Yes, war is inevitable. War is just a waste of time and money. Why can't they settle their differences !
Like Howard Zinn has said, we need to understand the immorality and inhumanity of war. We need to understand that war causes many more problems that it solves. That it prevents us from working together to solve the very real problems of our world such as pollution, homelessness and hunger. War is a very poor solution that marginalizes and hurts mostly innocent civilians and children.
So what can we do to put an end to war? We need to bring up our children to share with everyone and to be noncompetitive. For our compassionate loving nature to develop we need to acknowledge that we are mammals and as infants, we need the undivided loving attention from competetant mothers and unlimited breastfeeding for at least 2 years. We need to implement what the most peaceful societies on earth have done. What I have shared are some of the practices of these societies. We need really seriously look at what is known about peaceful societies of the past and present and implement their practices.
I have a dream...and I believe peace is totally possible.
On this July 4 as we celebrate the “bombs bursting in air,” I listened to the re-broadcast of the last “End of War” show (at the Greene Space) and read Brian’s Guardian US essay. I love the essay and am very grateful to the BLS for taking on this topic.
But while I applauded Horgan and Kucinish, some of the comments at the NY event and most of those from the Guardian site filled me with dismay. So many people are not only pessimistic about ending war but actively defend its continued usefulness.
Violence is the central obstacle to the progress of human civilization. If we can’t solve it, we can’t move forward. Those who don’t believe we have made progress from barbarism – despite the persistence of slavery, injustice, and venality of all kinds and despite the fact that not all places in the world have progressed at the same rate – should read a bit about life for average and poor people in the middle ages or ancient Rome.
Not all violence is the same, but when violence permeates culture, war is inevitable because it is permissible and it is taught. That is a central premise. We learn to hate and fear, we learn to fight with sticks and guns and bombs, we learn to attack people who are different or threatening. Teach peace and it becomes possible.
Why do we go to war? In no particular order: 1) power and territory, that is, imperialism; 2) economics, that is, access to and profits from resources like water and oil and profits directly from war itself, like weapons and equipment sales; 3) revenge, that is, to avenge a perceived insult or defeat; and 4) social oppression and tyranny.
What justifications are we sold? Lies and propaganda about threats or losses, dehumanization and scapegoating of others, myths of national and personal glory and riches.
It all comes down to whether we believe human beings can learn. I believe it was Dennis Kucinich who said you have to believe in the human capacity for social evolution.
I do. We learned to wage war, and we can unlearn it. We can change how we think and how we act. That is what is so extraordinary about human beings. We can make choices about how to shape our culture. We do not just travel round and round the same course. We are, as Isaiah Berlin pointed out in “The Crooked Timber of Humanity,” perfectible and, despite cultural, nationalist, and tribal allegiances, “we inhabit one common moral world.”
Sooner or later, if we do not blow up the planet, we will have to agree that it cannot include war.
No, war does not have to be inevitable. I agree with Horgan that war is not an innate biological function, rather an invention. My belief, that war is a social invention, is based upon the array of unpleasant emotions associated with the competition for human needs on a planet with finite resources. But as Horgan and Steven Pinker and others have noted, as our civilization evolves, we have become enlightened to ways in which we can organize our society so that competition need not involve lethal human interaction. As our civilization grows more enlightened to methods of peaceful organization and institutionalization war will continue to decline.
When enough people realize that violence is not the route to peace, on a personal level as well as a political level, then we will have reached the tipping point. and that time is coming, i do believe.
Wars are unavoidable.
So 40% of New Yorkers (?) think that war is avoidable.
Hmmm, cretinism is one of the reasons wars start. It's time to leave this place and run, run, run - without wondering whether it's air or water.
I haven't heard anyone talk about how war benefits us. Many comments present a choice between war and peace. I think that's false.
Would the citizens of the United States support abolishing war if it meant higher fuel prices? I don't think so.
