War and Peace

[malayang-diwa]

I was going through the news this morning and I came across the coverage of the 9/11 memorial/tribute in New York.

Numerous of people gathered to pay tribute to their loved ones who have passed. There were people who were interviewed and asked about their experiences of the tragic event and I could tell that none of them had an easy time explaining what it was like for them.

People have been longing for world peace as long as I can remember. One of the first times I've heard of people crying for world peace was when I watched this biography of John Lennon; he was in the process of writing his iconic anthem Give Peace A Chance.

All we are saying, is give peace a chance.

But I also remember from this special documentary of compiled video-takes of 9/11, that there was this one man who said in front of the camera, "we should bomb the f*** out of them" when the plane crashed against one of the two buildings.

In Samuel P Huntington's book, The Clash Of Civilizations and Remaking of The World Order, he said that our world 'today' (it was written in 1996 so the world that he meant was the world 'today') would no longer experience the political/ideological conflict such as the Cold War era where countries were all about knowing who's side were they on (Democracy vs. Communism); but will experience a cultural conflict with each other - meaning, countries today are all about knowing who they are.

With all that being said, do you think that world peace can ever be attained? if so, how can it exist in a world where every single group believes that their ideologies are correct?; that how they live is the right way? and do you think that War is necessary to attain Peace?

[Alexander III]

Nope. We may not like to say it but war and conquest is in our best interests.

[MarkBastable]

Nope. We may not like to say it but war and conquest is in our best interests.

Whose? Pretty much by definition, war and conquest has to be against somebody's best interests.

[tonywalt]

Nope. We may not like to say it but war and conquest is in our best interests.

Britain has not conquered anyone for quite a while(Iraq and Afg. hardly conquered in the traditional way) so, what do you suggest?

[malayang-diwa]

Britain has not conquered anyone for quite a while(Iraq and Afg. hardly conquered in the traditional way) so, what do you suggest?

I think what AlexanderIII is trying to say is that almost everyone is trying to dominate to some extent. You know how someone is always trying to push their views to someone else'? I think that's what he means. (I could be wrong though)

[Scheherazade]

~
R e m i n d e r

Discussion of current politics is not allowed.

Posts containing such references will be removed without further notice.

~

[The Atheist]

With all that being said, do you think that world peace can ever be attained?

No.

Humans are violent and incapable of putting down their guns.

I used to believe it was possible, but I shed that view long ago. Even otherwise quite rational people will tell you they can make a case for war.


...and do you think that War is necessary to attain Peace?

Only for the winners.

[tonywalt]

Well, observing the no politics rule we can focus on the nature of mankind. Perhaps it is in our nature to conquer, gain power, preserve power-so Alexander is correct.

But mankind, as we continue to evolve, also pursues peace, compromise, fairness. The creation of the UN is perhaps the best example of this nature(yes, of course there are power plays within the UN).

The countries that created the UN were at least in large part trying to avoid the kind of world that Alexander is talking about. Perhaps an evolution is in process.

[malayang-diwa]

No.

Humans are violent and incapable of putting down their guns.

I used to believe it was possible, but I shed that view long ago. Even otherwise quite rational people will tell you they can make a case for war.



Only for the winners.


Well, observing the no politics rule we can focus on the nature of mankind. Perhaps it is in our nature to conquer, gain power, preserve power-so Alexander is correct.

But mankind, as we continue to evolve, also pursues peace, compromise, fairness. The creation of the UN is perhaps the best example of this nature(yes, of course there are power plays within the UN).

The countries that created the UN were at least in large part trying to avoid the kind of world that Alexander is talking about. Perhaps an evolution is in process.

Because of that no politics rule, I'll avoid the issue of the UN.

But you're right on the process of change, however; don't you think that the process itself is the peak already? Meaning we can go only as far as trying to change? cause since it is in our nature to dominate, that means there will always be another person trying to cut the other person down.

[tonywalt]

The UN was just an example.

But, no I do not think mankind has stopped evolving, in terms of Evolution. We are still growing taller, less hairy, and it's fair to say the evidence supports a more rational being is evolving. I doubt our caveman ancestors were as rational as we are today.

The thing that complicates this argument is that we have the technological capability of being more violent, in terms of sheer numbers and vast destruction. We have certainly used the technology.

Certainly we would not place nuclear capabilty in the hands of our midieval ancestors or much less their predesessors. If we could do that sort of crazy a@@ experiment.

