- Bob Jones
- Stockholm
- Sweden
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How to End War?
Surely we've reached a point by now where we - humanity as a whole - really need to wise up. Regardless of the death, destruction and immeasurable suffering that is armed conflict's gift to us, the stupendous waste of resources that maintaining a military infrastructure requires cannot possibly be considered, by anyone, as anything short of high treason against life on earth itself. The Dark Ages weren't a period in medieval Europe - we're living them now; the times where humanity is facing the biggest problems it has ever faced and still won't bury the hatchet.
So how do we change this? How do we finally put an end to all the madness? How do we get all that steel and food and power and plastic and medicines and transportation and storage and all those other resources out of this Machine of Futility and use them to maybe make sure that this planet will still be capable of supporting a significant human population in a hundred years?
How do we go about finally end war?
Debra Smith 200+
The other thing that might stop it in its tracks is if we required everyone who votes for it to go into battle first, ahead of the faceless troops who bleed and die for the politicin's mood disorder.
Robert Winner 50+
You and I are far apart on this. You advocate the removal of all standing militaries which will do nothing to stop wars. Most of what is going on today is regional conflicts not declared wars. Good luck. Bob.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
You are incorrect and correct.
As for where you're incorrect: Neither the Qu'ran nor the Bible calls for the killing of non-believers. Both call for peace. I have no interest in debating religious texts or doctrines with you as it would disrespect the intent of Bob's dialogue.
And, as for correct, I'd say you're correct to find hope in small victories that can lead larger peace.
Andrea
Robert Winner 50+
Thanks for your reply. All the best. Bob.
peter lindsay 30+
Bob Jones
I would, however, like to thank the notable exceptions: Andrea Grazzini Walstrom, Roy Bourque, Kent Spencer, Optimus Prime and Kareem UZ. Thanks, guys; you're beacons of hope and I want you to know that, time down the line, when the TED administrators start asking "Who the hell IS this self-righteous, elitist, prick Bob Jones?", I'll be pointing my finger at you saying "They made me want to stick around!"
I will come back to this and share some thoughts I have around the issue when I'm not quite as emotionally drained as going through this entire thread has left me. For now, I'm going to read Andrea's essay and hope against hope that it's not yet too late for humanity to come to its senses.
Alan Huckle
Alan Huckle
Robert Winner 50+
To "end war" is most likely impossible ... to eliminate some of the root evils that "cause" wars is possible and should become the focus. Any reduction is armed hostilities is a win.
To blame all military men and women for war is silly. I served and obeyed orders. Some I liked and some not so much. But I will not shoot all lions because Danial was thrown in the lions den.
This part is personal I make no apoligies.
I will not abide a coward that runs to Canada to avoid the war and later asks for respect as Commander in Chief or an actress that provides aide and comfort to the enemy of her country. War is hell as Sherman said, but to live under the blanket of security that the soldier has provided and then curse his profession is not tolerable. I fought for the right of people to disagree but I will never respect or befriend traitors to our country. I have been there and have earned this right ... freedom ain't cheap. God Bless America.
All the best. Bob.
peter lindsay 30+
Robert Winner 50+
peter lindsay 30+
Bob Jones
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what these "root evils" are and how you propose that we might go about ending them. Also, I'd much like to hear why you think not fighting wars anymore to be an impossibility.
Josh S
I understand where you are coming from in saying that we change situations and mindsets and what-not, and you think that will stop war. I do not debate this, il even give an example: 50 years ago there was much strife between blacks and whites, but mindsets have changed, and so has the rates of incidence.
However, all war is not because of survival. In the vast majority of wars, the cause is economic. They are not fighting for vital or neccesray-for-life goods but are fighting simply to increase their own wealth. This is a part of humans, it is a part of all life, to be the best. It is social darwinism in its rawest. The craving to be better then others. There is unfortunately, no getting around this simply because it is in us all to some extent. Some more then others, will act on this innate quality, and wars are started because of it.
The only way to stop all war is to stop being human; to stop having emotions and opinions. There is no feasible way of doing this, and i dont think anybody would want to do this if they had the option, so that is why i believe there will always be war.
Bob Jones
Josh S
shawn disney 10+
Comment deleted
Bob Jones
Josh S
Essentially, as long as their is opinions there will be war. Pacifists will want to talk it out but when it comes down to it, we can look to history to see what comes of 'talking it out'. We talked it out with Germany in the later 1930s and essentially gave them countries hoping they would stop. At the heart of the matter, it took steel, blood, and bullets to ultimately put an end to Nazi Germany and no amount of talking would stop it.
Hitler took his position without a single person being killed, and would not be stopped unless a war happened.
This same story has been seen throughout history, and proves that pacifism is impossible. This may be hard to swallow by many, but it is unfortunately the case when you are dealing with humans
Roy Bourque 20+
I don't believe that war is about opinions, I believe it is about survival. When needs are not being met, someone seeks for a way to meet those needs. Often it comes down to finding someone or something to place the blame on, and then you demonize that cause to will people to fight it.
What you haven't said is what makes a Hitler? How can someone come to that frame of mind? Are they born that way, or does something lead them in that direction?
Pacifism may not stop war, but it may lead one to alternate possibilities. In war torn countries like Somalia, there is so much sabotage going on that you can't build an infrastructure to get beyond the condition that exists. How do you change that mindset? It is easy to say that you can't. We have to get beyond "you can't" and figure out how you can.
Optimus Prime
Comment deleted
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
Bob Jones
Bob Jones
edward long 100+
Until then, someone has to refuse to cower and give in to the aggressors. To call those who choose to stand against tyranny, evil, and greed "responsible for the continuation of wars" is like calling firefighters responsible for the continuation of structure fires, or blaming police for crime. Rediculous, Bob, rediculous. Do you have a proposal for ridding the planet of evil, greedy people?
shawn disney 10+
peter lindsay 30+
shawn disney 10+
peter lindsay 30+
Bob Jones
Luke Monahan
If you have two people living in a house and they have arguments, your natural intuition might be to find a way to end the arguments but some conflict is necessary for a relationship to work. If you found a way to keep them from arguing at all, I think it could ultimately be detrimental to their relationship.
To say that there is a huge difference between my example and a war would be an understatement but I can't help thinking that war itself can resolve issues that could in the long run be more detrimental than the war if left unresolved.
Should the objective really be to end war?
shawn disney 10+
Luke Monahan
The death toll of the war itself was much greater than that of 9/11 but assuming there was no war and the Taliban was allowed to plan further and presumably worsening attacks, could the toll have eventually been worse than that of the invasion?
Even if you reject this specific argument based on some situation specific semantics, surely you can see how the complete elimination of war could prove to be detrimental at least sometimes.
shawn disney 10+
As to your other point: I think it was Sherman who said something like "it is well that War is so terrible, otherwise we should get too fond of it.". True. Good reason to get rid of it. But I don't mean by Pacifism: what Imean is that rather than War is we understand it, what the world needs is a Police Force. Not self-appointed Vigilantes who have some ulterior motives, like the gang in Afghanistan and Iraq, but a professional, neutral force that can intervene in these cases of massacring civilians, like Syria, or Ruanda,, etc. These shoud be like the British Police, impartial, only there to keep the peace, according to Law. (which we would have to provide them with, since there is no such thing as International Law at present, only the sham of Treaties., larded over with "National Interests")
Bob Jones
Luke Monahan
The shift from single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms could be seen as an analogy to the end to war on the micro scale.
Single celled organisms never actually have organised wars as we know them as far as I know but for my point that's not overly important.
The cells of multi-cellular organism are completely harmonious but also completely bound to their role in the system, freedom is detrimental.
I think we are in the very very early stages of undergoing a similar shift where we've come from small tribes to cities to nations to a global organism.
We have a criminal justice system which takes individuals which are detrimental to the system out of the system and over time as the system becomes more sophisticated and reliant on the correct functioning of it's cells (people) the laws will becomes more and more restrictive.
If I'm right about this being the direction that we are unwittingly shifting in then, you're right, we will doubtlessly see the end of war itself in the process but I wouldn't be surprised to also see the end of personal freedom as well.
Bob Jones
Luke Monahan
All I really got from your post was that everything points to the inescapable conclusion that war will end.
I suppose I could have choose one of the subjects (social, emotional, philosophical, political but, most importantly, economical) you listed and started a debate about whether it specifically did point to your conclusion but I didn't see much point in that since you seemed pretty convinced.
Instead I took your conclusion as a given and looked for a way to analyse it. The single celled to multi celled analogy seemed like a good place to start.
I have to say I like your idea of the system accommodating it's cells rather than the other way around. It's an approach which should be obvious but i hadn't really considered it.
Mitch SMith 50+
I think Steve Pinker's talk on violence has a clue.
