An analysis of cooperation and conflict.
I just bought a pretty heavy and dense book on the game-theoretic analysis of conflict by Myerson. I was trained as an economist in my education, and even in my application to my college, was already showing signs of an interest geared towards why conflict happens more often than cooperation; but... on second thought, we seem to be getting along well without any global wars.
There's much to be said about the why's of why of why... ahem, I mean the why's of why conflict arises.
Many people, falsely assume that wars have been "rationally" based on the expansion of resources. But, it's quite apparent from human history that we wage wars as not something we would say any rational man would do. We wage them, largely due to differences in ideological beliefs.
Game theory, as an extension of decision theory, posits, that conflicts arise due to asymmetrical differences in shared belief, a more formal way of stating the previous.
Ok, I'm going to drop the formalism, and blatantly state, that there's nothing rational about war, even though, perhaps, nothing else in human history has been so devoted to what is actually rational to do in the process of warfare.
Why is that?
There's much to be said about the why's of why of why... ahem, I mean the why's of why conflict arises.
Many people, falsely assume that wars have been "rationally" based on the expansion of resources. But, it's quite apparent from human history that we wage wars as not something we would say any rational man would do. We wage them, largely due to differences in ideological beliefs.
Game theory, as an extension of decision theory, posits, that conflicts arise due to asymmetrical differences in shared belief, a more formal way of stating the previous.
Ok, I'm going to drop the formalism, and blatantly state, that there's nothing rational about war, even though, perhaps, nothing else in human history has been so devoted to what is actually rational to do in the process of warfare.
Why is that?
Comments (63)
I feel like you're just using the economic definition of "rational" here which is concerned with, well, economics.
The philosophic notion of rationality is a little more elusive. One way of defining it would be something like "hey, if I want X then how do I achieve it?" and from there we can begin to give reasons or evidence. This would be called a hypothetical imperative and it's a more constricted sense in that reason/rationality is always considered in relation to an end. If someone doesn't share your end then it can be difficult to discussion rationality.
To put it more concretely, if someone just doesn't value peace or the life of an individual or happiness then war might make sense for them. If someone values, say, instilling military values in a generation of the youth or the expansion of an ethnic group then war might make perfect sense to them.
What I'm saying here is that you need to make a more expansive definition of rationality if you want to make your point stronger.
But, in what other terms can I express it in the rationale of war? The only "reason" that one can provide for war, would be economic. Yet, it isn't rational. How do you constrain rationality to account for the multitude of militaristic expansions in human history?
I am not saying that war is inherently rational. I'm just saying we need to judge its rationality in relation to some goal. Very often the stated goal is national security, but there's been so many wars in history that it's impossible to account for all of the leaders motivations. Often stated motivations can't be totally trusted or they're not the whole truth.
Yes, I agree. But, the point hereabouts seems to me to be about when is war justified? Economically, it would only make sense if one were to assume some kind of absolute victory.
So, then, it's not about economics, since, everyone is preparing for war, apart from the Carribean Islands, or Ibizia.
Furthermore, the evolution of human history has deemed war too expensive, as of the recent past, to ever engage in conflict. Nuclear bombs, weapons of mass destruction utilized, bio-chemical warfare and so on...
So, what's left is cooperation, yes or what is (at least nowadays) most rational?
(Personally, I think the USA, has been dealt a hand of wonderful cards to make it so long without the need for total enveloping conflict.)
I guessing that half the wars have been about defence.
Yes, cold-wars, spur economic activity, yet every economist knows that a bridge will provide better returns than an a-bomb.
War may not be rational but the end of negotiation is not necessarily irrational.
We all have our limits to how much is a matter of a deal that could be struck versus accepting conditions that simply negate our lives.
It is important to differentiate between these conditions but doing so is not easy.
It is too central to our experience of being human to make a categorical judgement about.
That's a really difficult question that philosophers have been trying to answer for ages and I personally do not know.
Well, the US is able to wage long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so I wouldn't call war "too expensive." Ideally everyone would cooperate but in real-world circumstances this just hasn't been the case or it hasn't been possible.
Really? I might be overburdening you here; but, what about the start of war can be deemed rational at all?
I'm reading a book about primitive warfare right now and interestingly in many of these primitive societies, in particular the native americans, the warfare was necessary because it was how young men would advance in the society. Nobody would respect a man who hadn't been to war and he wouldn't be able to lead hunting parties or advance to positions of responsibility.
Yes, but, pretty much due to complex reasons. One was under a false premise, and the other, was due to an already prior conflict that enveloped the region and created the situation as to render a new type of warfare as relevant, being "terrorism".
