I think that the fundamental source of war must first be identified.

Now many have said that "it's human nature", with the implication that war is an integral part of humanity. That is, if we did not engage in war, we would not be human but something else.

I however, do not agree with that stance.

As I see it, war is fundamentally an attempt to eliminate opposition to the attainment of a goal. How big the war is is simply a reflection of how many people share the opposing goals.

So the only way to completely eliminate war is to either
1) Destroy everything that is in opposition to one of the goals so that there will no longer be any opposition, or
2) Change one or both of the goals so that the goals themselves are no longer in opposition.

Obviously, #2 would be the better choice for all concerned.

Of course, that still leaves the question of "how"?

Well, considering that #1 is the domain of the military, and #2 is the domain of the diplomats, I would have to conclude that diplomacy is the only answer.

Is it possible? I think it is. But I don't think it is by any means easy. In fact it may very well be the most difficult thing man could possibly do.

While this logic should be in every politicians mind when running a country it doesn't happen.

Here is a simple example.

A fresh water lake is shared by two countries. The people use it to survive. Now the lake is slowly disappearing on both sides. So badly in fact that both sides do not get enough water to feed their people.

Now we have the problem as both leaders are pressured to do something about this.

Here are the possiblities.

1. They don't do anything and tell everyone to drink less water and use less to take baths.

2. They go to war and the conquerer takes the whole lake for himself for his people.

3. They ask for international help.

A. They get no help then we are back at 1 and 2.
B. They get help and the problem is resolved. Perhaps a high tech nation creates a pipe line that reaches a ocean to convert salt water to drinking water, or have a weather machine that can create rain clouds to rain more often. Okay, okay I am going overboard, I know. lol

But let us say that A applies. This means that now the people of the country will either suffer, which does't allow everyone to have water and deaths and diseases occur, or only one side wins to ensure that all the people get the water for a while longer.


Well this is just one example of the many problems going on around the world. Actually if you do a research you will see that "fresh water" will be a big problem in the near future for many countries.

When it comes to basic neccessities, people will do anything to attain it.

Of course if we could have had more of an international solution to the rapid population growth, perhaps this wouldn't be an issue.

Just in 50 years from now we are to have an estimate of over 10 billion people if we don't control the population boom around the world.

There are a few countries that are declining on population though, but most of them are increasing. Some more then others of course, yet add them together you will see a significance of growth.

but even then if we control the population then we have the power mongers to worry about. When a company owns a basic neccessity and can choose who to sell it to then that creates additional problems.

It is a difficult situation, but I am sure there are a few Minglers here with some solutions at hand. If they are reasonable solutions, well that is for you to decide isn't it now.

Now we have laws, courts, police forces.....etc .
People can achieve good food, prosperity ....etc without wars and destruction . Humans were not created EVILS but they turned EVILS .

Taking the "freshwater lake dispute" as a representative example, one could very easily conclude that "too many people" is the root of the problem.

But when one takes into account the fact that we actually do have the technological means to solve the worldwide freshwater situation (desalination plants come to mind) the problem really centers around motivation.

Which I think applies to the “power monger” situation as well.

I could be said that a power monger is one who's personal wellbeing is more important to them than the wellbeing of the race as a whole. But the irony is that such a viewpoint is inherently self-destructive, for if the race as a whole dies, then the power monger dies with it.

As I see it, the real problem centers around the inability of individuals to accurately predict the outcome of their actions – i.e. simple stupidity.

I think the progress of science and technology has improved that ability somewhat. For example, in our current society a person is not generally considered to be “ready for life” until they are at least 18 years old, whereas in more primitive societies (which includes the state of the so-called “industrial societies” of only a century or two in the past) that age was closer to 14 or 15. And in the most primitive societies, it was simply signaled by the onset of menses for females, and some correlative “rite of passage” for males. Both of which occurred at somewhere around the age of 12.

So in our current technological society, an individual has some 5 or 6 years advantage over the primitive societies, as far as "preparation for life" goes. Not to mention the broader and deeper information base that is available to them.

However, the technological advances themselves have brought about a condition wherein the actions of a single individual can have a broader effect on the race as a whole, than do the actions of a single individual living in a primitive society.

Which simply supports the idea that the root of the problem is “the stupidity of power mongering” and not really one of limited resources.

But as to a “solution”?

I don’t have one. I don’t know of any way to make everyone smarter.

Of course there are those who think that such result can be attained through forceful means – such as punishment or “chemical rebalancing of the brain” or brainwashing (which to me are all functionally the same thing). But personally, I think that’s more akin to the blind leading the blind. It is pretty obvious to me that those methods actually make one stupider, not smarter.

So again, “I dunno”.

The schools, the places of worship and the media do not focus on peace but keep on following the Administration agenda like a stream .
The media and the places of worship have much power in society and when they focus on something they can change it .

