You are of-course assuming that a) anyone will care to wage a world war over whales, b) the 'right' side will win such a world war and c) A victory in such a war will be any better than defeat with irradiated lands and oceans.
But yes, in principle you are right - a common world government will need a world war. Such a government will also, by necessity, need to be a un-elected tyranny in order to exist as a common world government.
A government needs to wage war at some level to exist.
To eliminate war the motives for war created by governments need to be addressed. There is only one logical outcome, once you decide you don't want war.
There can't be war because the next World War would most likely make us extinct. We need another approach, one that puts us on a path to prosperity and sustained growth as a species. Everyone could have an amazing life, we really just need people to work on improving distribution of goods/services.
I don't think there needs to be war. I don't think government is the enemy--it is the corruption within government. People fighting the state directly will only accomplish a bloody mess.
I don't think that would be stable. No war means losing the ability to fight which means eventually it'll be easy enough for just one small group to attack somebody much bigger but weaker.
If war is solved by all attacked countries surrendering immediately so one aggressor rules the world, I'm sure factions would emerge within it who are competing for power again.
Maybe a solution could come from some defensive technology permanently outperforming offensive technology? I think people would still find a way and the wars might be or begin by psychologically changing people's allegiances.
The world has been at a perpetual war for forever! That is actually quite interesting in of itself.
There has been no mass self-correction to my knowledge that would avert this kind of destructive behavior.
But in saying that, I am fully aware that most of such behavior stems from people who are in charge of the world at a political level.
Is it implausible to think that this is something that will have to change in order for the world to change?
The war doesn’t serve anyone but a few rotten minds who are trying to make decisions on behalf of millions if not billions of people.
And we share a similar nudge. I do think that was is happening in the world today is a mere preparation (of society) for a massive power struggle in various parts of the world that will inevitably lead to a full-blown war. But this is only my personal feeling/interpretation.
First of all, fuck you. It is because of people like you that believe we should be permanently at war that we are permanently at war.
Second of all, no, the world should not be run by these warmongering generals trying to destroy each other. That is not how humanity is going to improve. The only way the world is going to improve is if all these military assholes are lined up and shot and never allowed to run the world again.
* We can go to general, world wide conventional war. Just the amount of oil and environmental damage spent, producing machines (eg, airplanes, tanks, missiles, ships) would be astronomical
* Nuclear war would likely break out at some point, when someone is backed into a corner
* Biological warfare will likely be a component of any large scale future war. Naturally, mistakes will be made, and one favourite is destroying an enemy's food supplies.
So imagine crops or food animals targeted by disease, and it spreads to other lifeforms
My point is, I have been wondering that when things get very very visibly bad, when no one can rationalize away what is happening, when everything is falling apart due to global migration, land loss, loss of crop land, etc etc...
Will war then occur, with "pro environmental" nations working to prevent environmental damage of others? And then, of course, causing waaay more damage due to the war?
The economic situation of today is not conducive to global war. Our whole system is now based on international trade and skilled labor. When war breaks out what happens is the skilled labor evaporates, destroying the local economy, which then percolates into the global economy. Simply put, a world war is now too expensive because governments wouldn't be able to simultaneously fight and keep their population fed. Only if you had the right mix of dogmatic leaders who were willing to throw their own people under the bus and had the support of troops to do so (think taliban) could it happen, but given the gradual decline of populous religious extremism in most regions (except the middle east) i doubt we could get to that point any time soon.
Then again, world war 3 might break out next year. You can never tell such a thing in advance.
The question I have, is it better for all of us than one of the old-fashioned guns-n-bombs style wars? If so, I am more than in favor of moving to a world where all warfare is just rich, powerful entities fucking with each other monetarily.
If your worldview is grounded in the apocalyptic - eg. incoming ecological disaster - you will get people who are willing to wage war if they are persuaded it is preventable and certain nations are impeding it. That's just one example; militant theocracy would be another worldview driven towards war, as well.
In general, it's mindshare that I could see driving more war, a push to add more people under the overall worldview of a nation or coalition, similar to what we saw under the Soviet Union.
I disagree. You take the attackers POV (I'd say every example you've listed is viewed negatively by the vast majority of global citizens).
So in the eye of an attacker, war is necessary. To me that's not enough to prove that wars in general, as a concept, are necessary for societies to move forward. They're more of a shortcut for dictators or institutions to get things they otherwise couldn't get, or at least not as fast/efficient as they'd like.
There must never be a third world war, it would imperil human civilization itself. There can never even be a total war between two major powers anymore. Our weapons are just too awful.
Unfortunately I'm not sure that our politicians self-preservation instincts, strong as they may be, trump their egos (sorry for the pun.)
But yes, in principle you are right - a common world government will need a world war. Such a government will also, by necessity, need to be a un-elected tyranny in order to exist as a common world government.
reply