The end of wars

[LuckyR]

War is one of nature's means for controlling over population and restoring a more efficient balance of nature. War isn't a choice; it is a natural cyclical reaction to ever changing external circumstances.

Are you suggesting that nature has a will and the ability to implement strategy?

I think so. Especially if by "Nature" one means: Human nature.

[Vijaydevani]

(Nested quote removed.)

Are you suggesting that nature has a will and the ability to implement strategy?

I think so. Especially if by "Nature" one means: Human nature.

I don't think he means human nature.

[Sy Borg]

(Nested quote removed.)


I think so. Especially if by "Nature" one means: Human nature.

I don't think he means human nature.

Nick is right, though. Over time political pressures build and physical conflict is sometimes inevitable. If we didn't breed like humans; if we didn't seek to expand territory and influence; if the Earth had enough resources and robustness of systems to make us sustainable, then we would have no need for war.

No sentience is needed. It's physics as applied in biology - breaking points. Plant a few veggies in a small plot and there is no problem. Add many more veggies and there will be competition, and some will die. Fill the plot up with competing veggies and you have a juicebath*.

That humans have increasingly managed to accommodate more people without equivalent conflict is testament to their moral and intellectual progress. Most cultures thankfully don't remain as stupid and irrational as they once were; history provides its lessons and at least some of those lessons are learned with each conflict resolution.


* vegetable equivalent of bloodbath.

[Vijaydevani]

That humans have increasingly managed to accommodate more people without equivalent conflict is testament to their moral and intellectual progress. Most cultures thankfully don't remain as stupid and irrational as they once were; history provides its lessons and at least some of those lessons are learned with each conflict resolution.


* vegetable equivalent of bloodbath.

Now if only someone could explain this to Pakistan.

[Sy Borg]

That humans have increasingly managed to accommodate more people without equivalent conflict is testament to their moral and intellectual progress. Most cultures thankfully don't remain as stupid and irrational as they once were; history provides its lessons and at least some of those lessons are learned with each conflict resolution.


* vegetable equivalent of bloodbath.

Now if only someone could explain this to Pakistan. :D

There will always be stragglers. There will always be backsliding. Europe slid into barbarity for a thousand years but now some of those nations are amongst the most advanced and progressive in the world. For now. There's always power cycles in history, success leading to insularity, hubris and decay, challenges leading to motivation and innovation, and so forth.

[Nick_A]

(Nested quote removed.)

Are you suggesting that nature has a will and the ability to implement strategy?

I think so. Especially if by "Nature" one means: Human nature.

You must know of the balance of nature and how when there are too many deer for example, more wolves and predators live to feed on them and keep the population in check. Fish in the seas and trees in the forest exist in the same way. When there are too many trees for example, some die off to maintain the necessary balance. animal Man is the same. When populations expand it creates a tension, War is a natural means to maintain the balance nature requires.

[Vijaydevani]

(Nested quote removed.)


I think so. Especially if by "Nature" one means: Human nature.

You must know of the balance of nature and how when there are too many deer for example, more wolves and predators live to feed on them and keep the population in check. Fish in the seas and trees in the forest exist in the same way. When there are too many trees for example, some die off to maintain the necessary balance. animal Man is the same. When populations expand it creates a tension, War is a natural means to maintain the balance nature requires.

Oh okay. I get it. Fine. Perfect.

[Fooloso4]

Some years ago I visited France and was struck by the number of armed fortresses. Were they protecting scarce resources? Were they a response to overpopulation? Given the large amount of farmable land and hunting grounds surrounding them I find these assumptions questionable. I think a much more likely explanation is simply human arrogance and folly. Such a way of life did not promote balance and given the rate of death from other causes was completely unnecessary for population control. Those with sufficient power and resources did it as a way of self-promotion, self-glorification, building monuments to themselves to be admired and envied by others of their social class.

This, of course, is an inadequate explanation of power relationships today, but they are not, I would argue, fundamentally different. As long as there are those who profit from wars of aggression there will be war. And as long as those in power can convince the citizens that their wars are no wars of aggression and are not motivated by profit, someone else will always pay for their wars with their lives and resources while they prosper. As long as it is cheaper and easier to take what you want rather than create what you need their will be war. As long as politics is business by other means and oligarchic businesses are in control there will be war.

-- Updated October 1st, 2016, 1:20 pm to add the following --

"Some years ago I visited France and was struck by the number of armed fortresses."

I meant to say ancient armed fortresses.

