Isn't true that war and the instinct to dominate, acquire, firm up security and its other side of suppressing , slavery , causing fear etc have all been part of human evolution in all its various manifestations and methods; isn't also true that wars have had their negative as well as positive sides. Probably I shall make an interesting PPT of the impacts of war.
There is an interesting book titled Chronology of Word Events, which is just a record of facts that have taken place in various areas of life, like when was the first coffee seed found by man and when he realized how to use it as an edible stimulant to when was the first potato as well potato chips made etc to many things and the only thing that you will find that has happened in all the years starting from 700 B.C is war of some type or other.
Here are some fodder for intellectual but impartial evaluation of events that shaped and shape life from the scripture for the educated and intellectual youth titled, ’THE SEVEN MYSTERIES OF LIFE ‘ by GUY MURCHIE,
“Most humans seem to believe they want to attain something in life. But do they actually secretly yearn for frenzy, conflict, failure and more struggles? Can there really be joy if there be no pain? The Prophet Krishna taught that "pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat, are all one and the same." War is madness - but battle the spice of life. And despite all its destructive horror, a case can be made for war as mankind's first large collective action that forged tribes into nations and made feudalism into democracy. War also has greatly stimulated invention in recent history. In the first half of this century alone, World War I produced the tank that evolved into the bulldozer, at the same time rapidly developing other new vehicles from submarines to aircraft; and World War II created the aerosol bomb, the transistor, radar, the jet, the long-range rocket, the atomic age and the space age. Presumably it was his youthful intuition about war's fecundity that induced stretcher-bearer Teilhard de Chardin in World War I to write in his diary that "through the present war we have really progressed in civilization. To each phase of the world's development there corresponds a certain new profoundness of evil... which integrates with the growing free energy for good." Although since then mankind has been forced to face the stark fact that war has grown so dangerous it may yet run amuck and destroy civilization if not all major life forms in our world, should we not, while working for peace, at least try to temper our apprehension by recognizing that some paradoxical component of war just may somehow be a tool of spirit?
Of course it is not really possible for us earthlings to descry the Elysian view of planetary life, even while in orbit, so I hope you'll pardon my stretching my mortal prescience a little farther than it likes to go. I do it because I deeply feel man must glean what he can of the
spiritual meaning of adversity if only for his optimum understanding of the illusory paradox of evil that so tries this nether world. I believe anyone rash enough to criticize such a basic feature of creation as evil or woe should at least reflect how easy it is to under- or over-estimate the suffering of other creatures. Is it not clear that some of the apparent agony in predation may harbor hidden satisfactions in the predatee as in the predator, that a preying mantis who continues making love to his mate after she has eaten his head off has other than- human feelings, that surface complacence in some creatures may conceal deep frustrations, that the lowliest of martyrs undergoing torture for his faith may be happier than the grandest of princes on his honeymoon?
What is evil in respect to me indeed may be good in respect to you and vice versa. For there must be brands of evil that are good for me to struggle against - things that are "evil" only relative to my consciousness, not absolutely evil - things that challenge but don't really
harm anyone, including me. This, I am convinced, is the meaning of the ancient Chinese saying that "to be right you must also be wrong." And I feel sure in my bones there is no such thing as absolute evil, for evil is in essence only a dearth of good, a deficiency from certain viewpoints, a negative quality, a relative value.
This whole issue of good and evil of course deals with the question of contrast and its value for the world. Contrast creates impact, meaning, language, structure. It is effective because things are most sharply measured or defined by their opposites. In an example, you
can use the concept of light to signify good, if you prefer, which would make the obverse side into darkness rather than evil. This may be helpful because darkness is not necessarily bad, often being the creative darkness that gives meaning by its very contrast, by
surrounding and framing the light. Indeed it forms the black area on a printed page like this one. Some might say a completely white page is purer and more perfect than one with so many black marks upon it. But of course a pure page is also a blank page and worthless because it conveys no meaning.
