In answer, this paper supports Christopher Coker‘s argument that humanity is more likely to remain in the war enterprise, contesting that war’s evolutionary process is open-ended and thus inevitable. While the paper argues that we cannot eliminate war, it acknowledges that we can do more to mitigate war. The study will methodically consider how war continues to evolve as part of human nature, culture, and technology to demonstrate that war is unstoppable, then considers the extent to which we can mitigate war and its devastating consequences via institutions and humane warfare.
While Plato would argue that “only the dead have seen the end of war” (Bowden, 2001), philosophers and scholars including Immanuel Kant, John Horgan, and Stephen Pinker envisage the long-peace and the end of war. The enders’ momentum and optimism to eliminate war is what Gustave Flaubert (1954) would describe as a “thunder against” war. Scholars and philosophers on the enders’ platform infer that “humanity has become much wealthier, healthier and more free, and war-related casualties have plummeted since the end of World War Two” (Horgan, 2015), therefore the end of war is possible and imminent. In addition, Pinker, in his seminal work “The Better Angels of Our Nature,” posits that humanity is becoming more civilised and less violent since the European Enlightenment, hence there is a little incentive for war.
The enders’ ‘thunder against war’ has ignited scholarly and philosophical debates in which John Gray, for instance, disputes that Pinker is wrong about violence and war, stating "peace and freedom alternate with war and tyranny, eras of increasing wealth with periods of economic collapse. Instead of becoming ever stronger and more widely spread, civilization remains inherently fragile and regularly succumbs to barbarism" (Horgan, 2015). In a similar perspective, Christopher Coker, world renowned philosopher of war, proposes that war is fundamental to our society, therefore to eliminate war is to alter humanity. Coker argues that “war is continuing to evolve and that until such time as it reaches an evolutionary dead-end we are more likely than not to remain in the war business” (Coker, 2014, p. 73). But the questions remain: can we do more, and even so, can war be eliminated?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Human nature and war
3. Culture and war
4. Technology and war
5. Mitigating war
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
The paper examines whether the elimination of war is a realistic possibility or if it remains an inherent, inevitable component of human existence. By analyzing the intersection of biological nature, cultural evolution, and technological advancement, the study aims to demonstrate that while total eradication of war is unlikely, its impact can be mitigated through institutional and humane strategies.
- The role of human nature and inherent aggression in the persistence of conflict.
- The influence of culture and historical warrior traditions on modern society.
- The evolutionary and dualistic nature of military technology.
- The potential and limitations of international institutions in mitigating warfare.
Excerpt from the Book
Technology and war
Technology has long been part of human evolution. The term "technology" can be used to refer to both artefacts and their associated social aspects, however, in this context technologies are social in being created and used by humans in social contexts. Thus, to understand technologies it is crucial to understand their social contexts: in this case, violence, peace, and conflict. A peaceful technology, for instance, evolved from sending human messengers on foot to deliver messages, to writing and posting letters, and now to electronic mail. It therefore makes no sense to use electronic mail for physical attack. Similarly, violent technology evolved from throwing stones, to bow and arrows, then to machine guns, tanks, bombs, and to current drones. Similarly, the inventor of the machine gun’s claim that “it will make war impossible” was illogical (Coker, 2014, p. 28, citing Hiram Maxim). The machine gun, far from making war impossible, rather gave the “moral high ground” (Coker, 2014, p. 28) to those who possessed it in combat. Simply put, technologies are constructed for specific purposes and, as a result, are generally easier to use for those purposes. However, users can choose to modify technologies for their own purposes.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the debate between those who believe war can be eliminated and those who view it as an inevitable part of human evolution.
2. Human nature and war: Explores theories suggesting that competitiveness, fear, and the desire for honor make conflict a fundamental aspect of the human condition.
3. Culture and war: Discusses how warrior traditions and cultural programming maintain the relevance of war despite utopian ideas of peace.
4. Technology and war: Examines the evolution of military technology and argues that new advancements often create new problems rather than eliminating conflict.
5. Mitigating war: Explains how international law, human rights agencies, and "humane warfare" practices can reduce the devastation of conflicts.
6. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, asserting that while war is likely inescapable, systematic mitigation remains a necessary goal.
Keywords
Human nature, War, Evolution, Technology, Culture, Conflict, Humane warfare, Mitigation, Deterrence, Violence, International relations, Security dilemma, Patriotism, Sacrifice, Global institutions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this work?
The work argues that while many scholars believe war can be eradicated, it is in fact an inevitable consequence of human nature, cultural evolution, and technological development.
Which key topics does the text analyze?
The text focuses on the biological and cultural roots of aggression, the evolution of military technology, and the role of international institutions in managing conflict.
What is the primary objective of the study?
The objective is to critically assess the optimism surrounding the potential "end of war" and to determine whether mitigation is a more realistic goal than total elimination.
Which methodology does the author employ?
The author utilizes a descriptive and analytical approach, drawing on philosophical, biological, and historical perspectives to challenge current theories on the decline of violence.
What is the focus of the main body chapters?
The main body examines how biological traits, cultural practices like the "warrior ethos," and the dual-use nature of technology contribute to the persistence of global conflict.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key terms include biological determinism, war, culture, technology, humane warfare, and conflict mitigation.
How does the author view the role of "humane warfare"?
Humane warfare is seen as a necessary pragmatic strategy to reduce collateral damage and suffering, though it is not a solution that will end war itself.
What does the text conclude about nuclear deterrence?
The text suggests that nuclear weapons are "time-bombs" and that their existence creates more insecurity, especially with the potential for non-state actors to acquire such technologies.
- Citation du texte
- Divine S. K. Agbeti (Auteur), 2016, Thunder against war. Can we do more and can we eliminate it?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/346675
