When will humans loose the trait of Warmaking?

[Desperado †]

If humans are to survive for a long period they'll need to loose the trait of violence, especially with such dangerous weapons being created. Think, we have enough nukes to destroy all life on earth three times over.

Loosing the trait would be hard of course, as a pacafist would not survive through natural selection in a world of war makers. But if a society were violence (including being a soldier) was a crime, then those people would fare worse and thus die out. But how would you enforce the law without weapons?

And you may argue in any society if there is no equallity then people wil rise up against the goverment. So maybe we must first have a working comunist regime. But how do you enforce comunism without weapons?


So will this trait, which you could argue be impossible to destroy be removed? Perhaps through science?

If it was not removed, will it indefinately destroy us?

Does war set us back or make technological advances faster (think of those that have died, but also inventions such as raydar)?

[Wheelchair]

You cannot live without war, and It's to the point where more lives are saved with War then without it, seeing as War gives people a sense of fear.

I mean, Making weapons illegal is out of the question and will NEVER happen; I believe there is more weapons in the world then people.

I'm not for war, but the Human race is meant to wage war, it is how we express extreme ambition and jealousy.

[HansDuet]

That is one thing that has pushed us to advance. Rivalry, trying to best the other guys.

Warfare is natural. It will not destroy us.

[Da Skinna]

Warfare is not natural. Anything organized isn't really natural.

It's conflict that is inherent in us. It is conflict that is instinctual for us.

Warmaking can only be minimized when we concentrate on other things... like space travel and exploration, and maybe instead of armies, we have armies of agricultural warriors, optimizing the world's fields for irrigation and farm use.

Only when we concentrate on other things, like helping each other, and concentrating on what unites us rather than divides us, only then can we minimize our warmaking.

[HansDuet]

Many animals fight for territories. Same reason why humans have fought each other many many times.

So yes it is natural.

But I would change this anytime to, like you said, concentrating on space travel and exploration.

[Desperado †]

Myself, I cannot see how so much money is spent on weapons when so many are dying of famine and malnourishment, easilly curable dissease and so on.

[gambit]

When will humans loose the trait of Warmaking?

When the final war that wipes us all out is fought.

[D.B. Cooper]

War IS natural. It is, at it's simplest, fighting for what you want. So I don't think we can lose this trait, because we can't really live without any sort of conflict.

[Desperado †]

War IS natural. It is, at it's simplest, fighting for what you want. So I don't think we can lose this trait, because we can't really live without any sort of conflict.

Often War is higher uppers fighting for what they want. What about all the peasents that get caught up in the middle of two Kings squabilling? Its not natural to build weapons with enough power to wipe out all life three times over.

[Simetrical]

War is not a natural human tendency per se. It's caused by other natural human tendencies, like ambition, fear, and the desire for vengeance. My view is that wars are obsolete even now, between developed nations, and will become so throughout the world as other nations become wealthier.

The rewards of war are less than they once were. In an information economy, waging war to obtain natural resources is not the issue it once was. Although there are a few really valuable resources left, mainly oil, they're going to become less important as time goes on. Japan is the third-richest nation in the world by GDP, and has pretty much no natural resources at all: a purely technological economy.

The penalties of war are greater than they once were, too. Developed nations trade vast amounts with each other. They're ever more dependent on one another. War means embargo, at least with the country you're trading with, and with likely its allies too. This means losing huge amounts of money. And on top of this, developed nations recognize this and will defend their trading partners militarily. An attack by, say, the US on a European country would be met with retaliation not just by that country, but by all of Europe and the rest of the industrialized world besides.

War between rich nations just isn't profitable anymore. That only leaves a couple of other possibilities. You could a desire for vengeance: for instance, America attacking Afghanistan after 9/11. But all developed nations will handle crimes committed within their borders quite competently these days. Americans feel no need to attack the British over British terrorists' attempts to attack America, because Britain does quite a competent job of prosecuting them.

Nuclear weapons are a powerful tool for peace, as well. Mutually assured destruction means a serious reluctance to fight by anyone except lunatics. How many lives would have been lost if the cold war had been a hot one? But it wasn't, because neither the capitalists nor the communists wanted a nuclear holocaust.

I think this is the first time in history that we're seeing a real shift toward peace for basic reasons. We've had hegemonies and empires that maintained peace within their domains, but empires fall. It doesn't seem that the same will happen to globalization. There's no reason to think it, anyway. I think that as soon as all nations are wealthy and capitalist enough to be linked inextricably into a network of global trade, war will be pretty much finished. We don't need any genetic modifications to get people to generally do what they perceive as being in their own best interest.

[Da Skinna]

As long as war is profitable, and driven by human irrationalities, it will continue.

"It matters not what men think of war, war endures." - Cormac McCarthy.

[Confederate Jeb]

To answer the topic question: Never.

[Simetrical]

As long as war is profitable, and driven by human irrationalities, it will continue.

"It matters not what men think of war, war endures." - Cormac McCarthy.

Yes, but is war going to continue to be profitable? It's already not, between developed nations.

[gambit]

War is nothing more than conflict. Even if all nations were to stop warring, people would still be fighting. I believe wars between nations will always take place until things such as borders, that seperate all peoples, are thrown away and we are united as a whole species... but beyond that humans, as individuals, will never stop fighting.

[roy34543]

I agree with your views simetrical , but how long is globalization going to exist? If planes become too expensive to run and cars cant use oil anymore it oculd potentially be very difficult to trade all over the world.

[Da Skinna]

Yes, but is war going to continue to be profitable? It's already not, between developed nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_is_a_racket

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."


As long as those who make money from war have their tentacles in the White House, in the Kremlin, and in the capitals the world over, war will always be on the menu.

Remember Rupert Murdoch before the Iraq war had ALL his 175 papers print pro-war editorials. He even claimed $20 barrels of oil if it went successfully.

It went well for the oil companies. It went well for the military industrial complex.

I won't say these people are in collusion. But they're certainly not on collision course.

[Fluttershy]

We will never lose this trait, I can think of NOTHING else that has brought on so many inventions or technological leaps as war. Without war or the fear of war humanitys advancement would stagnate.

[Da Skinna]

You mean the competition to wipe out faster the opponent's people?

That's how war advances.

But does it have to be killing?

[roy34543]

Cold war worked out ok.

[gambit]

War between countries is going to be humanitys own 'suicide'. It's like one big nasty battle of King of the Hill. It's not like if you take the hill for a second all the other players are out of the game. It's just gonna keep getting worse and worse, bigger and bigger guns to top the next guy, until we all just blow eachother up.

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind. ~John F. Kennedy, 1961