How would that have affected recorded history. If you look at history its mostly about wars.
If there had been no wars..
- Thread starter enlisted person
- Start date
Life would be boring and overpopulated.
If there had been no wars, I firmly believe that mankind would still be living in small villages, with hardly any technoledgy. Most technological advances have been in the pursuit of war and violence.
Well, I don't think wars are needed to make things interesting. But, assuming energy beings literally prevented violence, there would certainly be a couple noticeable differences.
First, the world would be less homogeneous. Cultures generally spread out by conquering and then fragment. Therefore, you'd have languages that have similar origins (like French, Italian, Spanish) and a common legacy that they look to. Instead, you'd have thousands of languages, most which aren't mutually intelligible, in very small areas. Presumably, they'd have to figure out a way to communicate, but I feel people would still be very isolated.
Second, we would be a lot less technologically advanced. Like it or not, wars drive innovation. While rampant warfare can lead to political or economic decline, technology has a habit of innovating to respond to a military need. You need look no further than China in the past. They unified early and had no real need to respond to outside threats. While they advanced quite far, they eventually slowed down their progress to the point where the west actually managed to catch up and surpass them (something that would have been unheard of throughout most of history). While it's possible that simple competition could have lead to similar innovation, it's difficult to say (some system where people had to use resources more efficiently to out compete for limited resources when they couldn't simply drive off the other side).
I don't think the world would necessarily have a higher population, btw. Certainly, less people would die of warfare, but more would die of disease and starvation (especially when a famine hit). It's also possible that agricultural or medicinal science wouldn't have made as much progress today (not sure, would have to trace the origins of medical science and the agricultural revolution back centuries, which would be very difficult).
First, the world would be less homogeneous. Cultures generally spread out by conquering and then fragment. Therefore, you'd have languages that have similar origins (like French, Italian, Spanish) and a common legacy that they look to. Instead, you'd have thousands of languages, most which aren't mutually intelligible, in very small areas. Presumably, they'd have to figure out a way to communicate, but I feel people would still be very isolated.
Second, we would be a lot less technologically advanced. Like it or not, wars drive innovation. While rampant warfare can lead to political or economic decline, technology has a habit of innovating to respond to a military need. You need look no further than China in the past. They unified early and had no real need to respond to outside threats. While they advanced quite far, they eventually slowed down their progress to the point where the west actually managed to catch up and surpass them (something that would have been unheard of throughout most of history). While it's possible that simple competition could have lead to similar innovation, it's difficult to say (some system where people had to use resources more efficiently to out compete for limited resources when they couldn't simply drive off the other side).
I don't think the world would necessarily have a higher population, btw. Certainly, less people would die of warfare, but more would die of disease and starvation (especially when a famine hit). It's also possible that agricultural or medicinal science wouldn't have made as much progress today (not sure, would have to trace the origins of medical science and the agricultural revolution back centuries, which would be very difficult).
A
Amaris
Guest
Have you ever lost a Son, Daughter, Brother, Sister, Mother, Father, Aunt, Uncle, Cousin, or a friend to war? I can't imagine anyone who would say this as ever having lost anyone to a war.
Boring? You find living boring if someone's not dying at the hands of another person? Do you find war exciting? What is it about war that excites you? What makes it entertainment for you?
Oh, and "overpopulated"? Says who? You? By what metric? What makes you think population control can't be controlled naturally other than by killing someone different from you over land or water rights or something nebulous and less defined?
Are you in a war right now? If not, how do you keep yourself entertained?
I mean, really. If you see a grieving mother being handed a folded flag, are you going to flash her a thumbs up and say "At least it wasn't boring!", and "it's alright, we need to control the population!"
Yeesh.
*backs away slowly* Okay, okay, Sarek, no need to start ANOTHER war... 
Poor choice of words on my part. I certainly don't think war is exciting or anything like that (unless said war is between the Yankees and Redsox
). I should not have said 'boring', perhaps just 'less interesting'. I mean, it does sort of beg the question - if there was no war, what would we all do with our time?
I'm sticking with the population thing, though. It can be argued that war is a form of 'thinning the herd', as it were. Take all the wars that have ever been fought. Millions - billions, even - who died. If none of those wars had ever happened, there's billions who would be alive - billions MORE than what we've got now.
Wow. Looks like I accomplished what few on this board have ever done: Pissed off Sarek of Vulcan.
Poor choice of words on my part. I certainly don't think war is exciting or anything like that (unless said war is between the Yankees and Redsox
). I should not have said 'boring', perhaps just 'less interesting'. I mean, it does sort of beg the question - if there was no war, what would we all do with our time? I'm sticking with the population thing, though. It can be argued that war is a form of 'thinning the herd', as it were. Take all the wars that have ever been fought. Millions - billions, even - who died. If none of those wars had ever happened, there's billions who would be alive - billions MORE than what we've got now.
