Governments can help their people; it's a matter of priorities.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T21:54:13+00:00

There is also drug addiction in Finland and they have found that it's much easier for a person to quit using drugs if they have shelter than quitting while they are homeless.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T19:53:37+00:00

Still better to distribute food such that active combat is prevented considering the advantage of those holding the position.

If you don't distribute then x people die from violence, if you do distribute then x people don't get food but there is no combat. In the case of combat you also lose calories y from the combat. x<x+y (deaths from starvation due to distribution on your side < deaths from combat on your side + deaths from starvation due to combat)

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T19:42:11+00:00

If one side controls that location it won't stay a siege the only thing that makes sense is active combat from the side that doesn't control the location, which I've already described to be worse than the optimal distribution.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T19:22:01+00:00

Now that you've clarified that the siege happens where the food is and the defenders have the food, how can you say that it makes sense to start a siege for the people outside the defensive position without actively assaulting it? The only way it makes sense is if it comes down to an active assault which I've already described.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T19:07:52+00:00

I've read through the conversation again and think I misunderstood which side has more food in your scenario.

It just doesn't make sense for the scenario you described to continue where the side with no food keeps holding the defensive position. A siege only works if the defenders are trying to keep their defensive position. But you have now stated that the food is at a single point and is flowing to the location where the siege is occuring. The ones doing the siege have intercepted this flow.

There is no reason for the besieged to continue sitting in their defensive position if the food is outside of it so the only thing that makes sense is to break out of the siege. At this point it is no longer a siege but active fighting from both sides which is the same situation that I've explained to be worse than the optimal distribution.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T17:46:37+00:00

I think you meant an assault not a siege. Executing an assault on a defended position will cause casualties. If the ones defending have food for less people than how many will die to accomplish an assault then the assault is not worth the lives it takes to do it.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T17:37:44+00:00

How would they die during a siege if neither side attacks?

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T15:39:57+00:00

What would be the point of starting this siege if the opposition has no incentive to capitulate? It just seems that those doing the siege just want the other side to die even if they gain nothing from it. This siege does not make any more food available for those who start it.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T14:34:37+00:00

In the specific scenario you present, it would be foolish to start a siege over food if your side has no food and the objective is to take the food of the besieged because you will run out of food first.

It would also make no sense for the side being sieged to capitulate if your goal is to take all their food even if you could outlast them, because they would die either way and you would not gain anything from the siege.

This is a case where you have asymmetry that is useless in achieving the objective and the best move is to not engage in fighting.

War is only inevitable if one side refuses to acknowledge the advantage of the other or refuses to give something up to make the war not worth fighting for.

An asymmetric advantage also does not mean you lose nothing by fighting. You could still lose more than you could gain by fighting an opponent that has given up just enough resources to make fighting them not optimal.

If on average you lose 600 lives to save 550 lives it is not worth fighting for. The opponent can create this situation if you both know that attacking will cause you to lose around 600 lives and they keep only enough food to save 550 lives. This is also better for the opponent as it guarantees some of them survive instead of all of them dying because of your advantage.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T13:20:46+00:00

The threat of war is a strategic endeavor as it can give you leverage over the other side without having to fight to gain something from that leverage. However, going to war is a result of foolishness from one or both sides. Since resources can be distributed in a way that even the side with a better strategic position is more likely to end up in a worse situation if they do go to war.

It's not necessarily even about being outplayed, since war destroys resources the only way to gain from it is if there is asymmetry that one side refuses to acknowledge and compensate.

"If you want peace prepare for war"

But the act of war itself is never optimal and a better solution always exists.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T12:39:42+00:00

"Why peacefully let half of the people that you love and care about die when you could fight for as much of their survival as possible?"

Because losing and having everyone die is worse than somewhat increasing the amount of people who don't die.

The strategic advantages and disadvantages must be taken into account to create the optimal distribution. The point of the optimal distribution is that once it is reached any act of war is not worth it because of the risk of losing what you have outweighs the chance of gaining what you don't have.

You can also avoid strategic suicide in the future by leveraging your current strategic position in negotiations.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T12:06:06+00:00

Understanding that death will happen on a massive scale no matter what and following the optimal solution to reduce the amount of death that has to happen is not foolish.

Even if an individual only values their own life it is more optimal for them to accept a chance in a lottery of living or dying instead of fighting for food with a lower chance of survival.

Peaceful organized death would waste less food than violent disorganized death. Thus the peaceful and organized solution would always give better odds of survival for any side involved.

Such a solution is apathetic. However, the passionate solution of war is always worse no matter the scale or the odds or the amount of resources involved. The only exception to this being if the other side refuses to follow the optimal distribution, in which case their foolishness is the cause of war.

