News War and Peace: Would Civilization Survive?

[physicsuser]

Would civilization stay still without war?
Would there even be a civilization without war?

 

[Mercator]

We don't know for sure, but we know for sure that there is no war without civilisation.

 

[physicsuser]

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.

 

[arildno]

It really depends on what you mean with "civilization".

 

[Smurf]

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?

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

 

[graphic7]

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.

 

[physicsuser]

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?

 

[graphic7]

A war being justified and a war producing new civilizations, are two different things.

 

[vanesch]

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.

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.

 

[Smurf]

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.