The article's section about "peace games", with its hopeful notion that if countries really cooperated everything could turn out wonderful, completely misses the point that sometimes there is no good outcome for everyone. If resources are limited, and people are going to die without them, and there isn't enough for everyone to live on, people WILL (as individuals and/or organized groups) abandon civilized rules and engage in any means necessary to acquire what's needed to not die, willing to risk death to win because they will die if they lose.
The section also conveniently avoids any discussion of the human tendency toward acquiring power over others for power's sake. ISIS is currently leading the way, literally killing anyone who does not abjectly subject to theocracy; these are not people interested in "peace games".
"Let's play war" is childish naivety about the ways of the world. That the needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the few does not mean the few will meekly accept suffering and death, as human nature is (generally) to survive at all costs.
True if that's how it happens. But in this modern post-scarcity world its ideology that causes wars, not lack of bread and milk. Look at the Kurds gassed under Sadam. The wars between Iraq and Iran - two peoples who, from safely here in American, I couldn't even tell apart - spent a generation fighting to the last man in the 80s. All over border disputes and worries about religious uprising - totally imaginary things (vs real things like food and water).
Hence my second paragraph: power for power's sake, frequent human desire to dominate others. Witness the political "progressive"'s desire to make the world a better place by unilaterally deciding how to achieve it and threatening to incarcerate (even kill) anyone who dissents.
The section also conveniently avoids any discussion of the human tendency toward acquiring power over others for power's sake. ISIS is currently leading the way, literally killing anyone who does not abjectly subject to theocracy; these are not people interested in "peace games".
"Let's play war" is childish naivety about the ways of the world. That the needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the few does not mean the few will meekly accept suffering and death, as human nature is (generally) to survive at all costs.