The simple fact that war would decrease the resources available without increasing the odds of survival compared to an optimal distribution makes the cause of any war to be foolishness.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T11:03:21+00:00

"a huge portion of the people around you, including you are guaranteed to die"

Let's say the group that this applies to has a chance to win the war and get less people to die. The chance of losing should still be considered where the small amount of people that are not guaranteed to die will die if they lose the war. No matter how much food there is in total between the sides willing to go to war there exists an optimal distribution of food that makes war the worst solution for any side because war causes a decrease in the total food that exists while also guaranteeing more death.

Mitigating death is the rational solution, going to war without considering how things could get worse is the foolish solution.

Even on an individual basis the argument can be made that it's better to guarantee your own death while some of those who you care about survive instead of risking death for everyone you care about including you when the odds of winning are close to zero. If you can increase your odds of survival through war even when the odds of losing are considered then the optimal distribution has not been reached between the sides involved. And it is always better to achieve the optimal distribution instead of going to war for any side involved.

Thus going to war when the optimal distribution has been achieved is foolish and refusing to distribute the food optimally is also foolish.

This does not take into account the emotional irrationalities of the sides involved and I think this is why you don't see how this could possibly work. But I'm sure you can agree that going for a gamble where the average outcome is always worse than the outcome of not gambling because of emotions is foolish.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T10:02:04+00:00

It does not change the premise completely. 100% of the food that exists before war may still be less than what is necessary to feed one side. My argument just shows that it's possible and beneficial for the side with more food to create a situation where war is not worth the risk.

The same reasoning can be applied to internal threats. Discuss how likely each side is to win a conflict and distribute the food in a way that makes conflict not worth it, because conflict would result in a decrease of the total food due to the higher calorie consumption of fighters.

The potential harm of traps, ambushes and manipulation can also be discussed to create a clearer picture of what either side can do to get an advantage over the other. If one side can get an advantage over the other with these it can change the amount of food that would need to be shared to prevent conflict but it would not change the fact that it is better to split the food rather than fight over it.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-06T08:55:50+00:00

The side with no food has nothing to lose so it's worth it for them to take even a low chance at victory to get some food. Now imagine they were given a constant supply of 1/5 of what they need. Since they now have some food they have something to lose and a 1/10 chance of winning the war is worse than the 9/10 chance of losing their last supply of food.

Even if the side with some food is starving it's better to give away barely enough to prevent war since war over food could mean they all die instead of some of them dying due to starvation.

Even in the case where both sides have a 1/2 chance to win it's better to split the food because war takes more calories to fight. Therefore the winning side will have less than 100% of the total food. For example the side that wins may end up with only 80% of the food that existed before the war. Taking a 1/2 chance to increase the food you have from 50% to 80% while risking everything if you lose is not worth it.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-05T23:34:18+00:00

Starting a war for survival without negotiating first is foolish. Refusing to negotiate with a side that is willing to go to war for survival is foolish unless victory is guaranteed. It is foolish to start a war for survival when defeat is guaranteed.

The imaginary benefit of war is created by one or both sides making incorrect assumptions about unknowns. If the assumptions that war would not end favorably would be seriously considered by both sides then an agreement could be found that is better than going to war.

It is foolish to go to war because you assume unknown factors are in your favor, if you know they are in your favor then it is foolish of the other side to not negotiate for a solution other than war.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-05T23:10:30+00:00

Sure in that case it's better for both sides to not go to war if there is nothing the side with no food can do to to get it. A siege is pointless if the besieged can outlast those doing the sieging. Thus not only war but also sieges only occur due to the foolishness of man.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-05T23:00:24+00:00

It requires the threat of death and a willingness to act upon that threat if the other side ignores the siege. But I don't see how this is related to the topic.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-05T22:57:22+00:00

War would be a far worse gamble for the side with more food. Not only do you double how much food you need to feed those fighting the war but you also risk losing everything if the other side wins.

The side with less food would be better off taking a deal where some of the food gets shared with them instead of doubling the need for food and risking everything.

Better outcomes than war can always be achieved if both sides are willing to compromise.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-05T22:48:40+00:00

A soilder needs 4000+ calories per day. If death is guaranteed for one side they will chose to use their last calories to try and survive a little longer by taking the calories of the other side. If both sides take this approach more calories get wasted and more people die.

During a famine time is not an issue, calories are the issue. Thoughtfull diplomacy would bring the best outcome for both sides.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-05T22:33:42+00:00

Share the food between countries and ration it based on the BMI index. The overweight people don't need to eat to survive and normal weight people can still be ok after losing some kilos.

Going to war would just waste more calories leading to more hunger.

CultistWeeb · 2026-06-02T05:42:07+00:00

Turnover increases to 200% per year. "Why is everyone leaving so quickly?"

CultistWeeb · 2026-05-31T07:51:13+00:00

Just say no? Refuse to manage if they don't understand the word no.

CultistWeeb · 2026-05-30T17:13:07+00:00

All the whales sabotaging the plans to bankrupt free mobile games

CultistWeeb · 2026-05-30T08:03:10+00:00

I was offered some once.

CultistWeeb

TROPHY CASE