Question of the Day #7

[Bootie]

Is it possible that the world (and its people) will ever learn to co-exist without going to war, or is this just a fantasy held by people who long for a peaceful world to live in. And what if anything could replace wars in deciding disputes or are wars necessary to feed man-kinds inherent need for violence and as a means to keep the worlds population down.

 

[Sempai]

Thank You, Shane!

A real difficult topic. Without going to far into the topic - First it should get fixed what is violence defined as. And what is war. To forestall it - I think violence is a necessary evil. But that don´t mean war has to be the last solution.

For me there are two types of violence - accepted violence and rejected violence. The latter one is what we are told is negative - the illegal one. So the other one has to be positive? Violence at all is neutral, honest and true. Maybe it is the most honest expression a human can do. What is important is how we use it and how we respond to it. If I beat someone in earnest I want to hurt him. That is a fact. And the other one, because of his unwanted pain, knows I want to hurt him - I´m not in line with him. But how is it if the other one loves the pain? Is it no violence anymore? It is still violence but accepted one. As it is if You go to the tattooist. He forces "violence" via his tattoo gun on Your body. But how is it if a baby cries for milk or help? It´s still violence in my eyes - again accepted one. The baby has no other opportunity to get what it wants/needs. It has no language yet and most of what the baby can do is knee-jerk. So it cries in the worst case. The mother, at least if it´s a loving one, would rather have it if the baby could tell her his needs but has to endure the "loud articulation" so long as she needs to get what the baby wants. Violence hence is a form of communication.

War! It´s a very unclear term. The only what is definitely given is that it´s a conflict delivered by violence. I´m not the opinion it has necessarily to be done by weapons. You can kill with bare hands if need occurs. The same counts for the time such a conflict lasts - it can be very swift (maybe only hours) or even last years or decades if not even centuries. For me a war is if I deliberately kill or try to kill one or more persons/beings and in return they try to kill me back "to the same time". In a wider sense one can use it for economical differences (and similars) as well.

Now to the actual answer! I think violence is part of this world and will remain it forever. Transformation/change is always violence in the one or the other way. Only absolute standstill is maybe, but only maybe, violence free. But standstill means dead/vanished. So life is everlasting violence. Death is "peace". Maybe that is the reason why religions talk of eternal peace after death?
War, as I understand the term, is not necessary at last. Or at least not as it is done today. Wars aren´t avoided by denying violence but by understanding and accepting violence as part of this world and life. With accepting I don´t mean You have to be a bystander concerning rejected violence but that violence is necessary - and if it is only to counter rejected violence.

Greetings

 

[Meat Grinder]

No. I don't see humanity ever learning to co-exist peacefully on a global scale. We can't even seem to get along for extended periods on a national scale, and sometimes even much smaller scales. Greed and jealousy are powerful motivators.

The only way I could ever see us uniting globally is if we were faced with an external threat that would threaten the extinction of our entire race.

Another possible way "global peace" might happen would be through a ruthless worldwide dictatorship that efficiently puts down any dissent.

Yep, I'm an eternal optimist!

 

[Ithikial]

Ok this is probably going to be an essay.

1) Keeping Population in Check
Factually incorrect as even the biggest wars throughout history have failed to even cause a blip on the global population charts. The net increase (births - deaths) in global population today is around 9000 people are born per hour. Therefore the 60 million killed in WW2 would be 'replaced' in 6667 hours or 278 days. (We breed like rabbits).

The only time in human history where death has been on so great a scale compared to the surrounding population was the early Black Plague years running through Europe. Today there is a strong link between education and population growth; essentially the more highly educated the less kids you're likely to have. (Smart hey!). No demographer but probably down to the more broader interests you are likely to have other than bonking like rabbits. Which is why we're seeing western countries population growth rates decline in the later 20th and 21st centuries but not in the developing and third worlds. Global population will probably hit a 'resources cap' sometime in the current younger generation's lifetime. But war itself so far hasn't caused dents in global population.

2) Can we ever live in peace?
I'm in the no camp.

Human beings are fundamentally highly emotional and intelligent beings with the capacity for stupidity. We're interested in violence, beginnings and ends. (Essentially bonking and death). It's why the biggest movie blockbusters are action films and wargamers exist in the first place. Ever since the book of Genesis we've harmed one another over any kind of stupid difference or disagreement. Resources, flags, ideology, ethnicity and faith to name the big culprits. To quote Ron Pearlman narrating that famous Fallout line: "War, war never changes."

