War has been a part of human history for a long time, and some argue that it has positive aspects. However, it’s worth debating whether war has contributed to human progress, or whether it’s just competition. We should be wary that war does not always lead to progress, but rather to the destruction of humanity.
Humanity has lived with war. Humans have been fighting wars since the days before proper records existed, and every country that has kept historical records has a record of war. This shows that war is not just a phenomenon specific to a particular time or region, but a part of the way humans have lived in community. Given that human history has been marked by war, it may be that war is in our nature. With so many wars, there have been many attempts to analyze the effects of war on humanity. There are those who see war as a complete evil, fearing the destructive consequences it can bring to humanity. On the other hand, there are those who see the positive side of war and argue that it is a catalyst for human progress and a necessary evil. The negative effects of war are clear, so there’s no disputing that war is evil. But what are the positive aspects of war that make it a necessary evil?
War is a conflict between groups that cannot be resolved by agreement and can only be resolved by armed conflict. In the extreme conflict of war, winning by any means necessary is the only way to avoid the worst consequences of defeat. In this process, war becomes a test of humanity’s various values and ethics. Those who say that war has a positive side believe that under the special circumstances of war, groups involved in war are desperately seeking advancement in order to gain an advantage over other groups. Therefore, war positivists argue that radical advancements can always be found in war-like situations. For example, the rapid advancement in metalworking technology during the transition from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. Or the development of a fully fledged iron culture during the Spring and Autumn Warring States period in China. And in modern times, the intense military technology race between opposing nations during World War II, and the radar, missile, and nuclear technologies it spawned, are just a few of the countless examples that support this argument. However, it’s important to consider whether these technological advances are a byproduct of war itself or a byproduct of the pressures of war.
But is it fair to say that war has contributed to human progress based on these historical examples alone? I argue against the idea that war is a necessary evil for human progress for the following reasons.
First, war did not directly influence human progress. The examples above simply suggest that humanity was able to develop in the context of war, not that war directly caused humanity to develop. This is because of the special circumstances that war brings with it: extreme competition between groups. To sum up, war is not the cause of human development, but rather the result of the development of humanity as a result of the extreme competition between groups during war. In fact, in the case of semiconductor technology, which can be seen as a representative of modern technology, the technological level has shown an exponential development trend over time according to Moore’s Law. In the modern era, the frequency of new technology development is unprecedented in history. In addition, the information age has made the exchange of knowledge and technology more active, and this has accelerated the pace of human progress regardless of war. According to those who argue that war is a necessary evil for human progress, there should be more wars today than in the past, given the unprecedented rate of development. However, this is not the case, and the frequency of full-scale wars has actually decreased. This is because technological advancements have made it easier for countries to share their knowledge with each other, creating a favorable environment for competition and mutual advancement in the creation of new knowledge. This does not mean that war has directly influenced human progress, but rather that the environment of competition, not war, has been the catalyst for human progress.
Second, war does not always lead to human progress, especially in modern, technologically advanced warfare. This can be seen in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, attacks by terrorist groups like IS, or civil wars in the Middle East, such as the Syrian civil war. We don’t see the developmental elements of humanity in war, only the destructive aspects of war. What these examples have in common is the lack of competition for dominance in the context of the war described above, and the sole purpose of these groups is to destroy each other using modern weapons with high lethality in order to win. In this context, war forces human creativity and wisdom to be used for destructive purposes, which can ultimately hinder the development of human society. In this sense, the use of socially prohibited and horrific chemical weapons to harm hostile forces emphasizes the negative aspects of war. It’s also proof that war is nothing but harmful to humanity.
War happens when neither of the groups involved in a conflict can compromise their interests. Given that the essence of war is the complete destruction of the opposing group, it’s an act that is far from advancing human progress. The negative effects of war have become extreme with the development of modern science and technology. Now, with the advent of highly advanced missile technology and the unprecedented destructive power of nuclear weapons, wars can literally destroy everything, leaving nothing behind. Beware of the terrible consequences of war, we should always be wary of war and seek mutual development through positive competition. For a sustainable future for humanity, we must not forget that avoiding war and maintaining peace is the real key to human progress.
