History never repeats..

So say Split Enz a 1980’s band in a minor hit of theirs This group contained the Finn brothers who more famously turned up later as Crowded House, but enough musical history and the dubious wisdom of pop songs. I am more taken by the line “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” an observation I believe was originally made by Edmund Burke but more famously attributed to Winston Churchill more often than not.

If we are to accept the quote then in the context of war there are a lot of people not paying attention as it keeps repeating over and over. Is it simply in the nature of humanity to go to war. Can we never learn to control this presumably powerful instinct?

This thought thread was sparked by the current hand wringing going on over 9/11 and of course the “war on terror” that resulted in the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Which lead to thinking about the nature of war more generally.

So my neighbour rang me a while back and asked me in a roundabout way to cut down a tree that is at the bottom of my garden because it blocked his sun and made his house colder. I don’t want to cut down the tree as rather than a view of a mature tree I will have a view of his house. This may seem unreasonable my view versus his comfort but the house was built there years after the tree was fully mature so the lack of sun due to the tree shouldn’t come as a surprise to him. I am therefore not inclined to correct his folly by transferring his pain to me. Any way that is not the point so to wrap this point up the law is on my side (right of wrong). After chatting around the thing for a while he said “you are not being helpful, can’t we come to a compromise” to which I replied that if he could explain the compromise position between chop down and not chop down I would listen. (pruning wouldn’t change anything it is a big tree) The point being some problems just don’t have compromise outcomes some of them have a winner (so to speak) and a loser. So what now for my neighbour having encountered my unreasonable intransigence? (from his point of view).

Well because he is a civilised individual (albeit grumpy with me potentially) he accepted the position but he could have “gone to war” with me by executing a commando raid in the dead of night over the fence and poisoned the tree. (he wouldn’t be the first) and I could have retaliated by shooting him in the head. (ok that would be a bit extreme but you get the point)

Effectively we had a competition for resources (he wanted the sunshine that my tree was using) and I didn’t want to share because in this instance we couldn’t. So the end of war would seem to be an acceptance that the status quo is acceptable and no one will do anything to alter that state without the express agreement of the other parties that might be affected. That is how our mini battle did not escalate to war.

So how likely is it that there will never be an “uncivilised” neighbour in the world who will not resort to force to get what they want. Well if you continue with my example then presumably when we all feel we have an appropriate share of the available resources.

If I could have cut the tree in half vertically that might have been a compromise, it just doesn’t work with trees. But trees aren’t what we have real wars about are they, it does tend to be resources that we could deal with differently. Contented people seldom go to war only the disenfranchised.

Lest anyone make the mistake that this is a call to socialism, it isn’t, I used the term appropriate not equal or desired share of resources. So it is back to the debate about how we allocate resources appropriately and ensure people understand and accept that this is so.
For example most people are happy that doctors get paid more than labourers. They can see that it takes a lot more training for one thing to become doctor so we have an unequal share of economic resources but an understanding of why this is so. So when I am driving my Toyota and my doctor is driving his BMW I don’t really feel bad as I understand and accept that. When my banker is driving a Ferrari because... well because I don’t feel so good and potentially have a desire to "deal" with my bankers excessive consumption presumably at my expense, look out I see the potential for "war"