I watched Schindler's List unedited in Junior year at High School.
Originally posted by inimalist
When compared to tribal society, we partake in much less war and murder now than then, and this trend has been essentially consistent throughout history (though our technology has allowed us to wage larger wars, conflict is much less common and pervasive in people's lives).
If major steps were taken to end resource scarcity and dependance (Utopian, I know, I know) there would be very little to motivate large scale combat.
However, I was thinking about this the other day with a friend:
At the beginning of WW1, few of the major powers actually wanted conflict. Leaders of Britain, France and Russia really weren't interested in the time and investment war with Germany would take. However, the people, being removed from combat and wanting the glory for their respected Empire, were entirely in favor of it and were literally clamoring to go to war. This is largely because war, as it had been in the 1800s, was a "game" of honour and chivalry, removed from the general population and fought in regimented lines and with huge ceremony. War, as we know it today, was unheard of, the visceral consequences not apparent and largely unknown to everyone, including many of the top military commanders.
WW1, 2, and subsequent conflicts have done two things. The massive destruction of Western nations during the world wars brought the reality of the destructive nature of modern warfare directly into the psyche of people, and the increases in media and communication technology have given people a first hand look at what war is like. This isn't to say there isn't propaganda mixed in (say, the film "Saving Private Ryan" versus "Pearl Harbor"
, but the face-to-face imagery we have with the moral and human consequences of war have changed the way we as a society feel about conflict. Sure, wars still happen, but not for these ideas of empirical honor that sort of died in WW1, as the reality of conflict makes such concepts immediately naive.
As major powers now develop drone and electronic warfare technology, these consequences are going to become less and less apparent to the populace. So long as major powers continue to fight wars against people who don't have the strength to really fight back in a meaningful way, people will become more comfortable with the idea of it, simply because the consequence is never made readily apparent to them. In fact, robotic warfare will be seemingly indistinguishable from video games in many ways, certainly videos of what look like houses being blown up by drones don't carry the same weight as a whole generation of young men being forced into the trenches or of a child covered in napalm.
And much like with the invention of artillery, citizens have no conception of how this new technology will change the battlefield if major powers face off against each other. We are potentially setting ourselves up for another WW1 scenario, where citizens demand a war that nobody might want, largely because they have no idea of how dramatic the consequences will be. Inevitable? maybe... I wouldn't speak in absolutes, however I think this scenario is the most likely.
The American Civil War actually could be considered a very early dress rehearsal for World War I in terms of technology, tactics, and the sociological impact.
Early in the war you had high society families going on picnics to observe Union forces in battle and in the first Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) these people were forced to flee when the Union troops retreated and just about trampled them.
Also:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Confederate_Dead_at_Devil%27s_Den_Gettysburg.jpg/755px-Confederate_Dead_at_Devil%27s_Den_Gettysburg.jpg
Eerie considering that's from 50 years before the First World War, isn't it?
