IRAN CLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY FOR AIR CRASH

Very simply put- overpopulation.

 

War is born from competition and misunderstanding. (If you want to argue "sin", take that argument somewhere else.)

Poverty and competition both originate only when the concept of scarcity comes into effect. For scarcity to occur, an imbalance between demand and supply is prerequisite.

All conflict originates the moment resource allocation becomes a burden. The global distribution of resources is not uniform, for reasons which may or may not be completely under human control (geographic, etc).

When any population expands to a level where its environment cannot sustain its existence, it is left with several choices, which are usually favored in the following order:
1. Mutualism
2. Rationing
3. Migration
4. Competition
5. Parasitism
6. Destruction

When man's number grew, so did the complexity of his society and consequently, so did the task of managing said society.

Clans became tribes; tribes became kingdoms; kingdoms became countries.
All the while, the imperfections of human management stacked in multiplicative fashion, leaving greater and greater room for dogma at each increasing level of complexity.

Bridges are made to alleviate the strain of topological differentiation. Religion and politics are prime examples of such "patchwork" in society.

That's what's wrong with the earth. There are far too many of us than we can handle, at least in my opinion.

You are free to believe otherwise, and doing so would not necessarily make your view incorrect. There are millions of factors to consider when trying to understand dogma. I have simply placed highest importance on a perspective dictated by ecological studies.

 

You're not wrong.
All I did was give a history of how this came to be.

As for it not being serious, ask any one of the families of the 176 people who were killed and the millions more Iraqi citizens living in constant fear of death. War is serious.

 

Wow. What a pathetic excuse for a reply.

 

There is no such thing as overpopulation. The ENTIRE WORLD (7 billion) can fit comfortably with a house and a yard in a space the size of Texas. https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/

If you think overpopulation exists, you haven't left home much. Take a drive through west Texas (or take a tour on Google Maps) and learn the truth. There is NO shortage of space on Earth.

The problem is OVERCROWDING, but this IS NOT RELEVANT to a terrorist country (Iran) killing 167 innocent people.

 

The plane’s downing is a tragedy that shouldn’t have happened. But as this wasn’t proven to be out of malicious intent (the US cannot dispute Iran’s claims with evidence, anyway), I’d hardly classify it as murder. I mean, a plane was flying at the same time Iran’s airspace was potentially threatened...

It’s more complex than that. From the beginning of human history until a few hundred years ago the world population was frozen at less than 400 million, or about 1/20 what it is now. Wars still occurred, and was arguably more common per number of humans.

That’s one thing I can’t stand about libertarian views. The libertarian solution of running away from government “nonsense” is exactly how authoritarians come into power. They’re attracted to nothing more than a population of sitting ducks. If no one’s there to push back, then they gain all the power. The solution is electing noninterventionists and those who put the needs of a country’s citizens first, not chickening out.

Also, most of us don’t personally know the victims impacted by the downing. But that doesn’t change it from being a serious situation and the potential costs of destabilisation and wars in the region.

Canada has a weak Prime Minister, while Ukraine’s too wrapped up in a war with Russian proxies (that Iran actually supported Ukraine with diplomatically on the world stage) that I doubt either will do anything. But you never know; 30-50 years down the road, this could be an entry in a history book (or hologram if we’re futuristic at that point) as one of the catalysts to international tensions or even war. So, no: this isn’t something easily brushed off.

Iran is not a war-torn country, but it will be if a squabble’s started with them because of this. That will only lead to the deaths of many more people.

Overpopulation exists: it’s called the carrying capacity. Humans are not a special exception when biological processes are involved. Humans still need access to food, to water and to space. The argument is when that capacity will be reached.

Until recently, the human population was balanced. War and disease always made up for higher birth rates. But with both causes of death minimised after WWII, the fallen death rate combined with multiple baby booms led to the explosion we’re seeing. But it’s all catching up: developed countries are losing population barring migration (in other words, more deaths than births), while developing countries are not growing as quickly as expected.