[The Atheist]

But, no I do not think mankind has stopped evolving, in terms of Evolution. We are still growing taller, less hairy, and it's fair to say the evidence supports a more rational being is evolving. I doubt our caveman ancestors were as rational as we are today.

You're confusing societal changes with evolution. Bigger people isn't evolution, just the result of better food supply and healthcare, especially during pregnancy. Evolution takes places over aeons, not a couple of centuries.

I don't know of any evidence that says humans are less hirsute than they were 2-500 years ago. Some of the ones I've seen lately make me think the opposite!

I also suspect you're over-rating human rationality. Surveys consistently show that the vast majority of people still have irrational and/or superstitious beliefs.

We are better educated, but I think that's about all.

[Panglossian]

It seems to me that human beings are fixated with conflict. To relax we read novels which without story-lines of conflict wouldn’t hold our attention. For entertainment we play computer games which are saturated with conflict. We watch films - again containing all kinds of conflict. Neighbours constantly fall out with each other in leafy suburbia. If there’s a fight in the school playground the natural instinct of children is to gather round and watch. People spend hours arguing with strangers in online forums. Sport is all about conflict. Politics could be defined as intellectual/ideological conflict. Religion is generally about conflict - good versus evil. Having strong opinions invites conflict. The list goes on. It seems to me that we’re up for aggro every which way. Obviously dropping bombs on people’s heads is taking this inherent fondness for conflict to an extreme.

[malayang-diwa]

The UN was just an example.

But, no I do not think mankind has stopped evolving, in terms of Evolution. We are still growing taller, less hairy, and it's fair to say the evidence supports a more rational being is evolving. I doubt our caveman ancestors were as rational as we are today.

The thing that complicates this argument is that we have the technological capability of being more violent, in terms of sheer numbers and vast destruction. We have certainly used the technology.

Certainly we would not place nuclear capabilty in the hands of our midieval ancestors or much less their predesessors. If we could do that sort of crazy a@@ experiment.

I don't think it's technology, I think it's human emotion.

When someone pisses you off, you're bound to be in some heat. Whether you get into an argument, get into a fist-fight, or even just leave it be; you are still going to be in conflict with each other.

If this is the case, would you say that as human beings evolve (if we are, since The Atheist disputes this claim), we eventually strip off emotion?




We are better educated, but I think that's about all.

Does that mean you are saying that there is an absolute truth? Because when you say better, doesn't that mean there really is a certain standard that we should follow?

[tonywalt]

You're confusing societal changes with evolution. Bigger people isn't evolution, just the result of better food supply and healthcare, especially during pregnancy. Evolution takes places over aeons, not a couple of centuries.

I don't know of any evidence that says humans are less hirsute than they were 2-500 years ago. Some of the ones I've seen lately make me think the opposite!

I also suspect you're over-rating human rationality. Surveys consistently show that the vast majority of people still have irrational and/or superstitious beliefs.

We are better educated, but I think that's about all.

When I speak of Evolution. I do mean over aeons. Sure, our evolution is the result of better diet, that's part of the Evolution.

I am fully aware of the barbaric nature of man that has only changed in techique over the last thousands of years. I suppose, I am trying to put a positive spin on this thing. I do think we have improved slightly from our caveman days, very slightly. We are evolving at a glacial pace in terms of Englightenment-you are correct.

[MarkBastable]

I do think we have improved slightly from our caveman days, very slightly.

I'd love to know what evidence you have for that. And, actually, what constitutes 'improvement'.



It seems to me that human beings are fixated with conflict. To relax we read novels which without story-lines of conflict wouldn’t hold our attention. For entertainment we play computer games which are saturated with conflict. We watch films - again containing all kinds of conflict. Neighbours constantly fall out with each other in leafy suburbia. If there’s a fight in the school playground the natural instinct of children is to gather round and watch. People spend hours arguing with strangers in online forums. Sport is all about conflict. Politics could be defined as intellectual/ideological conflict. Religion is generally about conflict - good versus evil. Having strong opinions invites conflict. The list goes on. It seems to me that we’re up for aggro every which way. Obviously dropping bombs on people’s heads is taking this inherent fondness for conflict to an extreme.

The problem with this observation, I think, is that in order to be useful, it requires a practical comparison, but if it's universally true there can't ever be one.

If you observe that human beings are fixated with conflict, what are you using as the benchmark? Who, in other words, is less fixated with conflict?