Actually the no wars if women ran the world thing is rather silly when you look at our evolutionary history.
Going through the trend of all of the species that have very energetically expensive babies the mothers are... well, deadly. They're either extremely poisonous or built like a truck or both.

Human females are oddly lacking when you try and figure out what weapon they deploy... until you think about how dangerous men are.

We make war because our babies are difficult to raise. Our babies are more difficult to raise because being smart isn't so much useful for living in the forest or desert but because it's useful for near dangerous neighbor groups.

...I'm pretty much paraphrasing all of this. I learned it in a lot more detail but I don't think I can go into all of it and keep anyone's attention.

Now, last year I attended a conference where many of the leading experts on human violence came together to give a series of presentations. Adding that on to how risky violence is (most of the time if you try to kill someone similar in strength to yourself they have a good shot at killing you in defense,) people are choosing these nasty things when it looks like a good option.

With totalitarian leaders there's no system to make them keep their word so there's no way to bargain with anyone that rebels and if they do manage to calm them down the next time people get riled up it's usually even worse so just killing them turns into the better option.

With inner city kids they see that a few of the people that grew up in the same poverty situation end up really successful and over the long run letting people be really successful while you barely hang on isn't better than just dieing right on the spot so they take whatever actions they think might work to also rise up.

As much as people rail against socialism the cold hard statistics make it hard to keep thinking it would be that bad. It reduces so many of the sources of violent crime and the arguments against it are "well if you left me in charge of it I'd screw up" and "I ****ing hate taxes and the stuff I'm paying them for now is good but there cannot possibly be any other good way to use my tax dollars."

believe it or don't but the past ten years are one of the most peaceful decades in all of recorded human history in terms a fatalities due to military action and crime or any other killing of humans by humans. go back another ten years and the argument can be made that never has there been two consecutive decades when the world has experienced fewer violent deaths because of mans doing. interesting to note when it was that the ussr collapsed and america became the lone superpower. the worlds policeman? ok, call us that if you must, but seems we're doing a better job than anybody in history if you call this policing. i wouldn't though.

It's an overall downward shift in violence going back as far as we've got decent records and things like the mass graves from the natives in NA before that hint that it keeps going.

Trouble is when we can recall actual images of something we naturally start to think it happens more frequently so simply the way we do news has given people who were around before it the impression that all the war related atrocities and other things happen much more often than they used to and for people who don't think their parents are idiots that pretty well gives the thought of that trend to the next generation and so on.

It's almost like the graphics were getting "better" but we've never looked past that to see what they were representing.

I don't think it matters how you rationalize it or justify it

humans fight humans

whether for money, land, water, religion, nationalism, racism, peace, justice

there will always be SOME compelling reason

it's just our nature

Men are weak, greedy, craven, lustful, creatures. They will lie, steal, cheat, and murder for a buck.
Fortunately, God in his mercy provided a counterpoise to our species innate depravity. That gift is War.
War, not peace produces virtue. War purges vice. it makes men noble and honorable, and unites him with his brothers and binds them in selfless love
dont hate war Shoku, and dont think for a second that mercy and compassion are virtues supirior to valor

Maybe no wars but a lot of back stabbing.

When you justify killing to save life then your lost as a specie.

Impossible. Wars will exist as long as man is capable of creating technology to take lives. AS long as men feel an ENTITLEMENT to anything for any reason, some will be willing to KILL or DIE for it. So , wars will always be around. From the turf wars in inner cities to the Global wars, man lusts for power and power often creates the illusion that one group of people deserve what another has or that one group has a duty to save another with a better way of life through force.

When the last human is standing amongst the desolate wreckage of this planet and all it's expired inhabitants.....violence will cease.

Well, at least violence perpetrated by one human against another would certainly cease.

How can anyone say that when the US has been killing poor, weak Iraqis and Afghans for many years now ???!!!.
The US is not the police of the world but it is the TERRORIST of the world . Iraq and Afghanistan can not defend themselves against a mighty tyrant , a bully and crazy US .
Please people learn some politics before starting showing a circus here .
.

so you get your information from politics huh? see i had five heads beating against a brick wall. you only had four.

Not all men and not all women are weak, greedy.....etc.
There are people who give their life time for humanity and good .
Mixing gold with crap does give more crap than gold .
War is a curse not a gift .
Virtue ?. Huh .
The men you know are animals in human bodies otherwise they do not do what you wrote here .

Mankind made 'god'....man INVENTED 'god'. So this statement is redundant....and delusion at it's finest.




Virtue is so far removed from the machinations and impulses mobilised into violence and 'war'...the logic of this statement is even more ludicrous than the prior one.

War encourages the most prolific examples of depravity and violence one human can do to another, it is offensive to have you espouse such utter garbage.




Valour......a propagandist delusion created to inspire fools to murder others....under the guise of 'war'.

I don't hate war.... I intensely despise the corrupted logic of ignorant fools.

Lori, that was a bumper sticker on my car.

More people = more war.

Fewer people = less war.

Fewer people = more available resources.

etc

etc

etc