Is war a "fated fact of the Universe"?

[Rosie]

Just like everything else, war will have it's end. Now the question is, will it end when we die, or before?

Many people think that war is human nature, and all part of the grand scheme. In other words, we were created to kill one another. We are, whether we'd like to admit it or not, just animals. Animals kill each other, it's a fact. So, is war just a "fated fact of the Universe" as well, or is it something that we can control and one day end?

.

[cdn2wheeler]

No question that conflict is deeply embedded in our humanity. It's just that our thinking brains have evolved at a quicker rate than our deepest internal reptilian impulses. In other words, we can think our way to creating an atomic bomb, but we can't think our way out of having those aggressive instincts that cause us to create the bomb in the first place.

But it's not all doom and gloom. There are countless examples of our thinking brains getting us out of trouble before our reptilian brains overtake our common sense. We've got atomic weapons, but they've only been used in anger twice (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), despite some very close calls. There is such a thing as progress.

[Brutha]

Just like everything else, war will have it's end. Now the question is, will it end when we die, or before?

Do you mean as individuals or as species?

The percentage of people who die in a violent death has shrinked as time goes on (at least that's a historical trend).

The problem of the 21st century will be that it will get easier and easier to build weapons that kill a large number of people for small groups of a handful of people or even individuals.
And it isn't clear whether what they will do.

That makes it important to build global structures that integrate different people. Building those global structures like the UN greatly reduced the number of wars.

On the other hand you have people who think they can seperate themselves from the global sphere.
To follow local state laws instead of federal laws in the US.
Unfortunatly those are also the people who think that weapons solve problems and that forbidden weapons violates there freedom.
Those groups could turn to violent combat which could theoretically destroy global structures through a massive loss of lives.

If you don't have a countermovements like that building a powerful central instuations will end interstate warfare.

[Jennihul]

As far as humans in general, I think conflict resolution sans war is possible and achievable.

As far as specific politics, specific countries, etc...I think war is waged for different reasons but they are usually financially motivated now, ego motivated with some, politically motivated insofar as a chess game is political, and not for real 'conflicts' that couldn't easily be solved using serious and persistant diplomacy.

Men are generally in charge of politics and the world. War is generally the domain of men and a 'masculine' entity. When the world regains the balance it once had between that which is masculine and that which is feminine, war will not be chosen as often, before diplomacy. War and conflict are also a domain of the Age of Pisces. We are entering, or have entered, the Age of Aquarius where higher consciousness, peace and learning and co-operating will prevail.

So basically we have a lot to look forward to!!

Jennifer

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Brutha

On the other hand you have people who think they can seperate themselves from the global sphere.
To follow local state laws instead of federal laws in the US.
Unfortunatly those are also the people who think that weapons solve problems and that forbidden weapons violates there freedom.
Those groups could turn to violent combat which could theoretically destroy global structures through a massive loss of lives.

If you don't have a countermovements like that building a powerful central instuations will end interstate warfare.

Firstly, how is it that some people can follow local, instead of federal laws? Shouldn't they work together, and be followed at the same time?

I can't say I agree with you that those who want to jump off the train of powerful central institutions are more violent, or even more prone to commit violence.

I think pretty much the exact opposite. I think the age of empires "supercountries" is nearing its end. Little(or at least littler) countries such as Belgium or Denmark or New Zealand have shown that small countries can be very successful too, whichever way you measure success. You don't hear them being in international conflicts either(altho isn't there an intranational conflict in Belgium? between Flemish and Walloons? I'm not very good at politics..).

And I don't mean just countries. I mean everything. Little is the new big. Smaller groups of people can share the land and resources better. The only ace card big countries can play on is army and war.

And you seem to assume that those who want to break free want to seclude themselves. Maybe they just want to do their own thing, but not necessarily be secluded.

And finally, if we need large central institutions to "keep the peace", then are we really at peace? If we need all those scaffolds to keep out peace up and running, what happens when the scaffolds rot and rust and eventually fall apart? How could we live peacefully and merrily when we know that this thing is not going to last? Fear, anxiety, waiting for the first crack.

It would suck big time if we really need to build something separate from us to keep us at peace, because we ourselves are not peaceful at our roots. Even more so if you happen to have the gender of the violent variety.

[LawofAttractionHandbook]

I think all conflict lies in a lack of understanding of who we are, and our relationship to nature. If everyone embodied the belief that we're all one, we wouldn't have any of the problems we have today.

But the reason it would be difficult to convince humanity to believe we're all one lies in the polarity of deeply held beliefs about what god is, what's good, bad, right, wrong, etc. People are distracted by their ego and beliefs, and forget their true nature.

[Brutha]

Firstly, how is it that some people can follow local, instead of federal laws? Shouldn't they work together, and be followed at the same time?

I meant people who think that there shouldn't be federal and/or 'world'-laws.

I think pretty much the exact opposite. I think the age of empires "supercountries" is nearing its end. Little(or at least littler) countries such as Belgium or Denmark or New Zealand have shown that small countries can be very successful too, whichever way you measure success.