Wow. Looks like I accomplished what few on this board have ever done: Pissed off Sarek of Vulcan.
A
Amaris
Guest
*backs away slowly* Okay, okay, Sarek, no need to start ANOTHER war...
Poor choice of words on my part. I certainly don't think war is exciting or anything like that (unless said war is between the Yankees and Redsox
I'm sticking with the population thing, though. It can be argued that war is a form of 'thinning the herd', as it were. Take all the wars that have ever been fought. Millions - billions, even - who died. If none of those wars had ever happened, there's billions who would be alive - billions MORE than what we've got now.
Wow. Looks like I accomplished what few on this board have ever done: Pissed off Sarek of Vulcan.
Well, I don't mean to come across as angry, it's just there are so many bloodthirsty armchair generals, we don't need any sane or reasonable people to pick up their cause as well. Like I said, I didn't mean to get upset, but that's one of those things with me. No intent to make you feel bad, there, MLB.
Actually, without wars the current world population would be about one billion because of raids between villages. The other five billion would be dead or would never have been born.
In pre-war societies everyone knows people killed by the neighboring tribe, and archeology suggests that at least 30% of pre-civilization humans died by violence that left identifiable weapon marks on their bones.
Interestingly, the better we get at war and violence the lower the casualty rate, at all time scales and all levels. For example, Sarek of Vulcan asked
The further you go back in time, the more likely the answer would be "Yes, I lost my son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father, three aunts, four uncles, eighteen cousins, and one-hundred fifty-three friends to war."
In pre-war societies everyone knows people killed by the neighboring tribe, and archeology suggests that at least 30% of pre-civilization humans died by violence that left identifiable weapon marks on their bones.
Interestingly, the better we get at war and violence the lower the casualty rate, at all time scales and all levels. For example, Sarek of Vulcan asked
The further you go back in time, the more likely the answer would be "Yes, I lost my son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father, three aunts, four uncles, eighteen cousins, and one-hundred fifty-three friends to war."
Peace is one abused word. The French lived in peace under Hitler after they surrendered, but peace at what cost? One should never be willing to live in peace at the expense of liberty or freedom IMHO.
And it's all fine and good to be against war, but this will never do any good until and unless every single person on the planet shares this view. For any nation which categorically renounces war, will be vulnerable to enemy attack; if the US, for example, swears off all war from now until the end of time, our enemies will notice this and will attack.
And, Sarek, just in case you were wondering, my cousin's husband served two tours of duty in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan, with the Marines.
And, Sarek, just in case you were wondering, my cousin's husband served two tours of duty in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan, with the Marines.
A
Amaris
Guest
Well, yes and no. For myself, I am against war. I do believe in a war of defense, in that if you as a nation are being attacked, you have a right to defend yourself. Even that said, I still despise war. No one wins in war. No one, and I do hope there will come a day when war will no longer be desirable by any nation. It might be a pipe dream, but I still wish to make it happen.
My respects to those who have served.
They say that you can't simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. I submit that the opposite is true - the ONLY way to prevent war is to prepare for it. Like I said, any nation which gives up war, or is obviously not prepared to fight one, WILL be attacked. If you are ready, and your enemies know this, they will think twice before messing with you.
Actually that has been proving false, especially during the Cold War, when dozens of countries realized that the best way to prevent war is to be an ally of the United States. It's not only vastly cheaper, it also lets potential enemies choose the same option. About a decade ago Greece and Turkey accidentally found themselves in some crazy dispute over fishing rights around some barren piece of rock, and both publics insisted that their governments send naval forces in a confrontation. Both governments called the US and asked us to send some US Navy warships to the area, allowing both governments to claim "war called off on account of the presence of the US Navy."
Sometimes it's nice to have a cop on the beat.
A
Amaris
Guest
We should have a McDonalds in every country. That will prevent future wars.
Yeah, people will then be too fat and too unhealthy to fight.
J
Jetfire
Guest
It is human nature to fight one another...survival...etc.
A
Amaris
Guest
Apparently, no two countries that have a McDonald's has ever gone to war with one another, so my plan is to build McDonald's in every country.
Oh, and also they'll be too fat, so yeah, you had that one.
J
Jetfire
Guest
^
What about McDonald's rage!? Wars fought over chicken mcnuggets!
What about McDonald's rage!? Wars fought over chicken mcnuggets!
A
Amaris
Guest
^
What about McDonald's rage!? Wars fought over chicken mcnuggets!
Those are internal political issues.
