owlsbooks Chapter 2307
Chapter 2307
Chapter 2307
Just as Sif was still thinking, the scene around her suddenly changed again.
This time it turned into a war for the Earth's core!
Sif then realized just how brutal the War for the Earth's core was!
Sif didn't know much about the War at the Center of the Earth. She had already left Asgard at the time, so her intelligence was somewhat limited. All she knew was that Thor had suddenly mobilized a legion of Asgardian troops to enter Earth, and only a handful of them returned.
This event caused a great stir in Asgard.
It's important to understand that Asgard rarely suffers such casualties. In past military operations, while Asgard may not have suffered zero casualties, its unparalleled mobility and highly skilled soldiers have resulted in consistently low casualties in the vast majority of combat missions. This is why Asgard, despite its small population, has been able to maintain a state of war for millennia.
If a war were to break out, a large number of people would die, and even if Asgard were warlike, it would be deterred by the cost of war.
Throughout history, from West to East, the essence of war has always been a conflict of interests. In Engels' words, war was once the most important purpose in life for some nations to satisfy their greed and acquire wealth; Engels called them barbarians. In their view, plundering was easier and even more honorable than creative labor. However, wise politicians and military strategists do not blindly launch wars, because war is an extremely costly and exhausting undertaking. If the economic implications are not properly calculated, not only will no benefits be gained, but a nation's economy may even be paralyzed.
How much does it cost to fight a war?
The Kosovo War in 1999 cost the United States over $70 billion in 78 days of airstrikes; the Afghan War in 2001, lasting two months, cost the US over $10 billion in military spending alone. The Iraq War, which began in 2003, cost the US between $28 billion and $30 billion in less than two months. For example, during World War I in 1918, the total cost of the US war was close to 36% of its GDP that year. To prepare for the war, the US also shifted 100% of its automobile production capacity to tank production. During World War II, US military spending increased further, reaching a peak of one-third of US GDP. In 1944, this figure was 37.9%. Both total direct costs and per capita direct costs saw peak US war spending. Especially after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US further increased its weapons production. From 1918 to 1933, the United States produced only 35 tanks; by 1940, this number had increased to 309; and by 1943, production had surged to an astonishing 29500 tanks. On a broader scale, the United States produced a total of 88430 tanks during World War II, compared to 24800 for Britain and 24050 for Germany. The same pattern applied to aircraft; in 1943 and 1944, the years with the highest annual production, the United States produced 85898 and 96318 aircraft respectively. Looking at the expansion of military personnel, a comparison is particularly representative: before 1939, the number of U.S. troops never exceeded half of the 280 stipulated in the 1920 National Defense Act, but by 1942, the U.S. military had surpassed 300 million. Besides the direct consumption of manpower, material resources, and financial resources in the war, the war also burdened the nation and government with the expenditures on welfare and subsidies for veterans. During the 1991 Gulf War, more than 900 service members contracted Gulf Syndrome, a chemical-related illness, with over 4 suffering long-term disabilities. Even 16 years after the war ended, the U.S. government still had to provide more than $43 billion in subsidies, pensions, and benefits to 20 veterans.
Besides these direct costs, war inflicts far greater damage on the national economy and has a more far-reaching impact.
The most direct reason for investing heavily in war resources is that, in most cases, the offensive or defensive performance of both sides in a war is a linearly increasing function of their offensive or defensive costs; that is, the higher the offensive or defensive costs, the greater the offensive or defensive performance. However, in the context of advanced technologies such as information technology, biotechnology, and space technology, when one side in a war continuously increases its investment in weapons and other resources, the war will enter a different phase: asymmetric warfare. Simply put, a war machine cultivated through massive military spending creates a significant disparity in strength between the two sides. As a military superpower, the more the United States increases its military spending, expands its armed forces, and invents new weapons, the more it can enhance its offensive power, and the greater its chances of achieving victory in asymmetric warfare where the strong prey on the weak. This objectively encourages the United States' desire and will to use force around the world.
The cost of war continues to affect people long after the last shot has been fired. This is another statement Stiglitz tells us.
"Nothing is left of Berlin: no houses, no shops, no transportation, no government buildings. The Nazi legacy left to the people is just a few broken walls and ruins. Berlin is now just a geographical landmark with mountains of broken bricks and tiles." These words from a reporter of the New York Herald Tribune are undoubtedly the best footnote to the cost of war.
Bullets cannot be reproduced; war only destroys resources.
World War II was the deadliest war in human history, involving more than 60 countries and over 7000 billion people. More than 1.3 million people died and 500 million were wounded. As a defeated nation, Germany lost over 200 million soldiers and approximately 8000 million civilians. Before the war, Germany's total population was about 6600 million (after annexing Austria and other territories, it had around 2000 million). Nearly one-tenth of its population perished in the war, mostly young adults. The victorious nations also paid a heavy price; the Soviet Union suffered over 20 million deaths. Every war brings massive casualties. The lack of male labor in industrialized societies, the destruction of infrastructure and industrial equipment, and other resources made post-war economic reconstruction extremely difficult. Coupled with the unique economic policies implemented during the war, both the defeated and victorious nations were plunged into economic hardship.
For Asgard, the economy is of course irrelevant.
After all, the foundation laid by their ancestors was so solid that no matter what their descendants did, Asgard would never feel distressed because of economic problems.
But population is indeed Asgard's Achilles' heel.
