An End To War?

is it possible for their to be an end to war?or should i say an end to conflict?(im assuming that we have the def.s of each word for the sake of not over complicating this post..lol)plato said only the dead have seen the end of war.
if war ends would conflict continue?of course.so then would it not seem logical that war and conflict while related,are two different things?and if so what separates them?
i do not believe that we can stop war short of a world govt.;but even then i would hold the opinion that massive "cleansings" or brainwashing by propaganda would have to happen.(orwells 1984?)
anyway im getting off subject,to many philosophy books haha.

but could there be an AFFECTIVE way to end war,without mass killings or the such?or are we doomed to fight,bleed,and die continually?

sorry if i got off topic or if this didnt make sense,sometimes it makes sense when the author reads it because he knows the background of everything he wrote.ok enough of me.POST!(please) :duel: :dizzy2: (where will it end)

I doubt it. People are too different from each other for there to be an end to war. Many people are also too hot-headed for there to ever be an end to war. War may become a much smaller scale affair than before, but it will continue in one form or another.

Not this side of Doom's day. There will always be war and conflict its human nature. A world government could eventually fracture and have rebellions right? And war does not have to be between States, there could very well still be gang wars and the like under a worl government.

as long as their is mankind, there is war
it's just human nature not to get along with others

Maybe in the far - far future there will be no wars , but not now!

In my mind, no war would just lead to civil war because the govenment would be deemed too weak :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

I doubt it. People are too different from each other for there to be an end to war. Many people are also too hot-headed for there to ever be an end to war. War may become a much smaller scale affair than before, but it will continue in one form or another.

---

This has to be the goal. Mankind cannot accept that wars are going on and on.
I think to end war you need
a very strong central force to secure peace and strengthen law
a common idea, so everybody can identify with this central force
a very good constitution that allows changes of law according to changes in society without war

As long as there is two people on this planet there will be conflict - peace is just a dream.

Quote:

---

As long as there is two people on this planet there will be conflict - peace is just a dream.

---

Maybe if those two people were zen buddhist monks.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

Maybe if those two people were zen buddhist monks.....

---

good point - maybe we should all become buddhists ~:)

Shave my head and beg and ... I dread to say it ... become vegetarian? Never! Never, I say! I just bought 6 pounds of beef, and I shall eat it!

If we have peace between mankind, it will only be because there are aliens to kill

Why so pessimistic? Man could reach the moon and even invent quartz watches. ~;)

I think as long as people have different interests, desires and perspectives there is bound to be conflict. In other words: forever. But conflict does not necessarily take the form of war. Due to nuclear proliferation and the spread of sensitive (and vulnerable) technologies underpinning modern societies, classic war between nation states will become too costly and therefore obsolete. New forms of conflict, less tangible, more open-ended and ought with new tactics, will take its place. Al Qaida's 'spectaculars' are merely a foretaste, and so are the 'smart' and (future) 'non-lethal' weapons and cybertactics of advanced nations.

This topic isn't really tied into history as your other thought-provoking posts were VV. It is more a philosophical question, so I'm moving this to the Backroom.

War, or armed conflict, will continue until such time as a single powerful group controls the entire planet AKA One World Government.

Then there may be minor rebellins and such but soon those would quiet down. All that would be left would be criminal activity and individual resistance, until the system collapsed, when it wouldall start over again.

So to answer the question, no.

ichi :bow:

If we have peace between mankind, it will only be because there are aliens to kill

this is the only way i see mankind stopping killing each other, a common enemy to unite against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

If we have peace between mankind, it will only be because there are aliens to kill

this is the only way i see mankind stopping killing each other, a common enemy to unite against.

---

nah - cuz you know some societies will be pro/con aliens

and well spend our whole time killing the alien sympathiser humans rather than the aliens

nah - cuz you know some societies will be pro/con aliens

and well spend our whole time killing the alien sympathiser humans rather than the aliens

well i was thinking physco killer aliens who just wanted to wipe out humans, if they were in any way reasonable humans probably wouldn't unite...

Were quickly moving toward a time when there will be no war. Global economics being what they are - its not very profitable to have a war.

Now of course there will be holdouts that must be dealt with like Saddam, but full scale world war is quickly becomeing an extinct possibility.

Remember, in Europe after 1815, there were no major wars. That blew up in 1914, and then again in 1938, Death toll? Well over 75 million. I think after WWII we started that calm-before-the-storm phase, and it'll soon end with another series of bloody wars.
History repeats itself.

