While the article frames this phenomenon as self-evidently negative, I suspect the lack of war-related stress is also a driver of island tameness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_tameness) in humans. To quote Theodore Roosevelt:
"The curse of every ancient civilization was that its men in the end became unable to fight. Materialism, luxury, safety, even sometimes an almost modern sentimentality, weakened the fibre of each civilized race in turn; each became in the end a nation of pacifists, and then each was trodden under foot by some ruder people that had kept that virile fighting power the lack of which makes all other virtues useless and sometimes even harmful."
I don't know that this is super well-founded: It seems similar to the "Fremen Mirage" [1], and misses that in most cases the society that escapes war for longer will have time and energy to build infrastructure and accumulate resources that provide a decisive advantage in conflict and defense. Looking back at history it's rare that the "virile fighting" nation/group wins against a more "civilized" adversary that's better organized and resourced.
Of course, then we have groups like 'The United States of America', which has been at war basically every single hour in the last 100 years, and seems to be doing just right. At some point, you become powerful enough so that infrastructure does not help against you anymore (and may even become a liability: The conflicts the US does the worst in is wherever guerrilla warfare is waged, not where there are highways and telecommunication networks).
Respectfully. The idea that civilization makes men weak is bullshit. It was the agrarian centralized societies that waged war and destroyed the nomadic hunter gatherers. The more centralized, the more technologically advanced, the more successful a society is in war.
The exception to this rule is when a society destroyed itself through civil war. The western Roman empire destroyed itself during the Crisis of the Third Century when one regional commander after another declared himself emperor. Even during Augustus' time, the elite had a habit of cutting off their sons thumbs to avoid being conscripted into the legions.
The steppe nomads who conquered China (Mongols), Persia (Mongols), Byzantines (Turks), and India (Moghuls) were able to rule for centuries thereafter even after becoming "civilized". I would also argue this "civilizing" process was also a myth. The ruling elite kept their own traditions and cultures and lived separately from the people they ruled.
Civilization makes a society successful in war because of the destructive power of the weaponry available. But it absolutely seems reasonable that individual people could be less fit for physical combat as the above aspects of civilization (materialism, luxury, etc.)
This might have been true before technology but yet again the nerds ruin everything. Now that I think about it, this theory doesn’t really hold past tribalism. The Industrial Revolution is why England could conquer half the planet, not the brutish nature of the English.
Maybe in the future even the drones will have ennui and want to become dancers.
> The Industrial Revolution is why England could conquer half the planet, not the brutish nature of the English
I don't think that quote is about being brutish. The idea is that when times get easy, defence lowers (as why spend on defence?) and eventually someone else who is not living in luxury takes over, if they can reach you. I don't know if it's a valid theory, but I don't think it's about anyone's nature in particular.
Relatively speaking, the times were a lot easier when the UK was conquering the world than when it wasn't, but times being easy didn't stop it from being effective at conquering the world when it had a tech advantage. Times were pretty easy when it sacrificed a lot of men in two world wars where it didn't have a tech advantage (and could probably have afforded to weasel out) too.
Furthermore the Industrial Revolution stimulated the need for a trading empire to supply its materials. Nowadays we have global free trade (enforced by the US Navy - yet more technology) so trading empires are unnecessary.
Technology may be more predictive of conflict abroad than at home. If we faced a land invasion, for example, we would not be able to bomb our way out of it.
> If we faced a land invasion, for example, we would not be able to bomb our way out of it.
Why would you state this as if it were fact? It's not true.
Our own generals bombed the most important trade hub of the time, Atlanta, during the civil war.
Bombs are highly effective, and location matters little to their effectiveness or usefullness.
We dropped plenty of bombs in unreachable parts of Afghanistan. Were those effective? Yes, they were. Were those bombs as effective, in that region of uninhabitable tunnels and cliffs, as they would be in an urban setting? No, of course not.
Bombs are still the go-to attack and defense strategy. Bombs reduce the need for boots on the ground. Bombs reduce the enemy's ability to go to ground and hide.
If we faced a land invasion, in the USA, we would absolutely-certainly utilize modern weaponry, including bombs, to displace the enemy.
To say otherwise is to disregard history. To say otherwise is to place hope in pie-in-the-sky feelings and not the data we've accumulated over the last 200 years.
We dropped plenty of bombs in unreachable parts of Afghanistan. Were those effective? Yes, they were
In the short term, yes. In the long term the US eventually gave up and left. Likewise, the US bombed Vietnam heavily, eventually gave up and left. You can't hold territory with bombs.
To say otherwise is to disregard history. To say otherwise is to place hope in pie-in-the-sky feelings and not the data we've accumulated over the last 200 years.
Every military historian will tell you the same thing I just did, and cite examples going back thousands of years - military arson serves the same function as bombing.
Conflagration has been successfully implemented against enemies since, well before, the sentence: '...like a madman hurling firebrands, arrows and death...' was ever uttered.
A firebrand is a stick with a flaming top. The arrows spoken of were tar or pith coated arrows shot inside of fortifications, to set them ablaze. Death referred to potted death. These were clay pots filled with all sorts of flammable and spreading substances. It was known as death because if the goop attached to a human, that human would immolate.
These tactics were highly effective in displacing, removing, and killing enemies. Bombs are orders of magnitude more effective.
The comment and ensuing discussion was about enemies upon the shores of the US, and whether or not the US Military and US Citizenry would utilize bombs on its own lands.
Certainly. Absolutely. Without hesitation.
Bombs work. Bombs work well. Bombs have exceedingly high return value on their production and use, compared to boots. Boots are costly. Bombs... Not as much.
We evidently hate the weak, egalitarianism, happiness, pacifism, jainists/unitarians universalists/Baháʼí, etc. Humanity's favorite emotion is Schadenfreude.
This sword of damocles shit that justifies the boot being on our face forever can fuck right off.
Honestly it's one of those ideas that make less sense the more you think about it. That quote and wikipedia link is drawing a connection between history as it was understood in the 19th century (e.g. unilineal evolutionism) and the behaviour of dodos.
"The curse of every ancient civilization was that its men in the end became unable to fight. Materialism, luxury, safety, even sometimes an almost modern sentimentality, weakened the fibre of each civilized race in turn; each became in the end a nation of pacifists, and then each was trodden under foot by some ruder people that had kept that virile fighting power the lack of which makes all other virtues useless and sometimes even harmful."