- #1
physicsuser
- 82
- 1
Would civilization stay still without war?
Would there even be a civilization without war?
Would there even be a civilization without war?
War and Peace: Would Civilization Survive?
- Context: News
- Thread starter physicsuser
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion explores the relationship between war and the development of civilization, questioning whether civilization could exist or advance without war. Participants examine historical examples and theoretical implications, addressing both the necessity of war for civilization's evolution and the possibility of advancement without conflict.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Exploratory
- Historical
Main Points Raised
- Some participants suggest that civilization cannot exist without war, citing historical examples where war has led to significant changes in development.
- Others argue that there are instances of civilizations advancing without war, though they acknowledge these are less common.
- A participant questions the definition of "civilization" and how it relates to the presence or absence of war.
- There is a discussion about the causality between war and civilization, with some proposing that large groups of people may inherently lead to conflict regardless of necessity.
- One participant posits that the desire for exploration and expansion often leads to war, suggesting that war plays a role in the formation of civilizations.
- Another viewpoint distinguishes between the justification of war and its role in producing new civilizations, indicating that these are separate issues.
- Concerns are raised about the historical narrative being shaped by victorious civilizations, potentially overlooking those that did not engage in warfare.
- Some participants note that while war has contributed to technological advancements, the fear of war may have also spurred innovation during peacetime.
- Historical examples of violent civilizations, such as ancient China and Greece, are discussed, with the implication that their warlike nature may have contributed to their technological achievements.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a range of views on the necessity of war for civilization, with no consensus reached. Some believe war is essential for development, while others argue for the possibility of peaceful advancement.
Contextual Notes
The discussion highlights the complexity of historical narratives and the potential biases in how civilizations are remembered, particularly regarding their engagement in warfare.
- #2
Mercator
We don't know for sure, but we know for sure that there is no war without civilisation.
- #3
physicsuser
- 82
- 1
I mean look at Japan. Every time it gets into war there are always changes in it's development. Same was true for Europe way back in the days when it was run over by barbarians and whatnot.
- #4
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 10,165
- 138
It really depends on what you mean with "civilization".
- #5
Smurf
- 497
- 3
Not sure what you mean by stay still; stay still in what?
There are many examples in history of Civilization Advancing without war, however not nearly as many or as much as those that involve war. Therefor I believe it is safe to say yes, but advancment would be much, Much slower until we got off our feet (like today). Even more so without competition. I like to look at the Cold War as a Prime example of this.
War is by no means in the nature of Civilization, switzerland hasnt had a war in 200 years, and South America hasn't had an international dispute in almost a century. Shouldn't they be bloodthristy by now?
There are many examples in history of Civilization Advancing without war, however not nearly as many or as much as those that involve war. Therefor I believe it is safe to say yes, but advancment would be much, Much slower until we got off our feet (like today). Even more so without competition. I like to look at the Cold War as a Prime example of this.
War is by no means in the nature of Civilization, switzerland hasnt had a war in 200 years, and South America hasn't had an international dispute in almost a century. Shouldn't they be bloodthristy by now?
- #6
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
- 6,843
- 11
We have no evidence for or against the proposition that war is essential to frming civilization. Every civilization in history has practiced warfare, but that doesn't say where the causality lies. Maybe its just that large groups of people are necessary to a civilization, and large groups of people tend to fight once a generation whether they need to or not.
- #7
graphic7
Gold Member
- 450
- 2
Personally, I don't think we could comprehend (because we don't know), what the world would be like without war . The civilizations (practically all, I believe) in history, are all started from wars (or the thirst to explore, which always led to war) or played an essential part in history by starting or being present in a war. Look at Rome, for example. If Rome never started a war or had the thrist to conquer, what would the world look like today?
You must ask yourself a few questions, though. Let's say for example that I live in a certain civilization; I'm perfectly happy with it. What reason would I have to immigrate to another or start my own civilization? Clearly if a war existed, it would create discontent among the civilization (especially if that civilization were on the losing side). There has to be a reason to why a person or peoples would want to create a civilization, hence war or something that is equally or close to as violent.
You must ask yourself a few questions, though. Let's say for example that I live in a certain civilization; I'm perfectly happy with it. What reason would I have to immigrate to another or start my own civilization? Clearly if a war existed, it would create discontent among the civilization (especially if that civilization were on the losing side). There has to be a reason to why a person or peoples would want to create a civilization, hence war or something that is equally or close to as violent.
Last edited:
- #8
physicsuser
- 82
- 1
From what I read all directions point to the war as a necessity for evolution of civilization. Like would Japan still be swinging swords if there were no European intrusions? If civilizations form as a result of war does that mean that every war is justifiable by default?
- #9
graphic7
Gold Member
- 450
- 2
A war being justified and a war producing new civilizations, are two different things.
- #10
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,115
- 20
Smurf said:
Don't we have a pre-selection effect there ? In that civilisations not specialising in war got run over by their war-minded neighbours before they got anywhere ? History is written by the winners of war...
cheers,
Patrick.
- #11
Smurf
- 497
- 3
Ah ha! Now we see the negative effects, perhapse war has been hampering our efforts all along. I would say that war itself has indeed provided some technology, but not as much as the fear of war, eg. inter war years, cold war, ect.
especially in these modern times.
on another note; China, the most technologically advanced civilization of the Ancient world, was also one of the most violent, being composed of some 100 states which constantly went to war with each other.
its also worth pointing out that the greeks, the persians, the romans, the egyptians, all had great technological achievments, and all were very war-like.
But, as patrick said, perhapse they were not the greatest civilizations, just the ones left.
especially in these modern times.
on another note; China, the most technologically advanced civilization of the Ancient world, was also one of the most violent, being composed of some 100 states which constantly went to war with each other.
its also worth pointing out that the greeks, the persians, the romans, the egyptians, all had great technological achievments, and all were very war-like.
But, as patrick said, perhapse they were not the greatest civilizations, just the ones left.
Last edited: