Scarcity of natural resources does not lead to war.

Scarcity of natural resources does not automatically lead to war.

In a society "chosen from God", where people think that they are "entitled" to all of the natural resources on the planet, the scarcity of natural resources could lead them to invade and occupy another country.

But, in all other societies, scarcity of natural resources leads to new ideas.

Every solar panel is a sign of peace.

Every time you walk or ride your bicycle to the store or to run errands, turn off the lights when you are leaving the room, turn off the running water when you are brushing your teeth, or refuse to take plastic bags at the store, you are promoting peace.

Don´t let other people convince you that your soldiers must kill innocent people from another country in order to secure oil.

Demand creativity from yourself and your elected officials to find alternative energy sources.

I admire the sentiment but you are naive. I can spend my nights in the dark, take cold showers, and get rid of my car but what about my neighbors who think it's a swell idea to have as many children as they possibly can? If population growth continues there will come a point were the earth's resources are not sufficient to sustain us, no matter what sacrifices we make.

just because there are too many people on the planet?

When the time comes that there are not enough resources, then we will either have to be creative or we will all die.

That doesn´t mean that we have the right to "take the resources" from other people.

It´s not the "greed" of the corporatists which causes problems, it´s the "greed" in the individual households. Not just those who "have paid their bills", but also in those households who think they are "entitled" to have anything they want, just because.

Average human nature is not quite as noble as we wish it to be.

You are just plain wrong to say that scarcity of natural resources does not lead to war.

if they believe that "they are entitled to taking whatever resources they need" from another country?

I am plain right. "Scarcity of natural resources does not lead to war".

It´s "we want, we have to have, we are entitled to" which leads to war.

I am a pacifist by nature, but have been in the position of having a loaded gun in the face of a violent man, ready to pull the trigger if he took one more step towards me.

When put in extreme circumstances (like seeing your entire nation slowly starving to death), what you believe takes a back seat to what you feel you must do to survive. I'm sure the Donner party, or the soccer team stranded in the Andes, weren't staunch pro-cannibalism supporters before their ordeals, but that didn't stop them from eating their dead to get by.

but the situation in which the US was, or is in, is a self-induced problem.

Masses of people living for years on credit, creating a "standard of living" out of thin air. When times are tough, and gas prices rise, they are not willing to "cut back", but instead, support an invasion of another country.

If every American would be a bit more creative and a lot less "demanding", then there wouldn´t be the need to fight for resources.

Most will choose life and let morality be damned.

it´s a highly relevant topic of discussion.

Most of the world´s population would try to uphold a moral standard by being creative and finding a way out of a resource dependency.

Now it´s getting interesting.

Yippee! The USA is going to stay in Iraq until the reserves run dry, because that´s what greedy societies have always done, because that´s what makes the greedy folks at home happy? It´s always been that way.

That´s exactly the reason why GWB has "successfully" been in office for so long. Even the opposition thinks that he´s doing the right thing for his country.

"Secure OUR resources!!"

that those disagreeing with you are trying to find a way to justify wars?

No, it isn't morally right to fight over resources. But that has been the driver for most of the wars throughout history. Quit reading things into posts that aren't there.

It´s not morally right, but we do it anyway.

1) because we are "entitled",
2) because "we can"
3) because it´s always been done that way.

OMG, the dollar is falling, our economy is built on credit stilts, what are we going to do? ... it´s those damn republicans who are responsible. They should have secured our resources differently.

I think you owe me an apology.

All I said was "History is not on your side". And it isn't. So when you debate this with someone, please show how mankind can resolve such conflicts without war and where each side believes that they are not "deprived" at the expense of the other side. I might suggest that if you can convince people, start with the Israelis and the Palestinians. They are locked in a long term conflict over land resources (and water), or at least thats what I hear.

Dear lapfog_1

I am sorry that I suggested that your suggested that "WE SHOULD" go to war over a resource.

I wasn´t talking about the past, I wasn´t debating what has happened in the past. I was talking about the present and the future.

Mankind can resolve such conflicts by realizing that "we are not entitled to everything on this planet, especially not the natural resources which another country happens to have".

Accepting the fact that there are limits to our desires, we cannot have anything and everything we want, i.e. defeating our own personal insatiability.

That doesn't make them right or justified, it's just a fact.

Japan attacked the United States because it believed (correctly) that we were trying to impose restrictions on their import of certain strategic materials (what would today be called sanctions).

Resources are one of the major sources of conflict between tribes and nations. Land is also a resource.

There have been other causes for war (religion is a big one), but resources has to be one of the top reasons.

