in any case, the point i'm making which really isn't so mysterious us that our militaries are also a reflection of our national policies, goals, self identities and so on, because again, we invest so much in the individual; the armed forces are drawn from the civilian population, they don't come out of nowhere, it's not as if you can isolate one from the other. even down to the individual private there is an expensive investment put into him. you don't deny this surely, and i'm explaining why and how it got there. moreover, the survival rate from wounds is better than it ever has been. so all of this should turn on the light bulb above your head. this means something, right? what does it mean? i've been explaining it. as we've put so much investment in our own society, and in our own citizens, and in the armed forces, there's an interesting phenomenon that we try to preserve our investment. equipment gets more expensive, individuals get more expensive, therefore, there is compounding effect to take less casualties as a consequence. it's not just a psychological avoidance of casualties, but a logical one. it's an intentional design, and if we're going to fight an endless war on terror, well, then we will explore ways of doing so which means not draining and over extending ourselves. this can't be mysterious, i simply cannot believe you'd question something like that.

 

 

NO It doesn't outright prove anything thats just a matter of technological  and medical/healthcare  progression. What you dont understand is its one thing to preserve lives and another to be on the opposite end of the spectrum and not be willing to fight. hence why its important as in any things in life to have a balance. Hence why a nation willing to put effort in preserving lives but at the same time not shying away from a fight when need be would be far more dangerous than on a nation that thinks it can rely soley on technology to solve all thier problems.

 

AS the other guy iterated  in a prior post better than i did:   # war demopgrahics

 

On 9/9/2017 at 8:04 AM, Skybird03 said:



Thats why I do not blindly believe in the argument of technological superiority that Captain Colossus raised. You can be technologically superior, and still loose to a band of lightly armed farmers and shepards. The factor behind this gets taught at the NATO college in Brussels under the label "War demographics", and the name to mention here is Gunnar Heinson. He established the socalled "war index" (and youth bulge theory) that compares the number of male 15-19 year olds to the society'S male 55-59 year olds, and shows the correlation between the aggressiveness and expansive behaviour of this culture/society. A war index of 1 means there are as many male youngling as there are male elder. A number smaller than 1 means there are more old than young males. Germany for example has a war index of 0.27, which means there are four times as many old ones than young ones. The probability that Germany engages in a war of aggression, is almost nil. However, lets see the hotspots of the world today, he recently mentioned Afghanistan. When the Americans started to intervene there, Afghanistan had a war index of I think 4. 4 or 4.6, there were more than four times as many young ones as there were old ones. During the conflict of the past decade, this index temporarily rose to over 6. Later it dropped again to some 4.7 or 4.8 I recall by memory. This is why despite the growing effort by America to win in Afghanistan, the enemy became stronger and stronger and got back in numbers. While winning field battles, the wars in Iraq 91, Iraq 03 and Afghanistan were strategic defeats, and very major defeats, turned into by politics and clueless acting. Heinsohn says that wars against a country with a war index over 3, are extremely difficult to win, over 4 you realyl should think three and four times before starting a war, and beyond 5 it is a hopeless cause almost. The US until today cannot get done with a loose gang of medieval barbarians with light weapons and improvised equipment. The Bundeswehr at the same time, as Creveld laconically reminded the reader, delayed the delivery of it s new IFV Puma again due to concerns that some exhaust gas could reach the cabin and have an effect on the forwater of pregnant female soldiers. Eh, what...??? I think if such concerns worry an army, then it really has some serious problems with its self-understanding, and I cannot image how any enemy should take such an army serious or be afraid if it, thinking twice before striking at it. Personally I am more concerned about he possible shark problem in the Berlin Wannsee.

 

 

 

AT the same time wars are actually more dangerous due to much greater Lethality in Firepower ( at least when it comes to a peer vs near peer foe) . There just hasn't been a mass conventional war since ww2 where technologically near peer, oR peer on peer foes had clashed. newer technology is always more expensive. Nothing new here.