The same principle of contrast applies to the relativity of good and evil, a spiritual interaction between opposing forces that could be likened to a pen against paper, writing the language of God in mystic words that inscribe themselves as deeds upon the world. If you are not sure what I mean, consider the similar paradox that amplifies the images of many of the great figures in history. Would we remember Joan of Arc had she not been burned at the stake? How would Churchill seem without the villainy of Hitler? Or Lincoln without the Civil War? Even a symbolic figure like Saint George could hardly have become the patron saint of England without the aid of a partner whose great virtue was that he was wicked. I refer of course to the famous evil dragon for, if by some fluke the beast had turned good, George would have lost his reason for fighting him - and the whole fracas would have fizzled. Likewise did not Abel receive indispensable help from Cain, Abraham from Nimrod, Moses from Pharaoh, Christ from Judas ... ? And do not Christians agree that the supreme wrong of the crucifixion occurred on "Good" Friday which proved to have a right side on Easter?
One of the most important uses of slaves, surprisingly enough, was for the publishing of books, which of course was done all by hand, yet with astonishing speed and efficiency. With one highly trained slave dictating the text and a hundred scribe slaves copying his words in a clear, swift hand, others could collect the copies, check and correct them, still others roll them up, bind, title and adorn them for the market. Thus a single Roman publishing house could "print" a 1000 copy edition of the short Volume Two of Martial's Epigrams in a 10 hour work day, each copy containing over a thousand words and retailed at the equivalent of ten cents, earning a net profit on the edition approaching fifty dollars.
All in all, slavery seemed such an ingrained aspect of nature that the great philosophers of the day accepted it, including Socrates, Plato (rather reluctantly) and Aristotle. Even Christ is not known to have spoken against it, for, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Every man has his own calling; let him keep to it."
The history of war has unfolded at the same time in a parallel, feedback interrelation, there being no evidence that man invented war (or had reason to) until agriculture made it possible for him to settle in permanent villages with territories that required organized
defense. Moreover, of the 14,550 wars on Earth since history began to be recorded in 3600 B.C., a new one appearing every 140 days on the average for some six millenniums, wars have been relatively local until this century, indeed generally conducted like sporting events
with traditional rules and led by individual heroes, the participants being limited to armies of professional soldiers rather than spreading to vast amateur populations. The only ones that involved whole populations, so far as I know, were the terrible ravages of major invaders
like Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan and the occasional wars of extermination that killed off small tribes. But now suddenly in our own time something entirely new has evolved with the advent of nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles, which have made all-out war so impersonal and instantaneously lethal on such a scale that the "victor" must almost surely
be destroyed along with the "vanquished," not to mention all large cities and possibly half of mankind vaporized in a day.
The absurdity of continuing the present international anarchy provoked Einstein into calling nationalism "an infantile disease, the measles of mankind." And the folly of it is now so obvious that probably the majority of all educated people already favor world federation, including the sacrifice of national sovereignty that is essential to enable it to disarm and police the planet. Yet it is very hard, for
prime ministers, presidents and heads of state, charged with responsibility to uphold and defend national sovereignty, to feel the need to limit that sovereignty, which would seem to mean limiting their own power and importance. It is hard for them to see the analogy of
the peaceful justice that prevails in almost any court of law, which of course depends on the ultimate judicial power (armed bailiffs and police) being controlled by the law (judges and magistrates) rather than by the litigants (prosecutors and defendants). For how different
it is at present in the "court" of nations on Earth where the ultimate power (missiles and bombs) is controlled not by the law but by the litigants (competing nations), which results in the perpetual danger of catastrophic war. Clearly a change is due and overdue, a shift
of power from the litigants to the law, from the competing nations to a world government constitutionally authorized to make and execute world law - thus to preserve world peace!
Whether this will come through the relatively peaceful evolution of international trading cartels, political treaties, charter reform in the United Nations, Olympic games, world citizenship declarations (like that by Minnesota which, in 1971, became the first state of the U.S. to declare the allegiance of its citizens to the world community), intercultural conventions (perhaps involving UNESCO), ecumenical or world religion or (God forbid) through catastrophic famine, worldwide disease, poverty, war, or some unforeseen natural upset, mutation, cosmic interference or a combination of them - no one can foresee nor Prophet foretell. Yet somehow world government is coming, as surely as any human future is coming. And that alone (with all it implies in mind and spirit) should ensure that world germination will lead directly to the flowering of the planet!”
Real Invisible weapons of mass destruction alarming and unthinkable watch these two links then read what is written below especially the highlighted parts