Is War Neccesary to Humanity?

[rocket art]

We have now developed war to such an Art Form that it should not never be contemplated anywhere.

 

It is ugly, hypocritical, obnoxious, and deterrent to elevating humanity. Why dare relate it with Art? You probably don't know much about Art and don't know what you're talking about when you said it.

 

Certain societies may have gained much knolwedge, and among these the technology to destroy each other. But it is the lack of 'Awareness' that had kept people blinded to the path towards lasting peace, blurred by animalistic tendencies fueled by erroneous belief systems and selfish paradigms that makes one less of a human.

[Nix]

one thing war teaches people is appreciation of what we have/had and provides an impetus for advancement, and at least at the national level people tend to warmly stick together. im wondering if its worth questioning the other option to war, peace. is it possible to have a profitable, appreciative and inspired peacetime? im hoping one day when im watching the miss USA pagent that a contestant will wish for wish for 'World peace.....with no corruption, greed, loss of freedoms, squandering of resources or laziness'. ive always wanted to hear a pin drop

 

now i need to go back up my ideas with a paper on how good community was during WW11....

[Michaelangelica]

Humans are territorial animals, and as long as that's the case, I think warfare might not necessarily be necessary, but unavoidable.

A great many animals are territorial but they don't have wars.

Most manage to solve there differences with little or no injury.

 

So you think we would have fewer wars if we didn't have Nationalism?

Boerseun

an enormous resource-battle in the next twenty or so years

The Japanese fought WW2 for resources. Now they buy them.

Australia is having trouble digging them out of the ground fast enough at the moment.

 

rocket art

It is ugly, hypocritical, obnoxious, and deterrent to elevating humanity. Why dare relate it with Art? You probably don't know much about Art and don't know what you're talking about when you said it.

Whough!

I would hate to have you in charge of the red button!

 

Sorry to offend re "Art-form". I did not intend to denigrate "Art" (Whatever that is -you are right I don't know.)

I meant that we have refined war to its quintessence.

(Although quite a few artists, especially during the Renaissance,were good at using their art to create war engines and city defences eg Leonardo da Vinci, Florence).

 

 

Nix

a paper on how good community was during WW11..

Many people ( but not all) who lived though the WW2 said it was the best and worse time of their lives. Best in UK especially because of the sense of community. Many look back on it with nostalgia. How do you repeat the rush of being a spitfire pilot or a spy? People talk about life being more intense and real.

 

Then again, things were a little more black and white in WW2. Once people realised the atrocities Hitler was performing there was only one alternative.

 

My father would never speak of the war, or against the Japanese atrocities, but then he did bury his own platoon.

 

We could always get lucky and be invaded from mars.

I am not really being facetious with that remark; social psychologists have done many studies on the greater cohesiveness of a group with an external threat and a common group task

[Boerseun]

A great many animals are territorial but they don't have wars.

Most manage to solve there differences with little or no injury.

Only because most animals don't have access to vast arsenals of deadly weapons. This is a pretty useless analogy, seeing as the root cause stays the same. The only difference is hardware.

Deer will clash horns, our weapons are our horns.

So you think we would have fewer wars if we didn't have Nationalism?

Yes, without doubt. Nationalism gave us Nazism and Apartheid, all in a matter of a few decades.

 

Nationalism is bad. But maybe inevitable, as well.

[Michaelangelica]

Only because most animals don't have access to vast arsenals of deadly weapons. This is a pretty useless analogy, seeing as the root cause stays the same. The only difference is hardware.

Deer will clash horns, our weapons are our horns.

mmmm OK, you win.:)

But 80,000 years ago it would have been a rock or stick?

The technological ways we have now designed to kill each other should make war an impossible abomination. They should be a deterrent-like bigger horns.

Yes, without doubt. Nationalism gave us Nazism and Apartheid, all in a matter of a few decades.

Nationalism is bad. But maybe inevitable, as well.

I agree; but remember having this argument with a Yank who could not believe the comparative lack of nationalism in OZ. He wanted us to salute the flag etc every morning, sing songs and maybe even to revere our politicians and police etc.

Interestingly the present war-mongering government is now trying to encourage Nationalism in schools.

[IDMclean]

As I have indicated in a great many other posts here on hypography, I think that Warfare maybe inevitable, but is not necessary, nor is it efficient for advancing the goals of humanity (not the US, UK, Iraq; Humanity, as in all that is human).

