BW: It sounds like you're recommending the killing of multitudes and the destruction of cities as a good way to find new friends. Or, maybe it's just that war happens and peace happens and it's all supposed to happen, neither one good or bad, all in pursuit of thermodynamic equilibrium.
TSW: "... war, being the most extreme form of economic competition, will not be eliminated until the gap between rich and poor is narrowed."
BW: You consider war an "economic competition"? So, I guess burglary is just an "economic competition" between the owner and the thief? And murder is just an "economic competition" between killer and victim? Granted, some ancient wars were about acquiring land (killing all the men, women, children, and cattle to get it), but even those were motivated by ideological fanaticism, not economics. Most wars are ideological, racist, or in pursuit of political power, not economic plunder.
BW: Very few wars have anything to do with rich and poor. In fact, many are because poor societies (devoting all their labor to expansive military might) need to invade rich countries to feed their people. It's extremely rare that rich, comfortable, self-sustaining, civil societies have any need to invade their neighbors.
TSW: "It is almost a commonplace that 'no evolutionary future awaits man except in association with other men.'"
BW: Well, there's no biological evolution at all unless men associate with women. Humans prefer living in civil societies because there are a multitude of benefits, which you never describe. Very few prefer living in a decadent, coercive, or destructive society to being left alone (at least, with their families). You ignore all of these circumstances, as though they're irrelevant to peace, ethics, or morals.
BW: There are a lot of meanings for "socialization", but this one is circular and uninformative. Literacy is probably the most important "preparation" for interacting with others, but that's called "learning", not "socialization". In common usage, the word "socialization" refers to *forcing* youth or rebels to conform with social norms. In politics, it means collective ownership of resources taken from others, which only a Marxist could love.
TSW: "The activities that help classify an animal as either social or solitary are purely relative."
BW: Not relative, but quantitative. All animals who reproduce sexually certainly require some degree of "socializing" with the opposite sex of their species. The usual criteria is whether the specie forms large groups with persistent interactions.
BW: Ants don't have a clue that their activities benefit any other members of the colony: all they know is that they get fed and that's all they care about. They are creatures of instinct, incapable of conscious deliberation.
TSW: Bible: "Come, let us go down, and there confound their language ..."
BW: The Hebrew God is always bent on destroying humans. Remember that the first "sin" was acquiring the knowledge of good and evil. What could be more perverse?
TSW: "Socialization, like any other reaction, is irreversible. That does not mean that people, having moved closer, cannot move away again, but simply that neither action can be repeated in exactly the same way."
BW: I don't know why you make these statements, having said that time and causation are not reversible. Of course people move in and out of social relationships and particular locations all the time. Those choices are reversible, even if time has lapsed and they aren't done in *exactly* the same way. Certainly, you don't walk into a town, then walk backward out of it.
Next: The Social Microcosm (Part 5 of 7)