[MyArete]

As a species there is one thing extraordinarily outstanding about human beings, our ability to kill. When we kill, we kill under various flags, under various rulers. These flags are not limited to the physical realm. We make war for ideas. We are the only species that does this. Christianity, Islam, Capitalism, Democracy, and on-and-on as reflecting mirrors. Millions dead. People have been, and are being, slaughtered, and righteously so. The warrior says, “I kill the infidel for God” (Can't he do this on His own?); “I kill the communist”; “... the socialist”; “... the Fascists; “ ...Terrorist.” Will we never, with true intellect, question these ideas in a powerful way? Will we be forever coaxed into believing war is justified because of this idea or that. The modern human has the ability to do what gods never have, to ability end the world. And, the dangerous part, this ability is in the hands of those with opposing ideas. If an idea is worth the the pixel that displays it, do we really need kill to achieve it? Will it not make it on its own?

Is Nietzsche correct when he said:

“It is mere illusion and pretty sentiment to expect much from mankind if it forgets how to make war. As yet no means are known which call so much into action as a great war, that rough energy born of the camp, that deep impersonality born of hatred, that conscience born of murder and coldbloodedness, that fervor born of effort in the annihilation of the enemy, that proud indifference to loss, to one's own existence to that of one's fellows, to that earthquake-like soul-shaking which a people needs when it is losing its vitality.”

Human, All Too Human (1878)

We didn't have nukes then. We couldn't bring about the end of the world then.

And here's an idea. The United States fought a very bloody war with the British to gain independence. Canada didn't.

[Mythros]

i don't think humans are the only animals that have social groups that fight amongst one another, but most other animals do not kill each other anywhere near amount humans do. the closest resemblance i can think of would be nesting insects.

if there was no patriotism of social groups would war exist?

[MyArete]

There are no animals who will die for ideas. I watched a video of a man who set himself on fire in protest. He sat until he was dead. Thats an Idea. We saw the suicide bombings of 9.11. Of course, those are extreme, and not war. Have you ever read the supposed first hand accounts of the crusaders. Talked to a modern solider, or perhaps you've been one. I was. And when we started "shock and awe" I loved it. Why? We, the US, were just. Justice is an idea.

It's interesting you bring up the insect, there are a lot of studies showing how they do not "think" at all. Has to do with pheromones, I'll not pretend I know the whole thing. The point is, human beings are the only animal that kills each other for ideas not required for survival. But, it would be foolish to think that without war life would be nice. Life would still be violent, that's its nature. Animals eat each other, plants kill each other, and there's a lot of poisons out there. But war.

Entertaining NOVA video about Ants:

YouTube- ‪Lord of the...

[WILLOW]

I believe that it is natural for living beings to kill, but I don't believe that human beings in our stage of evolution should kill. Now that we can use our logic to communicate, I think that war should have become obsolete. I understand that there will always be disagreements, but I don't understand why we have to solve problems through war. Why can't we just talk it out. But then again I understand that we humans are still young in our evolutionary process and are still getting rid of our barbarism. Maybe we can never get rid of our barbarism because I've recently watched a show called space wars. It comes on under the show called the universe and on this show they talked about creating weapons and space ships to fight wars in space just in case we got a visit from extraterrestrials that weren't friendly. My first question was, "why are they thinking that another form of life will not be friendly?" Is it because they think that since we aren't friendly and engage in war then other living beings also engage in war? I guess it is a possibility and we should be prepared. And so I agree with having weapons for protection against extraterrestrials, but I don't think that we should use our weapons against ourselves. I think we should break that chain and fill in the shoes we were meant to wear and become something bigger. Any life is a phenomenon and should be cherished to the fullest. Everyone should strive to be peaceful. We need to work harder in controlling our emotions.

[Omega]

Conflict is without a doubt inevitable, but is war? I don't think so, at least not in the classic large scale sense. It is possible that the world is so far interconnected that meaningful global players are assured mutual destruction in the event of any war. I believe that interconnected economies represents a safer and arguably more powerful deterrent than nuclear weapons ever have.

For example, people often speak of a possibility of war between China and the United States. The American business investment in China is huge, not to mention we import a ridiculous amount of Chinese goods. On the other hand, why would China want to do anything that might economically damage what is essentially their largest customer?

[MyArete]

Hmm... Omega you hide a bit of economic knowledge it seems. What do you study? And Willow, what is it you study? I've never, ever, had such an independent response to this question (or even hear of one in response to similar questions). What ARE you reading? Really, I'd like to know. And, have any of you ever read Skeptic Mag? Seems, based on response, some of you might have (or might like it).

[Mythros]

yes, yes, ants do not have complex ideas, but they do kill other nests of like ants. then again i don't know if an idea has to be complex for war to exist. you don't smell like me or your antenna is giving off a different signal has seemed to work in the past lol. anyways, my point was what you rebuttaled, killing will exist without war or complex ideas and possibly at the same extent given the problem is not settled. im not saying war is inevitable, just friction.

im going to reply more on this topic later , but atm in tipsy and i want to watch avatar lol.

[WILLOW]

Well, to put it in the simplest term, I study life and everything in it. I believe that a smart person knows a little bit about anything and everything, not necessarily alot about one thing. And I don't claim to be smart because like I always say, "my ignorance will always outweigh my knowledge."

And I think I would like to subscribe to skeptic mag since I do think I'm a skeptic. I think everyone should be skeptical about everything.

Mythros, for your first, second and third statement, I think it depends on what kind of war it is. Sure children fight, insects kill each other, animals kill each other, but I don't label that war. When one says war, I think of fighting with guns, knives and weapons of mass destruction and that I think requires a complex idea. So I guess it depends on one's definition of war. And we humans are in the highest stage of evolution that we know of and so I just think it's silly that people still fight because they look different or talk different or hold different beliefs. That fight usually progresses to war.

[TMV]

My definition of war is A group of people fighting to together against another group of people. I think all war starts because of ignorance, anger, fear, or want of what some one else has. I don't think any one can say that they have never felt one of these ever.

War starts when someone with enough power in a group feel's one of these ways toward anther group or person. So unless you can say that you will never again be ignorant, angry, afraid, or want then you wont see the end of war and you can't expect the people in power to do any better than yourself.

[MyArete]

We're going to have to agree on a definition as to what war is. Its a difficult thing to pin down. But here's one from international law that should suffice....

War is a contention between two or more States through their armed forces, for the purpose of overpowering each other and imposing such conditions of peace as the victor pleases.

L. Oppenheim, International Law, II, 202 (H. Lauterpacht ed., 7th ed., 1952).

More on the definition in this book:
War, Aggression, and SelfDefence

This definition is what I meant when I said war