 

I believe that War arises for the simple problem of suicidial ideation manifest as projective suicidal ideation (homicide). This type of thing is discussed in much (gruesome) detail by Lloyd deMause in his various writtings, availible here.

 

War like any violent conflict resolution is the affect of failure of the system to self-correct in other ways. In this case the human element is often enough a major component in the cause of this failure, though short comings of technology also can be responsible.

 

That is War is the failure of the masses to plan ahead, be aware of now, act to reduce or prevent outbreak, and creatively come up with reasonable solutions to our problems. It is the quintessential failure to communicate and problem solve effectively.

 

The good news is, that it looks like this kind of thing is becoming the exception and not the rule as violent resolution is phased out on all levels, from the individual to individual, on up to the National to National.

 

I posed a similar thread to this subject called "Age of Violence: Prehistory-21xx?".

 

My pet peeve with the very idea of war is thus: How can our species declare war on itself? Is that not like threatening suicide?

 

Even if we think of "other" countries, and "other" people, the fact remains that they are people, and we are people. Dispite any ideological, social, economic or political differences.

 

So I ask, can I declare war on myself, and if so, is there a win condition?

 

Thinking about such things gets me thinking about "Understanding Media" and "Godel, Escher, Bach: Eternal Golden Braid". Where the idea of war is like making a self-referential declaration to inflict a wound on one's own extention.

 

Isn't that generally seen as psychosis?

 

In short, No I do not think war is necessary, I do not think it is adaptive, and I do not think it will survive in majority in our near future. I think that like most things, Statistical probability will eventually select out maladaptive memes, of which I firmly believe War to be such a meme.

[Boerseun]

War can't be seen as suicide, because nations act like individual animals, or 'superorganisms', and one nation declaring war on its neighbour is analogous to one animal charging another. It can only be considered 'suicide' if the whole human race acts as little parts of the same superorganism, under one system and one government.

 

I also doubt whether warfare is a failure of the masses to communicate. As far as I see it, warfare is the failure of the masses in trusting too much power in the hands of too few people. If the people of America in the '80s were asked if they had anything against Russians, chances are that the result would be that the average American won't hate the Russians, and the average Russian won't hate the Americans. Yet, a tiny handful of Americans and Russians get to decide whether the other country should be obliterated or not. I think if it is a failure of the masses, it must a misplaced trust by the masses, if anything.

 

Your 'maladaptive meme' argument is an interesting one, but a double-edged sword. Our biggest technical advances of the last 100 years were made in the time between 1939-1945. I suspect that even our civilian economy and the sophistication and refinement of our goods and products would have been ages behind what we have today if it wasn't for one particularly uppity anti-Semitic Austrian. So, would the intense technological advance as brought forth by warfare be possible if warfare was removed from the equation? Saying that we should leave development in the hands of the free market because the profit motive will spurn it on is all good and well, but somehow, having a gun to their head* makes the scientists work much harder and faster. So, whether its bad or not, it certainly has a big positive influence on civil life, after all the blood and gore have been mopped up.

 

* No, I did not say hold guns to any scientists' head. This is purely metaphorical, describing scientists working under war conditions.

[/pre-emptive explanation for those not reading in context]

[IDMclean]

To that, I say yes.

 

As I have tried to indicate in this thread and others, War is the effect not the cause.

 

Lloyd deMause, as I have said goes over these details from far back to modern history.

 

What deMause theorizes war to be is an effect of growth panic. A type of human potlatch, in which people are sacrificed to soothe the feeling of guilt that comes with obtaining new things.

 

Also according to deMause, and some other sociological analysist, Innovation does not come from war, but from child rearing. War however does come from the panic felt by past psychoclasses (with bleed over into modern and "future" psychoclasses), and seems to be correlated to the advancement of the society.

 

Which is interesting to note given that you are correct in the assertion that a great deal of technological know how did in fact emerge at the end of the 19th century on into to early 20th century. However I must ask, are you absolutely sure that it is the war that brought these innovations, or is it the innovations that brought the war?

 

Given that the idea of "world war" would appear to have been a propagating meme of the time (H. G. Wells: War of the Worlds, 1898), I would think it does in fact bring into shadow of doubt the idea that the world wars (World War I: 1914-1918, World War II: 1939-1945) brought about the technolocial innovations that you speak of.

 

I will furthermore note that if you check for cohorts (those generations born within 20 years of one another, either before or after) for those years you get interesting results. adult children (18-25) of 1914 would have been born and raised between 1889 and 1896. Which oddly enough places within the era that the world war meme appears to have started in. Antecdotal I know, but none the less interesting and given what I have read of deMause's literature would be sufficient evidence to me, to question such a notion as "War brings technological innovation".