I wish that mankind had evolved enough to not get into these types of conflicts, but, sadly, we have not (apparently).

I fear that as populations continue to grow, there will be more conflicts over resources... water, fish, energy, and the other old standby, farmland.

Anyway, I was just stating an obvious fact. History is not on your side in this debate. Not defending the instigators of such wars.

at least that´s a positive thought.

Mankind on the whole has evolved enough, but unfortunately, they do not "vote" for evolved persons.

Sitting back and saying "that´s just the way it is baby" ... that´s the easy way out.

Interesting reading:

America, Russia, Hemp, and Napoleon: American Trade with Russia and the Baltic, 1783-1812 by Alfred W. Crosby, Jr.

And scarcity of resources must lead to war in a society that must expand. The way we organize society requires expansion in every aspect of life. Then the cycle goes on from there.

or what?

"... must lead to war in a society that must expand"

NO, survival depends on creativity, always has, always will.

Oh, I forgot to ask ... In which century were you born?

I think I'll hang it on my refridgerator.

So is creativity.

I'm not saying I want our society to expand. However, I'm aware that it has to. Why does it have to? We have more people wanting more. We have more people living longer. We have more people doing more. Why? We use the "free" energy that makes it possible. We're not typing on computers, we're not living longer and healthier, we're not reading books, etc, if every other organized center of power in human history hadn't done exactly what it was built to do, and that is to expand. If you(nation-states, corporations, civilizations) expand, you're going to run into either something not expanding(and thus in the way), or something else that is expanding(and thus large scale, organized war).

I hear what you were saying in your original post. I agree with the message. But to un-do thousands of years of momentum would require quite a bit of creativity, and our entire organized way of life doesn't like actual diversity.

war is not in any way, shape or form a "comfortable" activity, unless you are not in it yourself, convinced that you are the beneficiary from the activity?

What is so "wrong" with asking for a "quite a bit of creativity"?

This forum is full of people who are unhappy with the current political situation in the USA, but when are we going to say "that´s enough".

When are we going to "demand creativity" from ourselves and our elected officials.

When are we going to realize that we have to be creative in order to survive?

When are we going to stop "cheating, stealing and killing" in order to survive?

When are we going to GROW UP!

Because if you're seriously asking these things, then I would suggest you're being naive as hell. I don't think anyone here seriously disagrees that these changes are needed and wanted, but you seem to be impatient for our society to make some kind of great ethical leap that simply is not going to happen overnight. Changes of the sort you're talking about take centuries to happen. *WHY* doesn't all this happen, you ask? Because it's the cave-man way to take what you need from someone else instead of finding "creative" ways to get it some other way, and that is still to a large degree how our country is prepared to operate. And will be, for some time. As long as we had enough here, we only had to behave that way toward our own citizens, those with no power or influence. But the day is rapidly approaching when we will covet the resources of others.

Let me ask you personally.

Why is it "impatient" of me to ask other US citizens to finally accept the fact that the behavior of the USA must change?

Is it really "a great ethical leap" to state that we are not entitled to have anything we want?

Every member of DU should be SCREAMING for this great ethical leap!

It´s not an overnight change. This has been going on for a long time. It´s like when a person´s home is foreclosed, he thinks it happened overnight, but it didn´t. If you think that society needs centuries to change, then count the centuries between the cave man and "us".

If you really think that "our country" is to a large degree prepared to operate in such a manner, then it´s easy to understand why the US has a poor image in the rest of the world.

Why is it "impatient" of me to ask other US citizens to finally accept the fact that the behavior of the USA must change?

It's impatient of you because of the realities of the situation. It is not possible to change the thought processes of 300 million people overnight. It's much like being impatient for the sun to shine every day. It. Isn't. Going. To. Happen. At least not anytime I can foresee.

Is it really "a great ethical leap" to state that we are not entitled to have anything we want?

I assume you meant "everything", not "anything". And for you and me, no, of course not. But for the majority, that's how they view it. So changing all those minds wil indeed be a great ethical leap.

It´s not an overnight change. This has been going on for a long time. It´s like when a person´s home is foreclosed, he thinks it happened overnight, but it didn´t. If you think that society needs centuries to change, then count the centuries between the cave man and "us".

I don't really understand you here, as with other posts of yours in the thread. It sounds kind of like you're agreeing with me. As an example, I might point out that, just considering 'recent' history, five centuries elapsed between the time that Western European nations arose to struggle over world dominance and the founding of the peaceful European Union. So I certainly stand by my assertion that such changes as what you are talking about take centuries to come about. It might happen faster for us because we're probably going to overtaken by disaster because of our current attitudes, and will be forced to make that change in the relatively near future (maybe 100 years or less).