Well the congress of Vienna (1814-1815) did give Europe 40 years of peace until 1853 (Crimean War) and 1864-1871 (German wars of Unification) - or 100 years of peace in terms of large scale conflict. I seriously doubt that there will ever be another major war in Europe.

Until mankind see a threat that will effect everyone (whatever that may be), so that people can see the similarities as more important then the differences, then we will continue to fight.

Don't agree with me. * BANG *
I want that thing. * BANG *
You lied to me. * BANG *
I feel bad. * BANG *

We haven't evolved very much. Violence is still given as the solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Templar Knight

Well the congress of Vienna (1814-1815) did give Europe 40 years of peace until 1853 (Crimean War) and 1864-1871 (German wars of Unification) - or 100 years of peace in terms of large scale conflict. I seriously doubt that there will ever be another major war in Europe.

---

Europe was 'the world' back then, as in the most important part of the world, politically speaking. Now the US and China are. See what I mean?
I'd say, in a good 15 years WWIII will start. Kaisers estimated Casualties? Over 1 billion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Europe was 'the world' back then, as in the most important part of the world, politically speaking. Now the US and China are. See what I mean?
I'd say, in a good 15 years WWIII will start. Kaisers estimated Casualties? Over 1 billion.

---

So you think that in the future there will be armed conflict between the US and China?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Templar Knight

So you think that in the future there will be armed conflict between the US and China?

---

Yup.
Sad thing is, if I get to chose how I'd die, I'd die during it. I don't want to live through the aftermath of it. Even if it doesn't decimate the whole world, it'll be bloody and it will definatly hurt everyone envolved in any way.

I don't know if you remember my post from over a year ago about the future war between the US and China. According to some guy who can see the future, 200,000 Chinese troops will invade North America across the Bering Strait when the US are heavily involved in the middle east - so watch out ~;)

Stretch yourself out too thin that scenario is possible as it MTW. I think the US is stretching itself, by sending "reservists" to combat zones.

I still don't see China attacking the US mainland. It is earning too much money from all those consumers at the moment. ~D If however, the US restricts China's access to oil and other resources that it needs, then watch this space.

Striclty theoretically speaking if humanity lasted forever there could never mathematically be an end to war. This is because with enough time war will crop up again due to the right circumstances coming around again. Humanity is not likely to last forever so you could say there was an end to war if the sun blew up during a long period of peace or another galactic disaster wiped us out in one swift blow. However, I think if we had warning we would have riots and quite possibly war.

I don't quite understand why several posters think war is inevitable because violence is somehow in the 'nature of the human animal'. Couldn't it be the nature of society that determines both the need for and the character of war? One thing we know for sure is that the aspect and mechanics of war have undergone tremendous changes along with other changes in society (which have, in part, themselves been the result of war): changes of scale, of political, economic and social complexity, of technology, language, education and belief systems.

To name but one example: the division of 'labour' in warfare has made tremendous strides, just like the division of labour in all other fields. During the Stone Age, war took on the aspect of brief confrontations between entire villages, clans or extended families of hunter/gatherers, with practically everyone involved in the effort of killing enemies. Nowadays, complex societies of millions of peope are engaged in extended efforts to wage war whilst only very few of them do the actual killing.

To name another example: a main purpose behind the modern drive toward new technologies of warfare is the aim to reduce the actual killing of enemies during war. If killing is in the nature of the beast, why this effort to reduce it? One thing this seems to tell us is that humans don't have a genetic make-up that simply induces them to kill. They enjoy winning, that's for sure, but they do not necessarily enjoy killing.

I'm fascinated by the question whether certain human behaviours are merely an expression of the nature of the beast, or the result of a complex interplay of human nature on the one hand, and contingency and man-made social circumstances on the other.

Historical psychologists have tried to 'subtract' all historical circumstances from certain human behaviours in the hope that they would be left with some sort of residue constituting 'pure' human nature. I don't believe they have succeeded.

So let me ask the 'naturalists' a question.

If you say that violence is an attribute of human nature, your statement presupposes a concept of human nature as an immutable disposition to act in certain ways. On the level of elementary evolutionary biology, I understand man has certain immutable reflexes. There is a proven neural substrate for those reflexes. Is there one for a complex behaviour such as war? If so, what is the neural substrate for it?

Rather than saying that violence is a human attribute, I'd rather go with the idea tha humans are readily capable of violence. They just need a reason, and since the world is full of reasons to fight I think we will always have conflict.

Since envy and jealousy are human attributes, people will always want want others have. Same with greed, people will always want more and be willing to use others to achieve that. So some will always be trying to use others, and the others will always resent that.

