Is Mankind "outgrowing" war?

[skydiver30960 0]

"The Taurans hadn't known war for millennia, and toward the beginning of the twenty-first century it looked as though mankind was ready to outgrow the institution as well."

--Joe Haldeman, The Forever War

It's one line from a VERY good book (IMO, others will disagree). And I guess it's one of those noteworthy lines that snapped me out of the book and really made me think about how it relates to my world.

What do you think? Compared to the mankind of a thousand, five hundred, or one hundred years ago, ARE we beginning to outgrow the concept of mass violence and war? Is the amount of war decreasing overall, and the existence of mass media just makes the dwindling amount of war seem like more because it's so readily visible? Or is xenophobia, genocide, and large-scale war hard-wired into the human psyche, never to be eliminated?

Elvisio "food for thought, but need more coffee" Rodriguez

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

I really doubt it. (unfortunately)

As long as somebody has something that somebody else wants, there will be war.

Africa is the best current example.

Sudan.

Nigeria.

Zimbabwae.

Kenya (a couple years ago)

Congo.(a few years ago)

Rwanda. (15 or so years ago)

The list goes on and on all over the world.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[muff528 3]

Only if the majority of the population of the world agrees to multiple genocides and a gandhi-esque submission to a handful of tyrants. Well, even that would have to boil down to a single super-tyrant.

[happythoughts 0]

No. To understand it, it is a matter of scale.
It is theft. It exists at all ages of development.

As children, some discover that they can merely take what
they want from the others because of their size.

After school age, they steal from other houses.

Or, if they have the legal/business knowledge, they steal using
stock derivatives, lawsuits, or corporate leadership (ala Enron).
(Citi doesn't have to pay back billions in stimulus money if they
continue bankruptcy - your money stolen)

War is rarely decided by the millions, but the few.
It is theft of another country's assets.

The Japanese have a saying, "Business is war".
If you can get the assets through business, then war is not necessary.
Review the US-Japan history on electronics, tvs, stereos.

However, if the business environment gets poor enough,
countries will always return to war.

In Africa, they deal with a finite amount of resources.
By giving them food, the governments merely reallocate the
resources to arms. Donor countries are merely enablers.

[riddler 0]

Sometime well after mankind gives up sex, self-indulgence, destruction of their surroundings, disregard for all other lifeforms, the need to accumulate junk, territorialism, belief in invisible spirits, and laziness in general ...

Sometime after all that, they may give up their need for war.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[DrewEckhardt 0]

This brings to mind the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" first posited by Thomas Friedman in 1996, at which point none of the hundred countries with McDonald's had gone to war with each other (even Israel and Egypt).

Once countries reach the level of prosperity and stability to support a McDonalds they've crossed the threshold where war is unattractive to their population.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

This brings to mind the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" first posited by Thomas Friedman in 1996, at which point none of the hundred countries with McDonald's had gone to war with each other (even Israel and Egypt).

Once countries reach the level of prosperity and stability to support a McDonalds they've crossed the threshold where war is unattractive to their population.

If that were the case, then the countries of Europe, with their interconnected economies, would not have to fear war from
one another.

There is an interesting book that I read many years ago.
The Sovereign State of ITT
It talks about how the CEO of ITT had dinner with Hitler twice
in Germany during the height of WWII.
Also how he possessed a 25% interest in the company producing
Germany's war planes. If Germany won, he would be rich.
He also provided wire-tap information to Germany in occupied countries.

Multi-national corporations can transact larger sums of
money than the GDP of some countries.

[Zep 0]

Quote

Sometime well after mankind gives up sex, self-indulgence, destruction of their surroundings, disregard for all other lifeforms, the need to accumulate junk, territorialism, belief in invisible spirits, and laziness in general ...

Sometime after all that, they may give up their need for war.

Um, if mankind gives up sex, sometime after that their will be no mankind

Gone fishing

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What do you think? Compared to the mankind of a thousand, five hundred, or one hundred years ago, ARE we beginning to outgrow the concept of mass violence and war?

Have you seen any evidence to support this?

We've made war potentially fatal to mankind, which puts a check on how likely we are to engage in it. Nuclear nations don't directly confront each other. Elsewhere, it's no different than before.

[marks2065 0]

people seem to forget about the possitives of war. We enjoy the benifits from advancements in technology every day that are developed only because of war.

[rehmwa 2]

Clearly, the new Star Trek series of the 90's show that we will outgrow war.

the downside is:
we'll be a bunch of wusses
we'll be so self congratulatory and smug, no one will like us
judgmentalism will be rampant
we won't be able to have any adventures without a simulator - thus life will be predictable and boring

so sure, we'll outgrow, then we'll all kill ourselves

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[iamsam 0]

Quote

people seem to forget about the possitives of war. We enjoy the benifits from advancements in technology every day that are developed only because of war.

please tell me you're joking. kill 'em all and let god sort them out?!?

I've never met a Tuaran though worldwide meeting with an ET, a global recognition of contact would do something towards making us realise that all we are, in fact, despite our differences, is one big global family. See it from an inter-galactic perspective. I bet the ET's when they fly past the third rock from the sun don't see us as anything other than ONE. Humans, being, sharing a planet.