 

Which beyond just short comings of the idea that violence itself, or violent resolution could "bring about technological innovation" is like, to me, saying that the hammer predates the person who invented it. Unlikely at best, in my oppinion.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

http://hypography.com/forums/community-polls/6360-i-want-world-peace-yes-no-16.html#post139258

 

 

What are necessary are food and water and a vehicle to pass on our genes. After that, it's irrelevant.

Not quite. We also need something to contemplate or we'd be indistinguishable from an amoeba. I personally think that's the 'reason' we exist. Existence needs something to be aware of it. :hihi:

The passing on of our genes is our reward for contemplation.

[Boerseun]

Not quite. We also need something to contemplate or we'd be indistinguishable from an amoeba.

Who'se to say that we are?

Human cells can live quite happy, independent lives in a sufficient nutrient solution. We might simply be advanced colonies of independent cells, where organs and circulation systems and brains (made up of similarly independent cells) have evolved for the common good, and what you might perceive as your own thoughts and your inner dialogue, might simply be the collective expression of these cells' needs.

I personally think that's the 'reason' we exist. Existence needs something to be aware of it. :eek_big:

Do trees falling in the forest make any sound?

The passing on of our genes is our reward for contemplation.

...and an orgasm is our reward for passing on our genes! Which means we're contemplating sex all the time!

 

...which brings us back to warfare, of course. One of the base human emotions is lust. And if you delete all the possible opposing males from the equation, you and your tribe have a much bigger chance of spreading your genes.

 

Would it be a coincidence that a)males have exclusively engaged in combat until relatively recently, and b)raping the enemy's women and daughters was (is still, in many cases) a common theme in warfare?

 

Easy. Kill all males in the neighbouring tribe, and knock up all their women. Go home, and have a party. You and the other members of your tribe are genetically closer that your tribe and the neighbouring tribe. Therefore, even if you engage in warfare but don't impregnate any women but your fellow tribe members do, it's still to your benefit - you're spreading your genetic make-up via your kin.

 

I think if we want to know whether warfare is necessary, we should look to how other primates like chimps and gorillas operate. And the above is pretty much it. So, warfare might be nasty, but I think its a base human trait, and it will bubble up to the surface every now and then. A barfight over a girl and a world-encompassing war are two extremes of the one and the same scale, I guess.

[eric l]

I think if we want to know whether warfare is necessary, we should look to how other primates like chimps and gorillas operate. And the above is pretty much it. So, warfare might be nasty, but I think its a base human trait, and it will bubble up to the surface every now and then. A barfight over a girl and a world-encompassing war are two extremes of the one and the same scale, I guess.

 

Does that mean that we (read "the human race") have not evolved far enough to make war, well, obsolete ?

It reminds me of a quote from George Bernard Shaw's "Caesar and Cleopatra" which went something like "And so, to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honor and peace, until the gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand. " (found the text back on the internet).

In Belgium we still remember the battlefields of WW1, and one of the slogans on the memorial days is "Never a war has brought peace". (I do not know who I'm quoting here).

[InfiniteNow]

Did not one ameoba eating another initiate the evolutionary arms race? No, it didn't. It happened well before the ameoba, and happened molecularly. ;)

 

Is there a chemist in the house? I need you to explain the evolution of war! :eek_big:

[Michaelangelica]

 

Would it be a coincidence that a)males have exclusively engaged in combat until relatively recently,

3500 BC-1800 BC: The Rigveda is written at approximately this time. It mentions a warrior queen named Vishpla, who lost a leg in battle and had an iron prosthesis made, and returned to warfare.

1300 BC: Hittite fortresses dating from 1300 BC depict women warriors with axes and swords.

# 738 BC-733 BC: Approximate reign of Queen Zabibe of the Midianites She commanded armies with several women in them. She is succeeded by Samsi. Her army contains several women.

# 733 BC-710 BC: Reign of Samsi, queen of the Midianites. She fights Tiglath-Pileser III. Her army contains several women as well.

# 6th century BC: A story by Sun Tzu describes how Ho Lu, King of Wu, tested his skill by ordering him to train an army of 180 women.

