My grandfather on my mum's side tried to enlist to WWI, but was rejected as he was too young, being only fourteen or fifteen. He was deemed too old to go to WWII, and with a young family, instead trained military engineers. A quarter of the world away in Malaysia, my grandfather on my dad's side during WWII, also with a young family, was postmaster and a key part of an underground network helping escaped POWs get out of the country.
Why did they do this?
I can't say for sure for my grandad in Australia, as I was too young to ever talk to him about these things before he passed. but talking with my dad about his father, it was because it was the right thing to do. Not only that, it was because they had seen some of the horrors of war from the civilian perspective (my dad saw some very terrible things as a child) and felt that something had to be done to protect themselves, others, their country and humanity. My dad was what you might call an eternal pacifist.
Last night I was writing about large scale global conflict to put to bed the military superpowers of the world, as they are taking this opportunity to expand their reach, because people do not have the appetite for large scale war. A conflict in Ukraine over a sliver of land, an attack on Venezuela to depose a dictator, an incursion into Taiwan? These small actions seem to be tolerated, with little more than some toothless economic sanctions that do nothing, and some spoken condemnation. But if it were to expand into larger action, who has the appetite?
After eighty-odd years of "the long peace" in Europe, the generation that experienced the true horror of war have largely disappeared, but the leadership are the children and grandchildren of those survivors. People who didn't see the war, but still feel like they did in some way, and still have this sense of nationalistic pride. But is it pride, or protection? After all, after tens of millions of deaths, there was also an unprecedented economic boom, which led to all kinds of innovations and growth, but more importantly perhaps, it allowed a couple generations to become wealthy, to become owners, to control the flow of resources at the global level. Do they care about protecting their country, or do they care about their wealth?
Consider where they pay their tax and hide their money for the answer.
The problem is, that while the decisions that lead to war are an old person's game, wars are fought by young people, and the young do not have the same appetite, nor sense of duty that was present in the past. In the "for war" countries, the majority of young can't afford to own a house, have a family, pay their education, or live without being in debt. Essentially, they don't have any resource stake in the country, so what they would have to be willing to protect, is their way of life.
But, without ownership, living in debt, being disappointed by society, being overweight, ill, mentally unstable and all kinds of other issues, are they willing to die to protect their way of life for other people? Because that is what it takes to protect a way of life through large scale war; A willingness to die for others. After all, a dead person has no way of life to live, so the beneficiaries are those who live past the war.
And as I have stated many times prior, young people today aren't willing to commit to a partner, a career, a product or anything else. They want their freedom of choice, but are they willing to die for the freedoms they currently enjoy, when their freedom has left them as renters, as dependents, living in debt in the basement of their parent's home.
I suspect not.
The greed of industry owners has led not only to a concentration of wealth in fewer hands, but it has also catalysed social disconnection, empowering individualism for profit. This has been hyper-sped over the last two decades as social media, smart devices and a constant stream of content driven by outrage engagement through polarisation and identity claims, has created an ideological vacuum. Everyone is in a different boat, rowing in different directions. This means that there is no general "way of life" for people to collect around to protect, meaning that people would have to be willing to amass and cooperate with people they do not connect with on any common cause, to protect something individual in their life that they see is worth dying for. This also means that if they see it worth protecting, it doesn't mean there is any beneficiary for their death, because not many people may value the same thing.
Consider this scenario:
An individual who is willing to die to protect transgender rights as it is the most important thing in their life, would also have to be willing to cooperate and fight alongside people who are willing to die to protect their beliefs from transgender rights. And neither of them own a house, have a family, and both are swimming in debt, with little career prospects. With these last two perhaps the only reason they might go and fight - for money.
I suspect that the conditions required for young people to fight a large scale global war are just not there, as they are disenfranchised from society. There is no longer the sense of "do my part" in this society, because capital-driven individualism has broken society apart. There is no one boat and all pulling in the same direction, there is no consensus on what is right or wrong, or what is worth dying or killing for.
so how is a global war to be fought?
Remotely.
Automated technology and long-range attacks launched from thousands of kilometres away, by a few people sitting in comfortable office chairs perhaps. But while this is possible, this would also create massive internal problems, as the face of war changes and once the attacks start external to a country, they begin internally also, often from people already within the country. People who ideologically oppose an action, with some group always ideologically opposed, no matter the action. And since there is no sense of togetherness, nor is there ownership, it effectively becomes an "all on all" situation, with no group having commitment to any other group and unable to even align for a shared common good.
Consider how much division there already is across so many topics that actually affect us and how little action there is made to improve. Consider how much apathy there is for positive action and support for initiatives, but how much complaint there is about the state of individual topics. People find meaning in their life by theoretically supporting the ideas of a movement, but for the most part, is only going to be done as a virtue signal for attention on social media. How many are willing to risk their lives for the movements they are so passionate about?
As I said in the other article, we are either going to have to have a large scale war that obliterates us all, or find a new way to live on this earth together, because the current trajectory obliterates us all anyway - just slowly. The appetite for military action might be in the hearts of those who don't have to act, but when it is their sons and daughters on the frontline, fighting a meaningless battle so that a few wealthy people can maintain their stranglehold on society, is the heart of the soldier still aligned?
Would the US government force people to fight through coercion like the Russian government does? Will they treat deserters similarly? Will they execute officers that fail to deliver results? Will Americans accept that?
I just don't see the cohesion necessary for country success likely, and any action without a clear common good behind it is going to create more division. So perhaps the only thing stopping us having a large scale global conflict, is our inability to agree on anything to make the world a better place, which also stops us from agreeing on fighting together. It is our lack of community, a crumbling society, the degradation of family and social network, and our desire for comfort, ease and convenience that protects us. But, it is also these things that has led to the situation we have, where the wealth keeps collecting at the top, and more and more people fall into poverty. Not just financial poverty, but poverty of human experience and wellbeing.
What are you willing to die for?
What are you living for?
Shouldn't they be the same thing?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
