Has Science Found a Way to End All Wars?

I have studied war, and luckily avoided directly participating in it. I have also studied peace, and have to agree that peace does exist where and when there is adequate food. In my judgement Food is the number one ingredient of peace. So then, the lack of it, or the manipulation of it as a weapon either naturally, or by decision represents the motive for war. Spies and mobsters know that war is a permanent state of affairs. In a real way though there is a difference between, War, and Going to War. There is also a difference between the Soldier, and the Warrior. Machiavelli says that "A struggle with nature, is not enough to create a nation." For the sort of War that we fear most, it is the urge to belong and serve under a flag that creates conditions of war that affect civilians, the non combatants. The warriors actually engage in war all the time. They are born to it same as some are destined to be doctors, or preachers or engineers. They engage in Single Combat, and when they are successful, though there is War, it is just their war, and they are successful at confining it. The Warrior fights out of love, and the soldier fights out of fear. Since the rise of the all volunteer army it is no coincidence that the tv ads aimed to raise and maintain an army use the word Warrior, more than Soldier anymore. In a very real way The Cold War worked and maintained for 50 years about as much peace as we might have reason to expect. My perfect resolution of that war would have been, and still might be Statehood for Russia. In that era there were two notable contributions that science made towards confining general war, and notably we were threatened by Apocalyptic Riot, a War that employed Nuclear Weapons has so far been avoided, and makes the little continuous Wars hardly count. (If I could have the power to outlaw across the board any weapons, and thereby confine and regulate war, that I view as a constant, it would be Bombs, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction.) As far as the other contribution Science has made, Agricultural Science is without a doubt worthy of honor. Engineers sometimes make the mistake of expecting people to act in a rational and Newtonian way. Still there is evidence that if there is enough food for everyone, there will be relative peace, and the warriors engaged in single combat will be successful in preventing general war.

"But de Waal says that primates, and especially humans, are "very calculating" and will abandon aggressive strategies that no longer serve their interests. "

Problem is humans will allways have interests ... until we become perfect. Perfection comes from love. If you love everyone, real love, care, etc, then you can confirm what is said above. LOVE, should be our first interest !

And this is an education to do. Up to know, only religion has done this, but again to a certain extent as many religious leaders have "interests" (politics, money, greed, etc). So in hwo can you trust ?

I still trust God and His Word. I believe if everyone lived up to the standards of the Bible, then wars would end - but also all of us had to become REAL christians. And i am not the only one to say it, even other religious leaders said this before, like Ghandi, etc. The hardest bit is to do it !! (here Nike can't do much)... :)

To think the world will adopt the ways of Christianity is at best naive! The Torah, the Bible and the Qua ran " the people of the book" thru out history has been used to justify going to war and to kill the "infidels" over dogma and belief in Christ and/or Mohamed.

War has and will always be hate and theivery on a grand scale.

The "Bible!" The great human fable!

Now that I've stuck my foot in my mouth! And "What!"

Moose, you are correct that many people have been killed by those who don't use God as justification. My point was not that only people who believe in God kill other people, but that religion itself is not the perfect answer. I don't think there is a perfect answer. Call me a pessimist if you will, but I don't think that people will ever stop killing each other, especially as societies grow larger. If we can learn anything from history, I think we can learn that the likelihood of success of any utopian society is inversely proportional to the size of the society. In other words, it is easier to keep a small group of people (usually like minded) happy than it is to keep a large group of people happy and content. We as humans are never going to get everyone to look at things the same way or to believe the same things or even to want the same things, and even if we could do all that...who would want to live in a world of clones? As long as people disagree, countries will disagree and as long as that happens there will be potential for war and in the world of men the potential for war means that eventually it will become a reality.

As I dont want to get into a discussion of religion or theology, I wont comment except to say that I believe that Sal is correct. The only answer to the dilemma of war is to live and teach LOVE. Live a life of self sacrificial love; it covers up all the evils of mankind (but then it isn't easy to do). I know a man who believed it and it cost him his life.

I think civilization needs a more concrete principle that we can relate to in our daily lives.

Pursue the Golden Rule; eschew jungle law, for what goes around comes around.

I'm sorry but the fact of the matter is that given a large enough sample size of people you will find aggressive subjects. There is always going to be a percentage of people who do not fall within the "norms" of society like criminals and....yes, politicians (a very thin line between them if you ask me). These people are aggressive by nature (some might argue by nurture, but that's a different discussion). Those who aspire to high political office are seldom selfless or altruistic, they are usually pragmatic and driven to obtain THEIR goals (interests). If these people are always "running the show" then how does one propose that war is ever going to end? The people in charge ALWAYS have an agenda (which is understandable and to be expected), so there will always be "interests "that will eventually conflict with the "interests" of one of the 6,000,000,000 other people out there and then there will be a "conflict" between those two people, and if they are the leaders of countries then that conflict will probably turn into a war if the issues are great enough.

I think it is irrational and juvenile to somehow think that with the direction we as humans are heading, we are somehow going to end war. With as many people on the planet as we have, there are bound to be arguments and disagreements between countries and we are bound to fight over them at one time or another. Remember that the people who wind up ruling over societies are some of the most aggressive people of all, they just channeled their aggression to better serve their own ambitions.

Oh, and no offense meant to anyone but I seem to remember a whole bunch of wars fought by people who were quoting the Bible and spouting that they were doing "God's work". So forgive me if I don't put my faith into any organized religion to get us all to stop fighting and just get along.

The article brings some good points, in an ideal eixstence, war is evitable. But as it is today it is also very profitable. When the select few that will profit from it run everything (media, military industrial complex, etc...), we will continually be tricked into it.

The people who profit the most are the people who are the furthest from the front lines. Religion is just another tool in which to mobilize the masses.

If everyone paid and profitted equally then we probably would stop fighting wars.

"If everyone paid and profitted equally then we probably would stop fighting wars."

Well, that still ignores ideological motivations such as religious, political power or unshackling oneself from tyranny.

The list of self serving people and organizations with a lust for power goes on it seams forever. Here in Minnesota we hear all the time about evil corporations, military-industrial complex, conservative Christianity, etc. ad nauseum. But if you look between the lines (and not just what the media pushes to you) you also find trial lawyers, labor unions, the environmental-industrial complex, diversity and tolerance councils, pacifist religious types, and big government socialists of all stripes. These "gentler" types can be as ruthless in the drive for power as any other type! These If one is not careful one could jump from the frying pan and into the fire.

Wars are a never-ending story and are inevitable.

If mankind would have sufficient resources (that's what de Waal is talking about), then man will reproduce faster and giving a new strain on resources. So we will always make things hard for ourselves.

Right now we are with 7 billion people on this planet. With oil getting scarse, food production and distribution will get in trouble, so a new equilibrium between resources and consumers will be introduced. That equilibrium will never be with 7 billion people, but with far less.

Current and future wars will be more and more about survival instead of trying to gain economic benefits.

I would tend to disagree that we are at or near a point where we are at a population that is controlled by available resources. We have some way to go before we've consumed more than the planet and technology can produce. Your point about wars of the future being about survival are likely not wrong, but i feel we have a long way to go to get to that point, even if technology were to go no further forward.

Heck of a topic for an engineering discussion website. Whew!