nomix
True Viking
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 7,293
- Location
- Norway
- Car(s)
- Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
In a way, it would be fascinating to be able to see a nuclear war unfold. However, it would be highly inpractical in the long run.
War is not something to be considered lightly, especially not a war to end the world. That said, war has its uses, and when overpopulation makes food the strategic commodity to have, I suppose we'll all have to reconsider our morals to get it. Oil is essensial for food production, but if all else fails, you can't eat oil. And you can farm without it, albeit less effectively. Once people start to see food stocks run short, war for food might seem a better option than war for oil ever was.
That is, however, far in the future. Maybe a century, more or less. But I have no doubt it will happen one day. The difference between a realistic threat and a theoretical threat is simple. The theoretical threat is in the future, if at all. But a lot of them are realistic, as long as you take a very long view.
That's what morals are for, anyway. Morals is something you maintain when you have the luxury of having them. A lot of people have trouble with accepting the moral rightness of playing with nature (for those who don't understand what I'm getting at, genetically modified food). They may not have that if playing with nature can feed more people. And if we need to do it.
What's this all about? You just called yourself a cynic. This, my friend, is cynisism.
War is not something to be considered lightly, especially not a war to end the world. That said, war has its uses, and when overpopulation makes food the strategic commodity to have, I suppose we'll all have to reconsider our morals to get it. Oil is essensial for food production, but if all else fails, you can't eat oil. And you can farm without it, albeit less effectively. Once people start to see food stocks run short, war for food might seem a better option than war for oil ever was.
That is, however, far in the future. Maybe a century, more or less. But I have no doubt it will happen one day. The difference between a realistic threat and a theoretical threat is simple. The theoretical threat is in the future, if at all. But a lot of them are realistic, as long as you take a very long view.
That's what morals are for, anyway. Morals is something you maintain when you have the luxury of having them. A lot of people have trouble with accepting the moral rightness of playing with nature (for those who don't understand what I'm getting at, genetically modified food). They may not have that if playing with nature can feed more people. And if we need to do it.
What's this all about? You just called yourself a cynic. This, my friend, is cynisism.