6 ms·

Doesn't seem impossible. Within Western Europe that is close to a reality now, after endless centuries of war.

by pg 17y ago

ericd 17y ago
True, but the environment in Western Europe is very different from that of the rest of the world, and it's not clear that we can scale up the conditions of Western Europe to 6 billion people, at least with present tech, and especially if we're nearing peak oil. If peak oil is true, I would predict quite the opposite.
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
Western Europe is a pretty small slice of the world, and they've had peace for half a century, which on the scale of multiple centuries, is hardly cause to celebrate the dawning of the age of aquarius. I'm sure this isn't the first 50-year period without war in Western Europe.
- berntb 17y ago
  >>I'm sure this isn't the first 50-year period without war in Western Europe. I really doubt that. (Well, as long as we limit ourselves to times when there were Homo Sapiens in Europe.) Also, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
- pg 17y ago
  I'm sure this isn't the first 50-year period without war in Western Europe. Name one.
  - rms 17y ago
    A search for "period without war in Western Europe" goes to this thread.
  - apsec112 17y ago
    100-150 AD.
    - pg 17y ago
      The society Tacitus describes in the Germania in 98 is one constantly at war. See e.g. chapters 13 and 14: http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitus-germania-3.php http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitus-germania-3.php
jimmybot 17y ago
Alliances can easily decrease the risk of small scale war, but this is at the cost of systematic risk (alliance vs alliance war or world wars). Perhaps we've only managed to decrease the risk of medium-sized wars at the cost of increased risk for that very rare, very big one. It wouldn't be too different from the recent financial crisis or power distribution networks in the US.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Western Europe has lived for decades under the U.S. Strategic Umbrella. Once (if) that goes away, Western Europe will either have to pony up for it's own defense, or be held hostage to outside powers with their own agendas (like Russia blackmailing Europe with gas supplies) I don't see the struggle between national interests going anyway anytime unless and until the nation-state itself is rendered obsolete. People need stuff, and that creates conflict. Different groups of people will need different stuff. And let's not forget ideological problems -- Western Europe isn't exactly a model of social integration. It only takes one bad actor to make all participants gear up for the potential to use force, and we've found that once geared up, the actual use of force is not far behind. It's a prisoner's dilemma played out on a global stage. But you'd find the same situation with three thousand guys living in caves somewhere. War is a natural consequence of groups of unique and intelligent humans.
- rms 17y ago
  The struggle between national interests does not require war. War is counter-productive to national interests. A great conflict is currently playing out between the USA and China in Africa but not a shot has been fired and there is no reason for a shot to be fired.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    Well it's worse than that -- all armed conflict requires is a group of armed people determined to use violence. What terrorism has shown us is that it doesn't even require nation-states. So your nation can be so inept as to not be able to control things inside it's borders (many nations fit this bill). If armed camps build up inside them and attack other countries, guess what? You're at war -- or something so close to war as to be indistinguishable from it. If you'd like the world to work like some super-big version of your local country, where most conflicts are solved by some civil system, then you're going to have to have popular choice of representatives, mixed local, national, and world control, an independent court system built on something besides treaties, etc. The UN is nowhere near any of that. There is the theory that democracies only compete via commerce. If you buy into that, then perhaps a world full of democracies would be the most peaceful. But I don't see that happening either any time soon. It's just a long-shot. A real long-shot. I'd argue that in order to do away with war you would have to do away with 99.999% of the impetus for using violence under any circumstances. It'd be a world of extreme pacifists. Would that be such a great thing? Doesn't chaos -- whether war, sickness, disasters, etc -- contribute to evolution and growth? Do we really want to live in stasis? Or -- to put it in religious terms -- is heaven really such a great thing?
nir 17y ago
Not if you count the London bombings of 2007 or Madrid in 2004. The perpetrators were at least in part European citizens. In any case, it is one thing to have stability in an affluent, post-religion area like Western Europe, quite another to have it worldwide. Many nations in the Mid East, for example, are comparable to medieval Europe - except that if the current regimes fall (as they might well, if oil loses its value) their subjects are more likely to create a Muslim Brotherhood-type regime than a liberal republic.

