I can't read the paper, but the abstract says it's specifically about China in the years 1470-1911. Well, what on Earth could that say about our planet in the 21st century? One would think that studying famines and epidemics and wars of the 20th century would yield more statistics and lessons that would be a lot more relevant to the 21st century than any centuries previous to the 20th.
Given my knowledge of 20th century history, I'm quite ready to say that the title of this submission is simply backwards.
Moreover, the title of the submission does not match TFA's. And TFA's does not match the paper's (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095968361876154...). So I'm calling this click bait, and declaring it jumping to conclusions to the exclusion of general and widespread knowledge of 20th century history.
So those two are nothing new. But the opposite, that unstable social conditions due to famine/epidemic causing social unrest causing war, is also interesting, has happened many times ( e.g. the 1848 revolutions in Europe, Arab Spring), and could be indicative of the future, as the article says - we're in for a lot of social unrest due to unstable social conditions due to climate change ( famines, epidemics, swathes of land becoming uninhabitable thus forcing migration, etc.).
Otherwise the famines in Ukraine (30s), China (50s and 60s), Africa (80s), etc. might have caused wars, but they did not.
And it's been a while since we've seen famines even cause revolutions. Famously, of course, the French Revolution. Governments are very powerful now and can put down revolts before they gain steam. The Arab Spring revolts had external support. The wars in Libya and Syria were not caused by famine but by external powers getting involved in internal power struggles.
But if you insist, famines cause revolutions -> revolutions often fail -> failed revolutions often lead to wider war. Although the main example of this is... the French Revolution, 233 years ago. None of WWI, WWII, the Franco-Prussian war, the U.S. Civil War, the Crimean war, the Triple Alliance War, the Cold War, the Vietnam war, the Korean war, the Iraq wars, the wars in Afghanistan, the Ukraine war, etc., were caused by famine. Not one! That's going back to the 1850s (Crimean war). That's a list of rather salient wars. Got any counter-examples?
While not a full blown famine, the German people had serious economic problems (and hunger as a consequence), and a clear enemy causing them. This caused resentment and a feeding ground for extremists like Hitler.
Things were better in Germany for a few years and Hitler might have vanished into the background, until 1929, when the US stock market crashed, taking with it core loans the German Weimar republic needed. This crashed the economy again, while they were still recovering from the previous crash.
The NSDAP party started its meteoric rise in this second crash, buth only because the suffering from the hyperinflation and the war before it had laid a solid base.
"The stock market went down today because of X"
We can't help ourselves even when we know this is a complete nonsensical over simplification.
I can't imagine any war in the last 2-3k years only has two causal variables in reality.
"Famines and Epidemics Trigger Wars" has a very different connotation to "How Famines and Epidemics Trigger Wars", and is already leading to fruitless argument by the people who only read the title.
But nature is bad enough. As a climatologist, what keeps me up at night is Bangladesh. A couple meters of sea level rise, and a direct hit from a super typhoon, and we could easily see millions of refugees. And as India continues its tilt towards a Hindu state, conflict could also happen there.
"History is written by historians." Frank Herbert
Health - coffee/alcohol is good for you this week and bad for you next week
Sociology and Psychology - is anything in these fields truly falsifiable?
History - same
Creationists regularly posit that Evolution is not falsifiable. Popperian falsifiability is being abandoned these days and instead Neumann’s definition of Science and scientific theory is increasingly embraced.
I have no data on this just saying it makes intuitive sense to me. When people interact they realize it is good to interact. When they don't it is easy to be afraid.
Nor would it results in millions of people walking north, which of course wouldn't be a problem, we'd welcome them with open arms, right?
Consider as a primary example the creations of famines to create emigration waves supposed to put pressure on intended recipient countries.
energy too - Russia uses the food for blackmail in the energy space too as it clearly communicated to the African countries where Europe was trying to get natural gas and oil to replace Russian ones that such help to Europe will be punished by blocking Russian (and Ukrainian to the extent that Russia controls it) food for those countries.
Judging by HN submissions, China is the next on the chopping block. Who the propaganda is going to blame next
So you dont recognise the deceit with Nato govts as the trigger for Russia?
I dont blame Russia for standing up to Western passive aggression thats played out over decades across popular culture, media and govt policy. Its not like you get the truth from criminals running much of the world directly or indirectly through manipulation, blackmail and other disingenuous means.
There has to be one country which is the Emmanuel Goldstein of the world, its how the simple unthinking masses manage to comprehend world events.
We are lucky that Russia is so terrible at war, if they where any good they would of won by now.
Russia cares little about its own people, and have had active intelligence campaigns to influence the Wests opinion on the war, luckily it’s not going very well.
The fallacy in that argument is that Russia is doing its war-crimes right now at this moment. What US did in Iraq was far less bad, and most importantly whatever US did in Iraq they stopped doing. But Russia has not stopped bombing Ukraine. Therefore, at the current moment, we must condemn Russia for what it is doing now, not US for what it did long ago and stopped doing.
And even if it was true that US was and still is as bad as Russia then so what? That doesn't give Russia the license to do war-crimes. Two bads don't make it right. Hey, I may be bad, but what about Al Capone? He was much worse than I!
as is the case with ukraine, it is not ukraine or NATOs fault that cities are being leveled, Putin is in control of Russia's artillery, no one else
There’s no need to cover it up for the Russians cause it is fully supported.
"On 9 December, Iraq and the U.S.-led coalition announced that the coalition's combat mission had concluded, formally transitioning remaining U.S. forces in the country to an advisory, assistance, and training role."
Assuming the "We did cause 1M deaths" is true (do you have a link?) that is exactly the whataboutism I was talking about. If it is true, it still in no way justifies what Russia is doing in Ukraine.
This doesn't justify the mess in Ukraine tho and people really need to stop acting like it.
I think that's pretty unlucky. The global economy will only get worse the more this war drags on.
> I dont blame... for standing up
You have a very peculiar interpretation of 'standing up', which in your use stands for the exercise and expression of bestiality. Just look at facts directly.