I suppose you could say that we appear to be more fixated with conflict than our close relatives - gorillas. But who knows what's going on in a gorilla's head? And, anyway, at the first sign of encroachment, gorillas go straight to conflict as a method of resolution. You very rarely see gorillas organising a summit in neutral territory. So it's difficult to say that we're more or less fixated with conflict than our cousins.

Or you could take a more theoretical approach. You might say that human beings are more fixated with conflict than a kind of ideal unfixated-with-conflict type of human being that you can reasonably imagine. Which is fine, except that I might imagine a totally-conflict-driven-headcrushing-bats**t-crazy kind of human being, which would lead me to suggest that real human beings are amazingly disinterested in conflict, when you look at it like that.

Or you might say, actually, it's not a universal thing. It's just a very prevalent thing. You might point to a remote and rarely-encountered tribe who seem to be blissfully unengaged in any kind of conflict, and you might say, "See, that's the comparison. We're much more fixated with conflict than those guys." To which the reply would be, "Fair enough - but then it's not to do with being human, is it - because those guys are human too?"

My own feeling is that we really won't know whether or not we're fixated with conflict until we come in contact with another race of beings with whom we can make a comparison. Or preferably several, in order to have a proper statistical sample.

It may be, though, that the Interplanetary Assembly are looking at us right now, and the Chair-thing is saying, "You know, homo sapiens has real potential. If only they'd stop being such wusses and get seriously into fixating on conflict, they might make some worthwhile progress."

And the Deputy Chair is saying, "Yeah, right. Like you know anything, you five-eyed scumsucking gastropod."

"Hey - you want to step outside and say that, frogboy?"

See - these are species fixated with conflict.

[tonywalt]

Mark,

I just have this picture in my head of Gorillas organising a peace summit. Well, for what it is worth - and it's worth something, chimpanzees do conflict intervention. Particularly the female chimps will step in to a dispute. This has been recorded many times by Jane Goodall and others.

[MarkBastable]

Mark,

I just have this picture in my head of Gorillas organising a peace summit. Well, for what it is worth - and it's worth something, chimpanzees do conflict intervention. Particularly the female chimps will step in to a dispute. This has been recorded many times by Jane Goodall and others.



http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/893

..though I'm not sure what your chimps or my Nobel Prize winners prove, in the context of my reply to Panglossian.

[tonywalt]

http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/893

..though I'm not sure what your chimps or my Nobel Prize winners prove, in the context of my reply to Panglossian.


Mark, I am only saying it tongue and cheek obviously. Well then, women are better-I prefer them, given the choice.

[The Atheist]

It seems to me that human beings are fixated with conflict.

As Mark said, I think all forms of life on earth are. Selfish genes make selfish species is my guess. Plants do it without knowing - one species will dominate and wipe out another that competes for the same resources.

Humans are smarter than plants (most of the time) so why we haven't moved on yet is a little frustrating.


We are evolving at a glacial pace in terms of Englightenment

Amen on that!

[keilj]

"All patriarchal nations are either recovering from war, at war, or preparing for war"

-George Carlin

[NikolaiI]

and do you think that War is necessary to attain Peace?

The same John Lennon made what I think is a good point about this, "Killing for peace is like ****ing for chastity."

This is an interesting talk by Stephen Pinker which gives some hope

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

[JuniperWoolf]

The same John Lennon made what I think is a good point about this, "Killing for peace is like ****ing for chastity."


And of course the next question is, "so how do you think we should have dealt with Nazi Germany, then?"

[Hurricane]

In vastly oversimplified terms, there will always be bad people out there wanting to do bad things to good people for whatever reason. It's a moral responsibility of other good people to stop that from happening when the negative consequences of war or interference are outweighed by the negative consequences of not doing anything (or the positive consequences of interference).

If everyone in the world was a relatively mature and reasonable person, world peace would be possible. Since that's not the case, world peace is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Whirled peace, however, is delicious.
http://www.alienjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/imagine-whirled-peace.jpg

[NikolaiI]

And of course the next question is, "so how do you think we should have dealt with Nazi Germany, then?"

Fair enough. True, sometimes it's necesssary. More often, I feel, it's atrocious.

One problem is - sometimes people feel 100% sure that it's necessary to go killing, only it's senseless, perpetuated violence because boths sides feel the same way.


If everyone in the world was a relatively mature and reasonable person, world peace would be possible. Since that's not the case, world peace is nothing more than a pipe dream.