New Zealand is an isle and doesn't has much conflicts with neighbors, because it surrounded by the ocean. In addition New Zealand was part of the "coalition of the willing" that attacked Iraq.
Belgium and Denmark are actually examples that integrating into more global structures works.
The EU brought peace to Europe.

And I don't mean just countries. I mean everything. Little is the new big. Smaller groups of people can share the land and resources better. The only ace card big countries can play on is army and war.

Doing war is one of those things that smaller groups are more effective in doing in 4GW. Or at least will be in the future.

And finally, if we need large central institutions to "keep the peace", then are we really at peace? If we need all those scaffolds to keep out peace up and running, what happens when the scaffolds rot and rust and eventually fall apart?

Polictical structures usually don't rot, because they are self enforcing.

I can't say I agree with you that those who want to jump off the train of powerful central institutions are more violent, or even more prone to commit violence.

I don't think that there are violent and nonviolent people.
Whether somebody becomes violent depends on the structures around them.

If a movement radicalises (with it could in the future, but doesn't have to) having structures like militias who train for their course, improves the chances that those militias become active and actually try to burn down Washington DC literally.
Those militas quote George Washington for something like: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... A free people ought to be armed.”"
How do you do that? How do you warn rulers by using arms from time to time?
Peace is something different.

But the reason it would be difficult to convince humanity to believe we're all one

Political not identifing yourself by a nationnality but as world citizen is the same thing as become one.
When you tear down the walls between nations by building global structures it doesn't make any difference whether you are born in Belgium, the US or Kenya.
If you believe that we are all one, why should we seperate ourselves by enforcing national borders and national sovereignty?

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Polictical structures usually don't rot, because they are self enforcing.

Like Roman Empire? Like Soviet Union?

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that there are violent and nonviolent people.
Whether somebody becomes violent depends on the structures around them.

I kind of agree, even, maybe. I would just use the word "environment" instead of "structures". If we live in a peaceful environment, we ourselves would be peaceful too.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Political not identifing yourself by a nationnality but as world citizen is the same thing as become one.
When you tear down the walls between nations by building global structures it doesn't make any difference whether you are born in Belgium, the US or Kenya.
If you believe that we are all one, why should we seperate ourselves by enforcing national borders and national sovereignty?

We wouldn't separate ourselves, even less would we enforce something, like borders or sovereignty. Separation is a... conscious act, for a lack of better term. To me, separation is "now I go and leave you, good bye". What I mean is more like, evolution, also for a lack of better term. Some people just over time go and have their own ways of living. Nothing wrong with that.

It's hard for me to understand too, how we all are one, and how we are different at the same time. Easiest explanation is that we should all treat others as we would treat ourselves.

This is getting philosophical, again, but it's not a surprise really, as I don't look at war and peace through the prism of politics and international relations, etc. To me, the questions about war and peace mean that are we at our root, violent or peaceful beings? And to continue from the above mentioned, if our peacefulness depends on our environment, do we have to carry that environment all the time? i.e. do we have to work constantly to keep ourselves at peace? As I said earlier, that creates tension, which doesn't really make us more peaceful.

[A2K89]

Wars are not even started by the citizenry, but by corrupt governments - so stating that war is some natural occurrence that applies to all seems foolish. And don't even try and tell me that governments only represent their constituency when they start a war.

War is unnatural, it is a result of insanity and ego. It is a result of the worst among us being in power.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Political not identifing yourself by a nationnality but as world citizen is the same thing as become one.
When you tear down the walls between nations by building global structures it doesn't make any difference whether you are born in Belgium, the US or Kenya.
If you believe that we are all one, why should we seperate ourselves by enforcing national borders and national sovereignty?

Nations can still exist in a world full of people who consider themselves earthlings before they think of themselves as countrymen. Its hard to imagine living in this current paradigm, but its certainly possible.
Of course said nations wouldn't have border enforcements or anything, but they could still technically be called nations due to other factors. 'other factors' meaning how the different societies of the world would still have structural and objective differences. Just because a system (national differences) exists, doesn't mean the participants of the system have to take it seriously enough to war against those who are in another nation. This all depends on how governmental systems are set up, and the people who are apart of it though.

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Rosie

Just like everything else, war will have it's end. Now the question is, will it end when we die, or before?

Many people think that war is human nature, and all part of the grand scheme. In other words, we were created to kill one another. We are, whether we'd like to admit it or not, just animals. Animals kill each other, it's a fact. So, is war just a "fated fact of the Universe" as well, or is it something that we can control and one day end?

.

As far as I know, we are progressing to world with less war over the course of thousand of years.


It may simply be a matter of time before wars disappear from the face of the planet and thus enter the age of world peace.


If what I say is true, then what cause wars to decline?

[Brutha]

Like Roman Empire? Like Soviet Union?

I don't think that the word "rot" is good to describe the demise of either of those states.
There are a bunch of reasons why Rom fall. Christianity, the invasion of barbarians or the inability to rule when the relative distances become to big (today we don't have that problem, because we have airplanes and the internet to make distances in space irrelevant).
The Soviet Union also collapsed through a variety of reason, because it was unable to face its challenges (the people voted with their feet).
A state always has to deal with challenges and when I can't it can break apart.
There is always the responsibility to deal with the challenges of the day, but I don't consider that necessarily negative.

