Is war necessary to the progression of humanity; or does it hinder it?
I hope these arn't too vague, but it's all I could think of off the top of my head. I'll venture to share my own views if this thread attracts any interest.
I think it is interesting to notice that chimpanzees also know "war", in the sense that they organize patrols and expand their territory, leading to higher fertility in females and stuff like that. According to some it might even help explain cooperation in humans.
Anyways...for now..my answer to them all is sort of. Is this vague? Hell yeah. I'll elaborate more laer
I look forward to it
I think it is interesting to notice that chimpanzees also know "war", in the sense that they organize patrols and expand their territory, leading to higher fertility in females and stuff like that.
Yeah, I think I saw something similar on turf wars between baboons.
indirectly it does. but not because of the war itself. but because of the inventions done for war that are latter going to be used in normal day life.
As in, competition drives technological and tactical innovation?
It's kinda late now, so I'll post my thoughts tomorrow. Really appreciate the response guys
War is necessary when it's necessary. The "War on Terror" for example would have been better served as several covert attacks on Al Qaeda as opposed to the wars we're currently fighting.
However, if we are attacked by a foreign power, then it is perfectly reasonable to retaliate.
I think that, in the grand scheme of things, war is a hindrance to humanity.
In my opinion; it only serves to strengthen divisions between peoples and cultures; when we'd all be better off united.
I've always been rather put off by the idea "to fight for one's country". I mean, surely countries form because unity and cooperation are more beneficial to the prosperity and collective security of society than division and conflict. And, if that's the case, isn't it ridiculous that these unified bodies of families, tribes, settlements and regions go on to wage war on each other? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of national unity?
Or is it the case that countries are formed by warlords, kings and emperors who subjugate their people and compete with each other for power and dynastic prestige under the guise of international war?
That depends on what you mean by aggressor. Like, who actually fired the first shot, who invaded first, who first prepared to invade, who first prepared to fire, who imposed restrictions, who threatened first... Often both sides are at least partially at fault.
However, if we are attacked by a foreign power, then it is perfectly reasonable to retaliate.
What counts as enough of an attack? Is a credible threat enough? Does it have to be a physical attack?
Yes. We've had many pointless wars that were highly avoidable, but ended being fought because some moron(s) thought it was completely necessary and somehow got the Ok. *Cough* 'Nam *Cough*
Is it justifiable?
It depends on what the end result is, and how the end result is reached.
Is waging war a part of human nature?
Yes. It's what makes us special.
Is war a legitimate form of foreign policy?
No, and I believe it's weird to think so.
Does war have a place in the 21st century?
War is being fought now, and I see no end of it in sight, so yes. Very much so.
Is war necessary to the progression of humanity; or does it hinder it?
If it's a war that eliminates hinders to progressiveness, then yes, it's necessary. If it doesn't, then no.
Is war necessary to the progression of humanity; or does it hinder it?
It depends in which way you want humanity to progress.
War will naturally progress the human race to develop more warlike inventions, thinking and morals whereas if does not exist, there is no need to develop weapons/tactics, and that time would have been spent doing something else and most likely humans would have progressed in another area.
That depends on what you mean by aggressor. Like, who actually fired the first shot, who invaded first, who first prepared to invade, who first prepared to fire, who imposed restrictions, who threatened first... Often both sides are at least partially at fault.
who actually fired the first shot, who invaded first,
those 2 is what really counts.
Often both sides are at least partially at fault.
whit the circle of violence it often looks like that yes.
Is a credible threat enough?
a threat is not a attack. so, no it's not enough.
It depends on what the end result is, and how the end result is reached.
the end result could be good while the meanings to head to war were utterly stupid. and the end results for who? there is always a loser that isn't going to justify the war.
If it's a war that eliminates hinders to progressiveness
you can call a example of a war that did this? i'm not sure i'm getting it.
there is no need to develop weapons/tactics
yea there is need. if you dont do it, then some1 els will. and then they could attack you whit your old and dusty weapons. so for the sake of defense you have to keep up whit the innovations on weaponry.
also are sometimes these innovation not used for war eventually. but to see clear in the night or the smoke of a burning house (night/heat vision). or it makes us able to have contact whit each other while being away a few 1000 miles from each other. (i-net) i think those are inventions done for warfare that have progressed humanity of it's own. (not to forget nuclear power of course)
