And when you phrase things as certanties. What I meant to say was that wars for the the sake of death and destruction are one in a trillion.
Wrong. That's
all primitive wars were about. Destroy the enemy and take his land. Slaughter everyone who isn't one of you. Only modern wars have this idea of moral reasons, and as little collateral damage as possible.
Troy was leveled, its inhabitants utterly slaughtered. The idea is to hurt your enemy so bad they can't hurt you back later. Have you read Ender's Game? Card explored this idea quite effectively. If you kill your enemy they can't retaliate, can they?
Wars for the sake of destruction are the rule, not the exception, whenever neither side would back down.
Bronze as a construction material has been entirely superceeded as a construction material by steel. As has flint. The domination of electric light is almost as complete. The telegraph is dead, or just about. The gun has surpassed the sword. The battleship has been made obselete by the aircraft carrier. Video killed the radio star (joke).
Yes, Steel has replaced Bronze
as a construction material. Did bronze utterly disapear? If I go down to Walmart, can I find a piece of bronze in anything? Yes I can, lots of stuff.
Can you still find swords? Yes you can. Some are ceremonial, some are used for swallowing in circus acts. Can you find them in wars? Not really.
I don't know about aircraft carriers and battleships, but those are both subsets of the same basic idea: a big boat. We'll always see big boats. Will they always serve the same purpose? Probably not.
Real life allows has some advantages over any simulation.
Name one.
First of all, there is danger. People who like to climb mountains without safety equipment won't be happy in any VR system. They may use it to train, but they will want to climb the real thing.
Knowing that you are in VR will always dull the thrill, even if we
can die in VR, and even if VR is identical to real life.
Second, scientific experiments. In order to test new theories experiments would have to be performed in real life. Robots could do the actual work, but they still have to be done in real life by something.
Third, Amish. Not everyone will embrace VR. Some will restrain based on religous reasons against technology. Others will find the technology too expensive to maintain indefinately, such as third world countries. In these you'll likely see humans only delve into VR for short periods of time then come back out to deal with basic necessities.
Also, months on end in VR will mean you must stay in VR, since your muscles will have atrophied too far. This means you will see people who stay in real life because they view dependance on this new technology as a weakness.
Forth, reproduction. You will always have consservative reproduction purists who demand to do it the old fashioned way. Catholics especially will be part of this group. And if you think religion will die out as technology increases you have missed the point of human existance entirely. There will always be religon. There has never not been religion.
Fifth, bodies will eventually become more expensive to maintain than VR. This means to have a real body will be a status symbol. Something only the rich can afford. Rich people love what is expensive. They will rave about the 'real' experiences they had. Plastics are cheaper than other materials. Effect? Other materials are viewed as luxuries, plastics as cheap. Silk and polyester are good examples.
I don't want children. None of my friends want children. Remember Solaria. You seem to be labouring under the misapphrehension that everyone on the face of the planet is the same as you, thinks the same as you, feels the same as you.
No, I think you are making that mistake. People in China, who are denied the opportunity much of the time, view child bearing as a privelage handed them by the government. China makes up like 1/3 the population, so right away we have .333 of the human population who want children. Obviously there may be some exceptions in China, but they are that. Exceptions.
Most orthodox christians view large families as a commandment from God. Think catholics and lds. 8 kids is not uncommon in either religion. This certainly makes up for people like you and your friends who don't want children. And guess what? Most of their children will want equally large families. On and on and on. How many people are you going to influence with your no children? It is not uncommon to have an old person in my church with 150 living descendants.
why would anyone feel so obliged to have children that they had as many as possible so that some would survive? I can't make any sense of it.
Not too long ago a woman defined her self worth by how many viable offspring she could produce. Every child that survived into adulthood was a success. Because you can't understand a mentality doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Also, the article you linked to is the exception. It is estimated that only 10% of the population deviates from the 'sexually normal orientation'. We can't site exceptions and say, 'see, you are wrong'. We are talking trends here, and trends take majority.
You're still making assumptions. Like; this race would have to wait perhaps sixty to seventy years to even know if their invasion was successful. Assuming they lived in a system close to ours, which is statistically unlikely. That is an unbearably long time to wait for a turnaround on a fully equipped warfleet for any species with a timescale similar to ours. Anything that thinks slow enough to think that a reasonable timeframe is going to be easily out fought unless they have AI controlled or fairly intelligent automated ships.
An unbearable time from for the parent civilization, but not for the conquerers. To them, traveling at close to light speed, time dilation will mean to them hardly any time has passed at all. They'll still be primed for the conquest. And humans have demonstrated many times the idea of delayed satisfaction.
Why wouldn't a nation launch an attack that they wouldn't hear from for 80 years? Humans built Stonehenge. That took much longer than 80 years to complete. It's only in recently modern times that impatience has spoiled us. 80 years to finish something used to be not only acceptable but normal.
The effort of outfitting a war expedition and conquering another species makes it a highly unlikely proposition when the species in question could just as easily colonise an uninhabited system.
First of all, I assume all warfare will be between either Humans or Humans and another territorial species. A non territorial species and humans could likely coexist peacefully, even on the same planet. Also, there will inevitably be a time where Humans have run out of room.
By that, I mean that all the neighboring planets have been colonized. In the distant fringes there still may be some land, but that can't be colonized because other, closer worlds to the fringes will probably get there first. Have you ever played Civ3 with huge world, min land mass and max countries? You'll get an idea of what I'm talking about.
Then you will see conflict develop, and from conflict will come wars.
Wrong. The decentralised people would be unable to gather strength into a point, would be unable to coordinate military action for lack of a centralised control and would interfere with each other's strategies for the same reason.
You've just contradicted yourself. You've already decided centralized, coordinated military effort is impossible in interstellar warfare. Therefore the people that can fght a war without needing coordination will win.
The centralized country would have to play defense, because a single lucky tactical nuke strike would wipe out their whole country. The decentralized country has no single attack point, so they can go on the offensive. The decentralized people know better than to attack the single urban world first, so instead they take out all the rural worlds that aren't defended, starving the urban world.
It doesn't take long to decide who wins. Show me a single scenario where roughly equally powered races, one centralized, one decentralized, defies the outcome I've stated.
AI.
Then there's the problem of distribution. If it takes 35 years to send a military envoy, it takes just as long to send finished goods. Whos to say that your goods will still be worth anything by the time they get to their destination. You'll be competing with local firms on those worlds who can react to market changes faster than you can.
No contest.
Last, as far as rogue military comanders... Their government is
decentralized. Imagine the United States before the constitution (for thsoe that know US history). Each state pretty much did what they wanted, but they formed some basic rules for interstate interactions. Basically they just agreed that they were in it together, and were more similar to one another than, say, they were to Britain.
So the rogue admiral that has conquered the planet will call himself part of his parent country not because he must but because they are more similar to him than other countries.
It will be from pride. "I am a soldier of the confederacy!" they will say proudly.