 

 

Quote

 

when you started talking about the zero casualty red herring, which you introduced, which i explained why you were wrong, then you seem to not understand why. i'm explaining why. i've heard this all before, and it's irrational, it's the ranting and raving "we're not willing to make sacrifices anymore." we've been doing it for a long time, where this comes from makes no sense at all. the united states anyway is now in a war with no end, our longest yet. so i don't see what this is based on. and if the united states tends to use other means to reduce its own casualties, like i said that's a good thing, only in some twisted bizarro world is that not a good thing.

 

there are mudslides and earthquakes that kill thousands, tens of thousands of people in countries like china, and it barely registers on the news at all; if that sort of thing happened in the united states, it would be a very pronounced occasion. so again, the way we view ourselves and our own lives reflects also in the armed services, it shows, this is not a mystery. if you deny this, i just won't believe you. there must be some agenda.

 

it's not a strange coincidence that societies which don't place a high value in the lives of their subjects tend not to develop very far.

 

 

 

IT worked for the Russians in WW2, Led by Strongman, Who didn't care for lives, and at a high cost and not as sophisticated military technology beat  Nazi Germany. 

 

Quantity beat Quality. However Scientists were valued nonetheless. AT a certain point in time in the cold war the Russians had the Numbers and Technological advantage. What would have made Russian Dangerous in Fulda gap scenarios is they would be willing to accept casualties but still had Advanced tanks  for thier time ( IE T64, and T72) that nato had no Counter, Let alone parity in comparable armor technology until they fielded 3rd generation MBts in the 80s.  

 

 

SO yes id say a nation that has some technological advantages, combination with relentless determination and is not afraid to bleed is far more scary than One that soley belies on relying on technology to solve thier Military problems.

 

and the Vietnamese. However in the latter case you have to remember that Its not fair to label them Primitives.  they had been governed by Foreign Invaders for Centuries, And were willing to die only for the independence  and later unification of their own country from further occupation in the form of French and later the Americans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

those societies tend to flunk sooner or later, it's not hard to see why. sure back in paleolithic history, the most brutal guys with stone clubs and axes would dominate and that probably ruled the day for tens of thousands of years. then here and there this or that tribe or individual developed something new and innovative, new ways to feed themselves, cooperate, new ways to defend themselves, and so on- gradually the more brutish tribes were outmoded and outmaneuvered, and little by little the cumulative effects of this interaction became what society looks like today.

 

I already mentioned this, before....  ANd i understand this, But as others have pointed out this attitude will be detrimental when a "real" war actually comes around. 

 

However this is a matter of technological progression. All countries compete with one another in areas of innovation especially IN a era of cold war, or direct confrontation.

 

 

In any case For as much as we have relied on adaptation , tools using out Brains. ( Its who we are. Nothing new) and for as much has changed Much has remained the same Since the primitive stone age.

 

 

I suggest you actually read this:

 

https://www.amazon.ca/Short-History-Progress-Ronald-Wright/dp/0887847064

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

in sum: we should not focus per se on the will to accept casualties but our ingenuity to avoid them which will be the better play- and again, to alll the markers which i've explained, which indicate that as such.

 

 

YEs but in certain circumstances being overly spooked by  casualties is detrimental.    

 

You know the French were lucky there were other nations  capable of fighting Germany, However its quite a gamble to expect to Surrender When you have the means to Fight. There wont alwasy be a Big brother to Bail you out.  IN such alternate history if theere was no USSR or GB, then France would essentially be Run by Germany, who could at any whim wipe them out. 

 

So If anything comparable ever happens not to worry, there be people glady to Remind what led their culture  to be decimated:

 

I-Told-U-So.png

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

well, the original question is:

 

" Would you consider this acceptable or not, and if not, what are your strategies to reduce losses? Especially needless losses like swimming tanks and brainless IFV's marching into the middle of an open plain. "

 

in the united states, i'm not aware of any sort of figure or number that commanders all the way down to ncos are told x number of losses means you do what? (retreat, do nothing and wait, ask for help, stay in place, and so on)

 

there is no hard and fast rule to answer this question, and this would be obvious why for multiple reasons. but the question itself asks not what is doctrine anyway, but whether you the user thinks what is acceptable or not.