I kind of agree, even, maybe. I would just use the word "environment" instead of "structures". If we live in a peaceful environment, we ourselves would be peaceful too.

When it comes down to the action of individuals, the environment is certainly the most important factor.
On the other hand when it comes to big organizations a good environment isn't necessarily enough, when there are bad structures.

Wars are not even started by the citizenry, but by corrupt governments - so stating that war is some natural occurrence that applies to all seems foolish. And don't even try and tell me that governments only represent their constituency when they start a war.

War is unnatural, it is a result of insanity and ego. It is a result of the worst among us being in power.

Without government everyone is in power, which means the worst are definitely in power.

In tribal societies in the past there are usually a lot more wars than in our global world today.
Having a government with a monopole on force prevents the citizenry from making wars.

Nations can still exist in a world full of people who consider themselves earthlings before they think of themselves as countrymen. Its hard to imagine living in this current paradigm, but its certainly possible.

Just like cities can exist, when we see ourselves primarily as an American or as a German.
Nationstates are just taken to serious at the moment.

You don't have to fear NAFTA in the US because you fear that the US might lose it's borders and/or its sovereignty. And in the EU you don't have to fear that the EU expands.

To me, the questions about war and peace mean that are we at our root, violent or peaceful beings?

There is no root. People in violent environments get violent and those in peaceful environments get peaceful.

If what I say is true, then what cause wars to decline?

Bigger nonzero sum games through globalization.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that the word "rot" is good to describe the demise of either of those states.
There are a bunch of reasons why Rom fall. Christianity, the invasion of barbarians or the inability to rule when the relative distances become to big (today we don't have that problem, because we have airplanes and the internet to make distances in space irrelevant).
The Soviet Union also collapsed through a variety of reason, because it was unable to face its challenges (the people voted with their feet).
A state always has to deal with challenges and when I can't it can break apart.
There is always the responsibility to deal with the challenges of the day, but I don't consider that necessarily negative.

But the main thing is that they didn't last. They proved to be temporary solutions.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Without government everyone is in power, which means the worst are definitely in power.

Is badness a "fated fact of the Universe"?

Originally Posted by Brutha

Having a government with a monopole on force prevents the citizenry from making wars.

Prevents from making wars, but tensions stay. This is no better either. At one point, the tensions make something crack and it won't be pretty.

Originally Posted by Brutha

There is no root. People in violent environments get violent and those in peaceful environments get peaceful.

What if you put two people in a closed environment? I.e. basically no environment at all. Surely of course nobody can live in "no environment", we need an environment. But is that environment then separate from us? We live in environment, but we are not the environment?

[A2K89]

Without government everyone is in power, which means the worst are definitely in power.

In tribal societies in the past there are usually a lot more wars than in our global world today.
Having a government with a monopole on force prevents the citizenry from making wars.

Wow you certainly have a dire interpretation of humanity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I advocated complete anarchy as a substitute for our current slime ball of a government. We don't have to pit fascism versus anarchy, as if we can only have one extreme or the other. Please use imagination, instead of extremes.

In tribal societies in the past there are usually a lot more wars than in our global world today.

Hmm, well do you consider it impossible, for say the native Americans (before white settlers arrived) to have lived without war? IF they had the same access to knowledge and technology that we do?

Please philosophically argue that war is inevitable in a world composed of anarchy and/or weak governments, because I'm not buying it.

It might take some courage to live without big brother caring for us, but we can manage it.

[Brutha]

Is badness a "fated fact of the Universe"?

No, it's something we can prevent by creating effective structures and a good environment.

Prevents from making wars, but tensions stay. This is no better either. At one point, the tensions make something crack and it won't be pretty.

Tensions are part of life. Systems without tensions are dead.
When you have multiple people with different interest you always get tensions. That isn't necessarily bad, it only gets bad when you can't deal with the tension.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I advocated complete anarchy as a substitute for our current slime ball of a government. We don't have to pit fascism versus anarchy, as if we can only have one extreme or the other. Please use imagination, instead of extremes.

I thought you advocated natural organisation (as in how hunter&gather societies worked). On the other hand I'm not advocating facismn either.

Please philosophically argue that war is inevitable in a world composed of anarchy and/or weak governments, because I'm not buying it.

To read that argument at length it is best to start with Thomas Hobbes who layed the groundwork on our political theory.

Hmm, well do you consider it impossible, for say the native Americans (before white settlers arrived) to have lived without war?

They had a lot more wars than we do today (see TED | Speakers | Steven Pinker for more information). I don't see how technology should helped them to be more peaceful.

[Barcs]

Honestly I do not believe that war is a fated fact of the world or even universe. It is the people in power (a very small minority) that are rearranging facts to make war a fact. It seems like human nature since it's gone on since the beginning of humanity, but it's really just a select few in power that make these decisions.