Cassandra has moved. Ugo Bardi publishes now on a new site called "The Seneca Effect."

Sunday, November 11, 2018

Should we Prepare for a New World War? Answers from the Patterns of Past

 I know that I have crammed together too many ideas here: Tolstoy, St. Francis, critical phenomena, thermodynamics, and more,  - it is contrary to the rules of blog posts. But the centennial of the end of the Great War gave me the occasion to write something about how, in 1914, the European states sleepwalked into the Great War just like we may be doing nowadays. If the Great War couldn't end all wars as it was said to be able to do, the greater one that may be coming could actually do that, but in a very different way. The new war could lead to the extinction of humankind. So, what hope do we have? I don't know, but the first step to solving a problem is to understand it. So far, humans haven't learned anything much from the mistakes of the past but, who knows? Maybe one day they will.

The centennial of the end of the Great War is a good occasion to rethink a little about wars: why, how, and when wars occur and if there is any hope to stop blindly walking along a path taking us to the possibility of the complete annihilation of humankind. It is a question that has been posed many times and never satisfactorily answered. Perhaps the first to try to answer it was Leon Tolstoy in his “War and Peace” novel, (1867), where he wondered how it could be possible that a single man named Napoleon could cause millions of men to move all together eastward with the purpose of killing other men whom they had never met and they had no reason to hate.

Tolstoy was not a scientist, he operated on the basis of experience and intuition. But, just like Darwin understood the laws of genetics by experience and intuition, Tolstoy understood the laws of social networks. In War and Peace, he wrote:

The combination of causes of phenomena is beyond the grasp of the human intellect. But the impulse to seek causes is innate in the soul of man. And the human intellect, with no inkling of the immense variety and complexity of circumstances conditioning a phenomenon, any one of which may be separately conceived of as the cause of it, snatches at the first and most easily understood approximation, and says here is the cause.”

“And so there was no single cause for war, but it happened simply because it had to happen”

Tolstoy had grasped the concept that war is not the result of mad dictators giving orders to their followers. It is not even a rational struggle for resources or for money, although that factor plays a role. It is just something that happens beyond the human capability of controlling it, or even of understanding it.

One century after Tolstoy, statistics had advanced to the point that a quantitative analysis of the war phenomenon became possible. The British meteorologist and physicists Lewis Fry Richardson (1881-1953) applied the concept to the frequency and the size of human wars and more in general to what he called “deadly quarrels.” Richardson found that wars are random phenomena, unpredictable and unrelated to almost anything else: they just happen.

More recent work confirmed the early analysis by Richardson, finding that wars follow "power laws." Some recent work we did with my coworkers Martelloni and Di Patti confirms this result over a time scale of some 600 years and worldwide (preliminary results, to be published soon). It is a subject that I already discussed in an earlier post.

Power laws are typical "emergent phenomena" that take place in complex systems. They are the result of the dissipation of accumulated energy that occurs not gradually but in bumps. The quintessential system that behaves in this way is the "sandpile" that Per Bak used as a representation of the condition that he called "self-organized criticality." Fascinating in a mathematical model, these bumps can be deadly in the real world. Earthquakes, landslides, avalanches and more phenomena involving natural disasters tend to occur following power laws.

These results confirm Tolstoy's intuition: wars are not the result of ideologies, religions, mad rulers, or the like. They emerge out of a social network as a result of the way the system is connected. That doesn't mean there are no causes for wars: they are the result of accumulated capital that needs to be dissipated in some way. Wherever there is an unbalance in the accumulation of capital, the excess will spill from the more endowed side to the less endowed one. In a sense, war is the offspring of capitalism, but capitalism is just another emergent phenomenon of complex societies. In short, wars are not caused by a lack of resources, they are caused by an excess of resources.

When a new world war will start can't be exactly predicted -- it is like for earthquakes. Nobody can say exactly where and when a major earthquake will take place, but we know that there is a certain probability for it to occur in seismic zones and, sooner or later, it will. The same seems to be valid for wars. So, the fact that the start of wars can't be exactly predicted doesn't mean we can't see that today we are running at full speed toward a new one. If the trend of the past 600 years continues to hold, there is a larger than zero probability that we'll see a new conflagration that could surpass of an order of magnitude -- or perhaps more than that -- the second world war in terms of destruction and number of victims.

