Nalaris wrote:No one ever fights a war because of something as complex and abstract as religions.
I seriously cannot believe nobody challenged you on this. Because Israel is just chock full of natural resources, right?
You undermine your argument you point out that the decision to go to war is typically made by the haves, not the have-nots. War hasn't just been driven by benevolent kings wanting to steal from the next tribe to make sure their own has enough to eat, and wealthy kings have been plenty happy to go to war throughout history. Also, are you suggesting that 9/11 was somehow intended to be the start of some way of taking resources from the US? Some sort of ingenious plan to collect scrap metal from all the bomb remnants and bullet casings we've left behind?
I'll happily concur that wars are OFTEN fought over resources, but wars are fought for all kinds of different reasons. Religion absolutely is the chief motivating factor in some of those. To boil it down to one factor, you've really got to twist things.
That said, the problem may not be that cantr has abundant resources. Multiple wars have been started by wealthy countries. Part of the problem
may be that the majority of cantr resources are effectively valueless. In real life, the difference between living off of potatoes and living off a varied diet with multiple kinds of meats, fruits, and vegetables prepared into meals in a variety of ways has a dramatic effect both on your enjoyment of the meal and on your health. In cantr, the difference is largely aesthetic.
Many raised the idea that one cause is a lack of players/characters. I think there a couple reasons this could contribute.
One, is that towns simply don't have enough people to really develop politics, much less to have the sort of people moving between towns, having meetings, and relaying messages required for the politics of neighboring regions to brush up against each other and inflame conflict.
Two, if towns have fewer people, there isn't much power to be had in taking over a town of two sheepherders and declaring it yours (and there probably aren't enough active people to spare someone to keep an eye on the newly acquired town. Any towns worth conquering might be too far away to be worthwhile.
Three, fewer players/characters means fewer groups/viable towns for someone to be part of. If those fewer players are individually playing several characters, it also increases the odds that people have a member character in the groups they could potentially have conflict with. They may avoid such conflicts both to prevent the possibility of themselves committing CRBs, and/or because they don't want either of their characters harmed in the conflict.
"What I really don't understand is what kind of recipe do you want because you talked about porn, phones and cooking and I became lost" - Vega
"Fate loves the fearless" - James Russell Lowell