It is of course all to do with survival; they don't want any other troops
of chimps around competing with them for the same food and tree branches, so
they fight to preserve some sort of territorial boundary.
Man of course evolved beyond chimps; his stick wielding and stone
throwing abilities are much better. However, he remained none the less
territorial. Eventually, he became so confident with his new found abilities
that rather than wait for a chance encounter with another tribe before
having a fight, he would deliberately invade someone else's territory with
the express purpose of taking it away from them, or stealing their food,
women and animals, and so a rather unfortunate tendency developed in human behaviour.
The rest of course is history. Sticks and stones became spears and
arrows. Stone knives became axes and eventually swords. Some clever Chinaman
invented gunpowder and Ghengis Khan decided it was wasted on making
fireworks, and so came guns, cannon and bombs. Man's inventiveness evolved
and has never been idle in devising bigger and better ways of killing more
and more people. The centuries gone by have been an endless saga of conflict
and battles, attacks and defences, invasions and resistance. Today of
course, the entire population of the world can be utterly destroyed at the
touch of a button, but as far as our mentality is concerned, we have hardly
moved any distance at all from the territorial instincts of a chimpanzee. Is
that disturbing or what? (Territory can include political and religious
boundaries as well as geographical ones).
The Disarmament Option
Ever since the first nuclear bombs were exploded there have been voices
speaking out against them, and rightly so. The C.N.D. wants everyone to
dismantle their atomic weapons and throw away the pieces. No one can deny
that the world would be better off without any
W.M.D's. But why stop there? Why not have a campaign to dispose of
conventional weapons as well? Let's have a total ban on anything that can
kill, maim or injure another person, and then we can all sleep safely in our
beds at night.
No we couldn't . In the first place,
getting rid of all the weapons in the world wouldn't make it any more
peaceful. People would just go back to killing each other with sticks and
stones, and there will always be plenty of those around. If there weren't,
people would kill each other with their bare hands. Disarmament then, does
not equal peace; in fact it could mean people would be more ready to go to
war. It would mean though, that the world would not be so likely to destroy
itself as a result.
In the second place, people are far too sneaky and devious to rely upon
to fulfill any agreement to disarm. The advantages of keeping your own
weapons while everybody else got rid of theirs are both great and obvious.
The most unscrupulous of powers in the world would undoubtedly take
advantage of such a situation and use it to assert themselves as the
controlling factor in the world's affairs. In any case, if all the weapons
in the world were destroyed there would always be the possibility of
somebody developing them again and everybody ending up back at square one.
No, multilateral disarmament, without some form of built in security, is
not a viable option for world peace.
Another option would be to keep all the weapons as they are,
but for all the people to change. This option can be subdivided into two
For everyone to rise above their territorial natures, and
grow out of their tendency to invade and overpower.
For everyone to adopt exactly the same policies of
culture, religion, politics, business etc. so that there would not be any
further conflicts of interest to fight over.
The first alternative is not going to happen. That's not to
say that no-one is capable or willing to perfect themselves in this way. On
the contrary; many people in the world today have already overcome their
baser natures and are at this level of maturity. The problem is that this
alternative requires everyone to attain a higher
level of evolution; it would only take a small percentage of the population
to remain at a lower level for the danger of war and self-destruction to
remain a threat. It is the nature of this planet that there will always be
imperfect people living on it. If people were already perfect then they
wouldn't be living on this planet in the first place. In a democracy, these baser,
less evolved individuals tend to put themselves forward for election for the
selfish advantages of position and power. In a dictatorship, they are the
ones to whom it appeals the most to have the power and do the dictating. In
a world where there will always be imperfect, un-evolved people, there will
always be the probability that they will get into power and cause trouble.
Any plan for world peace, present or future, would have to be one that took
the problem of an imperfect population into consideration.
The second alternative appears to be the one most favoured
by the current powers that be. They think that if every country had a
democratically elected government, and every government supported the same
policies, then a state of harmony would exist between all countries and
there would be peace in spite of all the arms and weapons that some
countries have. They would like to impose the same box-standard type of
government and principles everywhere in the world and we'll all live happily
This is all right in theory, but it still doesn't solve the
problem of getting rid of all the weapons. In any case, why do they
think that their policies and form of government is the best? How are they
going to impose democracy on people who don't currently subscribe to it?
Will we see more situations like the current one in Iraq? What happens when
somebody realizes that there is a much higher system of government than
democracy, will they be allowed to develop and evolve it or will they be
forced to remain stultified in order to conform to the standard set by the
majority? This idea depends on a very delicate balance of ideals and
principles and is both too fragile and too inflexible to be a realistic long
It was the exact same idea that the communists had when they were at
their zenith, but of course they had a totally different box standard type
of government and set of principles for everyone to adopt. No doubt there
are many other different factions who would like their ideals and principles
to be the ones for everyone to live by so clearly this is more likely to be
a cause of contention rather than a pathway to peace.
Variation of the same theme:
It would now be a good time to mention a variation of the
same theme, and to cite some examples of it in history: They would be the
expansion of the Roman empire, the conquests of Alexander the Great, and the
legend of King Arthur and the knights of the round table.
The Roman empire is a perfect example of the making uniform
each state and country, however their idea was to subjugate everyone around
them and place them under the rule of a centralized, Roman government. Of
course this was done for the benefit of the Romans rather that any
altruistic desire for peace. However it has to be said that within the
boundaries of the Roman empire there existed a significant amount of order
among all the countries that were under Roman rule. It would of course have
involved a considerable amount of bloodshed whilst the empire was expanding
but eventually it would have settled down to be something stable and
peaceful, although there always would have been the danger of uprising and
revolt under such an arrangement.
Alexander the Great had a similar idea; he thought to
conquer and subjugate the neighbouring lands but with the slightly different
angle of incorporating the armies he defeated into his own army as he fought
his way across eastern Europe.
Of course we have seen similar ideas in recent history when
Nazi Germany decided to impose its own form of rule and subjugation in the
world on its neighbouring countries. Apparently however, nobody wanted to
live for the gratification of a self-appointed master race and so a rather
intense and bloody confrontation ensued.
Given the nature of democracy and what's already been said
about imperfect people and their tendency to put themselves in positions of
power, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a powerful country
such as the United States could fall into the hands of a government that
decided to impose its own values on other countries in the world, for
whatever benefit to itself. Indeed, hasn't that been happening recently in Iraq?
Now we come to a slight improvement on the preceding
examples; the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the round table.
Whether truth or fiction this serves as a perfect example of what could
happen in the interests of peace. Arthur supposedly lived in Briton at a
time when it was full of rival factions all behaving like the chimpanzees in
the woods; they were at each other's throats vying for land and supremacy.
Arthur came along with the grand idea that if they put all their armies into
one big army, under one central command (the round table) then the kingdom
of Briton could no longer suffer all these wars because one army cannot have
a war by itself. Good isn't it? It's still basically the central government
principle, but differs from that of the Roman empire who subjugated
everyone, and that of Alexander the Great who merged his armies by
conquering them, in that they all agreed to this plan willingly and without
What if the same thing were to happen today? Not in one
country like ancient Briton of course, but every country. What if all the
countries of the world disbanded each of their armies and replaced them with one
universal army, under
one central command? (But not one central government). Wouldn't that do away
with war in a single stroke? Of course it would - you don't see any more wars
happening in modern Britain do you?
This is the central idea around which the plan for world
peace dealt with on this website is based; the rest of the site is devoted
to sorting out all the pro's and con's of such a scheme, overcoming the
problems involved, and conceiving the best plan and tactics to see it