We can't stop war; can we control it?
In Sean Gorley's TED video (please watch, or at least refer to 5:57min) there is a specific mathematical formula that determines the outcome of how many people will be killed according to what situation arises.
Here is a very dangerous idea of losing control in order to restore order. I wouldn't actually suggest encompassing current wars with this idea, but I would suggest a physics experiment with numbers to see if it is possible.
Coalescence (the grouping of clustered and seemingly unorganized behaviour) and fragmentation (disjointed, but evidently more organised behaviour) are the two key principles.
If a war were to be in a stage of coalescence, as I am to understand, the people involved will act almost spontaneously, and this is fueled by their voices not being heard during the chaos, or, moreover, their voices are indeed being heard, but their point of view is not being dealt with appropriately.
If a war were to be in a stage of fragmentation, then the people will be living in a false sense of security for unknown periods of time, and attacks are made where often a lot of people are harmed and killed, and even often innocent people.
Should we then attempt to stop then the idea of fragmentation and instead let the people's voices be heard AND their statements validated, or should we live in a constant state of fear where an attack could happen at any time?
I say that to prevent war, the people need to be heard. Even the smallest of voices can start a snowballing effect of disturbance and eventual conflict, sometimes when this happens, the original reason for the war has lost all meaning and wars continue for the sake of whatever reason the leaders say, true or not.
How then do we end a war?
Listen AND validate every voice, no matter how small. Act on it. Prevent the snowball of war from being fueled any further by responding to statements logically, with the people's statements as a guide.
The truth always comes out. Transparency is the key.
Closing Statement from griffin tucker
Should the effects of a decision be attempted to predetermined of coalescence or fragmentation according to the political decision?
Personally, if I were a leader involved in such a war, a simple survey of both sides of the argument would be carried out, and I believe that according to the survey's results of how a reaction might occur could help in finding a resolution, or at the very least, determine what to prepare for in terms of types of distribution of attacks to help save lives.