End all wars?

Does anyone think we will ever get to a place of unity on earth where wars and the like will no longer be a problem? If so, how would wars be stopped once and for all?

Sadly, I think that this planet will eventually be free of war.

I don’t think it will be because we all suddenly learn to get along. I think it will be more along the lines of we, the human scourge, finally manage to either destroy this planet’s ability to sustain human life, or just destroy each other.

Whether it be by means of pollution, or by war, or by some hostile virus that we create, I really don’t have too much hope for our species surviving itself.

I hope I’m wrong.

You’re kidding, right? I guess I wrongly stereotyped all agnostics as believing that we were constantly evolving into a better race. Do you not believe this?

BTW, in you opinion, how much time does the earth have left?

What makes you think that humans are evolving?

What makes you think humans aren’t evolving? It’s a fact of life. Generally, it’s just a slow process.

Evolution has nothing to do with world peace.

I know it’s not cool to be optimistic about the human race, but I think world peace is possible. The world is becoming more interconnected by the minute – war just might become economically infeasible in the not-so-distant future.

  • JB

Sure we’re evolving, but no reason to believe evolution is directed towards becoming a “better race.”
Also, any number of species have become extinct in the past. And they didn’t have our ability to screw things up on a global scale. Why should we be an exception?

Sure, we can ge rid of war…after we kill each other. Morbid, but it’s probably true. I don’t think that humanity will ever be able to evolve the desire to fight for no reason out of its mentality, and I am agnostic. Being agnostic doesn’t necessarily mean that I have much faith in humanity, either.

Dinsdale: Monty Python fan? :slight_smile: Giant hedgehogs do live in aeroplane hangars at Luton aeroport, you know…

We can have peace if we do one of several things:

  1. eliminate scarcity
  2. eliminate national religious and racial identity
  3. change human nature

I could see any of the three changing, but we would be looking at a few millenium before the war disappears.

Ok, let’s not turn this into an evolution thread. Forget I mentioned it.

If there was a way to establish lasting world peace, how would it be done?

Phobos, we are evolving, but as Dinsdale stated, I am skeptical about that evolution being a betterment.

Sorry for a last word on evolution, jenkinsfan, but I wanted to clarify that I certainly did not want to suggest that we were evolving “for the worse.” I simply view evolution as essentially non-directional. Gould’s views on this issue makes sense to me. Tho people prefer an orderly unidirectional story, science doesn’t always comply. If a species evolves, it is in response to an environmental stimuli. Of course, that means I do not accept that people are the ultimate end product (or a step on the path thataway.) A fortuitous accident, but an accident nonetheless.

Re: the OP, good points by Mr. Z (as usual). Tho I’m having a harder time envisioning #3 than the 1st 2. Could you explain how that could happen?

As far as #1 goes, unless we change human nature (#3), who’s to say when I have enough?

I think #2 has promise. But I believe wars are presently being waged over disputes and perceived differences that are far more than a few centuries old. I believe/hope each new scientific discovery weans one more person from their irrational beliefs. But it seems to be working slowly.

How about a 4th option, suppression by a superior force. I guess there could be local rebellions, but if the imbalance of power were sufficient you might be able to argue that “war” no longer existed.

I just read a book in which the author discussed just this, jenkinsfan. His idea was that, as civilizations progressed, they moved through “stages.” So, there was a Type I civilization, a Type II one, and so on. He said that were were a Type I civilization right now, on the cusp of becoming Type II. At each type, there were some funamantal changes that society went through. One of the characteristics of Type II was the end of warfare due to a global governmental structure.

I’ll have to look at the book at home tonight to get more specifics…

Hey MR. Z. We partially agree on something. I thought I felt a chill. I think hell has finally frozen over. :wink:

To comment on this briefly. What causes war? Competition over rescources. People might put an idealogical or racial or religious spin on it, but it always comes down to the same thing. So if we can eliminate that, we can eliminate war. How can we do that? Easy. A socialist revolution. (well, it’s not really that easy, but you get the idea). That’s why I’m a socialist.

jenkinsfan sez:

I really do think that we’re changing, that much is evident. And, I think that the changes are increasing in pace as the population increases. More people = more breeding. Whether we’re beoming more or less homogeneous, I couldn’t tell you.

How much time do we have left? Again, I don’t know. It depends on how desperate and angry our world society gets. Stephen King wrote a story dealing with this. A young man figured out a way to make everyone in the whole world happy and content. There were, of course, dire consequences.

Darn good questions you have here. I wish I had better answers.

Is that a desirable wish? Aren’t wars an important way of keeping us on our toes – preventing us from become overly complacent. Imagine if we become a peace-oriented society :
The economy of every nation would be fundamentally altered, since most countries (especially the US) have a defense oriented economy. How many airlines will be around when the aircraft producers close shop (as a rule, it seems that airlines don’t order enough to keep the companies viable).