Could we do something to avoid that outcome? We have to look at the basics: if wars are like earthquakes, they are a thermodynamic phenomenon that dissipates accumulated energy. In the case of earthquakes, there is nothing we can do to avoid the movement the Earth's tectonic plates and the accumulation of energy at the faults that separate them. In the case of wars, the accumulated energy to be dissipated is in the form of capital, in a general sense of money, riches, population, resources, etc. Can we avoid the accumulation of capital? Not so easy in a society that sees the accumulation of riches as a good thing to be encouraged in individuals as well as in entire societies.

So, is it our destiny to see the end of humankind in a series of clouds of radioactive smoke? Perhaps. But I would also like to add something more: the cycle of energy dissipation in the form of war is something that we can approximately measure only for a period of existence of humankind of a few centuries in the past. And this was a period of economic expansion, eventually propped up by the availability of fossil fuels. Once we cross over the peak of this great historical cycle, many things could change and capital might be more difficult to accumulate. That would change many things, perhaps also the probabilities of major wars to occur.

Of course, you don't need a lot of capital accumulating in order to have a war -- we know that tribal societies are far from being peaceful. But tribal wars, at least, don't take with them the whole Earth's ecosystem. It is, after all, something that St. Francis had already discovered long ago at the individual level: material poverty can make you a better person if you willingly accept it. It took a thousand years before someone (Aurelio Peccei among the first) that inequality among nations is the mother of all wars. Could the human society embrace "Lady Poverty" as Francis did? Would that avoid wars or, at least, the kind of apocalyptical wars that could be waged today? We cannot say, but perhaps a dim glimmer of hope remains even in this dark period.


  1. If war is a means to dissipate excess energy in a system, and a means is sought to prevent the build-up of this energy so that it isn't released in a uncontrolled and unpredictable manner, then perhaps an earthquake isn't the best analogy.

    I would suggest the better model be as a lightning bolt. Lightning strikes are prevented by bleeding off excess charge in a slow controlled manner, so that insufficient charge is built up that can't releases itself in a destructive high-voltage current.

    What we need is a social lightning rod that dissipates this excess charge (accumulated capital) slowly, and that can also use the resulting controlled current of flowing money for productive ends. Perhaps this is the real benefit of a more socialist system of production and economics.

  2. Why does the silly system to prove I am not a robot make me feel and act like a robot? I had to go through 15 sets of images to post this comment. Did "Capcha" know I was criticizing it?


  3. Have a look at Thomas Homer-Dixon’s work. Historic first:
    Key Findings
    Through close analysis of the relationship between environmental scarcity and conflict, researchers for the Project on Environment, Population and Security have identified common physical, economic, and social dynamics in a variety of contexts. The main findings are as follows:
    1. Under certain circumstances, scarcities of renewable resources such as cropland, fresh water, and forests produce civil violence and instability. However, the role of this “environmental scarcity” is often obscure. Environmental scarcity acts mainly by generating intermediate social effects, such as poverty and migrations, that analysts often interpret as conflict’s immediate causes. (continues with 9 more)

    And current research:

    I study threats to global security in the 21st century, including economic instability, climate change, and energy scarcity. I’m particularly interested in the deep causes of social conflict, especially economic inequality, antagonistic group identities, polarized ideologies, and scarcities of natural resources. I aim to improve our understanding of how people, organizations, and societies can better resolve their conflicts and innovate in response to complex problems.

  4. I' sorry, I don't agree with the Tolstoy, Lewis Fry Richardson's odd ideas, because Wars are repetitive and reasonably predictable historical processes.

    I do not agree about the odd idea war is a product of capitalism.
    Wars can be classified in 2 kinds of wars: wars before the gunpowder, and wars after the invention of gunpowder.
    History tells capitalism borned in 1700 and it ended in 1929 and in the mankind history there were wars before capitalism and there were wars after capitalism: so mankind history shows that wars are not a product of capitalism.

    I do not agree with the odd idea wars are the result of accumulated capital that needs to be dissipated in some way.
    There's no accumulated capital in the wars of African horn, but the dark lady of poverty ruled Somalia, Eritrea, Etiopia to 1941 until todays. Also in the Rwada massacre, there was the dark lady of poverty, and there was no accumulated capital in this land that needed to be dissipated.

    With this odd thinking ideas, even you get into the white rabbit lair, for sure you will not solve the mankind dilemma of war.