As long as some have more than others (more time, more freedom, more stuff, more messages from God telling them they are right and everybody else is wrong, more power, more whatever) there will be tension between humans, and from tension will come conflict, and conflict will, on occassion, be violent.

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Europe was 'the world' back then, as in the most important part of the world, politically speaking. Now the US and China are. See what I mean?
I'd say, in a good 15 years WWIII will start. Kaisers estimated Casualties? Over 1 billion.

---

How do you think this war will be fought? China taking to the US, or the US taking to China?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

So let me ask the 'naturalists' a question.

If you say that violence is an attribute of human nature, your statement presupposes a concept of human nature as an immutable disposition to act in certain ways. On the level of elementary evolutionary biology, I understand man has certain immutable reflexes. There is a proven neural substrate for those reflexes. Is there one for a complex behaviour such as war? If so, what is the neural substrate for it?

---

The ability for something to survive means they must be able to have multiple strategies and for those strategies not to be easily predictable...unlike most game 'AIs'. Strategies for even simple organisms are not immutable so why should they be for more complex ones?

Intelligent creatures can learn and hence create more strategies. So you can see humans to monkeys to dogs to keas all solving problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

Rather than saying that violence is a human attribute, I'd rather go with the idea tha humans are readily capable of violence. They just need a reason, and since the world is full of reasons to fight I think we will always have conflict.

Since envy and jealousy are human attributes, people will always want want others have. Same with greed, people will always want more and be willing to use others to achieve that. So some will always be trying to use others, and the others will always resent that.

As long as some have more than others (more time, more freedom, more stuff, more messages from God telling them they are right and everybody else is wrong, more power, more whatever) there will be tension between humans, and from tension will come conflict, and conflict will, on occassion, be violent.

ichi :bow:

---

Ichi,

this is a good analysis of the reasons of violance. Maybe you can add more abstract reasons like patriotism, intolerance ... . However, these are also reasons for crime (murderer, robbery ...) . Societies have effective ways to fight crime (even though there is still a bit left). Why should not be a way to erase military conflicts?

I know a world without war is hard to imagine. But just think of history. People could not imagine to live without slavery or to have democracy ... . Things are changing.

Imagine there’s no countries,
It isn’t hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
And no religion too,
Imagine all the people,
Living life in peace

Can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Strategies for even simple organisms are not immutable so why should they be for more complex ones?

---

Many behaviours of simple organisms such as bacteria or Republicans are immutable; a slight change of circumstance may spell extinction. And even complex organisms have simple neural reflexes -- eye-blink, knee-jerk, etcetera -- which cannot be 'unlearned'.

The word 'strategy' in itself implies a range of possible alternate behaviours. In complex organisms such 'strategies' arise out of very complex interactions between neural levels from the simplest reflex arc through the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems to the cortex. The most elementary model looks something like this:

http://www.thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/...1_p_fon_1a.gif

Now try and imagine, if you will, such a model for modern warfare in all its complexity. I can't. And while you're at it, please demonstrate the neural substrate for Nelson's decision to break with standing Navy orders regarding line tactics at Trafalgar...

Joking of course. What I mean to say is that biological models often result in what Karl Marx called 'Crusoe-ism': a model of human behaviour in isolation of its social context. Certain behaviours are presented as belonging to the 'nature' of the human animal out of which all social arrangements and interactions arise.

If warfare is the nature of the beast, how come so few people actually engage in it? It is an infinite minority that kills fellow human beings.

We need to create global laws against war and the enforce them on a global level. We don't need a global government for that, just a global legal system.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Many behaviours of simple organisms such as bacteria or Republicans are immutable; a slight change of circumstance may spell extinction. And even complex organisms have simple neural reflexes -- eye-blink, knee-jerk, etcetera -- which cannot be 'unlearned'.

---

Considering how prolific bacteria are I would assume that even they do not consistently have the same strategy for every event. Neural reflexes are not the same as stategies. Nor do all organisms of a species have the same reflexes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

If warfare is the nature of the beast, how come so few people actually engage in it? It is an infinite minority that kills fellow human beings.

---

I would say that it is a very little used strategy / low percentage chance it gets 'activated' in people.

Quote:

---

Societies have effective ways to fight crime (even though there is still a bit left). Why should not be a way to erase military conflicts?

---

Societies have ways of minimizing crime, but it will never be erased. The power and control that would allow a society to erase crime would turn out to be uncontrollable and would eventually lead to the state becoming criminal (absolute power corrupts absolutely) and hence to crimial resistance (a la Russia / Chechnya).