I'm not exactly a peace-nik, but I don't really agree with the mentality that "world peace is not possible." It seems to be an arbitrary line. Things are always changing, and the world never stays the same. 100% world peace is not possible - why that amount? Why not 90%? or 80? What is possible?

My point is not just the cliched "anything is possible," because it's been used to death, but basically that's what I mean. You say it's just a pipe dream, but so many things that were once just a "pipe dream" have come to pass. Technology, for one; also Abolition, Women's Suffrage, things of that nature. The fact is, humans really are capable of anything, from the immensely beautiful to the grotesque. We may not all be mature, reasonable people, but we (almost) all have the ability to discern good from bad; the most basic tenant of which is understanding that causing pain to others is bad, because we learn to realize that others can be hurt just as we can be too.

World peace is a grand aim; one so grand it really doesn't have much point discussing most of the time. But if the problem or question of putting an end to war, or at least a vast reduction of it, is like the microcosm problems we experience in our daily lives, then saying it's not achievable is simply an unnecessary hindrance; as it is if I say it's not possible for me to get along with my mother, or brother, or friend.

In my own life I'm beginning to learn aspects of relating to people that are totally changing my relationships. I'm beginning to learn there's very few problems that can't be, if not solved, then helped in that direction, by trying to understand the other's point of view, and not blaming and criticizing.

I don't mean to make my main point that "world peace is possible" at all because I don't think that's the most helpful or the right way to approach it - not at all. All I can do is in my own life, and relating to people I know directly, for the most part; and problems like world peace or even country vs. country are not really within my scope or reach, although I will speak out about political issues that I feel are important.

Having said that; we're never finished evolving, and I can certainly believe, in fact easily, believe in a future in which we're all far more enlightened, healthier stronger happier what have you, and we live in much greater harmony and peace. And prosperity. We made this step, didn't we? Cars and planes and civilizations, from the ape or animal life - isn't the next natural step to be one of calming down and growing spiritually? It seems that way to me. I hope we can make it happen.

[tonywalt]

Agreed Nicolai. We are not purely zero sum Darwinian in behaviour. Sometimes, many times, people will sacrifice to virtual strangers at absolutely no gain.

And it could be argued that this is an ultimately selfish inbred behaviour, in that we too could be alone and "in need" at one point and may need a similiar assist. But I do not agree. I think it's just what separates us from the lower orders.

For example, my dog Sam(cute as hell) would Never help another dog out, and would think nothing of stealing his brother's treats:smilewinkgrin: He's all about him, and his loyalty to me is in question, cause I keep him alive-and he knows it.

[MarkBastable]

Incidentally, there's a sort of tacit agreement here that less suffering can be regarded as an indicator of more evolution. It ain't so. Nature doesn't give a monkey's about the suffering of individuals, families or entire populations - it's completely irrelevant. All evolution wants is for the species to survive, and if regular mowing down of ninety percent of the population doesn't interfere with that, there's absolutely nothing that evolution's going to do to change it. (Actually, on a evolutionary scale, evolution doesn't even root for any specific species, but at a sort of operational level I think you could say that the mechanism's pro-survival but utterly indifferent to suffering.)

What we might mean, I think, is that humanity ought to be bright enough now to see that conflict doesn't get us anywhere. Trouble is - conflict always gets someone somewhere, even if it's only into a palace for a few years. And evolution doesn't care about that either. It can't - the event is too small to matter and, anyway, it's over too quickly.

[tonywalt]

Mark,

Many of us are like that for example Hitler, Mugabe(Zimbabwe-well done), Charles Taylor(Liberia), Kablia(Congo), Teodoro Obiang Nguema (EQUITORIAL GUINEA), Yahaya Jammeh (GAMBIA), Omar Al-bashir (Somalia),Idi Amin (Uganda) are all over, but it is a matter of degree.

But I believe as Nickolai has stated that we (some more than others) are evolving for the better from Ape to Animal life, and the various other movement towards a more rational intelligent beings. We have more resources are the ability to produce resources - it makes us less Darwinian.

Tony

[MarkBastable]

But I believe as Nickolai has stated that we (some more than others) are evolving for the better from Ape to Animal life, and the various other movement towards a more rational intelligent beings. We have more resources are the ability to produce resources - it makes us less Darwinian.

I'd say that the very notion of 'for the better' is irrelevant to the mechanisms of evolution. But let's agree to differ on that.

