As long as there are arm dealers and arm dealer countries, there will be war. War is not about good people fighting evil; it's more about individuals lacking scruples only looking for a profit. Globalization will help diminish war as the entire world becomes more uniform and therefore less divided.
No, war is not inevitable. As time has progressed, the ability of people to solve conflicts has increased. At first there were wars between small tribes, then small kingdoms, and finally larger nation states. War has never occurred between two democracies, and now most countries are democratic. I think it's only a matter of time and development before there will be adequate mechanisms in place to solve conflicts without the need to resort to war.
Unfortunately, the desire of a few to dominate over many has not changed over millenia. We, the humans, are more technologically advanced, but are lagging more and more in terms of empathy and understanding of other human being who might have different set of values and different ways of life.
previously from 24000 bc until about 6000 bc humans in eastern europe lived in cooperation and peace.
The art and artifacts and archeology points demonstrates this, ( see the work of Marija Gimbutas.)
the fact that humans have been fighting since 4000 bc or so, and documented by art and artifacts and archeology, (Crete 1200 BC first art depicting war- Gimbutas)
does in no way mean we must continue.
Work of Robert Sopolsky socialogy and baboons, has observed a baboon troup in africa that no long operates on the basis of heirarchy and physical power governing- but is cooperative.
War is not inevitable, it is a choice. Epigenetics also shows that expression of genes is dependent on environment and inheritance, so that a desire to change, and opportunity to learn can heal and create offspring that is healthy rather than stuck in ineffective and self destructive behavior.
Unfortunately the wars are inevitable.
If humanity is to survive, war will have to end. Our ability to destroy ourselves is greater then ever before. It is much easier to go to war then to not. War is the ultimate manifestation of the great fear that resides in all of us and the need to protect ourselves. We obviously cannot weaponize ourself out of war, a great fallacy. The end of war can only come from the majority of people realizing that this way of resolving conflict is not working as almost all wars are the result of the previous wars and conflict. There is no where to go anymore with this but to stop. Ending war cannot be something that comes from the outside, ending war has to be an inner realization. Often in our daily lives we exhibit the same behavior that create wars in a larger thru our judgements of others, our greed, etc. Ending war will come with a consciousness shift and I do believe that will come as you can see the very beginning of that shift now.....I hope!
No. If religion went out of style we'd have a much better chance of living in a world without war. That's because fundamental religious notions can never be proved right or wrong. People feel so strongly that their position is right that inevitably they fight over it and always will.
Yes.First stop dehumanizing the enemy.Stop glorifying warriors.Stop the simplistic false narrative of totalizing good vs. evil and that when we kill we're good but when the enemy kills they're evil.Stop imposing conditions for peace talks. Stop assumung we're rational but the enemy is not.Though we like to say war is hell and that we try to avoid war-in reality we make heroes out of warriors thereby glorifying war.All these memorials to soldiers of war lend cache to the narrative that war is a noble endevour-if you're one of us. Perhaps we need memorials to the victims of all these wars-civilians.We need more stories of civilians deaths-and less of "heroes" accomplishments.Stop portraying terrorism as inhuman and terrorists as not worthy of any human consideration.
It would be nice if we exterminated all dictatorships like Cuba north Korea Iran Syria.
And every country was a democracy since democracies don't make war with each other
Remember the kellogg briand pact and how effective that was
As much as we choose to deny and forget it, we are primates, more closely related to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to gorillas. We are devoted at the deepest level to our family/clan/troop mates, and fiercely protective against those of other groups.
As humans, our downfall is that "other" is no longer simply defined by smell or territory: we are capable of symbolic thought. This enables us to define "other" by ANYTHING: labels (religious, national, &c.), skin color, school of thought, &c., &c.
Until we figure out how to deal with this ethological curse, we will have wars.
I don't know but I can see that is the question/issue!
Fighting at this level has been obsolete since we started farming and living in towns but we could stand it because it wasn't everyone, all places, all the time.
Now it is just one of the half-dozen reasons we can't live as we do for much more than 20 or 30 years. (Presumably we will change, find new sources of energy, etc. but we will have to solve all the fatal-to-civilization issues before they come due, avoidance of nuclear war, e.g...)
NO, war is not inevitable.
