The inevitability of war

**Aldgarkalaughskel** · April 13, 2008, 02:42 PM

Is war inevitable to humankind forever?

Is there a historical "necessity" to take up arms and kill each other?

Okay, let me explain my questions before you stigmatize me. I'm neither one of those (insert political ideology here) ever-complimenting pacifists, who oppose all wars, nor one of those raging (insert political ideology here) hawks who demand bloodshed for every possible cause. (I'm neither naive, I'm just interested in YOUR answers, TW fans.)

Studying history one could assume that war is inevitable. War is born in the minds, and as long as their is a slight notion of violence in the minds, there will be war.

But is war really hard-wired in our psyche? Can't we get rid of it, like we got rid of slavery? (BTW, did we get rid of slavery truly?)

Why do we have to fight, if there are other possible solutions to our problems?

edit: August 14, attached a poll to the thread. Vote and comment. (The "My Rifle" quote is from Riflemen's Creed.)

**Niles Crane** · April 13, 2008, 02:45 PM

Well, if war is hard-wired into our psyche, then I can't see how it would be possible to get rid of it like slavery, which I believe was more of a social issue.

**Stalins Ghost** · April 13, 2008, 03:01 PM

War is inevitable, but also solvable. The European Union shows that given economic stability a region is highly unlikely to enter conflict. Globalisation has also severely reduced the desire to go to war; the cost of fighting a war to international economies makes it unpopular.

**hellheaven1987** · April 13, 2008, 03:17 PM

Yes, but it is undeniable that human being love to use violence to solve problems, but only when the solution worth the blood to be sacrificed.

If you look at WWI and WWII, it is unsurprising to see that most leaders at that time (except FDR) entered war because they believed it would be "short and bloodless", yet real situation always turns things in different direction.

**Moosferatu** · April 13, 2008, 03:38 PM

It is generally inevitable. The basic instinct is to react with violence You need only to look at a situation where someone is asking for help with problems from another person/group of people. The common response is 'punch him, set fire to her car, etc'. Even if it's joking, it's what we think of first.

**Spiff** · April 13, 2008, 05:20 PM

Probably not, i think theres a difference between an individual being violent and a government convincing a population to start killing another group of people for whatever reason. Inevitable is a bit strong i think as it implies certainty - i dont think its impossible to live in continual peace, it just seems very unlikely.

**Aldgarkalaughskel** · April 14, 2008, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by Spiff

Probably not, i think theres a difference between an individual being violent and a government convincing a population to start killing another group of people for whatever reason. Inevitable is a bit strong i think as it implies certainty - i dont think its impossible to live in continual peace, it just seems very unlikely.

I think you made an interesting point. So man in itself (the human nature) may be violent, but this wouldn't cause wars, only internal fights. A war is started by a group of people (tribes), or governments or states, and raison d'etat could justify wars for other reasons than "being hungry" or "being violent with neighbors" etc.

But if you say it's possible to live in eternal peace, prove it. How is it possible?

Originally Posted by Stalins Ghost

War is inevitable, but also solvable. The European Union shows that given economic stability a region is highly unlikely to enter conflict. Globalisation has also severely reduced the desire to go to war; the cost of fighting a war to international economies makes it unpopular.

I would argue with that.
Just take a look at these maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...t_by_world_map
Globalisation has severely reduced the cost of fighting wars, as the global weapon market is really "liberal" in selling weapons to any country, military or group of bandits.

I wouldn't agree with "economic stability = peace" formula either. Just loke at those wars, that were fought by rich nations, and you'll find it problematic to prove.

**Spiff** · April 14, 2008, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

But if you say it's possible to live in eternal peace, prove it. How is it possible?

Its possible surely by virtue of free will, people choose to go to war - it is possible for them to choose not to go to war. Its just a bit unlikely to expect a group of people not to fight in face of aggression, great injustice, or in a bid for power. Its not impossible though surely, its always by choice.

**Aldgarkalaughskel** · April 14, 2008, 05:41 AM

Originally Posted by Spiff

Its possible surely by virtue of free will, people choose to go to war - it is possible for them to choose not to go to war. Its just a bit unlikely to expect a group of people not to fight in face of aggression, great injustice, or in a bid for power. Its not impossible though surely, its always by choice.

That would be possible in an ideal world. A Kantian utopia. But the real world isn't like that, my friend.