I'm more interested in your logic: how can any kind of evolution, for the better or otherwise, make any species less Darwinian? That's like saying that you can travel at supersonic speeds in a way that's less Machian.

All evolution is Darwinian.

[NikolaiI]

Incidentally, there's a sort of tacit agreement here that less suffering can be regarded as an indicator of more evolution. It ain't so. Nature doesn't give a monkey's about the suffering of individuals, families or entire populations - it's completely irrelevant. All evolution wants is for the species to survive, and if regular mowing down of ninety percent of the population doesn't interfere with that, there's absolutely nothing that evolution's going to do to change it. (Actually, on a evolutionary scale, evolution doesn't even root for any specific species, but at a sort of operational level I think you could say that the mechanism's pro-survival but utterly indifferent to suffering.)

What we might mean, I think, is that humanity ought to be bright enough now to see that conflict doesn't get us anywhere. Trouble is - conflict always gets someone somewhere, even if it's only into a palace for a few years. And evolution doesn't care about that either. It can't - the event is too small to matter and, anyway, it's over too quickly.

My first instinct is to say you are right; less suffering doesn't mean further evolution, but let me take a line similar to it for just a moment. Humans are "further evolved" than animals, and if you don't think so, we should discern whether we agree or disagree with that statement before we go further. For instance, there are many species of animals and insects where the parent will sometimes kill or eat their offspring. And almost every human in every culture will say that is "awful" or "terrible" in comparison with our own moral values.

Similarly, when a human understands that relieving the suffering of others is good, that is evolution occurring. Have you ever had the situation where you could be more creative or happier when you were in conflict with someone you care about? Not unless you were just happy for the conflict, because you were bored, which is another situation. I think it's pretty safe to say that when people are engaged in conflict that stirs their emotions beyond a certain point, it becomes much more difficult to think critically and make correct decisions. The conflict detracts energy from anything that really matters.

The other side of the coin is the fact that kindness and laughter, affection and love are good for us. It's known that when a person either performs, receives, or even witnesses an act of kindness, there is a significant rise in their serotonin and a correspondng boost to their immune system.

Not to mention the fact of libraries, articfacts, temples, monuments and other records of human history, art and science and so forth that have been destroyed throughout the centuries by human war. I really ought to put more effort into this and research a long list of them, to be more specific, because I think it's an important point, but I'm too lazy. But one that comes to mind is a large library, I want to say is the Library of Alexandria, in Athens.

Evolution isn't simply the working of the body and brain, it's also the working of the mind, and honestly its our culture and technology as well. How is it our technology? Well, when they put the computer chip in your brain, and you can do a computer's calculations, as well as have almost every fact at your disposal, and can access the internet as well, presumably, you tell me that technology isn't part of your evolution. And as for culture you say - well what is so good about our culture? But that is the thing - if our culture were far better, we would literally devote less time to worrying about political issues, humanitarian concerns. With war and strife drastically reduced, effort could be made toward progress in other areas.

Now that is only really talking about the good side of peace. There' also a good side of conflict. But that side is so vast and complex as well as controversial, I would rather not even attempt to go into it now.

However the original reason I wanted to say that you are right is this; we are not as important as the earth is. That is a bold statement, but let me just say this. I believe it is true. Honestly it is not that we have done more harm than good - of course we have. We can't exist and not kill. But we've done far, far too much of burdening the earth, far more than we should. We really need to stop. And if I've made any good or helpful comments none should matter except this; we need to end runaway population growth.

I know that is a big topic and deserves its own discussion; but it far outshadows the question of war. What I mean is, the chance that we destroy the planet - or change it in a way that we reduce the amount of space on it we can occupy - is a far deadlier and alarming threat than the threat of war. The thought of ruanway population isn't just a thought, an idea, a word on a paper, it's an alarming and deadly threat. The earth is a fragile balance, and we're a fragile existence.

An existence, ironically, whose chances to succeed will diminish as we increase our numbers - at this point - and increase when we diminish our numbers. The simplest way to decrease famine is to decrease the population. Simplest and easiest - or . . . laziest. Don't we humans love laziness? Why not let's finally implement it in a way that would help the whole world. Slow down, relax - as a species, cumulative, individual, we would have to do less work if we had less people.

So I was going to say you are right, the suffering of humans at this point isn't what's important to evolution; what's important, what would be best for evolution, or the status of nature as a whole, would be that all humans became super environmental freaks, and and moved about 90% toward living just in nature and on the land. As long as they were smart enough to retain the same standard of living. That would be beneficial for earth, for the other species, and for ourselves because what is good for other species on the planet is good for us, and vice versa. Countless times we've learned the interdependence of life on earth.