    As my imaginatory alien protagonist of many SciFi tales, Ezezel usually says-Don't worry to solve the mankind war dilemma, because a mankind dilemma is a dilemma, and it can not be solved, but it can be fixed :-) just try to break up the complex problem into many other small issues, and try to solve them if you have time, before war explodes.-

    The good news is mankind wars are repetitive and war is a reasonably predictable historical processes.
    In Europe from 476DC there are big evidence of deterministic chaos, there are infinite qualitative orbits around war or peace actractors, and the reasons of each war layed down inside each times. Predictable process would allow you to fix in time the cause of war, before war detonate (pro_active actions) because after war explode (reactive actions) there are not much to do for people except to run, to kill and to die.

    So at the end of the day:
    1-We are in the first decade of XXI century, and there are still lots of things can be fixed before WWIII will explode in Asia.

    2-Unfortunately nothing can be done in Mediterranean area to defuse PUNIC WAR II, because it's too late for fixing the letal binomial and its letal expansion (overpopulation problems in Africa + climate change damages in Africa)^n, but Europe at least, it can delay for few years the incoming regional wars. 20 years ago, ONU and Catholic Church could have financed/asked a demographic control in Africa, for granting a future of peace in the Mediterranean area, but ONU and Catholic Church did not do it.

    Somebody, has a fuc#ing good idea, why do they do that?!

  5. I don't agree with this thesis - it is very fatalistic. Have you read "The Sleepwalkers: how Europe went to war in 1914"? Worth a read.

    Another book that I'm reading at the moment is Antifragile. One of its themes is how humans (especially well-educated humans) tend to latch on to narratives without a rigorous examination of their correctness or efficacy.

    Cheers, Angus

  6. I found myself thinking about Wilhelm Reich, who wrote much about wars and fascism, in combination with the Seneca collapse.
    I am aware of Reich's crackpot reputation, but I think his "orgasm formula" is worth mentioning, since it matches closely with the
    shape of the Seneca curve. From Wikipedia:

    mechanical tension (filling of the organs with fluid; tumescence) →
    bioelectrical charge → bioelectrical discharge → mechanical relaxation (detumescence)

    Reich saw applications of the formula everywhere in the biological world, not only in sex.

    With some imagination, one could identify the phase of "bioelectrical discharge" with war, and the occurrence of wars as a cyclical,
    emergent process on which, indeed, individual actions have little influence.

  7. Omens of total war just keep pouring in. From Project Syndicate, "From Economic Crisis to World War III":

  8. So, poorer people are 'nicer'? When our economies crash all will be well? Sounds like grasping at straws.

    Try that thesis in the slums of South Africa, or Venezuela.....

    And it, surely, ignores the immense amount of evidence for the classic tribal habit of killing males from rival tribes, and seizing their children and breeding-age wives.

    A habit also carried forward in to the earliest civilizations. Look at what the Romans did when they conquered Jerusalem for instance.

    As well as taking over their pigs, sheep, goats, etc.

    Even before the domestication of other animals, this sort of thing happened.

    I can't see there is any need to delude ourselves as to human nature: ample resources, they can be shred and people can more or less live at peace; but, intense competition for resources and you you have 'war', genocide, etc.

  9. It's a matter of system interaction, human system interaction:

    From wikipedia

    Bateson next travelled to Bali with his new wife Margaret Mead. They studied the people of the Balinese village Bajoeng Gede. Here, Lipset states, "in the short history of ethnographic fieldwork, film was used both on a large scale and as the primary research tool." Indeed, Bateson took 25,000 photographs of their Balinese subjects.

    Bateson discovered that the people of Bajoeng Gede raised their children very unlike children raised in Western societies. Instead of attention being paid to a child who was displaying a climax of emotion (love or anger), Balinese mothers would ignore them. Bateson notes, "The child responds to [a mother's] advances with either affection or temper, but the response falls into a vacuum. In Western cultures, such sequences lead to small climaxes of love or anger, but not so in Bali. At the moment when a child throws its arms around the mother's neck or bursts into tears, the mother's attention wanders". This model of stimulation and refusal was also seen in other areas of the culture. Bateson later described the style of Balinese relations as stasis instead of schismogenesis. Their interactions were "muted" and did not follow the schismogenetic process because they did not often escalate competition, dominance, or submission.