He Indicates empathy as the operating factor that has systematically reduced violence in the world over time.
So, from his analysis, the end of war is inevitable.
The true question is - "How do we achieve peace in time?"
To which the answer must be - "By accellerating empathy."
How do you do that? Well, here's one Idea:
Every time you are reminded of another human being, by thought, by seeing, by getting or sending emails/texts/phonecalls :
Before doing anything - just send a silent thought of well-being to that person. It only takes a fraction of a second.
And, when you get an opportunity, spread this idea to others so that they do the same.
If this is done, the motive for mutual well being will flood the globe exponentially. IT may not end war, but it will accellerate empathy.
Why would this work?
It would work because humans are natural empathetic pairs - it is how we evolved. It defines us.
shawn disney 10+
Mitch SMith 50+
Mind you, there might be a distinction between assasinating someone else's citizens and assasinating your own ;)
It is not only the Christians who promote the practice of positive regard for others - it's a fairly universal aspect of nearly all religions. So there might be something in it.
I am merely freeing the practice from any particular denomination - and even from the domain of religion - atheists can pracatice it as well.
Have you given it a try?
shawn disney 10+
Mitch SMith 50+
There is no doubt that western leadership is in deep crisis.
In my opinion, the "top down" solution no longer operates in the interest of humanity, and probably never did.
So it is up to humanity to move forward bottom-up.
Have you given my suggested method a try?
It is the base model of the power of empathy without any rules except - do it, and spread it.
Without practicing these things, there will be no solutions to the challenges we face.
Bob Jones
If you travel around the world for a bit, it soon becomes apparent that, by and large, human beings are very much not lacking in the department of empathy. Wherever you go in the world, the average person will want to meet and share with you. You seem to be implying that empathy is somehow not a fundamental characteristic of humanity when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The natural, unadulterated human reaction to seeing another human is one of hope, of curiosity, of excitement and of kinship. Animosity is manufactured. It is bred and it is taught and it is implanted and imposed. Humans don't hate without a reason - we simply don't. It is well to remember that.
Mitch SMith 50+
My experience is the same as you - people are empathetic by default.
But as you have observe, animosity is being bred, taught, implanted and imposed.
My small exercise in suggesting the "atheists' prayer" was to offset some ot this dark doctrine of competition that is being peddled by our politicians and media.
Yesterday I did a snap poll in the street asking strangers the question "Are you better at love or hate?".
I got 80% Love, 10% Both and 10% Hate. It would be interesting to broaden the poll to get a statistically significant sample with age and gender correlations.
People are not all love and light, for instance the deadly "sins". But these are all offset by empathy.
The big problem is that it takes time for resonant empathy to cause convergence, and the human brain seems only capable of retaining about 200 fully converged empathetic sets.
We have also the capacity to retain generic "other" classifications to account for those we cannot converge with. By default, the benefit of the doubt is not granted to "them". It is these generic classifications that are manipulated to produce the us/them division by attributing false negatives to "them" and turn the "no benefit of the doubt" into fear and hostility.
If "they" are also practiving the "atheists' prayer" then the process of villification would be more difficult, as there wil already be a sense of unity.
Roy Bourque 20+
We go to war when we feel there is a threat to our survival. We are seeking to diminish the threat. Often the threat is imagined. When Orson Welles broadcasted "War of the Worlds" on CBS radio on October 30, 1938, there was no real threat. Yet masses of people took to defensive action against the perceived threat of a Martian invasion. I use that as an example because it is so blatantly obvious that the threat didn't exist at all except in people's minds.
Other times the threat is real. When a people's survival is compromised, they will do what it takes to survive. The United States was ready to go to war with Cuba during the missile crisis.
During the cold war, the United States engaged in war in Korea and Vietnam to defend against the threat of communism. Why was communism such a threat? It seems to be based on the imbalance of power.
War will exist so long as people are willing to participate in it. I don't know that we will ever see a time when there won't be willing participants. All we can do is diminish the will to fight and the willingness to love.
I like Dr. Wayne Dyer's views. I like science and technology opening up so many opportunities for exploration. I think a healthy vision for the future will give people diversion from all their negativity.
I am reading a book called "The New Primal Scream" by Dr. Arthur Janov. The author presents evidence of the sub-conscious effects of birth trauma and childhood abuse and neglect. It's an unseen plague that we need to address. Love starts at home. If we can teach our children to love, we will be on the road to recovery.
shawn disney 10+
Roy Bourque 20+
I would also like to point out that breeding irresponsibly creates conflict. It is all part of herd mentality. When you have mouths to feed and can't feed them, you go into survival mode. Combine this with the above scenario, and it just gets worse. How to win this battle is a tough one.
