TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is war a necessity or something that should be avoided at all cost?

War can be an unpleasant experience but sometimes it seems like it is tool which can be used to bring about peace. In the same way it can be a tool used for tyranny and greed. Is it a good thing for people to desire eternal unquestionable peace or is war a means of bringing about that peace?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jul 18 2011: It depends on the situation. If you're fighting over land or oil, then you need to check your values. If you're fighting to liberate, or to change for the better, then it's admirable...

    It's kinda like this : Do we go to war with Saudi Arabia because they have oil? OR do we go to war with Pakistan to bring justice to the victims of acid burning?
    • Comment deleted

      • Jul 19 2011: Since you're playing devil's advocate, I'm going to play...well... my own advocate, I guess.Warring for natural resource is not something a technologically inclined civilization should do. As advanced cultures, it is our responsibility to a)provide equal opportunity to other cultures, b) responsibly deal with our problems in a way that does not harm innocents, and c) not act rashly and without judgement, so as to avoid situations in which we might have to attack another party.To the next point: of course. Battles over oil reserves should be diplomatic. Advancement of technology should be important. BUT...We can't be ignorant of the world around us. Ignorance is causing/has caused global warming, which threatens every living creature. LIKEWISE, we can't be so wound up in our own advancement that we ignore the plight of others. We can't be so excited by the thought of peace that we ignore obvious problems. Would you ignore a growing melanoma because you didn't want chemo?Now, you could debate that the best way to solve situations is diplomatically. For instance, you could say that the best route to stop African warlords from killing entire villages over diamond mines would be to diplomatically explain to said warlors "that isn't nice". I would disagree: Some people should simply be killed, so they cannot breed ill things into the world again. Which could boil into an argument of "killing will only incite more killing" vs. "killing anyone violent/dangerous (however you would describe a warlord) would result in a lack of violent/dangerous people", but that's more of a philosophy question, and is not easily tested by science. But I understand what you mean. :) It really boils down to what is the moral thing to do.
        Edit: It won't let me reply to your latest, and I don't have space to do it here :( and I can't reply to you directly... FAIL Ted....

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.