ORIGINAL: vahauser
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." -- Albert Einstein
I don't think we need concern ourselves about a "world without war" anytime soon. Indeed, the more relevant concern might be a "world without peace" for the indefinite future.
Well, it could be argued that a 'world without peace' is the human norm. Neolithic tribes are usually in a state of more or less constant -- but very low-level -- warfare with their neighbors. The most extreme example would be the New Guinea tribes that get together once a year and chuck spears at each other across a meadow until someone gets seriously hurt or killed. Then that's it for that year's war.
The pattern continues, through the habitual warfare of the Middle Ages and into the dynastic wars of the Nineteenth century. Frequent, but not especially intense. Even in the Napoleonic and American Civil Wars, the average soldier might see three days of serious fighting in a year of 'war.'
Then we get the modern era, with World Wars One and Two. Cataclysmic outbreaks of virtually uninterrupted violence, followed by universal agreement that war is a bad thing. Try drinking a quart of gin in one sitting. The next morning you'll have similar sentiments about alcohol.
Maybe we'll go back to a more traditional, human norm. Sort of urban gang warfare on a national level. It's worth noting, by the way, that that's one reason gang violence is so hard to stamp out. It's a perfectly normal activity for young males. See also the traditional G-8 uproar. Whatever the ideological motives of the participants, both the energy of their protest and the from it often takes obviously owe a lot to a native human impulse towards violence as a group activity.