Whereas many people say that violence solves nothing and that there are always non-violent solutions – they are wrong. If you believe in the Bible (personally I don’t, but many do) then teaching by exalted example demonstrates that God uses violence all the time (or used to); and if it’s good enough for a major deity, then mere mortals such as ourselves would do well to emulate such an evolved (hehehe) entity. If you do not believe in the Bible, then you cannot argue that WW II would not have been peacebly resolved sans violence. And that sanctions and diplomacy are very often ineffective.

Assuming that war is to be avoided, it could be possible – well, it’s possible to have peace amongst our kind. However, if an evolutionary step occurs, then “we” will not evolve. Humans will be humans. The creatures that come after us through evolution will not be “us”. We are “human-x”… then next “step” would be “human-y” or maybe even “creature-x” species. We can hope they will be benevolant. In all likelihood, they will be smarter and more capable. The only way such an evolutionary step will happen is if it’s “hide-able”… Society and individuals have little tolerance for overt fundamental uniqueness. So, if 9 fingers per hand, transparent heads, or gills were to be part of the next step then we’d filter that out during mate selection. But if your potential mate were psychic, or had 3 stomachs, then that would be allowed to easily propogate.

I will leave it to human greed and societal selfishness to preserve the human race. I don’t think we will ever have the technology to truly eradicate even most life itself from the planet, not on a permanent basis. Not from the seas and the land, at least (sentence fragment). We are smart now, but I don’t think we have the technology to launch and position enough nukes now to destroy all life. After maybe 1-2% land and detonate, all unlaunched ones will be unable to launch and guide, much less correctly detonate. The situation is as bleak for the ones airborne when the first few go off. So, assume 99.9% of the human race gets wiped out.

That would still leave too many humans to assure true extinction. War itself would still survive within them.

Wars will die when justice becomes absolute. Perhaps, an automated greivances system will resolve problems in the future – a cyberjudge (by Microsoft, perhaps hehehe) would be presented with the particulars of the case, and would render a decision. If impartiality were absolute and enforcement ensured, then there would probably be less strife. Of course, the system would have to work on fairness and societal good, not mere letters and spirit of potentially archaic laws.

If an agressor nation challenges a smaller nation just to gain land, and to take retribution for historic “wrongs” then the war could be averted by the small nation petitioning the cybercourt for attention. If the agressor nation is wrong, then penalties are awards to the small nation from the agressor (possibly money, portions of, or entire standing armies and their hardware)…

Not that I’d necessarily want that… just one example of some kind of factor that would prevent most wars.

CodePro

I suspect we will never eliminate war though (and don’t think that I am a warmonger) I am not sure that is entirely a bad thing.

First let me emphasize that generally speaking I am a pacifist, but it seems to me that much of the technological innovations our species have made have been directly or indirectly due to military “advances”. It would be a shame to be come peaceful, yet lethargic. I suspect the agressive impulses that cause a scientist to discover more “stuff” is not altogether different from the agressive impulses that lead soldiers to war. Sort of the good side and the bad side of the same coin. do away with one, you do away with the other.

Just to reiterate the usual response at this point:

There have never been any grown up nasty wars (excluding civil) between democracies.

It also seems to be the case that as organised religion has played a less influential role in the Government of societies since the advent of democracy one of the prime, historical, cause’s of war has also been ‘exorcised’.

I wonder if the three ugly sisters of democracy > freedom > capitalism, mean that political self interest excludes war as an option and getting re-elected (that’s what matters) by putting money in people’s pockets via trade rather than conquest is the real dynamic.

Of course, there is the slight problem of what to do about the huge number of jobs dependant on military contracts – best to adopt a world policemen role. Could work.

US vs. Britain might count as a war between democracies.

Then it depends upon what you consider a democracy. India vs.Pakistan for instance(both sorta democratic but less so than the US) or Greece vs. Turkey. Israel vs. Egypt? I suspect if you look at the fly by night democracies that have popped up and gone away in the 3rd world you’d be able to find some involvingd on d. And remember until the present century the US and Britain have come close to war a number of times. There were a few congressmen advocating it during WWI (due to boarding of American ships…fortunately for the Brits,the Germans were sinking them, which obviously is worse).

My point is that I doubt democracies PER SE have a direct impact on whether we go to war. But perhaps individuals who are more “civilized”, if you will, are both a.) more prone to seek democratic government and b.) less inclined to seek war. Thus two democracies filled with pacifists are more likely to work things out without going to war.

I suppose it has to come down to definitions.

Greece vs. Turkey - (Cyprus, i imagine ?) Well, the UN are still there keeping the peace so, in one that sense, maybe. I tend to think of it as at the margins because it was fought on an Island that both laid claim to. Not a mainland invasion - it could be contained and was therefore not quite a big nasty, all out war. Not sure when both countries actually embraced democracy but it wasn’t so long ago.

Pakistan vs. India - are you citing that as a modern example of a religious war ? From the Democracy perspective, Pakistan has always been either a fully fledged military Dictatorship or, if not in name, certainly in overt influence. Nothing happens in Pakistan without the consent of the Generals.

Israel vs. Egypt - Again, weren’t the wars of '67 and '73 before full democracy in Egypt…General Nasser ?

(sorry, i’ll check the facts in the morning)