Feel free to officially answer if you think you've got a good answer,
but I'd love to see lots of comments.

Consider all the tangibles and intangibles all over the world that go
into attacking each other and defending ourselves. Huge amounts of
money. The collective intelligence of all the scientists and
researchers working in the defense industry and the military. The
organizational capabilities and collective manpower of the world's
military organizations. The effort and expense of "selling" war and
defense to the world's people. The effort and expense of protesting
war. The lives lost. The time spent in strategic meetings and
diplomatic efforts. Etc...

Tell me about what the world could look like if all those resources
were freed up for other uses. If it simply wasn't an issue anymore. If
the idea of war was so absurd that no one would ever do it. What could
we do with all that time, money and capability?

Cancer research, food production, exploration...

Or would we simply destroy ourselves with boredom and overpopulation
because making war on each other is actually a necessary part of our
survival as a species?

---

Clarification of Question by hammer-ga on 28 Apr 2003 12:37 PDT

Hmmm. Looks like we've got (as expected) a pretty wide spectrum.
However, I never said anything about wiping conflict and disagreement
from the face of the Earth. Conflict and disagreement are valuable. I
was wondering what would happen if we managed that conflict in a way
that required far less resources to be used on defense and military
areas.

For example, say digsalot and I were having an argument and, at some
point, I shook my head sadly and announced that all efforts at
settling our differences diplomatically had failed and I now had no
choice but to kill him. If I did so, I would be arrested and a group
of people would start trying to determine whether or not I was legally
sane. Settling conflicts between individuals in this way is simply not
considered acceptable or reasonable.

We have made much progress as a society in managing our differences.
While we may *want* to club our neighbor with a large stick for
letting his dog bark all night, we usually manage to find some other
way. We talk to him, we call the police, we take him to court. Some of
us still hit him with a bat or poison the dog, but most of us
disapprove of that.

What if that trend continued into larger group behavior? Or is such a
thing impossible, and bloody mass conflict is something we will never
evolve out of? Are lethal enemies the only things that can motivate
and challenge us?

- Hammer

---

Clarification of Question by hammer-ga on 28 Apr 2003 12:39 PDT

[continued]

And, if so, must those lethal enemies be other people, rather than
things like disease, poverty and hunger?

Have you read 1984 by George Orwell? It has some very interesting
commentary on war, and in particular explores war for the purpose of
maintaining the economy and corrupt political power of a nation within
its own borders, among other things.

If you are interested, it appears that the book can be found online:

1984 by George Orwell, Online version at the Literature Network
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

The world would be populated by something other than human beings, so
we wouldn't be doing anything :-)

Here's what I would call a Jewish kabbalistic perspective.  Perhaps
people from other religious or philosophical traditions will find
similarities with their viewpoints.

God is undivided, but life on this world is divided into separate
creatures.  Once there is a "me" and a "you", there is the possibility
for all kinds of conflict, including war.  There wouldn't be a need
for commandments about how not to behave -- you shall not kill, you
shall not covet, etc. -- if there weren't urges in many of us to kill,
covet, and so on.  God's creation of a world of divided entities was a
risk, since with division generally comes sorrow.  Our task in this
world is to learn how to unite, in order to achieve an undivided
state, akin to God's own.  Overcoming division is necessarily
difficult, but we must continue to try, because a unified state is as
close as we can come to perfection (or maximum happiness).

From a cultural anthropological point of view (one of many) if it were
not for our aggressive tendencies (the making of war), we may still be
living in caves.

By far, the vast majority of human technology is a spin off of our
desire to find superior weaponry for offensive and defensive actions. 
From the spear, atlatal and bow, to the benefits brought to civilian
life from the Cold War space race and more, military related research
and discovery has driven the march to a technological society.

The end of warfare may free up an enormous number of resources for
other things.  But I truly believe a world at total peace would soon
become a world of total technological stagnation or even technological
regression.

Human societies need outside enemies.  When a society has no perceived
external threat, it then turns on itself.

We are a modern example.  As long as there was a Soviet Union, the US
had a counterbalance.  We had an external threat.  Freedom was alive
and well in America.  In fact it was a time of increasing freedoms vis
a vis the civil rights movement and other related activities.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, America is lashing out at the rest
of the world by finding ever more flimsy excuses to do so in an effort
to find an external enemy once again.  Our freedoms and liberties are
in danger from our own government and the growing neo-conservative
movement.  We have lost our most valued reason for preserving
constitutional democracy; an opponent of equal power.

Without a perceived external threat, an ememy of equal or perceived
equal power, a society suffers the ravages of social arthritis.  A
social auto-immune disease, which just as it does to its biological
counterpart, will eventually destroy us from within.

It is not a matter of moralistic philosphy as to whether war is good
or bad, though many 'idealistic types' want to approach it from that
angle.

It is a matter of whether we want to live in a technological world
that will continue its march to the stars or whether we want to live
in a world in which technology will eventually whimper its last due to
social enui.

The planet's pacifists don't seem to realize, that to have a world at
total peace, they would need a world which had total thought control.

New ideas would have to be forbidden, since new ideas might create
controversy and lead back to a warlike mentality.

Independent thinking would have to be forbidden, since independent
thinking might lead to disagreement and thus lead back into a warlike
mentality.

Cultural exchanges would have to be forbidden, since cultural
exchanges may lead to disagreement or dissatisfaction and thus leading
back into a warlike mentality.

Philosophy and religion would have to be standardized and the same
practiced by all, since believing differently could lead to
disagreement and thus lead back into a warlike mentality.

Personal lifestyle choices would have to be forbidden, since one's
choice of lifestyle may cause disagreement with another thus leading
back into a warlike mentality.

The list can go on and on.

And how would we bring this situation of universal peace into
existence?

Why, we would have to force it first and then enforce it later, of
course.

Most any pacifist will admit to that.  

And of course, such force as is needed to create this Utopia is not
really warfare, is it?

:) < - - consider that a sarcastic grin.

A very good point - interesting to note that something so apparently
obvious and deeply felt is often dismissed as 'pie-in-the-sky' or
naive thinking. This, in my opinion, just highlights the depth and
power of the illusion we have created. I would suggest that in order
to bring about the fundamental change to our global political and
economic structure you raise, there needs to be a fundamental change
in consciousness.
 --
It seems clear to many that watching George Bush (as an example, but
obviously not just extended to him) gives the impression of a man who
thinks and operates strongly in terms of fear. Everything stems from
fear and defense of ego - be that defense in psychological, financial
or militaristic terms. The world we have created is a function of our
ego-driven thoughts and desires - if they come from a place of fear
and defence then this will be implemented in the  so-called material
world.
 --
The problem, as I far as I can see, is that there are too few people
willing to look at the depth and extent of the problem in the human
psyche and not purely in terms of physical survival. Until there is
more change on this level from more people, we will continue to think,
feel and act in tribal, primitive defense-led ways.

Imagine.....................nothin to kill or die for, and no religion
too.........it isnt hard to do

John Lennon

Hammer Dearest, 

I am posting this as a comment because: 
- I don't think there is a definitive answer to your question. I am
posting my opinion and basing it (as we always do in GA) on research
I've conducted.
- I would love to hear more comments on the subject.

First, I would like to add my view regarding wars. War is an
institutionalised form of aggressiveness. In a way, although it might
be claimed that the motives are different, there is no substential
difference between war and other types of potentially mortal violence
(for example: one brother kills the other, because of jealousy and
envy for God's love). It could be also claimed that most aggresive
behaviours are the consequence of deprivation/attemps to control of
some kind: deprivation in material resources (a common Marxist view),
deprivation in emotional resources (I murdered my parents because they
didn't love me).

Lenin once said "we understand that wars cannot be abolished unless
classes are abolished" (See "Why pacifism has never stopped war", The
Spark 3 October 2001,
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/wpnz/oct3-01pacifism.htm). Elimination
of classes means, maybe, that your materialist thinking of "how much
money is spent" would be ideally eliminated before that: There would
be no classes, no difference between the materialist achievements of
human beings.

However, when we think about wars in history, could we really claim
they could be prevented, unless the whole humanity changes its sinful
ways, its sense of deprivation, jealousy and especially, the thought
the violence is the way to achieve it?

And if we would lose these marks, would it make us uninspring
undermotivated generation: the sense of deprivation has not only
negative consequences, it also drives us to achieve more.

And then, if we live in a harmonic, peaceful, classless soceity, who
said that we would have the same resources?

If we leave the utopic ideal of a classless society (see what Lenin's
successors have done in the USSR) into the "real world", it is sad to
assume that right now peace is maintained only when there is a
controlling mechanism, a-la Pax Romana.

But I would leave you with an optimistic idea nevertheless. When we
look at societies that has no wars and see that they are pretty
confortable, spending their money on studd like education, health
coverage or preservation of the environment.

There are international forums for resolving differences between
nations. However, as long as people continue to elect national leaders
who feel they have no obligations to accept the decisions of such
bodies, we will continue to have wars.

I often wish we could return to that most ancient tradition in which
the kings of two warring nations fought it out in single combat to the
death to decide the issue. Not only would this prevent innocent people
being killed, it would also act as a deterrent to the wrong sort of
people putting themselves forward for leadership.

Harry Palmer, author of the Avatar materials, said:
"The mission of Avatar in the world is to catalyze the  
 integration of belief systems.  When we perceive that 
 only difference between us is our beliefs, and that 
 beliefs can be created or discreated with ease, the  
 right and wrong game will wind down, a co-create game 
 will unfold, and world peace will ensue."