There is a difference between minimizing crime (or war) and eliminating it. We can (and should) try to accomplish the former, but the latter is a pipe dream and an unreasonable goal.

ichi :bow:

As long as there is a perception of benefit wars will be fought.

Also it may see to the parties that no options are left and pressure is pushing them towards conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

As long as there is a perception of benefit wars will be fought.

---

So we have to make sure that noone will have a benefit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Also it may see to the parties that no options are left and pressure is pushing them towards conflict.

---

This is also the root for terror, isn't it.
Papewaio, I think this is a very short but very precise analysis. So you have to make sure that nobody has a benefit of was and everyone has a unmilitary option to solve conflicts.
Now we have the basic concept and can work on the details ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Neural reflexes are not the same as stategies.

---

Exactly, and if we are to assume that humans are somehow genetically predisposed to complex behaviour like waging war, it must be demonstrated that there is a neural substrate for it. Otherwise, as far as we know now, war is not in our genes.

Quote:

---

I would say that it is a very little used strategy / low percentage chance it gets 'activated' in people.

---

It would seem so. You did a good job by singling out important possible motives for wars such as perceived benefits and threats. Very little to do with an inbred need for violence being a motive. But we have Freud's hydraulic vision of man to fall back on in case of emergency: organised violence as a way to give free rein to our pent-up civilisational frustrations.

Anyone just watch that tv programme on 4 about the jungle? Showed chimps organising hunts to kill other monkeys, even though they didn't need the meat, just to show who was boss. And them murdering another chimp. So might well be in our genes if they do it too. Or it just comes with being social and intelligent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Anyone just watch that tv programme on 4 about the jungle?

---

What is 4?

Quote:

---

Showed chimps organising hunts to kill other monkeys, even though they didn't need the meat, just to show who was boss. And them murdering another chimp. So might well be in our genes if they do it too.

---

What about swinging from used car tires?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Exactly, and if we are to assume that humans are somehow genetically predisposed to complex behaviour like waging war, it must be demonstrated that there is a neural substrate for it. Otherwise, as far as we know now, war is not in our genes.It would seem so. You did a good job by singling out important possible motives for wars such as perceived benefits and threats. Very little to do with an inbred need for violence being a motive. But we have Freud's hydraulic vision of man to fall back on in case of emergency: organised violence as a way to give free rein to our pent-up civilisational frustrations.

---

War is an escalation of flight/fight behaviour and many other basic responses. Also social grouping...looking after your mates is often cited as the main thing when in war... watching out for your mate on your left and the right. War can be broken down into smaller pieces and then we can see how we would react to that... how any animal may react to situations. Corner an animal and expect it to be far more violent then if you give it a way out.

Also humans are far more then just genes we employ memes for survival. We use ideas to shape us and these allow us even greater flexibility.

Quote:

---

Very little to do with an inbred need for violence being a motive

---

That would be the beat of the drums, the demonisation of the enemy, the feeling we get from seeing justice done to such evil inhumane beings, the lust of conflict... a lot of people get off on violence just go to a football match and watch the spectators...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

War is an escalation of flight/fight behaviour and many other basic responses. Also social grouping...looking after your mates is often cited as the main thing when in war... watching out for your mate on your left and the right. War can be broken down into smaller pieces and then we can see how we would react to that... how any animal may react to situations. Corner an animal and expect it to be far more violent then if you give it a way out.

---

Modern warfare have very little to do with fligth/fight behavior. The technology have put us far away from reality and therefore it's more a political and abstract thing for most people. In a modern war most casualties never get to fire their weapons.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Modern warfare have very little to do with fligth/fight behavior. The technology have put us far away from reality and therefore it's more a political and abstract thing for most people.

---

True. I'm still hoping for an answer to my question about the genetic or neural substrate for man's 'warlike nature', but it seems to me to be just an ideological short-cut. Modern war is a complex collective effort, at best a second-hand reality for some and a far-away rumour for most. Social organisation plays a much larger part in it than flight/fight and other elementary ethological principles.

'War is an activity that modern Western man prefers to banish to the remotest corner of his consciousness. Violence is blessedly absent from his everyday world of work and family, and such images of fighting as he receives come to him from distant places through television or newspapers. (..) The fact of war he cannot deny; its potential to disrupt the settled order of things his emotions will not admit.'