That's not to say that all wars are meaningless. Was World War 2 simply a waste? Or was it a necessary evil that had to be overcome? (I'm assuming that's another question of the day for the future). In the end we've all thought it for either our a time in own lives or those of our children - that some things are simply worth fighting for. Unfortunately it's a case of the bigger the disagreement, the bigger the conflict to resolve it.

The only way I foresee eternal peace among the human race is when a few conditions are met: intellectual enlightenment is obtained by all and there is nothing left to fight over. These two end points can be reached by multiple pathways which is the real risk for us all.

 

[Rambler]

No, war isn't going anywhere, unfortunately, due to man's propensity for evil. We have been killing each other since the dawn of time, and we will continue to kill each other until the end of time. One of the most perceptive insights into war I've read has been from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor and theologian who was executed by the Third Reich for involvement in a conspiracy to overthrow Hitler. In a 1940 Christmas letter to his former Finkenwalde seminarians he wrote thus:

Just as time-lapse photography makes visible, in an ever more compressed and penetrating form, movements that would otherwise not be thus grasped by our vision, so the war makes manifest in particularly drastic and unshrouded form that which for years has become ever more dreadfully clear to us as the essence of the "world." It is not war that first brings death, not war that first invents the pains and torments of human bodies and souls, not war that first unleashes lies, injustice and violence. It is not war that first makes our existence so utterly precarious and renders human beings powerless, forcing them to watch their desires and plans being thwarted and destroyed by more "exalted powers." But war makes all of this, which existed already apart from it and before it, vast and unavoidable to us who would gladly prefer to overlook it all.

War lays bare the true condition of humanity, a condition that is with us always. Of course, Bonhoeffer points the reader to Christ and His salvific work and promises as the remedy for humanity's condition.

As far as something that could replace wars in settling disputes, I don't think that there ever will be anything that could do so. There will always be people groups ready and willing to fight and kill over the most mundane things, there will always be evil that arises and have to be fought against, and there will always be those who wish to oppress that will have to be resisted. As it has always been, so shall it always be. My, aren't I full of sunshine and rainbows!

Anyway, just my .02. Great question, Bootie.

 

[Strangelove]

How pessimistics you are guys...

Is it possible that the world (and its people) will ever learn to co-exist without going to war, or is this just a fantasy held by people who long for a peaceful world to live in.

Basically I believe that if we can imagine it then we may be able to make it real. That said, this doesn’t mean this is easy, close or even a linear pathway…

Erratic behavior or even propensity of people to selfishness and anger might participate but are probably by itself insufficient to lead to war.

As example, I would say that even the archetypes of “defensive wars” originated from several missed opportunity. I may take the example of WW2, assuming it as a pure defensive war for allies and assuming Hitler as pure evil (I’d be more prone to say “megalomaniac psychopath” – in the pure psychiatric meaning - but let say “pure evil”). Yet I still would ask what may have occurred:

If Versailles treaty had been more balanced

If Freikorps had not been tolerated for political purposes

If Western countries had shown less complaisance toward Nazis hopping this regimen would deal with Bolsheviks…

Please don’t take any of these individually, just ask yourself if any of these might have limited odds for WW2 (and I believe that this is the case).


And what if anything could replace wars in deciding disputes or are wars necessary to feed man-kinds inherent need for violence and as a means to keep the worlds population down.

Is war cause or consequence? I would vote for consequence.

Should you be able to develop adequate birth control and resources management then you might have peace. Should you not and odds for war get sky-high…


Ooops guess we’re just in the worst case scenario just right now.

 

[The Spider]

War is the product of looking for easy answers. Why should I reason with my fellow man when I can just shoot him? People pursue ideas with religious zeal, the truth doesn't matter. I was attending Sunday School some years ago (Yes, I do things like that) and the teacher said Christians are always persecuted for their beliefs. Being a bit of a fool, I asked "Someone persecutes you because of your religion?" She said "Yes, of course". Not getting the message, I asked foolishly, "Who?" She stopped stunned, then stammered "Well, I'm a Christian, so its normal to be persecuted". Still not getting the hint, I pursued "Who is doing this to you, its a violation of Title Five US code to persecute anyone because of age, sex, religion, or national origin." Then she stunned me. "I'm not really being persecuted by anyone, its just something that Christians say and believe." A new world opened to me at that point, I realized that most problems weren't real problems at all, just perceived problems. The bare truth shimmered into sight. I began to realize it is pointless to argue with people over perceived wrongs, because it has nothing to do with reality. Violence then becomes the only answer, because logic goes out the window and no longer applies. As long as humans retain their animal instincts, there will be violence and war.