 

then we get to the kind of second part where this went when people start talking about about national goals and strategies, which is why i answered the way did. granted my answer my tend to be seem esoteric,

 

They are your opinions. This is not the only view held by you. AS other posters have quoted other authors. Understanding something, Does not alleviate an issue.

 

Quote

 

 

but there is a purpose to why i say what i do especially when it gets to the point where it becomes the 'those who are willing to sacrifice are the ones who usually are predicted to win" this is not true, by itself that does nothing; you could have cannon fodder willing to die, but that wouldn't necessarily win against a stealth bomber or something.

 

A stealth bomber wasn't designed to Bomb Human waves or  radical Militiamen. It was designed because other modern countries have Radars and Intricate Air defense network that have improved to the point that has rendered non stealth aircraft venturing into thier airspace inhospitable. All in part due accelerated of a Cold war that waged between USA and USSR.

 

If there was just 1 country vs Entire world of Primitives, then there would be no need for stealth bombers, Hence a stagnation of technological innovation because it wouldn't be necessary.

 

Even Post COld war you can see how the progress of technology has slowed down when the RED Menace was gone,  compared to the fast pace of change of 20 or so years after ww2, vs 27 years since the cold war ended. When there was no threat there was no justification of as large defense budgets and innovation slowed down. in the last few years perhaps it has somewhat accelerated due to Russian ambitions, but still nowhere what it was during the cold war.

 

YOu can go farther back through any wartime period and see this trend.

 

Again IF all we fought were Barbarians, Or  whatever or other such Primitive warrior chieftain, or Radicalism societies then our technological progression would be stagnant and move at a snail pace.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War is comparable to, maybe is a cultivated "art form". It has formed its own manners, arts, rules, ways of behaviour, rules and laws, dress codes, do's and dont's. Man cultivates it. Much like a hunter cultivates a certain way of hunting and forming a life form or a social event around it, think of hunting in England, or Germany. War doe snot only rise from rational, causal needs, it also arises from desire of some. Many live by rules of military codices and manners even at peace, voluntarily follow it most of their lifetime, hold it in high esteem.

If this way it is part of human nature, what I think it is, you would see innovation and change in its tools and ways to think about it comparable to how hunters buy more rifles than they practically need, for they like to collect them, and buy newly invented stuff and rifles, although the prey stayed the same and has not adapted to the old rifles at all.

The old saying says "War is the father of all things". Maybe this is how that saying is meant: its part of our nature.

We go to war for causal causes and rational considerations, as well as irrational ones that cannot be proven valid (relgious motives for example). Some even turn so fanatical that they do not mind voluntarily martyrizing themselves in war. The war is the cause they follow and focus their life on. As a culture, war and military has tremendnous influence on all other human art forms: prose, painting, composing...

Its part of the human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kev2go said:

AT the same time wars are actually more dangerous due to much greater Lethality in Firepower ( at least when it comes to a peer vs near peer foe) . There just hasn't been a mass conventional war since ww2 where technologically near peer, oR peer on peer foes had clashed. newer technology is always more expensive. Nothing new here.

 

 

But there have been plenty of other, smaller wars, conflicts, asymmetrical wars, low intensity wars, etc. The historically proven biggest and most lethal weapon of mass destruction is not the hydrogen bomb, but is the small caliber firearm: pistols and automatic assault rifles.

 

"Quantity beat Quality. However Scientists were valued nonetheless."

 

Until a certain treshhold, quality can compensate for disadvantageous numbers. But only until that treshhold, and not beyond. For example I never believed that the techncially superior air forces of NATO in the 80s would have been able to maintain air superiority in the sky and at the same time be useful in a ground pounding role as well (considering how many multi role aircraft there were that would have been deadlocked in a role of interceptor). Mike Spick, a British RAF pilot who in the late 80s and later became known for illustrative books and guides to military aircraft, wrote that in a 1-on-1 situation, Westenr fighters of course could maintain upper hand against old Mig-21s and -23s, but there were also more modern fighters emerging like the Su-27 and Mig-29, and Russian missiles can easily keep up with Western designs, today as well as already in the 80s. Iraq 03 was tried by Rumms-ins-Feld to be turned into a demonstration of how little troops are needed to pacify a whole country the size of Iraq. We know how that megalomaniac overestimation of oneself has ended.

