Originally Posted by Ardy
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
t "most wars (or 'almost all' or 'all') have an economic genesis," but I wonder if we can define it properly to have meaning. Economist will argue that "all" human interaction has an economic (tit-for-tat) basis, and can be analyzed as such.
Just to put things in some perspective, I suggest we consider that following assertion.
Quote
Most or almost all human actions have an economic genisis.
Love, its all economic
Art, music... it s all economic
Sports.... economic
Food, cooking.... economic
HaVING CHILDREN.... ECONOMIC
rELIGION--- ECONOMIC
sCIENCE... ECONOMIC

There are virtually no known examples of human activity that are not fundamentally economically motivated. Even when a single mountain man lives alone in the wilderness... it is all economics. Whan a soldiee jumps on a grenade to save his friends, it is economic. Jesus and Buddha were no more than great economists.
I may be jumping to conclusions here, but I see Ardy's comments leading to the idea that one could substitute a number of other primal motivations in place of "economic" and be able to make an almost identical case.

In any case, until the discussion begins to massage opportunities to use the enlightensome information to influence the culture of military interventions, then it's like talking about the Superbowl.

You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller