You
would maintain that when all needs are met, then peace prevails?
Not at all. War goes far beyond meeting needs to meeting wants, which are unlimited.
Most wars weren't fought over having access to cheaper tea or spice. Not in this century.
Economics more broadly than that. But a lot of the uprising in South Africa was economic -- the poverty of the blacks, their exploitation for the wealth of the whites. They would go to work in the homes of the whites, and see things they wanted and couldn't have. If the whites had been as poor as the blacks, and had worked as hard for as little, I doubt the revolution would have taken place. It was, at heart, an economic, not an ideological, revolt.
Look at Rhodesia. Land grab by the poor from the wealthy.
Your original posts suggested to me that you thought most, or many, wars were fought for ideological purposes, warring religious or ideological principles. If that's not what you were saying, fine, but if it was, I disagree. You asked about getting rid of any religious feeling, and IMO that would make very little difference in the level of conflict in the world. The conflict between Islam and the West may be framed in ideological terms, but at heart it's economic -- we're taking their oil, the Israelis have taken their land, etc. Religion is a good pot stirrer, but it doesn't provide enough heat to boil the kettle. That takes self-interest. |