  10. Very nice! Yes,you've captured it, the global social system is complex, and has been for 8,000 years, but never more than now. Sure, war is a system effect, “And so there was no single cause for war, but it happened simply because it had to happen”. That is, there are variables which we might discern, and each discipline can define its own, but the system in general has inequalities which need to be resolves. yes, very nice.

  11. Should we prepare for at least a couple of wars? YES

    1-will Europe be able to end wars in the incoming future?
    Theoretically the answer is YES, it is only necessary to trasform the UE confederate into a USE a Federate State made by federate nations. Each nation of Europe would give up its military defence and foreign politic. United States of Europe should have one military defence with one secretary of state only for its foreign policy.

    Will it enough to avoid the PUNIC WARS II during the incoming future?
    The answer is NO, because the PUNIC WARS II will detonate for climate change and overpopulation in Africa, unfortunatly it's too late for fixing those problems into short future.

    2-will Africa be able to end wars in the incoming future?
    Theoretically the answer is YES, it is necessary to follow the European path on UE->USE.
    Will african people follow the european political path?! The answer is NO.
    Will Africa avoid the PUNIC WARS II during the incoming future? The answer is NO, because the PUNIC WARS II will detonate for climate change and overpopulation in Africa, it's too late for fixing those problems into future.

    3-will Asia be able to end wars in the incoming future?
    Theoretically the answer is YES, it is necessary to follow the European path on UE->USE.
    Will asian people follow the european political path?! The answer is NO.
    Will Africa avoid the WWIII during the incoming future? The answer is UNKNOWN, because only Russia will have the keys to defuse WWIII, simply on selling Siberia in many parts to China, Iran, India, Pakistan+Bangladesh for mitigating climate change damages.

    4-will North America be able to end wars in the incoming future?
    The answer is YES, they have already done in the past, USA is a federal state, and Canada too. There's no reason in the future for thinking climate change will reverse this peace conditions, in North America.

    5-will South America be able to end wars in the incoming future?
    Theoretically the answer is YES, it is necessary to follow the European path on UE->USE.
    Will south America avoid the WWIII during the incoming future? Probably yes, but only if South America will remain neutral, during the WWIII in Asia, and PUNIC WARS II in the Mediterranean area.

    6-will Australia be able to end wars in the incoming future??
    The answer is YES, they have already done in the past, but for future things are different. Australia is near to big nations in overpopulation issue with climate change damages, so Australia could have many regional or littoral problems with Indonesia.

  12. Let me add, a coupleof trends for the incoming next decades:

    In a over-populated earth, with accelerating climate change damages, we have to consider mankind is classifiable in 3 worlds:

    Ist world: saturated markets, high public debt, low level of growth alias constant economic growth and low level of interest rates, low growth of population, hard military power.

    IInd world: NOT saturated market, low public debt, hight level of growth alias rising potential economic growth and high level of interest rates, moderate growth of population (China, India, Pakistan, South America), rising hard military power for China, India, Pakistan, Iran.

    IIIrd world: NOT saturated market, huge essential needs with high rising potential economic growth (in a normla situation without scarsity of resources and no climate change damages) and a massive growth of population (Africa), with modest military power.

    None of these worlds live in IPERURANIO, they are on Earth, so they will suffer the rising climate change damages. The worst continent is Africa because deserts will enlarge their surfaces, lacking of fresh water and shock for people and agricolture, massive redoucing of equatorial forest, wild typhoons and severe climate change damages along the coast of West Africa in front of Atlantic Ocean and in SoutEst africa cost in front of Indian Ocen too.

    what kind of war trend will we observe on earth?

    1st kind of war trend-IIIRD world in lacking of needs will try to seize energy and raw materials for its essential needs: it will mean bye bye green stream, bye bye oil from Africa ecc... IIIRD world people in Africa will have a couple of option only: they will die for famine and dryness or they will die fighting for a better situation. This will impact on negative effetcs to NordEst Africa. In this kind of war trend, it will mean IIIRD world versus IST world, and IIIRD world versus IIND world. Those kind of flashspoint will lead to asymmetric and regional wars, no doubt about them!. That's the endemic PUNIC WAR II case.

