Controversial subject, but in fairness a lot of advances were mainly made due to being in a state of war at the time or getting ready for the next one. "In this year of remembrance and looking back at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, which killed some 15 million people and unleashed a cycle of violence and instability that led to the deaths of millions more in a second global conflict, it is not a bad idea to ponder the question Ian Morris – borrowing of course, from the famed song by Edwin Starr – puts forth in the title of his new book. What on Earth could war possibly be good for? According to Morris, apparently everything. In an argument of grand sweep and surely controversial conclusions, Morris, a professor of history and classics at Stanford and author of Why the West Rules – For Now, takes us on a grand tour of human history, from ancient times to the present day, from ancient Rome and the Incas to the Islamic conquests, the British Empire and the age of Pax Americana, looking at how war shaped civilisations and made progress unfold." http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/books/war-is-a-friend-only-to-the-undertaker-historian-ian-morris-thinks-war-has-been-good-for-humanity?#ixzz2yUDKZ700
War is against the law of nature. It mostly kills the youngest, the strongest and the healthiest. The elderly are less involved in battles whereas those who old enough to become parents may be killed before they have children. Of course technological improvements are made, but the price to pay is too high in my opinion.
The nature of war and who suffers has changed over the centuries. I'd like some well defined critieria before I tried to defend or refute the hypothesis. The medial advances made in war would be the primary thing I'd look at if I were trying to support it I think.
What I gleaned so far was the following; "Warfare, Morris contends, has led to the creation of larger, more complex societies that ensure the safety of their citizens by imposing peace and enforcing laws. In turn, large societies, over the long run, have created the conditions for economic growth and better living standards. The historical process, he concedes, is hardly pretty: “The winners of wars regularly go on rampages of rape and plunder, selling thousands of survivors into slavery and selling their land. The losers may be left impoverished for generations. It is a terrible, ugly business. And yet, with the passage of time – maybe decades, maybe centuries – the creation of a bigger society starts making everyone, the descendants of victors and vanquished alike, better off. The long-term pattern is again unmistakable. By creating larger societies, stronger governments and greater security, war has enriched the world.” Morris refines his argument by introducing the notion of “productive war”. In these sections, his account reads like a mishmash version of Jared Diamond’s bestselling book Guns, Germs, and Steel. In this view, geography, not culture or ideology, is destiny. In the “lucky latitudes”, as Morris dubs them, development proceeded along similar lines. Farming and the infrastructures created by agriculture led to settled, concentrated, more dense societies, which create effective means to fight an enemy. If societies find themselves on the losing end, they are “absorbed into the enemy’s more effective organisation”." http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/books/war-is-a-friend-only-to-the-undertaker-historian-ian-morris-thinks-war-has-been-good-for-humanity?#page1#ixzz2yVUGJFHd Now, there's an argument that says farming helped to create war- http://www.ww2f.com/topic/50430-did-farming-cause-war/?p=554581 -and I can see the reasoning for that, but I think he's stretching it a tad to say bigger and more complex societies wouldn't have evolved otherwise. We know that centralised governments came about in the 17th-18th centuries due to the cost of maintaining large armies in the field and the effect on the monarch's coffers, but which caused which? There was already a movement away from absolute monarchy and trying to limit the power and authority of monarchs, so I don;t personally think it's as clear cut as Morris thinks.
War is about land Land is power and wealth. There are surely exceptions, but (in my view) there is no reason to wax philosophical about what is almost in every case a black & white grab for territory, and the wealth and power it brings. This is a WWII forum, so one might say the US and commonwealth countries had no stake in Germany's European land grab - but we did. Those were friendly nations with whom we traded with and depended on for our own economic stability. Skipper says it is against the law of nature, but I would have to respectfully disagree. Wolf packs fight for hunting territory, bears fight for prime fishing spots, monkeys fight for favored fruit groves. Man does the same thing. Man has reasoning ability and often can avoid going to the extreme of killing, but when compromise can't be reached the killing soon follows. Look at Syria right now. The factions may have painted themselves with ideological camouflage, but in the end it is about who controls that nation - he who holds the power gets to suck the wealth from those they control.