I do not think we will abolish war. At the end of the day, "I" care more about my life and my pocketbook than some nameless, faceless soul in a country I've never visited.
Wars won't end until we hold our leaders accountable for their actions at a world court level. There should be consequences for poor decisions at the top. Misguided leaders (such as what we've experienced under the Bush Administration) should be tried and penalized for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
War is highly profitable for some people. When it is impossible to profit from it, it will cease.
Today's responses to the "question" seem anecdotal to me; i.e. love for your children, fighting in a war, etc..
War is inevitable for a simple reason which is that..
Mankind does not change. People may
change, but mankind as a whole does not.
War has to be considered within the entire human paradigm of threat diminishment and eradication. Currently, we identify a threat and then create an entity who's stated objective or apparent function is to diminish or eradicate that threat. The problem is that all biological entities have as their primary concern survival and flourishment so that any entity created to diminish or eradicate a threat will contravene their primary concern as they suceed in acheiving their stated objective or apparent function of diminishing or eradicating a threat in that they will diminish or eradicate their own need to exist in direct ratio to their success in diminishing or eradicating the threat. Conversely, they will satisfy their primary concern of survival and flourishment in direct ratio to their failure to acheive their stated objective or apparent function in that as they fail in their stated objective or apparent function and the threat expands and flourishes then their need to exist will also expand and flourish. This dynamic is profoundly exacerbated if the entity is for-profit.
No, war is not inevitable.
The Rust Family
We just listened to your conversation with Professor Horgan. We think that people can stop war. We can start now, but the whole process will take a long time. But boy would it be worth it.
Connor (age 8), Liam (also age 8) and Colin (their Dad)
Conflict yes, War as we have experienced it in the past 4 to 5 thousand years, no. In particular, as more women become political leaders.
War is not inevitable, but the end of war is highly improbable. We domesticated primates are not really very intelligent as a group. Imagine how stupid we all are individually and how we have to learn everything the hard way, and yet we are the ones who are thinking about this when most of us aren't. I can't imagine whether our planet can survive what we will have to go through as a species before we pull together for our own survival.
I suggest changing the minimum recruitment age to 45, since I find that the biblical paradigm of "the sacrifice of Isaac", the sacrifice of our young, has been dominating our collective imagination for far too long. Sending the young to battle became another form of entertainment, a sports event, evidenced e.g. on how easy was beating the drums of war on the recent Iran debacle.
Mature adults in charge of the decision making to war, should be ready to bear the consequences on their skin, and the costs associated with leaving a carrier and household on hold.
Put a lid on the power of corporations/people and you'll stop the wars.
Behind every war is a business case that benefit a few; typically at the expense of the larger society.
In the case of the recent Iraq war, think those whose bonuses or investments would benefit from the 2 trillion dollar cost of the war. Who pays the 2 trillion? You and me! They don't care about the killed, wounded and the log term impact on our society either.
Conflict is human, but the kind of globe-engrossing wars we saw in the last century and hopefully a thing of the past.
The more technology, the more immediacy of war news. But the more technology, the lower the number of casualties of war over time in world conflicts. When all areas have more news saturation and immediacy, it will be harder for them to wage war as people will expect more from their governments and feel that their protests will be taken more seriously. Keep reporting!!!
(answer--ultimately peace is inevitable)
No, War is not inevitable. But we must address multiple means for stopping it. And these are many. Just one is to analyze our language. The 'War on Cancer', for example, implies that war has a good outcome and if you die of cancer, you lost the battle. The practice of competition which we encounter from our earliest schooldays easily slide into 'battle/war' language-and into 'battle/war' behavior.
Years ago when I was designing a peace education program, I met a diplomat from Botswana who said that his country has a comprehensive peace education program that works. More recently, I asked another Botswanian if the program was still effective. She said yes but was being put under strain by the discovery of diamonds.
Costa Rica, which had abolished its army, and Botswana remained at peace while their neighbors in Central America and Africa fought to exhaustion and economic destitution.