[LuckyR]

Some years ago I visited France and was struck by the number of armed fortresses. Were they protecting scarce resources? Were they a response to overpopulation? Given the large amount of farmable land and hunting grounds surrounding them I find these assumptions questionable. I think a much more likely explanation is simply human arrogance and folly. Such a way of life did not promote balance and given the rate of death from other causes was completely unnecessary for population control. Those with sufficient power and resources did it as a way of self-promotion, self-glorification, building monuments to themselves to be admired and envied by others of their social class.

This, of course, is an inadequate explanation of power relationships today, but they are not, I would argue, fundamentally different. As long as there are those who profit from wars of aggression there will be war. And as long as those in power can convince the citizens that their wars are no wars of aggression and are not motivated by profit, someone else will always pay for their wars with their lives and resources while they prosper. As long as it is cheaper and easier to take what you want rather than create what you need their will be war. As long as politics is business by other means and oligarchic businesses are in control there will be war.

-- Updated October 1st, 2016, 1:20 pm to add the following --

"Some years ago I visited France and was struck by the number of armed fortresses."

I meant to say ancient armed fortresses.

You are, of course correct. Humans (through Human nature) add several layers of complexity above the "too many trees" and "too many deer" experience among animals. This is not to say that humans are immune to the forces that apply to wild animals and plants, rather that there are additional issues with humans.

[Tsur Taub]

War is one of nature's means for controlling over population and restoring a more efficient balance of nature. War isn't a choice; it is a natural cyclical reaction to ever changing external circumstances.

I really doubt that claim. If it is true, nature is doing a very lousy job, since the population is growing and wars are declining.

[Tsur Taub]

War is one of nature's means for controlling over population and restoring a more efficient balance of nature. War isn't a choice; it is a natural cyclical reaction to ever changing external circumstances.

I really doubt that claim. If it is true, nature is doing a very lousy job, since the population is growing and wars casualties are declining.

[Tsur Taub]

Have you ever noticed how external conditions influence riots and wars?
I live in the middle east.
Interestingly, almost all wars or civil riots we had in the last 10 years have started in the summer.
The wars we had, much like the civils riots, where not planned but triggered by certain minor events.
it seems that the high temperature makes people more reactive.

[Thomas33]

I see war as an ego-strategy; reality doesn't need war, because violence exists anyway. People ignore one another on a daily basis, happy to do so because of the knowledge that it gives them power, and then people use the idea of war as a consequence.
People don't want war, but thy also don't want to enact the means the avoiding it: reflecting reality.

All people need protons, and mathematics, yet society is defined by no one speaking of others as needing protons and mathematics - just food and shelter, because acknowledging those things allows people physical power over others.

People need both food and mathematics - you want to avoid war, reference anyone you know of as both, not just one.

[Belindi]

When after 1066 the Normans conquered England they built enormous stone castles the like of which had never been seen by the English. The Normans , like other conquerors, believed that conquering was what powerful people did. The huge ugly castles were meant to be very visible to the English as signs and symbols of Norman strength and power over the old English people.

I am wondering if efforts by regimes such as that of North Korea are getting the nuclear weapons for the same reason of symbol and sign of power. I think probably that is the case.

Hitler's war making was like the old Norman war making, and like the heroics of North Korea. Hitler wanted to be a glorious German hero and leader of glorious and heroic true German people.

Some wars are not simple heroics. The British-Chinese opium wars were for commercial profits. Other wars, such as the French Revolution if you can call that a war, were for liberating peasants from an out of touch aristocracy.Similarly the American war of Independence was for liberating the new colonists from the overbearing British regime.

I can see how we can stop old fashioned conquering hero type wars, as we understand how those are wrong and unjust, and civilised nations are aware of this injustice. I hope we are on our way to recognising and stopping wars for commercial interests.

We cannot stop violent rebellions of oppressed people and we shouldn't try to emasculate those by decrying them. Such wars are today connected with commercial interests. In order to stop those commercial interests we need open government.

[Wilson]

The original poster is right, absolutely. When I was young, there were constant wars in South and Central America. Really none now, except the dying embers of one in Colombia. The only ones going on now are in Africa and the Middle East, plus Ukraine. Here's a chart showing the number of war deaths by year: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 37/?no-ist

It's human nature to always think ours is a violent age, but it isn't in comparison with previous times. It is true that a nuclear war, if one happened, would be the worst catastrophe in history, but that has to do with technology advances, not in the number of wars, and it has nothing to do with the original poster's point. I think wars become less likely as more and more people become relatively affluent - but there will always be adventurers and crazy people who are able to fire up the masses, so you never know.