Doesn't seem impossible. Within Western Europe that is close to a reality now, after endless centuries of war.

by pg 17y ago

Doesn't seem impossible. Within Western Europe that is close to a reality now, after endless centuries of war.

ericd 17y ago

True, but the environment in Western Europe is very different from that of the rest of the world, and it's not clear that we can scale up the conditions of Western Europe to 6 billion people, at least with present tech, and especially if we're nearing peak oil. If peak oil is true, I would predict quite the opposite.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

Western Europe is a pretty small slice of the world, and they've had peace for half a century, which on the scale of multiple centuries, is hardly cause to celebrate the dawning of the age of aquarius. I'm sure this isn't the first 50-year period without war in Western Europe.

berntb 17y ago
>>I'm sure this isn't the first 50-year period without war in Western Europe. I really doubt that. (Well, as long as we limit ourselves to times when there were Homo Sapiens in Europe.) Also, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
pg 17y ago
I'm sure this isn't the first 50-year period without war in Western Europe. Name one.
- rms 17y ago
  A search for "period without war in Western Europe" goes to this thread.
- apsec112 17y ago
  100-150 AD.
  - pg 17y ago
    The society Tacitus describes in the Germania in 98 is one constantly at war. See e.g. chapters 13 and 14: http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitus-germania-3.php http://www.unrv.com/tacitus/tacitus-germania-3.php

jimmybot 17y ago

Alliances can easily decrease the risk of small scale war, but this is at the cost of systematic risk (alliance vs alliance war or world wars). Perhaps we've only managed to decrease the risk of medium-sized wars at the cost of increased risk for that very rare, very big one. It wouldn't be too different from the recent financial crisis or power distribution networks in the US.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Western Europe has lived for decades under the U.S. Strategic Umbrella. Once (if) that goes away, Western Europe will either have to pony up for it's own defense, or be held hostage to outside powers with their own agendas (like Russia blackmailing Europe with gas supplies) I don't see the struggle between national interests going anyway anytime unless and until the nation-state itself is rendered obsolete. People need stuff, and that creates conflict. Different groups of people will need different stuff. And let's not forget ideological problems -- Western Europe isn't exactly a model of social integration. It only takes one bad actor to make all participants gear up for the potential to use force, and we've found that once geared up, the actual use of force is not far behind. It's a prisoner's dilemma played out on a global stage. But you'd find the same situation with three thousand guys living in caves somewhere. War is a natural consequence of groups of unique and intelligent humans.

rms 17y ago
The struggle between national interests does not require war. War is counter-productive to national interests. A great conflict is currently playing out between the USA and China in Africa but not a shot has been fired and there is no reason for a shot to be fired.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Well it's worse than that -- all armed conflict requires is a group of armed people determined to use violence. What terrorism has shown us is that it doesn't even require nation-states. So your nation can be so inept as to not be able to control things inside it's borders (many nations fit this bill). If armed camps build up inside them and attack other countries, guess what? You're at war -- or something so close to war as to be indistinguishable from it. If you'd like the world to work like some super-big version of your local country, where most conflicts are solved by some civil system, then you're going to have to have popular choice of representatives, mixed local, national, and world control, an independent court system built on something besides treaties, etc. The UN is nowhere near any of that. There is the theory that democracies only compete via commerce. If you buy into that, then perhaps a world full of democracies would be the most peaceful. But I don't see that happening either any time soon. It's just a long-shot. A real long-shot. I'd argue that in order to do away with war you would have to do away with 99.999% of the impetus for using violence under any circumstances. It'd be a world of extreme pacifists. Would that be such a great thing? Doesn't chaos -- whether war, sickness, disasters, etc -- contribute to evolution and growth? Do we really want to live in stasis? Or -- to put it in religious terms -- is heaven really such a great thing?

nir 17y ago

Not if you count the London bombings of 2007 or Madrid in 2004. The perpetrators were at least in part European citizens. In any case, it is one thing to have stability in an affluent, post-religion area like Western Europe, quite another to have it worldwide. Many nations in the Mid East, for example, are comparable to medieval Europe - except that if the current regimes fall (as they might well, if oil loses its value) their subjects are more likely to create a Muslim Brotherhood-type regime than a liberal republic.