I (like other commenters) am cautious to attribute the lack of Post-WW2 global war to the UN. The development of nuclear weapons seems a far more likely culprit

I (like other commenters) am cautious to attribute the lack of Post-WW2 global war to the UN. The development of nuclear weapons seems a far more likely culprit since we now live in the age of MAD (mutually assured destruction). So I can of course get behind the idea that War is Bad [tm]. The problem is that in evolutionary and social terms it served a purpose. And that purpose was (and is) the ultimate resolution to resource allocation problems. If you think about how wealth is being concentrated into the hands of very, very few, you can attribute at least some of this to globalisation. Look at historical figures [1] and you see that in inflation-adjusted terms some would be far more wealthy than the wealthiest people of today. What about the likes of Julius or Augustus Caesar? 2000 years of compound interest! Now it's true that wealth doesn't tend to survive many generations but there are exceptions. Then look at conflicts like the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution or any number of European conflicts. War really seems like it served the purpose of being the ultimate means of wealth redistribution. Of course it's ghastly but my question is this: in a stable world without conflict, how is it that the wealthy don't end up owning everything? And with an ever-rising population bordering on arguably more than the planet can support with ever-dwindling resources, how does this not end with catastrophic conflict since we've virtually eliminated every form of population pressure? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_figures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_...