Why aren’t more people “anti-war”?Published January 6, 2020
I’ve resolved not to write anything political anymore. It’s just too polarizing. It’s going to be hard. I wrote a book about the great divide in America, called The Great Divide, before it was a thing. I’m passionate about this stuff. But it’s not worth it to me to further fan the flames of discontent. People are entitled to their opinions and I’m not going to change anyone’s mind about anything anyway.
However, there is one thing that should be a political issue, but sadly isn’t, and therefore I think I can talk about it: war. Call me naïve, call me snowflake, I am a child of the ‘60s. Back then we questioned the whole concept of war. I’d have thought the idea of settling geopolitical disputes by seeing who can kill the most people would be obsolete by now. I think now we know it likely never will be.
It’s puzzling why being “anti-war” is not much of a movement. People are anti so many other things that cost human lives: abortion, capital punishment, guns. And we’re all against outright murder, right? But anti-war? Don’t hear much about this. It appears war is too big, too entrenched as an institution to tackle. We question whether we should be in this war or that war, but we don’t seem to question the concept of war — something Man should have evolved to make unthinkable long ago.
Sometimes I ask myself if women ran the world instead of men, would war have grown to be the permanent institution that it is? Would it still be the world’s largest industry? Would most countries still devote the lion’s share of their GDPs to national defense? What would we do with all that money if there was no war? What could we do with all that money?
We will never know, of course, because none of those questions is answerable and war isn’t going anywhere. It’s probably how we all will die someday. I may sound naïve. I may sound crazy. But what’s crazier than entire countries (or religions) trying to wipe out entire other countries or religions? Can anyone answer that one?