Bob Jones
Roy Bourque 20+
We have an animal passion within us. In psychology it is called "the quest for top male". Throughout history, this quest has been driving conquest wars. Conquest wars lead to repression, and repression leads to war to regain personal freedom. It's a tug-of-war between those who want to control and those who refuse to be controlled.
During the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy, prodded by his military advisors, was ready to go to war if that's what it took to get rid of the Cuban missiles. He was willing to engage in diplomatic relations to end the crisis peacefully, but was also ready to use military power to force the issue if necessary. No one knew how far the violence would escalate. Could it lead to an all out nuclear exchange? That is where the question arises, what causes war. How far will people go to defend their own position? No one knows if your actions will lead to an immediate solution, or if people will rise up in revolt on a massive scale. What seems to you as a reasonable request may seem to someone else as an aggressive outburst in need of suppression. How will people respond to your actions? No one can say for sure.
So let's back up. Why did Russia decide to put the missiles there to begin with? They saw the United States as a competitive military superpower and were trying to configure the odds in their favor. Would they have used them? Probably had no intentions in the beginning. But United States realized that they could be used as leverage to persuade the U.S. to see things as Russia would want us to. It would give them a diplomatic edge that our government didn't feel comfortable with. So they had to go regardless of what it would take.
Presently we are in state of abundance. We are in a position to talk about peace. Take that abundance away and people will go into survival mode. The road to peace is to see far enough ahead so that you can maintain that abundance.
Verble Gherulous 20+
Enemy of mine, only I can stop this war,
By eating your bullet,
And bleeding on your shoes with a smile,
Smiling because only I know
That I can only be full
Knowing that you are fed,
That I could only know calm
Seeing that you are comforted,
That I will only know joy
When you are at peace.
Heh. There were some Reaganites I knew who hated that poet.
I rather thought ahe was crazy-brave.
Bob Jones
Verble Gherulous 20+
"Roar out bloody laughter" Very well said, sir!
Allan Macdougall 30+
Bob Jones
Allan Macdougall 30+
- Human nature is such that once it has experienced opulence as 'reality' within a period of several generations, it is unwilling to embrace the prospect of true sustainability - it is seen as 'poverty'.
- It is political suicide to legislate for sustainability. It is not a vote-winner. To win votes, it is better to go to war to preserve the status quo, rather than to realistically exist on what that nation has available to it as a self-sustaining, autonomous entity.
The possible solutions are going to have to be very harsh. The transition from oil addiction to sustainability is likely to be be a bloodbath of war, as nations become ever more desperate to get their hands on the remaining fossil fuels.
If we cannot - or will not - use our science, knowledge and intelligence to devise technology to cover the deficit left behind by depleted resources, then the harsh reality is that we will live and die according to the will of nature. The population of 9bn by that time simply cannot be accommodated any other way.
When sustainablity becomes the norm (or our reality), is is the point when the positive trajectory for human existence will begin. I think it will have to start with radical political changes which might include decentralisation, with a movement towards localised economies and local accountability.
The will of the people who vote is more likely to be represented in scaled-down localised government. And perhaps, in the absence of globalisation, there will be fewer wars and less unrest - and more satisfaction in the knowledge that people and ecosystems actually matter, rather than materialism and the global economy.
Kent Spencer 10+
Patriotism gets the best of people at times. I'm from the U.S and have friends that support our government war efforts, even though they have little knowledge of its foreign affairs. This gives off a "monkey see, monkey do" effect. Maybe if citizens of countries facing war would become more informed, the smartness of the majority to work things out in a civil way will prevail....maybe a citizens can muster up enough great opinions and solutions to solve their country's war efforts without violence.
I believe the citizens of the feuding countries should communicate more for understanding. A little understanding never hurt anyone.
Bob Jones
Chetan Somani
Bob Jones
Bharath Kumar Kunjibettu 10+
My opinion on ending war is simpy by understanding the root cause behind it .
And spreading love and peace by spiritual means to be very generic.