Carl Von Clausewitz famously said that "war is an extension of foreign policy by other means," which assumes that wars are discrete events that are marginal to the operation of modern states and international norms. However, wars and the monopoly of violence are central to the formation of nation-states after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Indeed, philosophers like Michel Foucault would argue that peace is an extension of war by other means. Mass murder and genocide only appear to be aberrations when Europeans kill their own or terrorists fly an airplane into the World Trade Center, but have been a historic lived reality for much of the world's people. Police brutality, surveillance, and violent control over public space in New York City only appear to be aberrations when reporters witness the eviction of Occupy Wall Street protestors and video is broadcast via YouTube. But for many low-income people of color, violent social control is a built-in part of life in modern America.
War is not inevitable. But the way to eliminate war is to fundamentally change the nature of our society.
we will never stop wars- to quote Issac Asimov (in his Foundation Triolgy) "violence is the last resort of the incompetent"- and world leaders never recognize that fact
NO, War is not escapable by humanity. As long there are people there will be groups and or countries sending their young and old, men and women, off to fight and die in wars or "conflicts" to protect their interests and or the "national defense." I compare this to a playground. You see two kids, boy:girl, girl:boy, etc; yelling, then shoving and finally fighting. Blood spilling, tooth knocking fist flying fighting and then worse is when each side's friends joins in to fight the other side's friends. Then you got yourself a brawl. This reminds me of how WWI started, small and then because of alliances it spread. Now substitute boy, girl, friends, with country A, nation O, and allies U. It is the same thing. Tribes, villages, nomads, individuals and groups of people have been fighting & killing each other for stupid and justified reasons, such as: survival, land, revenge, family tradition, and the worst NO GOOD REASON!! I have hope in humanity and human history that when reasonable leaders listen to the wise counsel of their advisors do they make better decisions. That leader first must have advisors who are wise so as to not to be told advice from fools. Thank you.
I'm with John Horgan: War is not inevitable. Human behavior is highly plastic; changes in resource availability and legal/social structure can lead to radical changes in attitudes toward violence. 150 years ago, a million Americans died during the civil war. Such violence, and such casualties, are practically beyond the imagination of Americans alive today. The shift that happened here could easily happen all around the world, eventually.
It will appear futuristic: The Global Government, The Global Congress and the Global Army-UNITED STATES OF THE WORLD. But until then the nations of the World torn apart by their interests such as security and distribution of food, water and other vital resources, will continue to do what they did as long as our ancestors were mammals and even before-fight, fight and fight.
I, personally, believe in the goodness of a human kind to realize sometime that it's own survival is in humanity own hands.
Otherwise the old trick might work for a while -the appearance of a common enemy, like an alien planet. That will unite everyone living together and stop the wars for a short time.
As long as a humanist moral philosophy exists in society, there will be humanism run amok. Men with the potential for power will want to exert that power for what they think is human good. They will follow their own impulses (with the encouragement of each country's version of our Council on Foreign Relations), not God's Word, and, if they grab enough power, they'll drag us into war -- be it a Bismarck, a Teddy Roosevelt, a Woodrow Wilson, a John F. Kennedy, or a jungle warlord.
Change the question to
Is Peace achievable?
Yes, a culture of peace is possible, but our language must reflect it. If we are against bullying in school, we must be against phrases like "all options are on the table. "
Peace is not a weakness- it is strength to work out problems and not make threats.
No, not soon, especially in the Middle East.
As long as Israel Firsters can buy U.S. foreign policy and keep the focus away from the real issue (i.e., land stolen from Palestinians, and the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees) and towards noise issues (e.g., terrorism, a supposedly democratic Israel as an ally rather than a deadly liability, religion, rapture, Arab primitivism, etc.), then war there will persist.
I wish WNYC would crack down hard on Israel, instead of gingerly side-stepping the core land issue so as not to upset its listeners (supporters/sponsors) who desperately need a realistic look at the core of the matter, rather than those silly dreamy 'kibbutz' paint-jobs. (Sometimes, when I hear a WNYC segment on Israel, I feel embarrassed for you!) Even the Car Guys should be more critical of Israel!! :)
The whole set of the terms of debate is shfting in a very basic way. Please don't be caught on the wrong (and ugly) side of this issue. WNYC should take a deep breathe, fast-forward about ten years to catch up with the real debate, and go for it! Sorry for the long post!