Cancelling War
And planning for peaceful coexistence
We seem to be in the midst of a growing 'cancel' culture. So why not cancel something that would benefit us all? War.
War is wasteful, primitive, and traumatizing. It's also futile. But eliminating it requires us to address deep-rooted political, social, economic, and psychological factors - the latter best illustrated by a history littered with wars where the subsequent narratives develop into heroic theatres, and the conflicts themselves are interpreted as entirely virtuous and necessary.
A major part of the problem is that world affairs are unduly and unjustly influenced or dominated either by state representatives of the world's most developed nations (who want to safeguard their resources and the means they used to access and acquire those resources) or menacing non-state actors. Through acts of colonialism, religious proselytizing, intimidation, invasion, or sheer tyranny, these are the people responsible for activating the motive for war, justifying the means for war, and fanning the flames of war.
If peace is a prerequisite for the enduring survival of humans on this planet, then we need to find solutions that actively prevent us from repeating the tragic mistakes of our conflict-ridden past, including carelessly or deliberately creating the conditions for war. We also need to control our aggression more effectively.
One strategy might be to decentralize the authority needed to declare war so that any decision would not be in the hands of individual despots or a small cadre of elected officials hiding in their safe bomb-proof bunkers. With current technology, such as smartphone apps that can be used to harvest feedback on any issue, we could ensure that citizens of a country have a direct say in whether to go to war. If the populace elects not to go to war, that decision should be respected, or their rulers removed from office.
Additionally, mechanisms actively aimed at inspiring and rewarding peace-making while discouraging warmongering propaganda could be established. For instance, armies refusing to engage in combat, citizens going on strike until all peaceful possibilities have been exhausted, and a non-aligned, publicly-owned, media enterprise established to communicate only validated information from a variety of trusted 'in-the-field' sources.
The notion of requiring rulers who declare wars to personally participate in combat highlights the potential for reducing the frequency of wars by making those who want war directly accountable for their decisions. If political leaders knew they would have to fight personally, they might exercise far more caution, resulting in fewer conflicts, less material destruction, and far fewer deaths. They would likely approach any decision regarding war with greater reflection, prioritizing negotiations and peaceful resolutions above all else.
Such a constraint would foster a heightened sense of empathy and responsibility towards their citizens, and humanity as a whole, helping them recognize the true and total cost of war. Rulers willing to fight each other for their decisions, whether physically, via televised debates, or any other form imaginable, might also gain them greater legitimacy and moral authority, garnering respect from citizens as well as the international community.
Of course practical considerations would inevitably arise, such as the age and physical capability of most rulers, who are certainly unfit for physical combat. Forcing individuals, especially incumbent leaders, into battle also raises ethical and legal questions related to human rights and coercion. While the requirement could have a powerful symbolic impact, I do recognise that its practical enforcement might need to be symbolic rather than literal.
To harness the spirit of the idea while addressing practical concerns, several alternative approaches can be considered. One tactic is frontline diplomacy, where officials spend time in conflict zones, engaging directly with affected populations and experiencing the realities of war firsthand. To some extent this diplomacy is on show today when individuals participate in international peace missions, by helping to directly mediate and negotiate resolutions in conflict zones.
Accountability in decision-making and the avoidance of escalation could be enhanced by establishing war councils comprising former soldiers, victims of war, conflict experts, and trauma specialists whose role is to approve any declaration of war before it is made public. This would ensure that those who understand the costs of conflict have a decisive voice. Another approach is mandating public referendums on declarations of war, giving the populace, who bears the consequences, a critical say in any decision.
Leadership immersion programs could also be effective. Sadly it has become common practice to assume that politicians need no help or advice in order to understand their job. But increasingly, given the woeful decisions being routinely made these days, that assumption needs to be reconsidered. Requiring political leaders to undergo basic military training or service would give them firsthand experience of military life, the tensions within the military, and the burden of war they carry on their shoulders even in peacetime. Moreover, involving senior public officials in realistic war simulation exercises would provide them with a deeper understanding of the complexities and consequences of military conflict. Even more intensive experiences would be needed for them to contemplate a nuclear Armageddon.
These measures, inspired by the principle of direct accountability, would promote peace, cautiousness, and greater empathy within political circles. By creating mechanisms that bring politicians closer to the realities and consequences of war, we should be able to foster a more responsible and prudent approach to conflict resolution, ultimately contributing to a more peaceful world.
While many traditional and innovative measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate the need for war, there are some unconventional and potentially unconsidered ideas that could contribute to a plan for peace. Imagine a world where every person receives training in emotional intelligence, conflict resolution, and negotiation from an early age. By embedding these skills deeply into society, we could foster a culture where conflicts are resolved peacefully and empathetically, reducing the very notion of war to a visceral loathing.
We could establish an international 'Brains Trust' composed of critical thinkers, scientists, artists, and philosophers dedicated solely to innovating new methods for peace building. This group would research and develop creative and unconventional approaches to conflict resolution, drawing from diverse fields such as neuroscience, art, biology and technology. Implementing widespread cultural exchange and hybridization programs, where communities from different parts of the world live together, disclose their traditions, and build mutual understanding, could create a more unified global culture with shared values. This would reduce the "us versus them" mentality that often leads to war.
Developing global economic policies that make war financially unviable could act as a powerful deterrent, especially in an age where more resources need to be spent on combating global heating and pollution. For instance, creating a mechanism where countries involved in any form of direct conflict or via proxies automatically lose access to international financial markets, trade benefits, and development aid would discourage nations from engaging in war, hitting them where it hurts most—economic viability. Introducing a system of global rewards for countries that maintain peace and resolve conflicts in a similar fashion could make peace a far more attractive proposition than war. These rewards might include financial incentives, international prestige, and additional support for social and economic development.
Using advanced virtual reality technology to create immersive experiences that simulate the realities of war and its impacts on civilians could develop a deeper understanding and empathy for those affected by conflict. Politicians, soldiers, industry leaders, and the general populace could be invited to participate in such simulations and realistic war games. Researching and developing biological and psychological interventions that reduce aggressive tendencies and enhance cooperation and empathy could also help prevent conflicts. This might involve dietary supplements that promote calmness or community-based therapies that address collective trauma and aggression.
Establishing a global insurance system where countries pay premiums based on their conflict risk, similar to health or car insurance, could create a financial deterrent against starting conflicts. The funds collected would support peace building efforts and rebuild war-torn areas. Creating networks of ordinary citizens trained in diplomacy and conflict resolution to act as grassroots mediators in international conflicts could complement official diplomatic efforts and foster more inclusive solutions. Promoting the idea of a united human identity by investing in space exploration and the vision of humanity as a single species among the stars could unite nations in cooperation and make earthly conflicts seem petty and counterproductive.
Developing and implementing advanced AI systems to assist in global governance, conflict prediction, and resolution could reduce human biases and errors. Avoiding any deeply divisive or contentious issues, such as those depicted in the movie Minority Report, these AI systems would analyze vast amounts of data to identify potential conflicts before they escalate and propose evidence-based solutions. Prioritizing global health and wellness initiatives that address mental health, substance abuse, and other social determinants of conflict could also make societies less prone to aggression and more resilient in the face of potential conflicts. By improving overall well-being, the likelihood of war can be significantly reduced.
These unconventional ideas, while sometimes far-fetched, could lead to innovative solutions that address the underlying causes of war, thereby creating a more peaceful world. The key is to remain open-minded and willing to experiment with new approaches, recognizing that the quest for peace may require bold and unconventional thinking—something not on display today.