If you really think that "our country" is to a large degree prepared to operate in such a manner, then it´s easy to understand why the US has a poor image in the rest of the world.

You've really lost me here. I'm just describing how I see the facts, I'm not condoning them morally. I don't think my assessment has anything to do with how the rest of the world sees the US; the rest of the world would probably appreciate the truthfulness of it. If you really don't believe that about the US, then I don't know what more I can say, other than that you are simply ignoring reality...which is pretty much how the rest of your ideas go, actually (sorry to say, not trying to be insulting here, it's just that your ability to pretend that ideals are the same as fact is, er, a bit weird.)

I'm most likely wearing clothes that were made by a 7 year old in SE Asia. It's not that I want to, but unless I'm making my own clothes, they could come from anywhere.

That's a huge part of it. We've given away our creativity to states and corporations. They own and make everything. We live in a mass produced world, and we're all interchangeable and expendable.

When we figure out what to do about that, maybe we can get around to doing what you brought up. As long as organized, professional institutions run the machine, all we have to do is sit here. I have no idea where you are, but you could be hundreds of miles away from me. We can sit where we are, not move, and we can communicate. That has its good and bad sides.

Certainly the questions you're asking aren't going to be completely answered. Some people won't even care. Technically that's diversity, and things might make more sense if we weren't searching for perfection. Then again, if some people do search for perfection, and some people don't, that also is diverse.

the carbon footprint of a solar cell is immense. You simply have to factor in the money required to purchase the things. The production of money has its own carbon footprint you know.

so that´s why we´ll take the less costly route and "secure our reserves" in Iraq.

What happened to creativity?

Does creativity die as soon as a person gets his or her first credit card?

a single solar panel is made and what sort of impact on the earth that process has. A typical 200 watt panel is going to cost about $1000. To get the sort of power required to run a house, you're looking at $20k worth of panels not to mention installation costs, including batteries, and inverter and so on. An inverter capable of handling a 6000 watt house installation is going to run about $20k just on its own. So it's cost about $40k to go off grid.

You'd be better off selling your house and moving to a smaller house in a cheaper area where electricity is generated in less damaging ways. EG move to the interior of British Columbia where it's mostly hydroelectric generation and where electricity is only 6 cents a kilowatt hour. With an estimated cost of 66 dollars per month for electricity in BC, that $40k worth of solar panels and so on could power a house with clean hydroelectricity for 50 years.

There are other concerns. The gallium arsenide used in solar cells is considered to be highly toxic and carcinogenic. Someone's making these things. The factory is somewhere.

How many lives, how much suffering, how many dollars does it take to secure oil for your heating needs this winter?

How much toxic waste is produced by jet fighters, missiles, and dirty bombs?

How many soldiers come back alive, with permanent scars, who would probably have gladly paid 40K to get a house "on grid".

*backs slowly away from the internet*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2342928&mesg_id=2342928

I'd still be interested where you can show that anyone here has demonstrated relief, much less surprise, that Bush attacked Iraq for control of their oil.

But it is in the top 3.

that "stealing, cheating and killing" for natural resources is NOT NECESSARY.

What is more important in a political forum than to discuss truly relevant matters?

If you really are convinced, that the USA will continue to invade and occupy, and you will not be able to do anything about it, then let me know, and I´ll never make a comment on DU again.

The Americam economy has been on a war footing for more than 65 years.

you are not the one on the battlefield or happen to be living in the house which just exploded.

And you're absolutely right. Other nations are suffering right alongside us over resources but are investing in alternatives, not war. Our own country sports a new business called Nanosolar that has figured out how to produce solar cells in a flexible roll at reduced cost to the consumer. Check out their page to see how well they're already doing. This is creative thinking at its best, the kind of inventiveness we Americans were known for before someone decided science was crap and war was easier. Sure it is, but at what cost?

I was just about to lose hope that someone out there would understand my message.

May I repeat what you said?

"This is creative thinking at its best, the kind of inventiveness we Americans were known for before someone decided science was crap and war was easier."

still.

and I imagined that the DUers would react in a different manner.

Goes to show you never can tell.

DUers often react negatively when presented with assertions that are in conflict with truths.

"Scarcity of natural resources does not lead to war."

1) Some people only want to hear "their truth".

2) Some people only want to dissect and move on.

3) Some people are proud to be "the chosen ones"

4) Some people are truly good humans.

You can not defend it and you have only yourself to blame.