Perhaps one of 3 things are happening (okay, probability is on a complex mix of them):

1) Age sets in and the mundane appears as a battle to the weary.

2) The battle, which has always been there, appears with ever greater clarity as wisdom allows.

3) As age sets in, the aged are less in the spark of the battle.

Perhaps one of 3 things are happening (okay, probability is on a complex mix of them):

Age sets in and the mundane appears as a battle to the weary.

The battle, which has always been there, appears with ever greater clarity as wisdom allows.

As age sets in, the aged are less in the spark of the battle.

Have you seen the photos of Edward S. Curtis? At the turn of the century, he took photographs of people from 80 American Indian nations, nearly all of which were extinct 100 years after. I saw a number of these photos in a collection recently, and was completely blown away. When you realize that these were distinct ethnic groups with hundreds of thousands of years of distinct, unique geneaological history -- but humans just like you and me -- and the earth will never again see representatives of their race; it is utterly haunting.

You realize that there was a certain point in time, well before the time those lines were written, when the fate of their entire ancient race was already sealed. During that time when perhaps millions of them lived lives of happiness, purpose, having hopes and dreams -- nothing they did or aspired to could have possibly make a difference. All of the hoping, caring, and fighting was useless -- the battle was decided before they were born. Before the white man even arrived -- it didn't matter how many babies they had, how much strength of culture they developed. And once the white man arrived, it didn't matter how many they killed.

The young warriors today are still taught that the game is about economic or military strength. But in demographic terms, these games are now irrelevant. Demographic sweeps are infinitely more powerful, and no amount of economic or military volatility can change any of the end result of the demographic sweeps. Perhaps it is common sense, but the more I study and run monte carlo simulations, the more I realize the "fight" thing is an absurd fiction.

I am very interested by this problem. I think it is not improbable that we will be able to prove a thesis like the following: Sometime in the past one or two thousand years, we reached a point where no amount of famine, war, or prosperity could significantly change the ultimate demographic makeup of the human race. The ancient lines destined to go extinct could no longer escape extinction, and the ancient lines destined to either live on or be merged with significant genetic retention were now impossible to erase. There may have been a vanishingly small number of acient lines which could sway either way based on some deliberate action, but the vast majority were predestined (either immortal or extinct) at that point.

Is this is the case, it would indicate that anything done on behalf of one's race, kin, etc. at exclusion of other ancient lines would not only be ineffectual, but probably counterproductive and self-destructive. All wars, enslavements, and other shennanigans in the past thousand or so years have been utterly irrelevant to the genetic makeup of the future descendants of earth. Of course, we leverage our base animal impulses all the time "in the name of higher purposes", so this isn't to say that nepotism needs to be euthenized out of the population. But it's a strong argument that the "fight" should be harnessed and redirected.