We aren't chimps, the humans kill for many reasons that aren't tribal. Is prohibition-releated homicide tribal? It's the leading cause of homicide in America.
I think that a simpler explanation for the lack of massive opposition to war is this; the marginal product of opposing war is so small that nearly every individual person feels helpless to do anything meaningful about it. I think the same is true of all kinds if idiotic laws and rules and policies perpetrated by government operatives.
So far as I can tell, a super majority of people do not spend so much energy on politics, though mass media makes it seem like they do. Most people do not argue with their friends about politics, because they know that's a great way to have no friends.
If that is true, why do people spend so much energy on politics? Their marginal impact is close to zero, but they still choose to vote, cause divisions within their family, argue with their friends, and so on. People at least appear to think that their opinions matter.
1) X might choose an aggressive war against unoffending Y; or
2) If Y launches aggressive war against X, X may fight defensive war against Y; or
3) If neither X nor Y is aggressing against the other, but Y aggression against X appears to X imminent and the circumstances exigent, X may choose preemptive war, which is not always considered aggressive.*
4) If neither X nor Y is aggressing against the other, but Y aggression against X appears to X likely but not imminent, and the circumstances nonetheless exigent (as when Y is on the verge of nuclear weapons), X may choose preventive war, which is not always considered aggressive.*
Your remarks seem to apply of necessity to aggressive war; but not to the other kinds in this taxonomy. It depends on the result of defeat by the aggressor. If, for example, the aggressor is bent on genocide, or even coerced religious conversion, then war may be a rational choice in those cases.
Doesn't Ukrainians' revealed preference disprove this argument, at least under certain circumstances? If one group of people understand both the cost of war and the cost of subjugation, it's the Ukrainians, who have known both under Russia. Yet it appears the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians' stated and revealed preference is clear: to fight. And this doesn't seem to be a viewpoint pushed on them by their political leaders; in fact, quite the opposite: The majority of Ukrainians seem likely to revolt if their leaders were to trade land for peace. Moreover, given Russia's repeated attacks on civilians, it can't be argued that Ukrainians are ignorant as to the costs of war.
Now, this is a particular case: Ukraine was invaded and was not the aggressor, and Russia is brutal to the point of psychopathy. It's certainly the case that the misery of war for Russia is far more severe than any cost from not having invaded, and that Russian leaders are pushing war on its citizens. But I don't think blanket pacifism is defensible in the face of Ukrainians' determination to repel their attackers.
“Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” — Hermann Goering.
The war thing is all about tribalism. Tribalism is deep in our genes.
Chimps patrol their tribal boundaries and kill any chimps they find from other tribes.
We aren't chimps, the humans kill for many reasons that aren't tribal. Is prohibition-releated homicide tribal? It's the leading cause of homicide in America.
No, but prohibition-releated homicide isn't war.
Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf. - George Orwell
I think that a simpler explanation for the lack of massive opposition to war is this; the marginal product of opposing war is so small that nearly every individual person feels helpless to do anything meaningful about it. I think the same is true of all kinds if idiotic laws and rules and policies perpetrated by government operatives.
So far as I can tell, a super majority of people do not spend so much energy on politics, though mass media makes it seem like they do. Most people do not argue with their friends about politics, because they know that's a great way to have no friends.
If that is true, why do people spend so much energy on politics? Their marginal impact is close to zero, but they still choose to vote, cause divisions within their family, argue with their friends, and so on. People at least appear to think that their opinions matter.
Nobody selects "war," simpliciter.
To use the conventional taxonomy,
1) X might choose an aggressive war against unoffending Y; or
2) If Y launches aggressive war against X, X may fight defensive war against Y; or
3) If neither X nor Y is aggressing against the other, but Y aggression against X appears to X imminent and the circumstances exigent, X may choose preemptive war, which is not always considered aggressive.*
4) If neither X nor Y is aggressing against the other, but Y aggression against X appears to X likely but not imminent, and the circumstances nonetheless exigent (as when Y is on the verge of nuclear weapons), X may choose preventive war, which is not always considered aggressive.*
Your remarks seem to apply of necessity to aggressive war; but not to the other kinds in this taxonomy. It depends on the result of defeat by the aggressor. If, for example, the aggressor is bent on genocide, or even coerced religious conversion, then war may be a rational choice in those cases.
* unless X = Israel, of course.
Doesn't Ukrainians' revealed preference disprove this argument, at least under certain circumstances? If one group of people understand both the cost of war and the cost of subjugation, it's the Ukrainians, who have known both under Russia. Yet it appears the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians' stated and revealed preference is clear: to fight. And this doesn't seem to be a viewpoint pushed on them by their political leaders; in fact, quite the opposite: The majority of Ukrainians seem likely to revolt if their leaders were to trade land for peace. Moreover, given Russia's repeated attacks on civilians, it can't be argued that Ukrainians are ignorant as to the costs of war.
Now, this is a particular case: Ukraine was invaded and was not the aggressor, and Russia is brutal to the point of psychopathy. It's certainly the case that the misery of war for Russia is far more severe than any cost from not having invaded, and that Russian leaders are pushing war on its citizens. But I don't think blanket pacifism is defensible in the face of Ukrainians' determination to repel their attackers.
“Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” — Hermann Goering.
Now mass immigration, on the other hand...