Well, I did say that I cannot make a "rational" argument for war.
The Aquinas argument for a "just" war is not helpful.
But everybody decides when to fight when they fight.
Agreed.
Quoting Valentinus
OK, so that's interesting. How does this "decision" arise in two or more parties? When all alternatives have been exhausted? Then one has to create new alternatives, no?
It may not work.
Some people I have met try stuff that may not work at all.
I try to be like them.
What do you mean by that?
Assuming that war is irrational and death unavoidable, I can see some merit to the idea of proposing something less than ideal, than a solution to both or more parties, yes?
What I mean by that is that each struggle is peculiar to itself.
Some differences seem large in the mind but involve short distances in the world.
Other struggles involve complicated histories where the struggle is cast as generations fighting other generations.
I don't have a theory to embrace that makes sense of this broad expanse of what is happening and how the participants make it real for themselves.
Yeah, and isn't that because war is always the worst option, although self-satisfying to some or many?
I agree with your opinion about it as an option in an ideal sense.
But it is your choice before it is anything else.
Only in a dictatorship, yes. Hence, why the world seems to like democracies?
Quoting Valentinus
Sorry, I don't understand this...
So has it always been.
Sorry that I'm so quizzical; but, aren't you advocating some just-war theory assuming, that the decision is personal or made due to factors out of one's control or such?
I don't get to know beforehand.
I don't understand most of the things that are happening.
My decision tree cannot wait for everything to be understood.
But choices have to be made in difficult situations.
No set of Ethics will relieve one of that responsibility.
True, and why we have the Pentagon in the US or the Ministry of Defense in the UK. (Though, I don't think they need to worry much about being invaded.)
Quoting Valentinus
OK, so you state that conflict is a personal choice, yet, assume that there's some responsibility to be had in regards to it. I don't think you can have both.
How can it not be both?
But, war shouldn't be a choice if we both agree about its very insaneness and irrationality, should it?
That would be like, the US, and the USSR, both agreeing that the first strike is not off the table with regards to mutually assured destruction in the cold war.
I agree that kicking off a war that ends the planet is stupid and hopefully will not happen.
The right thing to do about that situation may not apply to all conflicts.
Why not?
Because the relationship to who has the power is always specific to a particular situation.
Is there to be a unified theory where being an employee is the same thing as being a nation state?
Sorry, I don't really understand much of this. You'll have to explain a little more to me.
Thanks.
The few soldiers I’ve spoken to, and these are special forces, want to go to a war. That’s what they trained for, not sitting around doing exercises. They want to know how they’ll do. Officers want to move up the ranks, make their mark and prove themselves. They want to be the ones to make the big move in Afghanistan, change the paradigm.
So these people are always there. They want leaders to engage in a war. They’re warriors. We are not. I’m guessing by the time they reach the level of advising the President or Prime Minister they’re going to be pushing for the opportunity.
This doesn’t have to make sense.
Sorry, I don't think this is accurate.
Officers are trained to prevent and limit the liability of warfare to themselves (a nation) and there subordinates, as are or moreso, generals.
Quoting Brett
Sorry brett, but, not much of it makes sense insofar as to say that a police officer is there to shoot and kill bad civilians.
The decision to fight or not can be a principle that applies to every situation. But if one approaches it as a matter of conditions, it becomes a matter of choice. One has to decide: Is this where I fight or not?
The "pacifism" of Gandhi is militaristic in regards to calling for passive acceptance at every turn. The method is the most important thing. The model calls for adherence to a method despite the suffering it requires of those who carry it forward.
I bring up the Non-Violence movement more as an example than a last word on anything. Each point of view takes place in the context of States deciding to go to war or not. But each point of view is part of decisions a person makes as a person in their own struggles.
The different paths intersect in many ways. But they are different paths.
That is all I got.
Quoting Wallows
How do you know that? I think they’re trained to win.
Quoting Wallows
That’s not the same at all.
I know (a little) because I've been in the military, and if anyone in it wants to go to war for any... reason, then that's a sign of the derangement of the mind or some sort of illness.
It's the job of the military to not engage in conflict, but, to be so battle-ready that any adversary would think twice before bombing one of your home cities.
Quoting Brett
Are you sure?
Quoting Wallows
What can I say? I guess I was lied to. But that’s not my impression, nor is it from the reading I've done.
Quoting Wallows
When was the last time you saw that happen? If that was the theory then Britain would have waited battle ready for Hitler’s invasion?
Quoting Wallows
Are you suggesting the police and military perform the same purposes?
