Poll: Is war necessary?

[Ron Green]

Poll question: Poll: Is war necessary?

Many rational people believe that war is and has always been a part of human history, and that human nature will always demand it. Others imagine that we can go beyond war, and that diplomacy and statecraft can, with the right leadership, eventually disarm the world.

What do you say? Are we on an evolutionary track toward international cooperation, with Reagan/Bush as aberrational bumps along the way, or does our nature hard-wire us for tribalism and war?

(edit for tpyo):P

[Walt Starr]

1. Both

Yes, so long as we, as a species, refuse to evolve into an intelligent species, but no if we choose to go ahead and take the next evolutionary step.

[Ron Green]

3. OK, I'll bite: What is the next evolutionary step, and what are the keys

to its accomplishment, in your view?

[Walt Starr]

6. IMO, Homo sapiens is NOT an intelligent species

The next evolutionary step is peace. All that it takes to achieve teh status of intelligent species is to stop making war on each other.

[Ron Green]

14. I agree with you about our general lack of intelligence, but what really

interests me is the question of whether humans can be educated in wisdom, in some way commensurate with our education in informational knowledge. Or do we simply hope for wise rulers of the masses rather than evil ones?

[patrice]

2. War is often a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[bryant69]

4. For now it probably is necessary at times

But hopefully we can move past it eventually.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[YOY]

5. "No fate but that which we make"

We make our own fate and we decide if war is finally useless...

[Bluerthanblue]

7. if we can grow into a world where women are equal

to men- (and we aren't there yet, but at least on the way) then we CAN learn, and 'evolve'.

If we can come to see that capitol punishment is barbaric, and an oxymoron- (again, not there yet) then we CAN evolve.

If we can learn that the earth is alive, and not something for us to exploit and destroy (not even close, but beginging to learn) we can evolve, and hope for a 'future'.

Can we not learn that killing other people to 'get our own way' is worse than childish?- worse than barbaric?- because we DO have other choices, and because we understand the ramifications of our actions- with centuries of history demonstrating how poorly 'war' works in the long run-

If we can't learn to put an end to war- all war, then war will put an end to life- all life.

[Greyhound]

8. Don't know about 'forever' but for the foreseeable future

we will continue to slaughter each other in ever more imaginative ways, it is what we accel at. The only thing that can unite the (misnamed) species homo sapiens is a common enemy. Peace can always be destroyed by one asshole, and there's always at least one asshole around.

[LWolf]

9. No.

Fear, War, aggression...those are choices. They are not necessary. They will be around as long as the species continues to feed and support fear and aggression, but it's not necessary.

[yknot]

10. Bush and the republicans prove we (some of us anyway) are wired for war

With all our accumulated knowledge and understanding, and the panoply of history's conflicts laid out before us for perspective, we are just as barbaric as day one. Best option? Live well and stay out of the way.

[PatrioticLeftie]

11. Other: Both

But mostly number 1.

[ellenfl]

12. i think the eu will change the war-making dynamic.

also, we need more women in the decision-making process. women spend their whole lives negotiating not warring.

ellen fl

[ZapaPaine]

13. Interesting , thought provoking article on the subject...

This writer's take of war as being ingrained in our nature, written a couple of years ago will be a good read regarding the origins of war and whether or not we can ever contain it.


The Human Hell and the Demons of War (parts 1 and 2)

10/14/03 "ICH" -- The pages of history, those monuments to humankind’s brief rule over the planet, are replete with violence, death and destruction. Indeed, it can be argued successfully that war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and human violence against each other have defined humanity’s tumultuous existence on Earth. We are inseparable from death and destruction, suffering and violence, having become creatures addicted to the malice inherent in human evil. Turning the pages of the little we know of our own past, one thing becomes quite apparent: Throughout time, in all corners of the world, mankind has lived side by side with war, destruction and death. We have defined our existence through the self-inflicted violence we unleash upon ourselves. What is it about the human condition that espouses in us a propensity to grossly annihilate ourselves, inflicting horrendous misery onto our kind and never learning from the devastation unleashed by us onto us?

Violence and humanity were born conjoined twins out of the thick canopy of our ancestral home in the Eastern African jungles. Even in the ape-like appearance and behavior of our primate selves could our violent genes be discerned. Competition forced upon us the will to survive through the defeat of competitor groups. Wars waged high in the canopy became the first symptoms of our disease. Group versus group, competitor versus competitor, the violence ingrained in us manifested itself in the primitive battles and hollowed screams of our long-gone ancestors.