Regards,
Bharath
Bob Jones
Mark Kurtz 10+
It does seem we are in "Dark Ages". To people of any country who desire good human relationships, it seems awful to observe bad behavior. Perhaps we could attribute part of the human problem thus: The faster we live our lives and the faster material sciences discover and utilize technology, the greater spin we place on people to catch up. We are in a dizzy spin of confusion about planetary and local situations when there is greater threat to peace, civility, seeming destruction or depletion of planetary care and management, inequitable power, inadequate food and nourishment, unfair treatment and relationships, and a feeling of helplessness. Your tone in this question suggests maybe you feel some degree of desperation. This seems very understandable! Again, you would not be alone!
I noticed a large percentage of topics, questions and debates on TED involve human relationships. At the base of each there looms this concern or desire for something better! To me, this suggests great interest. I concur with your concern.
We finally end war when people of all nations discover we need each other for planetary economy. Why go to war with a partner on which you depend heavily? We finally end war when we have one world language; we must efficiently understand each other as we communicate. Other contributing factors are hugely important: love, respect, realizing we all are sons of the same God parent, we feed each other equally, we desire to play down violence as a settlement option, we share dependency with all persons and an epitome-----we love our planet and realize balance is good and necessary for all to survive. Balance for all things involved is satisfying for all involved. That alone could be a topic.
Others, please weigh in on this marvelous and much needed topic. How can we broadly, on a world scale, address Bob's question with great power? Loving power.
I concur with Kareem. His is sound thinking!
Peace,
MK
'
shawn disney 10+
Bob Jones
shawn disney 10+
Bob Jones
You make some fair points although there are two I must object to. Firstly, the notion of a global language and the necessity of such: this is utter nonsense. It is impractical, unimplementable, presents more problems than it solves and is generally undesirable on all manner of intellectual, spiritual, social, cultural, artistic and philosophical levels. And then there's that stuff about god. All right, yes - all people adhering to any religion or other kind of spiritual dogma need to accept that other people are going to see things differently and they all need to find a way of rationalizing, for themselves, a way in which this is okay. But (and I'm phrasing this as diplomatically as the level of frustration this whole thread has caused me will allow) it's fairly clear that no god is going to help us on this one; we're on our own. Let's just say that god helps those who help themselves. And humanity, right now, is in dire need of some self-help.
With that out of the way, let's talk practicalities! How do we achieve a sustainable global economy? How do we implement love and respect for all humans in a global scheme?
Kareem Fahim
It agonizes me deeply to type this, but we human beings have tendency to want more and more...
Moreover, our society also encourages avarice.
I believe we have adapted ourselves to violence which is shown to us via our 'free' media. [Maybe some lobbies want to alter human mindset to change their opinion(?)]
Possible solution to the madness: We need to educate new generations. So maybe we should start by teaching new generations about peace. Teach them to be patient and righteous. Just imagine all the budget/research, which is spent on weapons and wars, being spent on positive aspects- I think there won't (ever)be any food crisis if we REALLY wanted a solution to sustainability.
sources: quran.com/5/32
Bob Jones
I (like most people, I'd venture) like the idea of bettering education throughout the world but I'm having troubles seeing how this will work towards ending wars. One tends to throw education around as the universal solution to most calamities but when you consider the practicalities involved, I find that most of it is just a lot of hot air.
Kareem Fahim
If we give these kids a better education and mindset then we might create opportunities (for future generations) to prevent useless wars. I mean by these wars only 0.00000000000001% or less population is benefited if you think about it.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Eager to see what answers your important question elicits.
Andrea
Bob Jones
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Understandable.
Since you're at a loss for words, I'll offer some of mine.
First via an essay I did that considers the possibilities of peace, if Hawks and Doves were to marry moral codes:
http://dynamicshift.org/archives/if-hawks-doves-married-moral-codes
I'd add: when global movements that transcend economic and emotional reactivity the prospects of peace can be conceived.
Non-violent action by significant majorities can make it happen. including social enterprise economic sectors that can influence economic outcomes combined with citizen engagement that influences human empathy. Together they can lead global government and religious policy leaders to follow.
Now, it would be utterly naive to assert that institutions don't have tremendous power. But, real people catalyzing and engaging in cross-culture collaboration have far more power than they often know.
Citizen-led culture change is the most effective way to induce institutional change. Which is the way to end war.
The challenge, of course, is sustaining the culture change. Useful to remember is that it's been done before, albeit in smaller scales. In fact, much until recently, without the benefit of global communications between citizens that the internet offers. This vehicle has the power to -- and indeed does -- significantly accelerate change.
My point? There is hope.
If common-people Hawks and Doves marry in large-scale movements to change the war culture.
Andrea