Introduction to John Keegan, Joseph Darracott, The Nature of War, 1981

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

True. I'm still hoping for an answer to my question about the genetic or neural substrate for man's 'warlike nature', but it seems to me to be just an ideological short-cut. Modern war is a complex collective effort, at best a second-hand reality for some and a far-away rumour for most. Social organisation plays a much larger part in it than flight/fight and other elementary ethological principles.

'War is an activity that modern Western man prefers to banish to the remotest corner of his consciousness. Violence is blessedly absent from his everyday world of work and family, and such images of fighting as he receives come to him from distant places through television or newspapers. (..) The fact of war he cannot deny; its potential to disrupt the settled order of things his emotions will not admit.'

Introduction to John Keegan, Joseph Darracott, The Nature of War, 1981

---

Simple one. War is group behaviour, and 'globalisation' makes the groups bigger then they were. Kind of an urge with a cellphone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Simple one. War is group behaviour, and 'globalisation' makes the groups bigger then they were. Kind of an urge with a cellphone.

---

Oh. OK. Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Oh. OK. Problem solved.

---

So what do we do know? Overwhelm hunger or understand women? ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Oh. OK. Problem solved.

---

What a fascinating yet cold stabbing device between my lifting apparatus! Wow you are in a bad mood today!

// looks at timetable, nope not yet friday

still, it was the truth ~D

The day we meet an outside threat, in this case it has to be another race (as something like big rocks will just have some going "it's a trick").
That way all our 'us-them' mentality can be projected onto those newcomers. Problem is just that it could very likely lead to war with them, and I think we want war with other races even less than war with ourselves.

And AII, swinging from the cartyres is the same as when we do something out of idleness. But children do swing from cartyres, so it is not that far from our behaviour.
The fact that humans aren't the only ones to engage in deliberate war (ants doesn't count) is interesting in itself. In fact humans are very peaceful compared to chimps as we can easily be in large groups of very different people. Chimps can't. So we must have evolved away from this highly aggressive behavior.
It was quite disturbing to see the look in the eyes of the chimps when they went out on their raid into another group's territory, and the way they ambushed one of them. Silence and determination, I have only seen that look in human eyes... ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What a fascinating yet cold stabbing device between my lifting apparatus! Wow you are in a bad mood today!

---

Hehe ~;)

Seriously, Frag, do you think there is such a thing as a Dutch sense of humour? You and I seem to disagree on just about everything, and deeply so - yet we share a sense of detachment whereby we can say the most horrible things without anyone being offended. You know, our favourite passtime in company is 'zuigen' - drawing out differences of opinion, subtly ridiculing others, worrying weak spots in other peoples' argumentation, etcetera.

Anyway, who am I asking? You don't even have a sense of humour. :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Seriously, Frag, do you think there is such a thing as a Dutch sense of humour? You and I seem to disagree on just about everything, and deeply so - yet we share a sense of detachment whereby we can say the most horrible things without anyone being offended. You know, our favourite passtime in company is 'zuigen' - drawing out differences of opinion, subtly ridiculing others, worrying weak spots in other peoples' argumentation, etcetera.

Anyway, who am I asking? You don't even have a sense of humour. :embarassed:

---

The dutch are horrible, you better have a sense of humour over here or you will be ridiculed alive ~D Yes there is a dutch sense of humour, which isn't the most subtle in it's subtlety. It is really offending with a wink and we dutch get it, but people visiting have a hard time dealing with it, I know that from experience. Humour is sort of a buffer zone, one can disagree but it never trancends the importance of the job at hand, a solution has to be negotiated after all; you could say that we deal with the gray area's with humour and it works. So we can disagree, but I disagree with your views and your views are only your 'dayjob', there is nothing funny about extremists. Opinions should always be respected, no matter how UTTER REDICULOUS they are, like yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Humour is sort of a buffer zone, one can disagree but it never trancends the importance of the job at hand, a solution has to be negotiated after all; you could say that we deal with the gray area's with humour and it works.

---

Wise words. You may go back to your usual nonsense. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Wise words. You may go back to your usual nonsense. :bow:

---

Thanks.

Hitler wasn't so bad ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Thanks.

Hitler wasn't so bad ~D

---

To think he could have married Stalin. Bunch of losers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

To think he could have married Stalin. Bunch of losers.

---

That russian mustache would have caused the sort of irritation to his ubertesticles that no skin friendly shampoo can counter. Funny that the biggest crime in history will be reduced to a love affair, mark my words. Why don't people understand that they were just lonely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Funny that the biggest crime in history will be reduced to a love affair, mark my words. Why don't people understand that they were just lonely?

---

Hmm. And I hear Molotov's Dad was a flaming drunk. No mystery there either.