We all hate the suffering that war brings.

We all know that wars rarely provide a permanent solution to any problem.

Some of us believe that the fifth commandment means we should not make war.

Yet almost all of us would kill to defend our loved ones on our own territory.

Some of us see war as necessary, at least right now, to control the exploding human population.

But is our ethical position to be overridden by our nation's call to war?

Or should ethics override politics?

Personally, I think the pope could do more toward solving the population explosion than even a fair-sized war. Of course, that's not likely to happen.

I believe that Gandhi and MLK demonstrated how effective non-violent, pacifist resistance can be against raw power. When dealing with an enlightened and fair-minded populace, holding a spotlight and exposing acts of injustice arouses consciences.
All that remains is to spread enlightenment and education, world wide. That shouldn't cost any more than wars, should it?

Shouldn't ethics override almost anything, especially politics?

I think that after the population reaches 10 billion, there will occur some natural catastrophe which will reduce it down to 6 billion.

I wonder if any war was ever fought out of which anyone could boast that enough good was accomplished to justify the evil.

I wonder what percentage of people even in such a developed country as the US are capable of thinking clearly, without affiliation and without prejudice. Then, I wonder what percentage of those can share their thoughts and make a change for good. If we can change the factors which disenable individuals from thinking wisely, then we can begin to imagine a world without war.

I was recently thinking that war is a bandage for wounds of the warring populace whose treatment usually cannot take place, because most individuals have excuses for ignoring getting to work on their damaged reasoning faculties. I doubt that there are enough older folks who are the ones with wisdom, still also idealistic, enthusiastic, and energetic enough to consider pulling off any necessary improvements in the way that most individuals underuse or misuse their thinking mechanisms.

quote:

I think that after the population reaches 10 billion, there will occur some natural catastrophe which will reduce it down to 6 billion.

quote:

I wonder what percentage of people even in such a developed country as the US are capable of thinking clearly...

Sorry, but those two quotes seem to go nicely together.

In Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse' he describes the utility of wars as population controls in primitive societies which had developed agriculture. It's been a while since I read it, so I don't remember the details, but he describes one small and isolated island society which had no wars. It was a tradition there, every so often, for groups of young men to set sail on 'voyages of discovery' which everyone knew they had very little chance of returning from. A peaceful alternative to war?

Thanks for the book ref, NNN. That sounds like a good read.