    2nd kind of war trend: the IST world will compete with IIND world, for financial and currencies wars, and IIND world will search solutions for granting itself a different currency standard in the financial world: the maintaining of the super dooper inflated dollar currency will be a distant memory only. Those financial wars will lead for sure to cyber wars, and cyber wars will may lead to an escalation in WWIII. This is a possibility not a sure thing, because IST world and IIND world may also decide to avoid a direct war, it's probable they will fight on using their proxies (some IIIRD world nations) for regional wars. But, those kind of regional proxy-wars, they may not escalate to WWIII (as lots of wars during cold war era) or it's also probable they will pull to an escalation of IST world vs IIND world because tactic nuclear warheads will not lead to an nuclear holocaust as Warsaw'streaty vs NATO would have lead during cold war. That's the case of WWIII at first restriction, or WWIII at second restriction, and Punic Wars for strategic diversion.

    3rd kind of war trend: IIND world nations versus IIND world nations, because in a contest of strong essential need with a scarsity of vital resources (oil, gas, energy, fresh water, foods and fish, fertile lands ecc...) it's plausibile to imagine a fight of everybody versus everybody where a death of one nations it will grant the survive of another: a zero sum game logic. This is the case of China vs India (into the WWIII at first restriction at low numbers of fighters)

  13. Last, but not least, into a competitive world where everybody play a zero sum game, it will also mean another sad shallow grave:

    4-coalitions vs coalition; I foresee the possibility of at least a couple of coalition: IST world will build coalition with all IST world nations, and may be some few IIND world nations, for fighting at least a couple of coalitions IIND world coalition (made by nations of IIND world and some nations of IIIRD world). But, it is not crazy to imagine also a presence of a third less powerful coalition made by all IIIRD world nations.

    For sure in the future the earth will not be a nice place to be, it's a long way down to hell, and before hell gets frosty it will happen lots of wars from 2030s until 2050s

  14. Thank you for continuing to post views on these interesting and important ideas. I would like to see some sort of bridging analogy of between Peter Turchin's studies of "Political Stress Index" and general ideas of seneca collapse. Peter Turchin has published studies and books, about how he found he could derive from various available historical statistics, and the rise in stress was related to rising numbers of competing elites. What they competed for was ultimately the rate of supply of resources, which depended on availability, culture and technology. As the "decision makers" and "influencers" with power and wealth, they also had to worry about increasing numbers of people both resentful and capable. Elites could be said to be critical nodes in networks, and their plans and follies in response to political stress are the fractures and breakers of societies and makers of conflict, as alternative networks try to take power.


  15. WWIII (first restriction) Europe=Defender + USA=Neutral
    .China vs India (WWIII first restriction at the minimun numbers of fighters)
    .(China+Iran) vs (Russia)+India*
    .(China+Iran) vs (Russia+Europe+India)
    .(China+Iran+Chartago) vs (Russia+Europe)
    .(China+Iran+Chartago) vs (Russia+Europe+India)

    *What does India out of the parenthesis stand for?
    It means India will be wipe out by aggressors with tactic nuclear warheads on military and economic targets, before the aggressor coalition attack Russia and before WWIII starting.

    The WWIII first restriction is the space of cases where the number of defenders are few, and the defender coalition have less military power, meanwhile the aggressor coalition is merged in different cases, and the aggressor coalition applys with fully success a "dividi et impera" strategy.

    dividi et impera strategy means a containment menace: north korea and China menace to launch IRBM and SLBM to South Korea and Japan, if USA or USA, South Korea, Japan will join to defender coalition on helpin Russia from the attack of Aggressors coalition land forces.

    WWIII (second restriction) Europe=Neutral + USA=Defender
    .China vs (Russia+USA+India)
    .(China+Iran) vs (Russia+USA+India)
    .(China+Chartago) vs (Russia+USA+India)
    In this line the numbers of nations into the defenders coalition are much stronger in term of military power than the aggressor coalition, some aggressors get scared and stay out from WWIII, so the aggressor coalition is not fully compact.

    WWIII (third restriction) NATO=Defender
    .China vs (Russia+NATO+India)
    .(China+Chartago) vs (Russia+India+NATO)
    .(China+Iran+Chartago) vs (Russia+NATO+India)
    This line in main part seems an escalation of WWIII at first restriction when for game changer events, USA OR USA and Canada joint to War in a second time.
    This line emerges always as an escalation of WWIII at second restriction when for game changer events, Europe joint to War in a second time.
    Possible but with probable, WWIII will explode immediatly in third restriction.

