Do we need a war?

In history wars were always times of great technological progress. The last big conflict lead to the journey from the Earth to the Moon. I would say it only was fought without armed forces because of the nuclear weapons. So I ask you: Do we need a big war or conflict to take the next steps?

Buzz Aldrin and John Barnes drawed a "Hot Peace" between China and the rest of the world in their book "Encounter with Tiber". So do we need a similar conflict? There are several possible conflicts imaginable. A re-rising Russia, a Chinese behemoth, a imperialistic Japan, a terror-shakened US and many more.

Are wars perhaps the only evolutionary ways for humankind to evolve? Humans tend to get dull when they have everything they need. Even further: Stagnancy is the death of civilizations.

Or do you think the current progress (is there really any?) is enough? Private-induced developments like Scaled Composites, Space Exploration Technologies, Kistler Rocketplane. Slow-growing efforts like the Chinese space program, the Japanese space dreams, Russia's tries to recover old times.

How much time do we have left? Many things endanger humankind. Not only that decadence can slowly kill humankind. What about space objects' impacts, gamma bursts, a collapsing biosphere and many more?

What do you think is under the current circumstances the best and perhaps only way to get real progress?

War needed? Nah, I don't think so. It just needs to be turned over to private industry.

Private industry doesn't need wars to improve it's products, just market competition.

IMO war is not the way humanity advances, all wars actually do is remove the controls put in place by the controlling enties. (governments, big business,ect) a good example is the internet. It has grown really fast, no war needed... but neither has it been regulated... as soon as it gets enough regulation, it's growth will begin to be affected. Probably people have already noticed it slowing.

The effect of wars on technology indeed is as Klaus says. But does this mean already that the wars themselves and as such drive the technological progress? What might it be that causes wars to have effects that seem to be found NOT if there are no wars?

This seems one essential and crucial question that needs to be asked and answered to get insights into this topic.

To me it seems that a war means requirements and emergencies not present in peace - the dangers to life and objects are extreme in comparison to peace and so technologies are reuired that are not needed in peace. This drives the technological progress.

In so far it is not the war itself that are causing the progress but the requirements and emergencies that apparently don't exist in peace.

In truth the same progresses will be achieved in peace but not at that pace, not that quickly but slow and evolutionary.

The requirements and emergencies can occur by other ways alternatively - by the goal to reach Moon and Mars for scientific, adventureous or colonization goals for example. They simply aren't that forcing then - it is possible to not go there.

There are requirements and emergencies in peace also - hunger, Tsunamies, volcanic eruptions, rising sea level. hurricanes and blizzards and much more. But they aren't as forcing as wars are that can last for decades or even centuries (the hundred year long war between the UK and France call "Der Hundertjährige Krieg" in German).

Not all wras drive the technological progress - the "Dreißigjährige Krieg" in Europe from 1618 to 1648 only was killing very lots of people but I don't remember a single technological progress it caused.

In so far wars do nothing else than establish a forcing challenge to meet requirements and emergencies. There are challenges in peace that aren't met - some of them result in wars because they aren't met.

...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

How about this stupid war on 'terrorism', what did that bring us? Right, camera's all over the place.

The developements in world war 1,2 and the cold 'war' were because of urgency and simple need. If mankind would need to get to mars or out of this solar system for whatever reason, that would be the biggest drive you can get towards developement.

Btw, whats the point in killing your own workforce?

War is the father of all and the king of all

and

Every animal is driven to pasture with a blow

- Herakleitos

The question is actually about competitive pressures. In the absence of competition, does progress occur?

Talking about war or business is just the surface issue driven by competition.

Well progress does actually happen wihout a great public need for it, even if it is slower. For example what great calamity drove Galileo to make his many advances? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

You are not wrong of course, but the days that a single individual, scientist or otherwise, working alone without financial aid making a major breakthrough and benefiting the rest of humanity is getting less likely.

Research, military or commercial or government is sadly driven by big money.

And in that context, i argue that the military drives progress, because governments tend to spend extraordinary amounts of money to find the next better way to kill people, even if it does not make much commercial sense.

How about worldwide stupidity?

There was no specific event directly causing his exact innovations, but I think it is overly simplistic to say that, for example, world war two caused the start of space flight. Some things during Galileo's life include the Dutch Revolt, or Eighty Years' War (1568[1]–1648), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War
the Long War or Fifteen Years' War (July 29, 1593 - 1604/November 11, 1606) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_War_% ... an_wars%29
the Polish-Swedish War (1600–1611) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Swe ... _1600-1611
and many other minor conflicts. Galileo lived in an EXTREMELY violent time. We have almost no war today in comparison.

Don't forget money. Galileo did a lot of things to make money.

Also there was a lot of political wrangling amongst the Italian city states, noble families and churchmen, short of outright war. A sort of mini, renaissance, cold war.

Hello, koxinga,

Herakleitos didn't say that war is the father of all and the king of all - that's a misunderstanding. What he said really is translated into German as "Der Kampf ist der Vater aller Dinge" which translates into English as "The fight is the father of all things" or "The struggle is the father of all things" - these issues really had nothing to do with war or the like but was the european version of the thinking of Yin and Yang for example.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

What he really meant was strife. All things are change and flux, pantei rhei and all that stuff.

I was using his words to put the point across that change is a result of or act of opposing forces. And by that nature, it is hardly cooperative.

Well I don't think so , but our poiliticians do so they can have something to discuss during their cocktail hour. You know for them talking golf all day gets boreing, besides who would want to sit around all day and discuss , the next big raise they are giving themselves.

Why so bitter cj422?

War is just the extreme end of market competition. One sided wars don't produce technological advance.