[Yetanfou]

Homo Sapiens has evolved to the currently dominant species partly due to its tendency to conquer and subdue - others of the same species, other species or the landscape. If Homo Sapiens were to reach this "mental maturity" it would most likely stagnate and, eventually, make space for another species to rise in its place. War and strife may lead to suffering and loss but they also provide a huge impetus to innovate on all fronts.

[Udo]

> Homo Sapiens has evolved to the currently dominant species partly due to its tendency to conquer and subdue

GP asked whether it was in the cards to have a world where no territory is forcefully occupied. No forceful occupation means that the people who live in a region get a say in choosing their government. Nobody is really arguing we cede Kashmir to a competing species.

> If Homo Sapiens were to reach this "mental maturity" it would most likely stagnate and, eventually, make space for another species to rise in its place.

Are you arguing that science and other problem solving strategies at peace are dooming the species to extinction, and that only war and suffering can ensure our continued existence and progress?

[shuaib]

Are you suggesting we need to keep a balance between war and peace? That too much peace will lead to our extinction?

[PeterisP]

Not necessarily to extinction but to loss of control - I mean, becoming peaceful often means not investing in defence capability thus becoming weak, and becoming weak means inviting violence by opportunistic neighbours or inside groups.

It's a coordination problem - as any subgroup of homo sapiens that unilaterally abstains from violent power risks simply being overtaken by another subgroup that doesn't; you can abstain from using violence, but you can't unilaterally abstain from participating in violence started by someone else. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" will be true while humans are built the way we are.

[newen]

A good example is Tibet.