 

Hugh numbers have their very own charms. Last but not leats becasue you are more able to sustain losses without being threateningly affected. Some author many years ago was able to show that the loss of a single British fighrerplane in any of the Gulf wars already translated into a measurable and numerically expressable negative effect on the British economy and national wealth. Better exmaple is the Royal navy, a shadow of its former self these days. Losses in the falkland war were critcal, but could be digested somehow, ione could carry on after frigates and transporters got exocetted. Today, that navy admits, that would be impossible. There are simply not enough destroyers and frigates left in active service.

 

Stanislav Lem once wrote in an ironic book about the near future - our present that would be - that in "the 21st century" the American air force would consist of only three aircraft. They are so expensive to build that they never fly and are considered unusable in any war, for the loss due to enemy fire or accident of just one of them would mean a too high loss to the state's wealth and finances. Recall the one single F-117 the Serbs were able to bring down? Remember how many F-22 originally were planned to buy, and how the number shrunk every every three or four years, until the joke of  a number today? Then, there are the new British aircraft carriers and their originally wanted numbers of F-35 - and the number as it is now. LOL.

 

 

Edited by Skybird03

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Skybird03 said:

But there have been plenty of other, smaller wars, conflicts, asymmetrical wars, low intensity wars, etc. The historically proven biggest and most lethal weapon of mass destruction is not the hydrogen bomb, but is the small caliber firearm: pistols and automatic assault rifles.

 

"Quantity beat Quality. However Scientists were valued nonetheless."

 

Until a certain treshhold, quality can compensate for disadvantageous numbers. But only until that treshhold, and not beyond. For example I never believed that the techncially superior air forces of NATO in the 80s would have been able to maintain air superiority in the sky and at the same time be useful in a ground pounding role as well (considering how many multi role aircraft there were that would have been deadlocked in a role of interceptor). Mike Spick, a British RAF pilot who in the late 80s and later became known for illustrative books and guides to military aircraft, wrote that in a 1-on-1 situation, Westenr fighters of course could maintain upper hand against old Mig-21s and -23s, but there were also more modern fighters emerging like the Su-27 and Mig-29, and Russian missiles can easily keep up with Western designs, today as well as already in the 80s.

 

They can but Russians have proven they cant afford to build many of them.  ( IE look at the Su35 and how few of them are)

 

Pak Fa as a stealth jet is not expected to be as sophisticated as F22 or F35. ITl remain to be seen however IF theyl outproduce the F22 or F35 ( i have doubts)

T14 armata tank looks impressive, but so far they have built a handful of them.  

 

 

I personally am supportive of the Multirole Fighter philosophy, and the importance of them. Even if you look from a perspective of darwinism. Specialized animals enjoy certain qualities, but the species that can adapt will be the best suited for survival

 

Besides even during the cold war 8s period Americans were not totally blinded by High tech. They adopted a "high low mix" Philosphy. F15 as a dedicated and more expensive Air superiority fighter, with the F16 as a Smaller cheaper, and Multirole platform that could be more easily mass produced, but still held relevant technology from its generation.

 

The A10 was adopted as a rugged, but inexpensive dedicated ground attack jet ( based on lessons learnt in vietnam from the A1 sky raider CAS and Sandy Missions), FOr busting soviet tanks and supporting troops engaged with enemy forces.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Iraq 03 was tried by Rumms-ins-Feld to be turned into a demonstration of how little troops are needed to pacify a whole country the size of Iraq. We know how that megalomaniac overestimation of oneself has ended.

