Thousand Reflections: The Benefits of War
Issue #16
About Thousand Reflections: Thousand Network is full of people from all walks of life and background. Here, we try to tap into this collective wisdom by offering a prompt every week and sourcing short responses from the members.
This week’s prompt (courtesy of Hugo Volz Oliveira):
Last week we reflected on the future of peace. This week, we’re tackling a deeper issue: the benefits of war. Historically, war was for the expansion of territory (and therefore wealth), or religion. Clearly, when looking at military spending around the world, and especially in America, it’s clear that war is big business in the modern world.
Hugo astutely remarked that if we understand the benefits of war, then we can create alternatives for them and make wars redundant. So what kind of benefits do you see? What sort of justifications are there, if any for war in your opinion? Is there such a thing as Augustine’s “just war,” whether on his terms or others?
The universe is a big cloud of energy. Along the experience of the whole, entities of energy are always colliding with others. Some of these interactions will lead to fusion, others to repulsion. A war is an interaction.
A war is a shock. A junction of phenomenon. One entity is carrying a lot of energy, and hitting another one that doesn’t necessarily want this interaction. In that terms, the Big Bang is a kind of war. A meteorite hitting the earth is a kind of war. A family dispute in a kind of war. Of course, wars between humans have their own characteristics : fight in a same species, across ethnocentric purposes, etc. There are different degrees in the intensity and damages of these shocks. But a same pattern of results can be seen. After the Big Bang, after a big shock, after a big fight, a profound change, a shift of energy, and sometimes (in the human environment) a shift of consciousness (perception of the phenomenon) about what’s happening, who, where, what (!), and why(?) we have done that….
The benefits of wars are in this continuously redirection of energy, which war after war, I mean shock after shock, I mean interaction after interaction is building the paradise we are enjoying. So, an infinite numbers of wars are happening every day. The benefits ? Open your eyes.
Although I believe in the concept of just wars, those unfortunately don’t exist in reality because of the unavoidable collateral damage that is by definition unjust. So I will try to briefly analyse the benefits of pursuing unjust wars. As in those that are initiated with full knowledge that unnecessary harms will occur and that require more than a fight of ideas. And these benefits can fall in two pockets: the benefits of the process and the benefits of the outcome.
Regarding the first, I’m assuming that any material benefits from the process, and we could consider technological development as an example, can be easily replicated. If only by finding another enemy that motivates those investments (e.g. a possible war against a disease). As for the defense industries interested in war they should be nationalized under strict controls to prevent lobbying for war.
The problem then lies with immaterial benefits, such as the the thrill of war or the ability to manipulate people based on a narrative that can only exist in the context of a war, regardless of its outcome. For both, several alternatives exist but they might not be appealing enough for the warrior or for the manipulator (e.g. sports for the former or the healthy competition between different countries in the European Union in regard to the national narratives) so this is definitely a key issue that might be very difficult to tackle as long as we remain humans.
As for the latter, benefits of the outcome, usually both parties in a war believe they can win. And the benefits of the war come from the prize attached to it. So the only way to solve this is to either remove the ability to achieve the prize or diminish the need to attain it. Here we depend on intergovernmental organizations and on the power we want to concede to them. In conclusion, wars can only end when we allow ourselves to be controlled.
I will reflect on war both on an individual level and on a global level. We are worried about wars that take the lives of millions of people, destroy wealth and create anarchy in society around the world.
Who created those wars? Why have people wanted to fight with each other from ancient time?
In the early days, it was mostly about power, control, and colonialism. Every great ruler in human history wanted to control as many regions as they could. In modern days we don’t see such naked colonialism, even though there are wars going on. In fact right now we can find lots of active war zones. Modern rulers are not looking for to expand their regime and rule the whole world as before. Instead it’s mostly conflict of interests, or in some cases social divide within a nation, civil war that has developed as people fight for control over a regime, such as the terrible Syrian War.
It starts with the very basic question of if you can tolerate other people’s beliefs and values and live in harmony as a society, a nation or a world together?
Some may be white, some black or brown, many believe in God while others don’t; there are many differences among us. Some of the differences cannot be tolerated and need to be dealt with. Again, we have the question of how we deal with people who don’t listen to us or don’t follow our set of rules? A peaceful way could be negotiating, trying to make the others understand and covert to core human beliefs that are universal for mankind, but those core values may not exist.
For example, consider the Grand Mosque at Al-Aqsa at Jerusalem. This is a sacred place for many major religions and many wars were fought to control it. Still it is an active battleground. Why don’t religious followers and leaders come forward to form a common treaty?
I think it is human nature somehow when we are taught to deal with other people, we want to get 100% benefits for our side and make sure the other side gets 0%. That creates agony and feelings of being deceived. And subsequent effects are an immense urge to take revenge and win. That’s how war keeps being justified across the years.
In my heart of hearts, I do not believe in war. I don’t believe in violence. The very idea of it makes me uncomfortable. Heck, even when people start fighting in the club on Saturday night, I’m somewhere on the opposite side of the room.
But the truth is, war is big business. It’s big in industry and economy — in the past we fought for territory, which was wealth, and now we fight for resources, which is also wealth. The sheer volume of defense spending in the US is testament to how much money war makes.
It’s also big in moral currency. If I go to war for an idea, a concept, a god, or etc, and I win, then I have “proved” somehow that my idea is correct and good.
I do not believe there is a way to eradicate war. It is too deeply tied into the fabric of our humanity and social structure. There has never been human civilization without some kind of war. So instead of attempting to remove it, I believe we need to be redefining and reconceptualizing peace. Let us look at the benefits Hugo has articulated so well and attempt to redirect them in more constructive ways. Redirect our energies and intentions. Create new versions of peace, what it is, how we can work towards it, how a peaceful society can include and welcome violence and conflict.
This is the second part of our November series on “The Future of Peace.” You can find the first part here. If you enjoy this series, be sure to click the green heart to recommend and follow the publication so you never miss an issue!
