I’ve always been attracted to the idea that we need not have war. Thinkers both religious and humanistic have speculated for centuries what a world we could make, if we should ever lay down our arms. Of course, that is easier said than done. Writing in New Scientist magazine, John Horgan asks; “Can humans transcend warfare, or is it an immutable part of our nature?”
…there is no doubt that any announcement of the end of warfare would be premature. At the very least, though, we can confidently reject the fatalistic belief that it is innate. That assumes “we’re some kind of automata where aggressive genes force us to pick up knives and guns like zombies and attack each other without any thoughts going through our heads”, says Pinker. War is not in our DNA. And if warfare is not innate then, surely, neither is it inevitable…
In the article, Horgan references many examples of the current state of peace studies from all over the world. Promising signs? Research indicating that the past is far overidealized, and that death by violence has been in a steep decline for centuries – even the twentieth with its mechanized destruction. Increase in participatory democracy (“democracies hardly ever vote to wage war on one another”) – fivefold in the last century. And key developments, if the dream is to be realized, include universal education, empowerment of women, and widely available clean energy.
None of these developments are impossible – they are all already underway on a small scale. I’m not optimistic about an end to war, but it can be done. There’s no need to assume we must fail; if we succeed, it will be a success of our capacity for rational self-interest, of our imagination, and our will.
Should you be smoking that stuff so soon after surgery?
Really, war isn’t going to end unless and until those who profit from it don’t see profit in it. All wars find their roots in economics, in my opinion.
War isn’t likely to end for the same reason most smokers are unable to quit for good: they don’t really want to (yes, there are those who want war).
If smoking that stuff helps us visualize a world without war, maybe we should all take up the habit.
(You are referring to Chesterfield Kings, aren’t you? What else is there to smoke?)
Democracies “hardly ever” vote to wage war on each other? Does that mean that it has actually been done somewhere? That is, there has been a ballot going “Do you want to attack Canada – Yes – No – What’s a Canada?”
Or is the exception the US’s rep democracy?
Hmm… I can’t recall any instance where the public was consulted in the rush to war. Manipulated, yes, but not asked.