 

Hugh numbers have their very own charms. Last but not leats becasue you are more able to sustain losses without being threateningly affected. Some author many years ago was able to show that the loss of a single British fighrerplane in any of the Gulf wars already translated into a measurable and numerically expressable negative effect on the British economy and national wealth. Better exmaple is the Royal navy, a shadow of its former self these days. Losses in the falkland war were critcal, but could be digested somehow, ione could carry on after frigates and transporters got exocetted. Today, that navy admits, that would be impossible. There are simply not enough destroyers and frigates left in active service.

 

 However a nuclear exhcange would certainly devaste nations far quicker and much more than firearms would. It just hasn't happened, because of Mutually assured destruction. Nukes aside what i meant by the post was the scale of combat also translates into bigger losses when the enemy can field what you can field. . Also take into consideration is that modern militaries employ AP rounds for thier service rifles.  Ceramic plates in military Body armor would not be as much of a life saver at it has been in these smaller scale wars against conventional rounds.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Stanislav Lem once wrote in an ironic book about the near future - our present that would be - that in "the 21st century" the American air force would consist of only three aircraft. They are so expensive to build that they never fly and are considered unusable in any war, for the loss due to enemy fire or accident of just one of them would mean a too high loss to the state's wealth and finances. Recall the one single F-117 the Serbs were able to bring down? Remember how many F-22 originally were planned to buy, and how the number shrunk every every three or four years, until the joke of  a number today? Then, there are the new British aircraft carriers and their originally wanted numbers of F-35 - and the number as it is now. LOL.

 

 

 

Sounds just about right lol. But to degree one can always write it down to peace time economy.  Just look at how most militaries looked before ww2, and during or immediately after ww2. UK was in a similar predicament prior to ww2. Even USA military was modest one,  in no shape to fight a modern militarized power such as Germany or Industrial Japan prior to 1941.   But as any nation mass mobilization and transformation to war economy can drastically changed ther military posture and their ability to project force.

 

 

 

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Skybird03 said:

War is comparable to, maybe is a cultivated "art form". It has formed its own manners, arts, rules, ways of behaviour, rules and laws, dress codes, do's and dont's. Man cultivates it. Much like a hunter cultivates a certain way of hunting and forming a life form or a social event around it, think of hunting in England, or Germany. War doe snot only rise from rational, causal needs, it also arises from desire of some. Many live by rules of military codices and manners even at peace, voluntarily follow it most of their lifetime, hold it in high esteem.

If this way it is part of human nature, what I think it is, you would see innovation and change in its tools and ways to think about it comparable to how hunters buy more rifles than they practically need, for they like to collect them, and buy newly invented stuff and rifles, although the prey stayed the same and has not adapted to the old rifles at all.

The old saying says "War is the father of all things". Maybe this is how that saying is meant: its part of our nature.

We go to war for causal causes and rational considerations, as well as irrational ones that cannot be proven valid (relgious motives for example). Some even turn so fanatical that they do not mind voluntarily martyrizing themselves in war. The war is the cause they follow and focus their life on. As a culture, war and military has tremendnous influence on all other human art forms: prose, painting, composing...

Its part of the human nature.

it is life itself; the paradox is that life cannot be separated from conflict. just recently there was news of that 'uncontacted' amazon tribe that was annihilated, so their genes don't get passed on, that's the end of the road for that genetic group. there are a few groups left in central and south america that are still essentially in the stone age, the men raid each other's villages, kill one another, take the females for breeding utilities, and that's more or less what has been going on for a long long time. but their time will eventually come up craps, the rest of the world will move on and push them out. they failed to transform their societies to keep up with the rest of the world for whatever reason. it would be rather predictable, if you set up an environment where there were limited resources and living space and the organisms were let to work it out, the conclusions of what's going to happen is predictable and consistent in repeat experiments.

 

life consumes energy and resources and competes for these things to survive, metastatize, mutate, evolve, it is inherent to life; life arises to consume and to compete for living space, mates, resources, and even mere survival isn't enough- it competes to dominate above and beyond daily needs but for power. just look at the fact that our species, the apex of evolution has evolved sensory systems especially attuned to pain avoidance and reward seeking behaviors indicates our relation to the world- why the need for pain sensation if the world wasn't in itself a hostile place- and the more advanced, the more complex the organism, the more deeply these things are capable of being experienced.

