John wrote:Higgenbotham wrote:
> Let's say for example there is an island that can support a steady
> state human population of 1,000. The human population consists of
> 6,000 due to over-expansion off the accumulated resource base. The
> population is relatively homogeneous except 3,000 have black skin
> and 3,000 have white skin, so we have 2 readily distinguishable
> subgroups. The perceived available resource drops to a level that
> is sufficient to support a population of 500 and there is a
> general consensus on this. The subgroups go to war and at the end
> of the war 2,000 whites remain and everyone else is dead. The
> perceived available resource remains at 500. The 2,000 whites then
> proceed to further divide themselves into previously unidentified
> subgroups (i.e. "Hatfields" and "McCoys") and these subgroups go
> to war. This process stops when the perceived available resource
> is greater than the remaining population.
What you've described here is exactly the template for a Generational
Dynamics saeculum with two identity groups. You can take that
scenario, and throw in a Recovery era, Awakening era, and Unraveling
era, and you have exactly what happens.
However, I'm not aware of a situation where one side was completely
wiped out. There are always "collaborators" on the winning side that
protect some of those on the losing side. A sub-population of the
losers always find a way to hide out until the war is over. And most
important, there is a crisis war climax where the losing side
surrenders and the winning sides recoils in horror at the things it's
done, sometimes turning some of those remaining on the losing side
into slaves or something similar, which causes riots in the
next Awakening era.
If your characterization of Trump is correct, then Trump is proposing
to take resources away from Mexicans and Muslims and give them to
Americans, which would trigger a war, spiraling into a crisis war.