What is the purpose of human life? This is a profound philosophical question! Philosophers have debated it for a long time without finding a definitive answer. However, biologists can tell us that survival and reproduction are fundamental human goals. Simply put, it's about living and having children. But many recent scientific studies tell us that for species living under certain conditions, these two goals are mutually exclusive. As lifespan increases, reproductive capacity decreases accordingly. For example, lions and tigers, which are at the top of the food chain, have low reproductive capacity, typically having only one breeding season per year, while lower organisms like flies and mosquitoes reproduce in large numbers every day. This is actually an optimization pattern in natural selection. Longer lifespans mean less need and less need for reproduction, while shorter lifespans require constant reproduction to ensure the continuation of the species. For lower organisms like flies and mosquitoes, and even mammals like mice, the threat to their survival is too great; the chance of them surviving to natural death is extremely small. Lions, tigers, and even humans, almost all live to natural death, with a very low chance of accidental death within their expected lifespan. Currently, human life expectancy is significantly increasing, but the demand and desire for reproduction are declining, as is reproductive capacity, most notably in reduced sperm count. In developed countries, people live longer, but fertility rates are declining. Conversely, African countries with shorter life expectancies and higher child mortality rates have the highest birth rates and fastest population growth rates. With China's economic development, especially in urban areas, the demand for children is decreasing, which is why the country is eager to allow two children per family.
Tom Kirkwood, a geriatrics expert at Newcastle University in the UK, proposed the "disposable somatic cell" hypothesis. This theory stated that human bodily functions naturally decline because each person has a limited amount of energy; it can only be used to repair damaged cells and halt aging, or it can be preserved for reproduction—one of two options is always viable. This view had some supporters at the time, but it quickly faded into obscurity. This is because the primary threats to human survival in modern times remain cancer and cardiovascular diseases, which have been proven to be related to genes and lifestyle habits. The acquisition of these diseases is not directly related to reproduction. Therefore, lifespan and reproduction are passive choices, not choices made out of subjective will. The idea that giving up reproduction will prevent you from living longer, while giving up longevity will allow you to have more children, is utter nonsense.
The existence of anything is its own justification; all living things that exist on this earth have survived through selection. Even planktonic organisms, which can only live for a day, can perpetuate their species through rapid reproduction. Analyzing this inversely proportionally to survival and reproduction, if humans could achieve near-immortality, the need for procreation would approach zero, or even be prohibited. This is because the population would only increase, and no amount of resources could sustain it. To give a realistic example, if one lives to 100, having children would have been 80 years ago, and those children would have reached adulthood 60 years ago. With grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so many generations of descendants, maintaining family connections would become extremely difficult.
Because of their long lifespans, education becomes more valuable. The longer the lifespan of a species, the longer its offspring need to be nurtured and raised. For example, lions and tigers typically can only live independently at 1-2 years old, while humans don't even reach adulthood until 18. Lower organisms, on the other hand, basically just lay eggs and then leave them unattended.
In the early days of the People's Republic of China, when the average life expectancy was only around 40, and people graduated with doctorates in their 30s, much of what they learned was essentially taken to their graves. Spending so much time learning was unnecessary. It was far more important to learn a skill for survival in one's teens. Yet, with an average lifespan of 40, people were able to have a large number of children. Currently, due to societal development, children can attend kindergarten from as young as three months old, a far cry from the era when fathers taught boys chores and mothers taught girls housework. Children's upbringing relies more on society; only in the first three years, when they are completely ignorant, do they live entirely with their families. The saying "Of the three unfilial acts, the greatest is to have no offspring" once held true, to the point that not having children could lead to racial extinction. Now, people can have children if they want, or not if they don't. However, the proportion of reproduction in an increasingly long-lived human population is decreasing.
Asgard also follows this law.
Because of their long lifespans, their birth rates... have always been quite low.
So they can't afford to die!
The loss of a thousand people is nothing to a country on Earth, but in Asgard, it is an absolute catastrophe.
In other words, the Asgardians are warlike and have a natural yearning for dying in battle.
The Battle for the Earth's Core is truly an epic battle!
An unparalleled super monster, coupled with an evil and mysterious mastermind, and finally even the Celestials who appear and disappear in the universe.
All the necessary elements are in place.
Such battles were rare, even among the previous kings.
Thor led a thousand men into such a battle, and he won!
While the Asgardians didn't celebrate with firecrackers or a nationwide jubilation, they were still proud of it, so no one really pursued the responsibility for the loss.
For the Asgardians, the dead are nothing, but if the dead can bring unparalleled honor, then it's a win!
what?
You said that too many deaths are affecting the development of Asgard?
Heh, what does that have to do with ordinary people like them? Isn't that something for the king and elders to worry about?
All they need to do is enjoy the battle.
This is also why Odin was unhappy with Thor's reckless and warlike nature.
The lower classes of the kingdom are warlike, only thinking about the thrill of fighting; this is due to their national character, and no one can change it.
But if the kingdom's upper echelons, even the king, are only thinking about the thrill of battle, wouldn't Asgard be doomed?
Although Odin seemed to enjoy fighting, he was actually a cunning old fox, a cold-blooded political creature who didn't really care about the thrill of battle... But even so, his aggressive militarism caused the population of Asgard to panic.
If Thor, that idiot, gets to enjoy the fight, who knows where Asgard will end up?
Previously, Sif had only vaguely heard about how epic and tragic the Battle for the Core was, but since she wasn't in Asgard, she had no way to get firsthand information.
Now, I've watched the whole thing!
It's even more insider than firsthand intelligence!
Directly 'personally' participate!
Participation was off the charts!
At the same time, it was during this time that Sif finally realized why the Black Death Sword had stopped affecting Gale!
The reason is that the Black Death Sword was severely damaged when the Celestials were resurrected at the last moment.
This allowed Gale to temporarily break free from the Black Death Sword's control!