  16. Error during copypaste: Possible but not probable WWIII will explode immediatly in third restriction.

    Same things about WWIII paths into a multimedial file

  17. A very insightful and provocative post, thanks and congrats to Ugo. Also several of the comments are interesting. I follow the idea of war as a mechanism to release tensions having piled up for too long, a sort of pulsating instability of our complex human systems.

    But just two additional comments:

    - Maybe the excess of energy to be liberated is not exactly the accumulation of capital itself but rather the contradictions between different processes. My take is that we face a trilemma in which three big processes are developing: democracy as an increasingly universal drive for all people to be empowered, ecology as the responses from the biosphere to our behaviors (f.i. climate change) and rentism as our willingness to live from the fruits of capital accumulated in the past.

    The trilemma is that we cannot have the three of them (democracy, ecologgy and rentism) developing at a global scale. In the West we had democracy and rentism working well together for a time, but at the expense of Most of the World and the biosphere. Maybe you can have for some time rentism and ecology, but at the expense of democracy, and so on...

    - To a large extent the existence and tenacity of these processes and hence of the trilemma is a product of our blind spots, the big gaps between reality and our perceptions of it. The worst being of course our persistence in not wanting to see things that we know perfectly well.

    Rentism, the idea that past capital deserves a return in the future, is the biggest and most dangerous blind spot, it simply burns the future, the least renewable of all resources.

    It follows from this idea of the blind spots that we need a shift in epistemology to change the tragic course of things. I.e. a cultural revolution in our way to understand the world...

  18. @ UnknownNovember 17, 2018 at 12:26 AM

    1-I agree with you: war is not a matter of accumulation of capital itself.
    2-I do NOT agree with you: war is not a matter of contradictions between different processes.

    The war in the horn of Africa after 1945 in Etiopia, Eritra, Somalia, and the massacre of Rwanda, they show there are no accumulation capital and no contradictions between different processes, but despite that wars explode!. It happenend because wars always explode for local reasons, and the meaning of "local", it stands for the space and the time where a war explodes.

    Look at the war in central America (before 1492DC) into the battle for Maya's state cities, an entire culture wiped out itself, and after they Maya people spread out to south america changing their names. Then they did new imperial local wars to build their own new empires: Incas and Atzec empires. All wars blasted in South America before the gunpower invention, and before 1492DC but all those bloody and violent events were important bloody matters when they locally blasted.

    That's why

    3-I do not agree to you, about the issue of democray. In the all history of mankind, democracies are a small fraction of history of mankind, and wars explode before invention of democracies, during the invention of many different kind of democracies, and wars explode also in other forms of istitutions quite different from democracies. Thinking in term of democracy and war, IMHO it is a north occidental centric vision of the issue of war, and it is wrong.

    There's moment of peace and there's moment of war in the mankind history: this sentence is not true in full sense.

    It's better to say: during the moment of peace time, it means some places on earth for some time, they remain in peace orbit situation for locally conditions; meanwhile in other parts of the earth, other places in the same time, they are into a war orbit condition because of locally war conditions happen.

    This means, there are actractors of peace and actractor of war for time and space and mankind.

    Actractos also means, there are lots of patterns in the mankind history: sometimes good patterns, sometimes not.

    History repeat itself in infinite times and ways: sometime the same pattern repeat itself in quite similar mode (that's the case of lots of wars blasted in Europe after the 476DC until todays). Sometimes the same pattern repeat itself on changing and permuting lots of local elements in time areas for having a wartime orbit.

    Because patterns are changing, permuting of local elements, the war time potential orbits are infinite.
    That's a bad news.

    But for sure Patterns are good thing, because patterns help to foresee risks.

    Risk is a risk, future is unknown, but if you want understand the next future wars, you have to investigate the local (future) reasons of war: scenario planning and ooda loop do it perfetcly. Those stuffs will allow you to understand why, who, where, how and (may be) when, a continent during a period of time, it will enter under the influence of the war actracor having its next orbit wartime.

    4-Yes, I agree with you: it's a matter of mind changing, also a changing of the epistemology.
    To defuse wars need pro_active actions, because reactive actions can't solve the war dilemma.

    There's no time for fixing the reasons of war in Mediterranean area before 2050.
    There still time for fixing the reasons of war in Asia before 2050.



Ugo Bardi is a member of the Club of Rome, faculty member of the University of Florence, and the author of "Extracted" (Chelsea Green 2014), "The Seneca Effect" (Springer 2017), and Before the Collapse (Springer 2019)