Instead, I want to approach the subject from as detached and and a distant point as possible. I want to view it from a perspective of, why does it exist at all? One who believes in the power and rule of nature, regardless of their religious perspective, must concede that war is a significant aspect of the human condition. Therefore, rather than view war as a tragic occurrence within the human situation (since such conclusions would appear redundant), it seems fair to seek why it is there at all.
It won't be the purpose of this post to trace through historical record, deeply examine the mechanics of war, or quest for the magical moment that started any particular conflict. Rather, the goal is to explore the natural entity or consequence bringing this behavioral phenomenon to pass.
It is entirely fair to see it as a purely natural consequence, just from a philosophical perspective. After all, how could something exist (particularly something that is clearly not rare or a fluke) outside of the parameters of Nature? Pursuing this with the filter seeing that nothing unnatural exists, we must concede that war is a function of Nature.
First, we can assume war assists Nature with the function of population control for a species obviously near the top of the food chain as well as being in control of any potential predators. Just walk through that scenario for a moment- if there was no war, what would our population issues be? How about the resource issues?
After all, the beginning the nineteenth century prompted a new paradigm within the human condition, which is humanity's ability to conquer much of which checks the population from outside the species. Disease, weather, resource availability, famine and other issues forcing susceptibility on humanity have been fought well. These things are all still issues, of course, but humanity has put up a great fight. Infant mortality rates are way down, while life expectancy continues to climb. Medications are what they are and simple things like antibiotics save so many lives.
As a result, the human population, which was thought to have reached a population plateau right near a billion in number for ages, suddenly started rising and is continuing to do so. Yet, we saw war and the effectiveness of war escalate equally. We have to concede there is a correlation, since the very technologies and discoveries saving lives are also from the same minds seeking spectacular new ways to destroy lives.
So it seems these two natural consequences are trying to keep in pace with one another. The two indicated are: humanity seeking the future successfully and with a goal of sentience and civilization, and humanity adhering to old instincts dictating we must annihilate one another, mainly because nothing else helps with the culling. But we don't pursue a conscious culling, do we? No, we fight to protect what is threatened or in order to support a greater assurance of survival. Or, so we convince ourselves. We fight to protect that first goal, right?
So, we desire sentience but we have a long way to go. It's clear we're more resistant of war than in times passed, which could be a promising sign, but war preparation still seems to be among our finest employers. And the reasons are still prehistoric; they are not us so they must be evil in intent, or could be at any time (even when we know better). But being resistant of war is an intriguing sign...but of what? Are we recognizing the insanity or is a higher situation preparing our kind for something incredible?
It stands to reason war began as a means of population control (and the simple equation of the survival of the fittest) but evolved to this dramatic state along with us rather than dissipating. So now, rather than dealing with issues sensibly, we still fall prey to the issues prompting the old instinctual response. This is fascinating because our thirst to engage in war as necessary prompted incredible weaponry of immense power and destructive force, blending the two instincts of ensuring survival (because technological advancement is equally natural and a proper course for our species' development).
To make it fun, I must point out that part of the instinct, or rather a facet of it, is to foster political instability and polarity.
After all, there must be a catalyst that makes sense to us, right on the ground. It cannot be a seasonal thing or according to some astronomical cycle (this is an assumption) but must be something we perceive as reasonable and worthy of blood. But we also must notice how, when the time since war goes long, tolerances fade and then extremes become all too common.
The observations of human behavior during times of peace compared to tumultuous times preceding war is intriguing. During peaceful, easy times, people can be tolerant, understanding and forgiving. But it should be noted they're mostly of a very similar demographic, although different demos will often leave one another peaceful space. But when times get tough, it seems as though every little issue is one of the utmost importance.