I mean sure, it's not like we walk dogs without a leash, and the dogs of war need to have enough stress hormones and neurotransmitters circulating in their blood to even be able to send them out to wars. But, the point I mean to be getting at here, is that there's no need for saber-rattling nowadays or escalation of tentions to prevent war. It's nasty enough as it is.
(Please keep in mind, that this is different from small skirmishes or wars born out of need for defense from a threat that might grow out of proportions to control via diplomacy or even covert conflicts)
Quoting Brett
Read military manuals or ask some officers in uniform if they seem too trigger happy, which I don't honestly think they would nod their head in approval.
Quoting Brett
No... the premise of WWII was that if Hitler invaded Poland, then England and France would retaliate. Nobody really thought Hitler would actually invade Poland; but, nevertheless, it happened.
I am. It's the delicate balance of the military (and even police) to maintain peace through adherence to some policy or line of reasoning, at least in the majority of the West.
Quoting Wallows
Then the premise of being battle ready for defence doesn’t work. Not that Britain was battle ready by any means. Your example of Poland can be used in many military operations. Most military exercises are offensive. Though I can’t claim to be an expert. But I can’t go along with your thoughts. You haven’t really given me enough to think any differently.
Quoting Wallows
A peace keeping force? That’s pure politics.
I'm sorry; but, are you being intentionally difficult?
Like, do we build hydrogen bombs to ensure that we are all dead because of (conspiratorially) generals and not politicians deciding when the time is right as to when to engage in conflict?
Why difficult?
Good, and it's the job of generals to keep the generals of your adversary occupied with not going to war. Otherwise, I don't see any stable equilibria that could be maintained???
I don’t know enough about this to take it any further.
Well, it doesn't make sense to say that we train people to go to war. Instead of preventing it by battle-readiness.
So we only train soldiers for defence, is that what you mean?
Nowadays, yes. (Some progress has been made in Western liberalist democracies as to the abhorrence of conflict or the limits of economics...)
Quoting Wallows
But it doesn’t work like that, does it? Otherwise there would be no war.
Yes, it does not work like that, inasmuch as there are no perfect circles out there in the world. But, that's the aspirational goal?
Nowadays? Let’s not just talk as if it’s only western democracies who might engage in war.
Aspirational has nothing to do with reality. Hitler was never going to sit down over a cup of tea anymore than Bin Laden was.
Yes, nowadays, because WWIII wouldn't leave much to any party interested in it, rationally speaking.
Think of a conflict involving nuclear bombs. There's not much to "win" from such a conflict to any party.
I think both were not prima facie good examples of anyone in a Western democracy who would want to elect them as leaders.
Forget nuclear in this conversation. That’s just a means of smothering the conversation. We’re talking about military action to win not just as defence. That soldiers and generals want to fight. They want to win. To win the war requires many battles. Each battle has a different objective. How many of those objectives would be a posture of battle ready but no action? Not too many. I don’t know if it’s a military theory to wait for attack. It doesn’t seem that common. Your theory seems to be just scare off the enemy.
We can't really forget nuclear, because it is the (deterrent) from full-blown conflict... nowadays. What prevents conflict, isn't the whim of some general or politician; but, the threat of the conflict itself and the losses incurred or instilled through deterrents.
What do you seem to be getting at Brett? That war is good or something?
Quoting Wallows
But meanwhile real wars are going on.
Quoting Wallows
But it doesn’t happen, does it? That has never stopped a war. You’re talking constantly in terms of defence. That’s fine, but the world doesn’t operate like that. Of course no one wants a war. But we get them and soldiers, not conscripts, are interested in it.
Ambiguous. What's a "real war"? That definition got subject to revision after 9/11/2001, right?
Quoting Brett
Uhh... no. Soldiers aren't madmen and are trained to obey orders, not a personal whim.
Quoting Wallows
Not my words, yours.
Quoting Wallows
As soon as someone starts on definitions I know the conversation’s over.
Then, don't only madmen start wars between nations?
Like, if we were back in Rome some 2020+ years ago, then yeah I can see your rationale as being applicable. Nowadays nobody is in the business of starting wars... Did I just misspeak?
My limited understanding is that, for the most part, war in civilized nations is primarily about ideology or national pride, not rational.
"War for resources" is a myth, except in the most impoverished areas of the world (e.x. Sub-Saharan Africa, street gangs, etc); Typically it's the other way around, it's "resources for the war", the war being an end in and of itself.
Don't believe it's only "madman", rather people tend to act more irrational when they perceive a wound to their nation or pride has occurred.
I won't go into the histories of recent wars, but the theme is that there have been many diverse people supporting a war, and after things have "cooled down", they look for a scapegoat.