TED Conversations

Sid Tafler

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is war inevitable? Is it a natural state of human affairs or an aberration, absent from our distant past and perhaps, our future as well?

Human history is splattered with blood. 160 million people died in dozens of wars in the 20th century alone.
Although armed conflict still dominates the headlines, fewer people are fighting and dying in wars. Apparently, there were fewer war deaths in the last decade than any other in the last 100 years.
Go way back to prehistory, and you see little if any evidence of war. The living sites of Stone Age people are remarkably free of mass graves, fortified sites and depictions of war on cave art. Also missing are images of shields, which always rise as defensive weapons when people are attacked with spears. We can't say for sure there was no warfare 20,000 or 50,000 years ago, just that there is little or no sign that there was.
So can we abolish war, just as we seek to abolish slavery or smallpox? Or will we still keep fighting each other to settle our differences, with ever-more sophisticated weapons and techniques?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Apr 12 2012: Everyone that thinks humans are basically peaceful and emphatic – should realize what would happen if police would disappear - or be routed out as in bullying hockey riots.

    War killings peaked in 2 world wars because of enormous number of soldiers and enormous size of battlefields. Today war combat is in limited areas, mechanized and with low number of soldiers. As result - war is now very ineffective and last double or triple times without closure one way or another. And - sadly - we cannot even stop bullying within families – bullying in schools - at work – within nations and between nations. We must realize that the human specie is programmed highly ego-centric; anybody and anything – incl. nature - “be damned” - to the bitter end. The only solution would be effective international law - valid inside every nation – and international police force and justice - powerful enough to enforce and deter against violations - worldwide. Killing 9,000 in Syria – or throwing acid in the face of a woman - is international crime against humanity – and so is the hysterical greed for materialistic status-junk now destroying the suitability for life on our planet Earth.

    CO2 on Earth was made low enough - for high forms of life - by being absorbed in primitive forms of life that now is out of circulation in oil and coal. Burning fossil fuel release CO2 as greenhouse gas that will increase Earth’s temperature toward that of - Venus 450C. "Drill Baby Drill" and we end up as on Venus - all life scorched to death. Is that what our greed are going to give our children and future generations? Homo Sapient? Sapience? Even a grand of wisdom in humans - we would learn from 3 disasters of overuse of limited resourses: Vikings on Greenland, Polynesians on Easter Island and Mutineers on Pitcarn Island. In those examples the means for live were used up in short time. We have now reached total limits of our planet - food, water and air - with increasing CO2 - the bitter end.
    • Apr 19 2012: Hi, May I introduce some doubt about your ideas of CO2.
      According to Wikipedia Venus has an atmosphere, consisting for almost 100% of CO2 and having a pressure of almost 100 bar at a 10% lower gravity than Earth. It means that on Venus a bit more than one million kilogram CO2 is resting on each square meter of its surface. Here on Earth we have only 4 kg/m2 CO2. Some century ago it was only some 2 kg/m2. This increase of 2 kg/m2 is blamed to have caused an increase of temperature of 0.5 °C.
      If CO2 has the greenhouse effect it is blamed for, then, taking in account that a) Venus is nearer to the Sun where the heat inflow from the Sun is twice the value here on Earth, b) the radiation outwards goes up with the fourth power of the absolute temperature, then the temperature on Venus should be far above 5,000 °C instead of some 500°C. And that means to me that CO2 is not the cause of global warming.
      I believe that the bottleneck is not food, water or air, but the price of fuel, that will disrupt the economy.
      • Apr 20 2012: Hi Hubert - all we need to know is that CO2 on Venus give 450 C atmosphere making life impossible there. Just question; “What rise in air temperature would destroy “life as we know it” on Earth. A raise of 5 Celsius would be total disaster for higher forms of life. Only a raise of 1 or 2 degree C would be severe. The size of arid deserts would increase to catastrophic level. Then - central USA and Canadian Prairies would be uninhabitable and large human migration to temperate land to live in would be as awful as Hitler’s “lebensraum” - east. In summer electric energy supply is over-strained worldwide from air conditioning that blackout is imminent – what would a slight increase in CO2 add in heat? Global warming is fact as known from the CO2 in air made life possible only in ocean until low life forms absorbed CO2 enough to lower air-temp that life on land becone possible. That same CO2 is now put back in air by burning fossil fuel - it is as clear cut as that. The ego-centric hysteria to gain wealth is using misnomers “Producing” and “Production” – when not 1 gram of oil or coal have been produced for millions of years! It is “extraction” – and extraction is not sustainable. Solution to CO2 can never be “to burn more” - with the now double whammy of overpopulation and hysterical conversion of natural recourses to quantity of status symbols – the same as Pyramids and putting up stone Moai on Easter Island - causing disaster - quality of real life "be damned". Our entire planet is now in “the Ester Island situation” with “hysteria for materialistic false quantity of life”. That is our stone Moai in disregard for quality of real life. Clean food, water and air is needed for life – deny that and what is left. Polluted and less food - polluted and less water - pollution and CO2 in air that is our problem. Lower price of fuel just steal life from future generations. Why not ask for real quality - not just dead quantity in human life? Questions for high quality life?
        • Apr 21 2012: Hi Sven
          In order to prevent misunderstanding, lets split the problem in separate parts.
          1. CO2 or carbon-dioxide. It may be difficult for you to believe, but the whole present CO2-hype is fake, bogus, lying, nonsense, cheating, or whatever word you want to use for spreading untruth. It is proven by Venus, twice influx of heat from the Sun as on Earth, over one million kg/m2 CO2 and a temperature of only 450 °C. On Earth they say that the increase of CO2 from 2 kg/m2 to 4 kg/m2 during the last century has caused an increase of temperature of 0.5 °C. If that would be true, then Venus should have a temperature well over 5,000 °C. Calculate it your self, look in Wikipedia for Stefan–Boltzmann law and “radiative power”.
          2. The global warming might be caused by a small but steady increase of the number of sunspots during the last 120 years. I'm not sure about that, I'm only sure that it is not caused by CO2, whatever All Gore and others may say. Nevertheless politicians continue to waste money on fighting the non-existing CO2 problem.
          3. You are completely right about the wasting of energy. I have worked long days at temperatures well over 50 °C and I never needed air conditioning. The same applies for our second house we use during the summers. The temperature there is usually well over 30°C and we have no airco nor need one.
          4. There real problem is the impossibility to increase the production of oil so it will keep up with the growth of the consumption. That did doubled the fuel prizes since 2010 and further prize increases will disable our economy. We should stop using nuclear power plants based on uranium-plutonium fuel because it is too expensive and too dangerous. Look for my comment on that at some other recent conversation.
          5. North America can produce more electric energy than needed without using any nuclear or fossil fuel, nor wind turbines or solar cells and without producing any pollution. Look for my post at a question from Khayam Arif

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.