Why? In order to foster anger and a passion for blood. Mentioned just before is how the political dynamic fits in, and it fits in all too well. During times of peace and ease, our political body fosters a continuation of progress and growth (often due to recent recovery from war), but it never fails for politicians and such leaders of immense influence to seek greater and greater control, pursue trivial matters as subjects of grand importance, and to lose focus of genuine priority as a result of spinning bureaucracy. We've seen these cycles over and over through history, yet are more than happy to repeat the scenario. Why? Because it causes discord, discontent, a loss of tolerance, and then a perceived need for conflict.
It appears war helps with our evolutionary process because war and survival prompt us to do what we can to survive against the enemy, all the while this so-called enemy is working hard to achieve survival skills. War is a tremendous motivator to do better in virtually all aspects of common affairs.
I have a theory as to why war is not as wanton as it once was, years ago, and it has to do with the sudden push in evolutionary development. Up until the end of the nineteenth century, fighting and war was incessant everywhere, but then we started to see it.
WWI brought us dramatic images of war, and then WWII brought far more. In fact, Holocaust footage is heinous. Combat footage has only improved at a geometric rate ever since. So, our natural tendency to wage war only because we have no real-world picture of its consequence has been affected. Or, the fantastic picture of the outcome (being of incredible peace and tranquility) lying within the subconscious is checked by reality and therefore the fantasy never comes to pass. Thus, war seems too tragic and must be an absolute last resort.
Sure, the twentieth century has seen horrifying war, but the fact is that it has not measured correctly with the heavy losses. Or, we have populated at a disproportionate rate compared to the annihilation rate. So much so that the average population of today is more than seven times what it was less than two hundred years ago. In fact, it has doubled in just the last fifty years.
Yes, the global population has doubled in the last fifty years.
The dynamic is likely to combust. One pictures a tectonic condition in that when tectonic plates run normally, quakes are small and common. But when they bind and build up pressure before finally breaking loose with violence, the outcome is historic in nature as well as catastrophic. My concern is the conflicts we've seen since after Vietnam are little more than minor quakes portending a monster to shake us to our core. My concern is that once the present pressure breaks loose, our kind will see war and chaos unlike we've ever seen before. It will be akin to what has been prophesied by soothsayers for ever.
Some have said the End Times are marked by major and horrible global conflicts replete with unimaginable death and horror. But virtually all of these prophecies state there will be a great time of lasting peace thereafter.
So, for what do we root? Do we claim a desire to get the show on the road, or do we strive to relax and avoid such heinous conflict, slowing our forward evolution while seeking peace. Unfortunately, we're not at true peace anywhere. Most are polarized over the silliest of issues and the value of human life has been reduced to how many times can one trick out a captive eleven-year-old girl before she gets so unappealing that she requires disposal and then replacement. If we take a look at what our society as a whole has become, we have dropped many notches in the compassionate and moral standards. It seems logical to assume these are natural catalysts to spur the natural consequences into action. But, our resistance is equally as natural, of course. Thus, a dramatic paradigm shift in evolutionary progress.
War is not always between countries, and it being so is a relatively recent situation. Once, Chinese provinces and states fought continually, as did the Europeans. Insurrections and conquests were once the norm, really a part of daily life. Look at what occurs throughout African villages even today. Once upon a time, powerful societies were constantly taking over their weaker and less resilient neighbors. Today, war is not just between nations. Look at the propensity of gang violence and organized crime. Further, war is not always an armed conflict fought with weapons and won over blood. Such conflict is often seen in the courtroom, the business meeting, and the world of sport.
Overall, it seems we're a creature requiring constant conflict and, sadly, brutal conquest. But could these dynamics be leading us towards a greater and better humanity? War and the threat of war brought us to a level of technology better than most would have imagined just a century ago. Technology based on military research and development is all around us. War and the threat of war has shaped the way our cultures work in so many ways, particularly in regards to the methods in how borders and boundaries work. But could we ever find our way to an evolutionary point where such bloody and vulgar methods to learn are no longer necessary?
Sure. We could only hope so. But we're going to have to spill a lot of blood before that time comes. Could we end up spilling so much blood that our kind will not recover and that humanity's opportunity for success will be gone? Sadly, that seems the most likely situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment