The Game

Gary--

Victory in conflicts between players vying for nations is defined by control and ownership over an area of land-- that is, borders-- and all that exists within those borders, including the people themselves, natural resources, etc. This is because a nation itself is generally defined by its borders. True, there are "nations of people" who have no borders, but they are the losers in the game of nations. Their status as a "nation" describes the human players who vied for borders and lost. They are not a "nation of people" so much as they are "the nation's people"-- the people living on the land (or who once lived on the land) now claimed by another. Borders, whether they currently control them or not, define their status as a "nation" and not the other way around. But look out--they are still players, and they can attempt to win their old borders back or acquire new ones. And that would appear to be their intent, so long as they refer to themselves as a nation unto themselves as though they still control borders. (There are also people who claim to occupy "spiritual" land as a nation, but since that land has no physical borders, they are not really talking about the same game).

Borders define space. It is thus finite, and it can be occupied. To control it, all I have to do is to be perceived as occupying more of it than my opponent. However, the key word here is "perceived." For example, I can control the borders without even being there if I am perceived as a player to be able to defend the borders despite my absence-- boobie traps, for example. Or rumor of boobie traps-- risky if my bluff is called, but they can be very effective nonetheless. Since one is attempting to rest control from a player who is a human being, one can play to the weaknesses of human perceptions. Of course, control is still control, and if the perception of control cannot be compelled through any mind games or trickery, then you as a player may decide to take more physical measures; indeed, you must if you wish to win. If your opponent still does not respond to the force exerted because they do not perceive it as being force sufficient to occupy and thus claim ownership, then more occupying force may be necessary. This can go on in degrees indefinitely-- in point of fact, you can of course cause your opponent to cease to occupy space entirely-- you can kill them-- however, you have then lost a resource associated with your land. That may or may not be important to you, if all you are interested in is the land they occupied. You may be quite happy to repopulate the land with your own people. Of course, it is possible to control the people but not to be able to control the land. Imagine defeating a tribe on an island only to be defeated by the insect-borne disease on the island to which the tribe had become immune. However, people as a rule are much harder to control than the land, and this is increasingly so as history and technology progresses. Especially in that they are a movable resource-- they are able to escape the borders, thus depriving their opponent a valued resource in themselves. However, in doing so they have surrendered victory in the game of nations, since they are now collectively a team of players who control no borders. In general, it is not possible to control borders if you do not control the people there, too, however that is accomplished.

Yes, this is crazy. But resources are what keep us alive. We occupy space, we could even be said to "consume" space--and there is a limited amount of space around in the form of land, so things can get tight. That's just the nature of finite reality. But if we perceive together as players that it is more to our individual benefit if we act mutually, cooperatively, to share resources and space, then we may indeed devise ways of settling conflicts more peaceably. We may indeed decide that the best way to get along as players in the long run is that control of borders or resources should be handed back and forth between players through some mostly harmless war-game, like paintball, or the other ones you suggested. One player gets to be the winner for a while, the others are the losers, but everyone gets treated pretty well for the most part. It's certainly possible, and in fact, if you look around, you might see very similar games being played increasingly in the world today. But if player(s) that control nations do not decide that cooperation is in their best interest, and that competition is the best method for satisfying their real need for land and its resources, then their opponent(s) must stand to gain nothing from pursuing a strategy of mutuality, (since mutuality implies giving and taking, and if you only give and never take, you are functionally the loser and your opponent controls your land), and therefore direct conflict is likely.

As it turns out, nations that have made cooperative agreements between each other are almost always nations that have first established mutuality agreements within their own borders between the players within each nation's respective team. In other words, the people of these nations are themselves cooperative with one another, they are team players, and they share control of power of their own nation in a system of give and take. Players that control a nation that do not play on a team within their own nation rarely get the idea of playing as a team with other nations. Therefore, until most or all nations are controlled by teams of players with highly functional rules of cooperation within their own teams, you probably will continue to see the game played the old-fashioned way.

Does that answer your question?

Cheerio!

Mooks