Is war good for us ?
Is war good for us? It perhaps sharpens all of us in our challenge to stay alive and make us feel grateful that we, survivors, are indeed alive.
- It reduces the world’s population so that there is more food, space and other desirable stuff available for the survivors.
- As I am doing, it gives us all something to ponder, and for many to write about, and generally be, perhaps, intellectually and philosophically challenged.
- It will certainly be good for those who design and manufacture weapons and other war needs, as well as those who are wealthy or shifty enough to be able to keep out of the way of any bloodshed and use warfare to become richer.
Think! Animals fight, even eat each other. They fight for space to live and survive, to produce families. Plants also have their ways of overcoming other species, and they too have offspring they distribute to propagate further. And so living things push and kill to keep their species going, and even growing to the detriment of other living things. Some actually live in synergy: presumably examples of survival of the fittest.
Why do humans have consciousness? We are conscious of love and friendship, of loss and pain, reason and care, of science, beauty and prediction and consequence. These attributes and many more give us empathy, sympathy, self-fulfillment and conscience. We are intelligent beings.
Intelligence, communication and empathy, together with conscience, have led to social groupings where we have the possibility to maximise the good for all of us by joining together for the best for all of us, not just some. We have invented morality as one way of behaving and sharing.
And what do we do? – We behave like animals and each determined to win; but animals keep a kind of status quo – they don’t rip the Earth off!
Is there anyone who can believe any of the above possible benefits from war – a to d – can be supported morally when many thousands of human lives are lost (not just innocent bystander lives but fighters who are persuaded/forced by easy and false rhetoric to fight) together with destroyed homes, workplaces, the countryside and its wildlife and nature turned to dross?
Is there anything that might support a ‘just war’ to protect others from attack and genocide. Now here is some possible excuse; but think of the outcome of the second ‘World War’ with all its destruction, and the arrangements to protect the Jewish people from a repeat of the holocaust. It was certainly a short-term partial success but long term we now have a war between Palestinian and Jewish people. What about? Essentially who owns areas of land and the benefits that land offers. Also the war between Russia and the Ukraine, that is also about land and the control over it.
Now, it seems that in both, the Ukraine and Gaza, the reasoning for war is that historically the land belongs to the aggressors, Israil and Russia, with no vote by the current populations about what they would want (the fighting dispute between Israil and Palestine results from Israil not accepting the post-World War II agreement). Surely, it is the current occupants that should have their say in the future of their homeland, not invaders. Do we have any justification beyond the above suggestion that the two wars are justified? Apart from possible greed and distrust, I would say there is very little reason for losing so many lives, properties and nature. Have either of the invaders made any statements about any improvement they can promise for the ordinary inhabitants – No! Will they negotiate fairly, with concern for the populations they have hurt, for peace in the future? It seems not since they continue to fight even as they are considering peace, and the main concern seems to be what benefits the aggressors can gain to increase their territory, economic benefits, and power. To complicate matters it seems like some other countries are also trying to benefit from economic involvement in the pursuit of either fighting or peace from these wars.
As another thought, how often are citizens of a country allowed to vote whether they go to war or not? There would be a new problem should one side decide ‘Yes’ (because they might benefit) and the other ‘No’ (because they are concerned more about destruction both of humans plus other living creatures, dying or being injured). Is it because people in power are more likely to be in safety that they consider the benefits too much, whilst the rest of the population would be the sufferers? Which consideration is a good reason for never suggesting a war!
Finally
Would it not be an excellent idea to have negotiations that are concerned with betterment, not destruction, and fairness not fight? Would it not be better to allow humanity, rather than economic might, to guide human tenancies of the world so that we can all lead better lives?
Globalisation sounds like a good idea, but it seems that the main thrust is economic and that it mainly benefits countries and individuals that already have a good economy. If we were more equal (but not the same), friendly, trustworthy and cooperative in as many ways as possible, and much less competitive we would be more self-fulfilled, and caring for each other. We must aim for a ‘never war’ world view and have much more action in the UN to bring that peace with leaders, both religious and political:
To misquote Edgar Alan Poe in his book ‘The Raven’, “Quoth the Raven, Neverwar!”