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

it is life itself; the paradox is that life cannot be separated from conflict. just recently there was news of that 'uncontacted' amazon tribe that was annihilated, so their genes don't get passed on, that's the end of the road for that genetic group. there are a few groups left in central and south america that are still essentially in the stone age, the men raid each other's villages, kill one another, take the females for breeding utilities, and that's more or less what has been going on for a long long time. but their time will eventually come up craps, the rest of the world will move on and push them out. they failed to transform their societies to keep up with the rest of the world for whatever reason. it would be rather predictable, if you set up an environment where there were limited resources and living space and the organisms were let to work it out, the conclusions of what's going to happen is predictable and consistent in repeat experiments.

 

life consumes energy and resources and competes for these things to survive, metastatize, mutate, evolve, it is inherent to life; life arises to consume and to compete for living space, mates, resources, and even mere survival isn't enough- it competes to dominate above and beyond daily needs but for power. just look at the fact that our species, the apex of evolution has evolved sensory systems especially attuned to pain avoidance and reward seeking behaviors indicates our relation to the world- why the need for pain sensation if the world wasn't in itself a hostile place- and the more advanced, the more complex the organism, the more deeply these things are capable of being experienced.

 

 

IPerhaps they chose to live a certain way, not that they failed to move with the times. 

 

Amish peoples for example  chose to live a lifestyle of the late 1800's, and not move with the times. Sometimes a lifestyle choice, not a failure of evolution. Remember at the end of the day those aboriginals are part of a nation, and these days are protected.  So an attack on them ( or for a group community of AmisH) would be an attack on the country of which territory they reside in.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whether they chose it or not isn't controversial, the point i'm making is that they they were outmoded or defeated or whatever you want to call it. the end result is their gone, kaput. and this is what has been going on a long time, otherwise you'd still see these groups around predominately as representative of human societies, which you don't.

 

are you just contrarian on everything? i think even if i said 2 + 2 = 4, you would have a comeback for that trying to disprove it.

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look at the job market, very similar things happen- old industries get wrapped up by new, even on an individual level, people compete for jobs, there should be no doubt that conflict is wired into reality itself; it's everywhere, including entertainment and leisure activities, sports, video games, any sort of competition implies a winner and loser; we watch movies with horror and killing in them, because frankly if watched a movie where they sat there drinking lemonade underneath a rainbow for two hours, no one would go to watch. we are wired for it. somewhere along the line, when one organism or system gains an adaptive advantage that becomes significant enough, it tends to dominate until there evolves another response which checks or surpasses the old one. this is why we are here where we are now and not still scraping by looking for things on the ground to eat, all of this process has culminated to our present time, and it will continue after us; this is why the speculation that eventually human beings will have reached a kind of hard limit insofar as their bodies will continue to evolve, and we may be increasingly fused with machines if not replaced altogether in the future.

 

this is the catch-22: our cells are programmed to die, we are programmed to die, and it if wasn't like that, profound problems arise: if no one died, there the would be the problem of overpopulation, older generations die and so that newer generations don't have to compete with them again, for things like resources, mates and living spaces, life and death are on the same spectrum and life makes use of death for its own ends, not for us as individuals, but on macro scale, we are all in a sense servants of life doing its will.

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

look at the job market, very similar things happen- old industries get wrapped up by new, even on an individual level, people compete for jobs, there should be no doubt that conflict is wired into reality itself; it's everywhere, including entertainment and leisure activities, sports, video games, any sort of competition implies a winner and loser; we watch movies with horror and killing in them, because frankly if watched a movie where they sat there drinking lemonade underneath a rainbow for two hours,no one would go to watch.

 

 

To each his own. It depends on your taste in movies. There are plenty drama films and or comedy class films that are not horror or violent.