The human population will be capped eventually because the environment’s unable to withstand everyone within the population. Of course, we won’t hit that any time soon considering the capacity of humans being comfortable will be far below the carrying capacity.

 

I'm certain it's more complex than what I said. I mentioned so in my original post as well.

However, I disagree with the argument you pose. Wars were definitely more common in olden times, but this is due in significant part to the following facts:

1. Social hierarchy was very different in olden times. Caste, race and religion were almost absolute in their roles to docide mankind. With the establishment of international politics and the erection of human rights, the source of such propaganda itself has been largely mitigated.
2. "War" itself meant something totally different in, let's say, 1400 than it does today. With advances in science and military technologies, a single bomb can now deal as much destruction as one million men armed with spears and riding horses. To add to that, such power is not distributed evenly across the world, effectively reducing the global army to an oligopoly. In fact, as far as mass destruction is concerned, this has simplified matters.

Let's not forget other factors such as treaties, borders, free speech, democracy, etc which have also mitigated the frequency of mass disputes, if not their magnitude.

 

As right as you are in saying THE ENTIRE WORLD effectively needs only a landmass the size of texas to exist, I assure you that THE ENTIRE WORLD cannot be sustainable if densely packed into such a small area. THE ENTIRE WORLD needs agriculture, capital, infrastructure and transport to gain access to necessary resources. So, THE ENTIRE WORLD, effectively needs a much larger space than the average volume of a human multiplied by the number of humans which currently exist. THE ENTIRE WORLD, if applied to the distribution of natural resources across topographic barriers, cannot live in a mass community due to inadequate resource density on our planet. THE ENTIRE WORLD has thousands of complex subsets with respect to social barriers, norms, customs, beliefs, religions, practices, morals and principles and even if THE ENTIRE WORLD were to convince themselves to attempt to abolish such barriers, THE ENTIRE WORLD would find itself in a very, very messy conundrum if asked to adapt under such circumstances, as proven by several psychological studies one Google search away.

So no, I don't think THE ENTIRE WORLD will find itself existing in any Texas-sized landmass anytime in the course of human history, not unless THE ENTIRE WORLD had millions of years to adapt and practice rigorous contraception.

Funny coming from a guy whose entire argument is 3 paragraphs long, and 2 of them are on Texas.
Space isn't the issue here- resources allocation is.

I assure you, if people were to hoarded into Texas, OVERCROWDING would be on everyone's mind, regardless of the amount of space available.
Fortunately for us all, deciding what and IS NOT RELEVANT is in the hands of the people who have the power to destroy said nation and they have not acted on the matter with violence. At least not yet.

Remember, this discussion isn't about terrorism or Iraq. This discussion is on the question the OP asked, using the example of Iraq, which is this:

Argue terrorism with someone else.

 

True, although one can argue that Caste/Race/Religion has, for the most part, been replaced by political ideology (i.e. East vs West)

Yeah, hardly any army wants to deal with a scientifically advanced enemy. Nukes, for example: nuclear weapons are a great deterrent because of how destructive and powerful they are (which I was indirectly referencing to as post-WWII conditions later in my post). I don’t think there’s a single country that wants to use them, else they’d be written on the “wrong side of Earth’s history” (if it even exists at that point due to retaliation). It could explain why our wars nowadays are proxy wars conducted by greater powers, rather than the greater powers themselves. These wars are overall smaller than they were, requiring less citizens to be used as fodder.

So, in a sense, war nowadays have a much greater potential to kill people, although (thankfully) that threshold hasn’t been reached yet. Our jobs as an international community is to make sure that it’s not reached.

 

We seemed to have reached an understanding

Thank you for the debate.

 

What the fuck are you talking about?

Emotions are not about numbers. If you hear about innocents dying and it doesn't move you, you're a psychopath.

Amazing. How long before you kill someone?