# 510 BC: Greek poet Telesilla defends the city of Argos by rallying women with war songs.

# 5th century BC: Hippocrates writes of Scythian Amazons fighting battles.

# 5th century BC: The Lady of Yue trains the soldiers of the army of King Goujian.

# 5th century BC: According to Herodotus, queen Tomyris of the Massagetae fights and defeats Cyrus the Great.

# 460 BC: Herodotus describes the Amazons, a legendary tribe of warrior women who may have had a basis in reality.

321 BC: Ptolemy I Soter fights the Cyrenians. Cyrenian women make palisades, dig trenches, provide the men with projectiles, take care of the wounded, and prepare provisions.

# 3rd Century BC: Earliest graves of women warriors found near the Sea of Azov are buried at this time.

102 BC: A battle between Romans and Celts takes place. Plutarch describes it: "the fight had been no less fierce with the women than with the men themselves... the women charged with swords and axes and fell upon their opponents uttering a hideous outcry."

Complete list up to 450AD here:

Timeline of women in ancient warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Yes it is. We're just fighting the wrong thing is all.

We need to conquer death. That's the real enemy here.

We need to take up arms against the fallacies we live by and the authorities that create them.

The only weapon we have in that battle is the strength of our minds. We need to fashion other weapons to make it easier. Weapons to help us organize what we know, weapons that explain how we know what we know, and then we need to know how to use that knowledge to expose more truth about existence. And we should never fear to target what we think we know.

 

Hypography is a start and has given us a glimpse of what is coming. My gut feeling is that this is the path to world peace. We need to worship the act of discovering the truth and the methodologies that get us there. And we need to allow people, all people, a way to plug into that process.

 

That is the war we should be fighting. So, yes it is necessary to Humanity.

[gribbon]

What we should discuss, perhaps, is does peaceful negotiation with a dictator work, and how reliable is it? The only example I can think of where negotiation with a dictator has been successful was when Nelson Mandela negotiated with Colonel. Muammar al-Qaddaffi to bring to trial the two men responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.

 

[IMAMONKEY!]

War a necessity for technological growth/evolution? No way...

 

War might be slightly better than just a capitolistic economy at motivating technological growth but only for developing weapons technology...

 

The threat of war is going to motivate this anyways to some degree, and desire to make profit in a capitolistic economy is going to motivate development of technology of the kind that is just going to make our everyday lives better.

 

Not just weapons technology. Transportation, Construction, Computer, and Communication technologies have, are, and will be advanced by war.

 

Although I can see war as a positive effect on everyday technology, it is a negative factor to human survival in general thanks to the advances in nuclear and chemical warfare. I don't want a Terminator 3 happening anytime soon. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would LOVE to postpone judgement day at least until we've discovered something that can take us to other hospitable planets... So we can screw them up too in the end.

 

You all may or may not recall what an Agent from the movie The Matrix said about humans. To me it seems somewhat true. We are a little like parasites considering we use up all of our resources and then (although we have not yet we're thinking about it) move to another place. What else is space travel for in the government's mind?

 

Thanks to the arms race and our ever-advancing technology our survival seems to hang in a very delicate balance. A single button could destroy humanity (or at least cripple it).

 

I must go now to play eucher with some friends. :computerkeys:

 

Regards

[InfiniteNow]

I knew the thought I was expressing in post #29, "Is there a chemist in the house? I need you to explain the evolution of war!" ... was not new. I read something very similar today in Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, by Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Forgotten-Ancestors-Carl-Sagan/dp/0345384725:

 

 

Early enzymes had to be discriminating; they had to take care not to decompose the very similar molecules that constituted the lifeform they were part of. If you digest yourself -- the sugars that are part of your DNA, say -- you don't leave many descendants. If you don't digest others -- convenient repositories of organic raw materials and finished molecular goods -- you may not leave many descendants either. Cells of 3.5 billion years ago must have possessed some knowledge of the difference between "me" and "you." And "you" was more expandable than "me." A dog-eat-dog or, at least, microbe-eat-microbe world. But wait...

 

A time came -- perhaps 2 or 3 billion years ago -- when one being could incorporate another whole. One would nuzzle up to the other, the cell walls or membranes would pucker, and the littler fellow would find itself inside the bigger. Attempts at digestion, with varying success, doubtless ensued. Supose you are a largish one-celled organism in a the primitive oceans who in this way gobbles up some photosynthetic bacteria, tiny specialists who know how to use sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water to manufacture sugars and other carbohydrates. You'll leave more descendants if you're better than your competitors in acquiring sugar (a key building block needed to replicate your genetic instructions and to power all you do).

 

Viola... the origin of war. :hihi:

 

:D