TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is militarism anachronistic? Is 21st century militarism a short one-way dead-end street? Is ‘dog eat dog’ domination dogma doomed?

Has the classic Darwinian/Machiavellian strategy become counterproductive and even self-destructive?
Morality aside: To survive 10,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, and as recently as 100 years ago militarism made sense. But, how do you win a war fought with weapons of mass extinction (‘WMDs’ is a euphemism)? Is the winner the one who lives, i.e. suffers, a few days longer? For most of human existence, it took thousands of warriors weeks to kill thousands. Today, one human could kill millions in minutes. As if to ensure humanity’s demise, many countries and many corporations are further escalating militarism by proliferating access to, and expanding the magnitude of WMEs. Why play russian roulette with humanity’s life?
Gandiji was right when he said, an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind, but today, an eye for an eye will leave the whole world gone.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    R H 30+

    • 0
    May 15 2014: What a great question. Is militarism dead? Have we achieved what Reagan tried by 'winning' the arms race, therefore making moot mass-scale aggression in the face of annihilation? Has might made Right? I'm afraid I must be on the side of 'no'. I feel there will continue to be, for a long time, those individual sociopaths who are willing to sacrifice millions (people) for their goals. They would face mass annihilation (with, of course, an escape plan for themselves and close family) for their 'vision' - whatever the f- that would be.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.