Lerk's observation: man as a warmongering genetic experiment

actually, I've given this much thought in the past, here goes:

We are a warmongering tribe because in the past, our warmongers killed efficiently. Then, they wanted to kill more efficiently, so they researched how to make better and stronger weapons. As they did so, they realized they needed to be in the decision making positions to pay for the research to make better and stronger weapons. It became a race, so that a large percentage of everything made had to be invested in better and stronger weapons, or else the other guys would beat us and make even better and even stronger weapons.
Generation after generation, the better warmongers were rewarded with governance, garnering larger and larger pieces of the overall pie for their own endeavors, to benefit the state.
Rulers wanted better weapons, so weapons makers were given large sums of money, and jealously protected. Peacemakers had no voice, and were usually starved or killed out. Warmongers thrived.

As time passed, our tribe became extremely narrowly specialized. War became the FIRST thought, instead of the last resort.

Eventually, the warmongers became a larger power than the states they served. Ultimately, whether one state or another survived was irrelevant, as long as weapons were continuing to be made, which generated larger and larger sums of money for the weapons makers. Soon, weapons makers realized there weren't ENOUGH wars to continue to feed their appetite for bigger and better weaponry, and money. So, the weaponsmakers started to create wars to create a market for their wares.


We could change this, but it would take a lot of time, and the overall problem is that the warmongers are stubborn, and at present weild all the power, all the money and even have states cowering in fear of them. Anything the warmongers perceived as a threat to that powerbase would be eliminated with extreme prejudice. After all, they have bred themselves for bloodlust and entitlement. No way are they going to step aside or allow themselves to be overrun.

the solution has to be simple, subtle, non-threatening and long term. What needs to be done is that for every dollar spent on weaponry, one cent must be spent on diplomacy. One cent must be spent on bringing together great minds to come up with peaceful solutions. One cent must be spent to forestall war as long as possible through diplomacy.

you see, our war muscles are overdeveloped, and our diplomatic muscles have atrophied. We need to slowly stretch and excercise our diplomatic muscles, but it must be done in a way that our warmongers consider it neglible or irrelevant.

Eventually, if we keep finding peaceful solutions, one small treaty here, one avoided conflict there.....slowly but surely we will starve the beast of war.

We cannot fight war, as that is what it wants. We have to keep feeding it small bites of peace until it weakens.

IMHO

.. and we're already adept at it. We already believe you can fight wars against ideas and methods as proven by the war on terror and the war on drugs.

We need the war on POVERTY
We need the war on STARVATION
We need the war on DISEASE
We need the war on STUPIDITY

Fight those 4 wars the rest will fix itself.

If we had 100 years to do it.
But we don't have 100 years, not anymore.The warmongers have gone drunk on power and their greedy weapon makers are high with greed. They will kill us before the 1 cent efforts ever show us returns in real life.

but, that's to ignore that soldiers die in wars, no warmongers.

war muscles are overdeveloped conceptually as well as genetically. I'm reading Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink! (yes, i'm late to that party), and in his discussion of the Aeron Chair he observes that great new ideas are seldom recognized because the are so radically different from the dominant paradigm. Really good problem solving is almost always dismissed as "ugly or unworkable" b/c people can't place it in their conceptual framework. The Aeron Chair was universally hated in pre-production focus groups. Upon introduction it was hailed as one of the best designs of the decade, and has now taken its place alongside the Barcelona Lounge and the Eames Lounge as a classic modern design.

likewise, a "partnership" model of problem solving in political science is an ugly, supposedly "unworkable" beast. likewise, our current modes of entertainment reflect warmongering values rather than peacemaking values. likewise, as people conduct their personal relationships, they naturally reach for warmongering values rather than peacemaking values. It's preferable to "kick ass" than to "reach agreement." it's a feedback loop.

your point is valid, that small bites weaken the overarching war state. this is wisdom put to good use in the counter culture of the 60s, and we could certainly take some cues from it.