E-Sports for Conflict Resolution?
Given that the infantry forces that drive trench warfare i.e ground soldiers are typically young-adults that have now aged to play virtual video games.
Could there be an instance of widespread online consensus whereby young-adults internationally come to agree that physical warfare is senseless.
The senseless nature of warfare : "Empire of the Ants" by Bernard Werber
Sport has seemingly over the years been vector towards tension resolution (an international language). Given the abundant creative nature of e-sport why not have a warfare game (or any other game) that simulates planetary land and gives multiplayer access to a CSGO like environment.
Where physical land territory is determined by the active push of young-adults that love competitive gaming to rank and gain points for their country. Given a ranking system, history of successes achievements... ETC
Now you might tell me go outside and take some air...
But I have done enough digital wiretransfers for plots of land. Or payed for my food using a swipe of my apple pay to tell someone I deserved my food or plot of land by sending over some pixels/numbers on a screen.
It seems absurd and senseless to still fight over land physically using pre-historic methods.
Let me know what you think.
This idea arised when watching Lex Fridman's recent podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4wLXNydzeY&t=5s
7 comments
[ 0.30 ms ] story [ 43.8 ms ] threadWhat's to stop Russia launching another invasion after 2-3 years if they settle it all online?
Given we don't know anything about nuclear escalation; we don't know what the escalation dynamics looks like with nukes.
Whilst we do know what might escalate from a fight in a virtual game.
Modern era solution to conflict is freezing the war. Awaiting for another day to come in order for someone to reheat the ice.
Whilst transfering this tension energy to a digital dynamic might completely shape a new narrative to our human nature; rather to a skill competitive one.
This is assuming that some international concensus can be found between young-adults on the web. Look even at the internet itself; a communication hub that arised from global tensions. ARPANET...
See the Star Trek ToS episode "A Taste of Armageddon".
Those fighting are only the edge of a very long spear. Supply chain, food, paperwork, industry all play a role. Quoting Neal Stephenson from "Cryptonomicon":
"The United States Military (Waterhouse has decided) is first and foremost an unfathomable network of typists and file clerks, secondarily a stupendous mechanism For moving stuff from one part of the world to another, and last and least a fighting organization."
This proposal looks at only the least important part, fighting.
Norden was 40 years old when he started working on his eponymous bombsight, and 50 when he developed the Mark XV. The bombsight was a force multiplier of the young men of the bomber crews that would not be captured in a young-people-only game.
Games are designed for fun. One way is by designing for balance so the skill of the players can stand out. But wars are rarely against balanced sides. If you invade a country, the citizens of the country know the land better and have shorter supply chains. Neither the USSR nor US did that well in Afghanistan. The US did not do well in Vietnam.
Why would a country under threat of invasion give up that advantage by switching to an e-sport competition?