Branch to branch, foot by foot, with nail and teeth the prelude to modern warfare was born. This reality can today be seen in modern mammals of today. In time we fell off our comfortable branches high above the canopy, now bipedal and stepping forward in evolutionary exigencies, ready to take the next leap forward. As we made the savannah our new ecosystem competition once more reared its ugly head. New predators arose, new rivalries emerged. Survival of the fittest never seemed so important. Those born aggressive survived, those less fortunate perished.

Struggling over territory we fought interlopers; competing for finite resources we waged battles. Our drive to procreate pitted male versus male in animalistic bouts of combat that killed, wounded or banished. The winner of such fights controlled fertile females, claiming new forested territory as a result, thus becoming the new procreator of genetic bonds, killing off genetic competitor’s offspring if he had to. Survival of the fittest ensured that only our most able ancestors succeeded and passed on their seed to future generations. Our story mirrors that of so many diverse mammals. We are similar to them in so many ways, living, breathing and surviving in nature much the same as they have for hundreds of thousands of years. Species have come and gone, yet mammals we all remain, birthing, eating, parenting, sleeping, defending, surviving, thriving and dying in very similar ways. Behaviors and social structures, hierarchy and competition are, if studied carefully, similar in many species, including our own. We were once part of the animal world as much as the animal world was once part of us.

Read the rest: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7079.htm

[greiner3]

15. This war, if you will call it that;

Is not an excuse for hostilities. I would say that WWII and probably the Civil War were ones in which the US had a moral obligation to themselves and the world to fight. Like the Iraq War, most of the conflicts the US has gotten itself into in the last 200 years is not in the best interests of itself or the world at large. Especially for those that the imperialistic US has invaded.

[BushOut06]

16. I'd add the War of 1812 to that list

[TheBaldyMan]

17. America cannot 'go it alone'

compare the present fiasco in Iraq with the Balkans or the invasion of Kuweit. These latter actions would have been impossible without US support and the outcomes although flawed did have an outcome that can be described as non-quagmire.

Neither did these actions erode the influence of America and her allies or their standing in the international community to the woeful extent that the Iraq war has. Daily revelations deepen the impression that the USA is unable to impose its unilateral will on the rest of the globe.

International cooperation is not a case of evolutionary or historical inevitability. It is simply the lesser of a great many evils. There is no quick fix or easy answer, problems of this type are by nature complex and intractable. The PNAC wonks would like to think they have all the answers but to paraphrase Bertrand Russel the best lack absolute conviction and the worse lack all doubt.

[More Than A Feeling]

18. That's the fundamental question of international theory

Realists say war is inevitable, because the international system is anarchic, and based on the balance of power. When the balance is upset, war results. The more great powers there are in the system, the more difficult it is to manage, or if there is one great power, that power will be able to do whatever it wants, and careen out of control.

Liberal theorists say no, that by binding the world in interdependence, and establishing institutions where it makes more sense to preserve relationships through cooperation rather than attempting to gain as much power as possible, war is unnecessary.

Radical theorists say many things. Some that economic competition for markets causes it, others that having a ratio of men to women that is too large causes war. (There was a study called "A surplus of men, a deficit of peace" in which this was the conclusion) Whether or not it is inevitable depends on who you ask.

Me? I want peace. Whether or not war is inevitable is irrelevant, because there are things that I can do in my own life to work towards peace, and that is enough.

[NuttyFluffers]

19. i really, really, REALLY want to believe there's an end to war....

but that said, all empirical evidence collected in our history books/ethnohistories seems to point otherwise. and, unfortunately, due to my strong scientific method training, i find it hard to take the position that it can end 100% across the world.

that said, we can probably adopt some stylized form of war that has been adopted in several of the world's regions at some point of their history. hopefully, with lots of diplomacy, statescraft, and some ritualized violence (i'm sorry, but even at the best level of social harmony that we can find in some histories/ethnohistories, often involving stylized war, there was at least *some* violence) we might lessen it by a great degree. well, at least far less than what has been committed last century in what has been the bloodiest age humanity has ever known.

[Uncle Joe]

20. Will a technologically superior alien from another planet

discover Earth before we discover them? If the answer is yes, then all this war and fighting among st ourselves on this tiny blue marble, will turn us all in to the equivalent of Native Americans when Columbus landed. If we do not change our ways and continue to waste Earth's precious resources on war as opposed to uniting as a planet to branch out in to the universe and being the discoverers instead of the discoverees, we will not have to fight World War III to end all life as we know it.

[SPKrazy]

21. Other: War is sometimes necessary

Like as in we are actually attacked: AKA Japan in WW2

Not as in attacking Iraq to: (fill in the blank for the excuse of the week)

Self defense only in my opinion

[aikoaiko]

22. Cooperation works, but there is always the temptation to cheat (make war).

Game theory.