Let's admit: a lot of people don't have free will, or simply they don't use their free will to make deliberate decisions by themselves.

And for most of us, war is not a possibility that one might choose or not, it's a given fact decided by the government. Even in democracies (elected governments) it's not a matter of democratic decision-making: you may protest against it, but the war will still go on.

Only a small group of selected men can "choose" to fight war or not, and they are those, who are in possession of the weapons.

**Chaigidel** · April 13, 2008, 10:02 PM

as long as we have many governments force of arms will be an automatic consequence, with one world govt still you would have minor uprisings, you just cant hold back the urge of people to group up and try to take control of various society, its natural and good for the species.

**hellheaven1987** · April 14, 2008, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Chaigidel

as long as we have many governments force of arms will be an automatic consequence, with one world govt still you would have minor uprisings, you just cant hold back the urge of people to group up and try to take control of various society, its natural and good for the species.

Even under single government people love to revolt; just look at our beloved French Revolution, Roman Empire or even American Revolution.

**chriscase** · April 14, 2008, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by hellheaven1987

Even under single government people love to revolt; just look at our beloved French Revolution, Roman Empire or even American Revolution.

Huh? Does this even mean anything? It sounds like gibberish to me. What are you trying to say?

It's pretty hard to discuss this without defining our terms.

Can we come to some defintion of war for the purpose of this discussion? How shall we define "war"?

**Captain Blackadder** · April 14, 2008, 02:00 AM

War is inevitable it will always happen as long as any country has more then another it could only not occur is some kind of utopia situation where everyone is equal and content with what they have. As long as some one is hungry there will be war . So basically my idea is that war can be prevented but we will never reach that situation so war is inevitable.

**Thanatos** · April 14, 2008, 02:21 PM

Yes. Humankind has never changed, we just get better weapons to kill each other with.

**Watchman** · April 14, 2008, 03:43 PM

More or less. "War" is merely the use of violence to resolve a dispute most animals readily enough engage in - over virtually anything, humans being capable of abstract thought and grossly overvaluing ephemeral ideas - applied in an organised fashion on a large scale. The sort of thing whose local-scale manifestation is what law-enforcement systems to a large part exist for - and their ability to do so ultimately harks back to the system they represent being able to bring overwhelming force to bear on any domestic troublemaker if necessary...

Humans developed from hierarchical pack animals, so it shouldn't really be surprising they have quite a bit of confrontational-competitive instincts puttering about the reptile brain. We just add the ability and need to rationalise it (and, conversely, the capability of getting bummed out over it), and the ability to plan and devise tools for it.

**chriscase** · April 14, 2008, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Watchman

More or less. "War" is merely the use of violence to resolve a dispute most animals readily enough engage in - over virtually anything, humans being capable of abstract thought and grossly overvaluing ephemeral ideas - applied in an organised fashion on a large scale. The sort of thing whose local-scale manifestation is what law-enforcement systems to a large part exist for - and their ability to do so ultimately harks back to the system they represent being able to bring overwhelming force to bear on any domestic troublemaker if necessary...

Humans developed from hierarchical pack animals, so it shouldn't really be surprising they have quite a bit of confrontational-competitive instincts puttering about the reptile brain. We just add the ability and need to rationalise it (and, conversely, the capability of getting bummed out over it), and the ability to plan and devise tools for it.

It seems to me you are building your definition of war in such a way as to support your conclusion. If war is an inevitable extension of the human capacity for violence, then you can argue that the abolition of war requires the removal of that human capacity, and is therefore neither possible nor desirable.

I wonder if we cannot define war as a distinct social phenomenon, qualitatively different from the individual proclivity for violence. If so, then it might be abolished without tampering with human nature.

**Watchman** · April 14, 2008, 04:40 PM

Humans are social animals, and the priorities of the component individuals ultimately have quite a bit of effect on the decisions the group makes. I'm not saying it's impossible to avoid in the right circumstances - there are states in Europe that last fought a war well over a century ago - just that too much has to go just right and keep that way for it to be possible everywhere all the time.

Basically, you're always going to have some lot going at it against some other lot en masse *somewhere*, if only because too much always sucks for somebody somewhere. At which point the pessimistic old chestnut about "civilisation being three meals away from barbarism" is rarely far off, and because humans are hardwired to be clannish little pack-animal bastards who more often than not divide the world into "Us" and "Them", and if the push comes to shove unabashedly favour the former to the detriment of the latter.