And that is the same principle that's key to resolving most conflicts - giving, understanding, serving. We've already won the evolutionary arms race and we conquered the whole planet. It's time that we should change our aim and destination, and change our focus from ourselves to the other species on the planet, and the planet. Instead of a)actively killing animals in self defense, and b)squeezing out animals from ever-increasing areas of cities, we should give back space and dignity to other creatures, and co-exist peacefully with less emphasis on us being the dominating force. The most vital way we have to give back right now is to decrease our tax on our resources. The best, easiest, and simplest way to do that is to decrease our numbers.

- - - -

I just wanted to add a bit. I know I already wrote way too much. But I still may not have addressed what you said directly enough. No, nature doesn't care about whether individuals suffer, not so much, or per se, unless the Gaia theory is right. And even then, maybe not.

As for tacit agreements, I honestly can't say what or how many agreements we actually have, although of a few I do know. But one that I would like to say that we do know almost doesn't say anything. We know this - if we leave nature alone, species may evolve. I believe we can agree on that - and so I would say that we should leave nature alone, more so than we are now. Not because that's what nature wants or cares about, but because that would be good for it, and the species other than ourselves; because, as we should well know and I mentioned before, what's good for the other species on the planet, plants and animals, is good for us.

Ask any bee-expert living in North America right now.

[MarkBastable]

I'll try to answer the rest when I have time - though I'm not sure an answer's required, because we're arguing from different premises.

However, just because it leapt out at me, let me address this...

Have you ever had the situation where you could be more creative or happier when you were in conflict with someone you care about?

Not happier, no. But always more creative.

[NikolaiI]

I'll try to answer the rest when I have time - though I'm not sure an answer's required, because we're arguing from different premises.

However, just because it leapt out at me, let me address this...

Have you ever had the situation where you could be more creative or happier when you were in conflict with someone you care about?

Not happier, no. But always more creative.

Fair enough. .
Say whatever comes to mind. I know I did write too much, I wasn't intending to.

Well I don't really feel like we're arguing. I get what you're saying and one thing I meant to say is, no, my reasoning isn't based on what nature - or biological evolution - cares about. But for individual species, it would probably be better if we gave them some of their natural habitat back - and I know that's a human opinion based on human values.

And I really did mean the comment about the bee-expert in North America. What happened was this - many different people, scientists, people interested in bees, what have you, observed there's something wrong with all the bees - they're dropping dead, basically, for no apparent reason - but they couldn't figure what the cause was. So they investigated further to find out why, and they learned there's not one, but something like 80 different possible causes, including viruses and parasites, and that bees all over the country are sick and dying off.

I guess, I don't know how to explain, but this was very shocking to hear.

[tonywalt]

It's worth noting that we are the only species having this converstion on whether we are evolved or evolving.

That speaks volumes.

[MarkBastable]

It's worth noting that we are the only species having this converstion on whether we are evolved or evolving.

That speaks volumes.

What volumes does it speak? I mean, obviously précis the volumes - I wouldn't suggest you type them all out.

[tonywalt]

Mark,

I would give up, but I want to survive this argument and perhaps eliminate you as a competitor:drool5:

In this effort I really hope to gain resources, attract attractive and fertile females, and have a bigger and posher cave. I shall have many mates and many offspring.

Damn, sounds good. I think you are right!

[keilj]

It's worth noting that we are the only species having this converstion on whether we are evolved or evolving.

That speaks volumes.

see Twain's The Lowest Animal

[prendrelemick]

I think regarding war as an evolutionary pressuure on our species is well off the mark. It has been a driving force of civilisation though. The need to co-operate and become organised for aggression or defence has meant a general strenghening of civilisation.

[NikolaiI]

No one noticed, or laughed at, my peace nik joke. :p

[Serena03]

Besides carrying a natural instinct for protection, all evolution has really further done is generate more sophisticated ways and reasons for us to go to war over. Wherever a conflicting opinion dwells, someone is willing to fight for their's to the death. But is the best way to preserve peace more economic trades and freedoms? Among everything else, it has apparently endured peace the longest. A give and take cycle also seems to be a favorable attribute that humans are naturally prone to; unfortunately when greed becomes the dominate force, someone will be there to swing the axe.