That is probably why it is kept from us http://www.disclosureproject.org/
beam me up scottie
No I don't think mankind is yet outgrowing war we are still stuck in the cycles of power. It is however inevitable in the evolution towards the ascension of our species. The revolution in consciousness this requires I don't think we'll see in out lifetimes, so don't hold your breath.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. - Hendrix

but what do I know

[aresye 0]

Without war, we'd all end up in a society similar to that of Demolition Man.

Skydiving: You either learn from other's mistakes, or they'll learn from yours.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

people seem to forget about the possitives of war. We enjoy the benifits from advancements in technology every day that are developed only because of war.

please tell me you're joking. kill 'em all and let god sort them out?!?

Without WW2, skydiving probably takes another decade or two to get going.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Without war, we'd all end up in a society similar to that of Demolition Man.

.......or Soylent Green.

[iamsam 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

people seem to forget about the possitives of war. We enjoy the benifits from advancements in technology every day that are developed only because of war.

please tell me you're joking. kill 'em all and let god sort them out?!?

Without WW2, skydiving probably takes another decade or two to get going.

True, though not something I thought of when posting. I find it hard to see any 'positives of war'. 'advancements in technology' ? Sell that to the families of the millions who have died.

but what do I know

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

"The Taurans hadn't known war for millennia, and toward the beginning of the twenty-first century it looked as though mankind was ready to outgrow the institution as well."

--Joe Haldeman, The Forever War

I read what I suspect is a very different The Forever War.
Agree Dexter Filkins’ book was very good … have not heard of Haldeman’s synonymous book before.

Quote

What do you think? Compared to the mankind of a thousand, five hundred, or one hundred years ago, ARE we beginning to outgrow the concept of mass violence and war?

As a variant of Drew’s post, there is the idea of Democratic Peace, i.e., that democracies tend to go to war less than non-democracies. Or as Jason [kelpdiver] noted no nuclear states have ever gone to war with each other directly. That’s a small N set tho’.

I’ll go back to my favorite dead Prussian General (actually the *only* Prussian General I can name ), “St Carl” von Clausewitz: “War is merely a continuation of politics by other means.” Until we eliminate politics, as a species we are unlikely to eliminate warfare, imo.

Quote

Is the amount of war decreasing overall, and the existence of mass media just makes the dwindling amount of war seem like more because it's so readily visible?

Interstate wars have decreased over the last 100 years. Insurgencies and small internal wars have increased. (I’ll dig up some empirics if anyone really wants them.)


Cool questions! Interesting to read others’ thinking … to see both where mine intersects and diverges and to where the discussion goes. Thanks!

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I’ll go back to my favorite dead Prussian General (actually the *only* Prussian General I can name ), “St Carl” von Clausewitz: “War is merely a continuation of politics by other means.[/url]” Until we eliminate politics, as a species we are unlikely to eliminate warfare, imo.

I agree that war is a political tool, and it's often utilized by political tools.

History's greatest general, Sun Tzu, said, "All warfare is based on deception." Great generals accomplish their missions by getting their enemies to do what they want them to do without needing to resort to violence. "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

Unfortunately, a consequence of that is that the performance of great generals can often be overlooked in favor of the performance of much lesser generals, generals who led their armies through hard fought battles to attain their victories (and/or losses). Such lesser generals can be promoted past their more skillful peers. This, of course, can have unfortunate repercussions.

"I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted. No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare."

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

True, though not something I thought of when posting. I find it hard to see any 'positives of war'. 'advancements in technology' ? Sell that to the families of the millions who have died.

Well, you can have positives still, even if they are well short of the negatives.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Um, if mankind gives up sex, sometime after that their will be no mankind

There are a lot of options for reproducing other than the old fashioned way.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[iamsam 0]

Quote

war is a political tool

often its the other way round


-edit to add sometimes but went for often

but what do I know

[Zep 0]

Quote

Quote

Um, if mankind gives up sex, sometime after that their will be no mankind

There are a lot of options for reproducing other than the old fashioned way.

Then what would be the point in living

Gone fishing

[SpeedRacer 1]

In the ancient world, it used to be that ALL the men went to war, not just a small percentage.

Also, records of battles in those times showed that even more people got killed than in modern battles.

and peace was considered an interruption of war, not the other way around.

Also, in war it was common practice to put every man, woman, & child to the sword.

Maybe spare a few young folks to be sold as slaves.

so there might have been some progress.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Also, records of battles in those times showed that even more people got killed than in modern battles.

That's the point. The most skillful generals could/can accomplish their goals and missions without resorting to battle. It was/is the less skillful military leaders who often led/lead us into what we consider to be war.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mutumbo 0]

Quote

Without war, we'd all end up in a society similar to that of Demolition Man.

yeah that would SUCK tjose people were crazy!


and it will never happen, its human nature to destroy ourselves.

Thanatos340(on landing rounds)--
Landing procedure: Hand all the way up, Feet and Knees Together and PLF soon as you get bitch slapped by a planet.