 

 

Quote

 

we are wired for it. somewhere along the line, when one organism or system gains an adaptive advantage that becomes significant enough, it tends to dominate until there evolves another response which checks or surpasses the old one. this is why we are here where we are now and not still scraping by looking for things on the ground to eat,

 

 

No we are were we re because adaption and relying on innovation. people have been farming food since the earliest of civilization, save for some aboriginal groups that remained as such.

 

Quote

 

all of this process has culminated to our present time, and it will continue after us; this is why the speculation that eventually human beings will have reached a kind of hard limit insofar as their bodies will continue to evolve, and we may be increasingly fused with machines if not replaced altogether in the future.

 

LOl humans are obsolete.  K. 

 

WE won't be replaced. WE are at the top of the food chain, unless your implying we get invaded by species from another planet. No ones going to replace ourselves with machines as a succession civilization ( except for manufacturing and certain work roles) . That would be committing suicide of a species lol.

 

Seriously now your just getting into over the top sci fi.

 

Quote

 

this is the catch-22: our cells are programmed to die, we are programmed to die, and it if wasn't like that, profound problems arise: if no one died, there the would be the problem of overpopulation, older generations die and so that newer generations don't have to compete with them again, for things like resources, mates and living spaces, life and death are on the same spectrum and life makes use of death for its own ends, not for us as individuals, but on macro scale, we are all in a sense servants of life doing its will.

 

 

 Really, wow  never knew that we would be overpopulated if we lived for ever.( sarcasm)

 

Captain obvious mucH?

 

No there really is no individualism. We just want to believe we are all somebody. Ironically individualism would have made much more sense in times when human populations were still small.

 

We are not servants of anyone. We merely exist becuase of evoulton mixed chance. 

 

 

Again this really isn't going anywhere. Shall we talk about ice cream next?

 

 

On 9/11/2017 at 2:23 AM, Ssnake said:

I'm beginning to believe that this thread is past its point of usefulness.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

 

are you just contrarian on everything? i think even if i said 2 + 2 = 4, you would have a comeback for that trying to disprove it.

 

No you just think your right when its really just  personal opinion and viewpoints.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it's not just mine, that is, i hoped you caught on to the fact that i referred to darwinian evolution, which is not my opinion. believe it or not, believe or not we evolved or are evolving, believe or not that we continue to evolve, it's not just my personal opinion, i didn't invent it, it's a shared view shared by many people, and i predict it will be accepted and understood, and I think we should get on with it. it goes so far to give such an account of why things are they they are- why tribes and groups below the level of civilization have evolved, why they fell, why civilizations crash and others succeed.

 

in the first world, populations are growing taller, life expectancy is longer, family sizes are growing smaller or having children is being put off later, (testosterone levels are also declining, which wouldn't surprise me and is likely related to first world lifestyles); this is not just a curious happenstance, this is not my opinion, this is a real thing. i am not claiming these things, these is all happening, and it is all a process that is ongoing, evolving. how this doesn't point to a process of evolution has yet to be convincingly shown, everything is evolving, competing, experimenting, and so on, and the reality you live is the product of that. in all of us, encoded in our genes are our the traits of our ancestors who survived to reproduce,  that would seem to be self explanatory. and there is no coherent rebuttal to that.

 

and so, to accept that this is what life is, it would be useful to approach 'the clash of civilizations' sorts of argument similarly. many of our enemies know they lag in certain key areas, so they adapt, and again, one particular way is one that they themselves would often say openly, the intention to fight an enemy such as the united states is not necessarily directly or decisively; again, this is what they would even say themselves, to drag the united states into long, unending conflict until it just isn't worth it anymore. my opinion? no, that is something even they would say, and that's how they would behave.

 

north korea is another example, the dprk strategy isn't per se to win a war against the united states, but to make victory for the united states too messy to contemplate, again, what would we consider in exchange for rescuing seoul or tokyo. again, this isn't just my opinion, this is a real script.

 

but your pattern of responses is boundless energy to deny. that's all you do- just deny.

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please move the rest of your conversation to chat, or personal messages, or email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.