Would we be more scientifically advanced today if...

[boxleitnerb]

...there never had been any major wars or conflicts in earth's history?

It is often said that war drives science. Gun powder, rockets, advances in airplanes, the internet (first a military network), computers in general...

Where would we be today if there had been (almost) no wars? More advanced, as advanced as we are now or less advanced? Personally I'm inclined to say we would be less advanced, but not by much. Maybe a couple of decades.

Please discuss and elaborate.

 

[yhelothar]

Less advanced by far. War shapes culture as well. The weaker cultures have been wiped out again and again in history and the stronger ones spread their influence far and wide through expanding their civilization.

However, we live in a unique time in history where if we continue through with this nationalistic ideal, the planet would be wiped clean.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Religion is the major stumbling block to development, not wars. It cost us our ancient knowledge, put (and kept us) in the dark ages, and continues to inhibit advancement to this day. If anyone ever asks 'where's my flying car', point them to a priest. While wars do destroy some things it's not the kind of dedicated eradication undertaken by religion.

 

[Dominato3r]

Paramedicine or whatever that type of care is called would be severely behind what it is today, had we not gone through WW1/WW2 IMO. Medicine as a whole probably.

 

[Crono]

Religion is the major stumbling block to development, not wars. It cost us our ancient knowledge, put (and kept us) in the dark ages, and continues to inhibit advancement to this day. If anyone ever asks 'where's my flying car', point them to a priest. While wars do destroy some things it's not the kind of dedicated eradication undertaken by religion.

It's not religion that is a stumbling block, it's the pursuit of pleasure, power, and possessions that stop us from advancing. And while people obsessed with those things can be found in and guilty of using and manipulating religious systems and other people, they can just as easily be found in the worlds of politics or economics.

It's not religion or belief systems that are the problem so much as it is human nature. And people will justify anything and everything by whatever rationale, whether it is religion or something else. Just study the dictators of the 20th century if you don't believe me.

 

[MrColin]

While much of our R&D has been in support of warfare, who knows where we would be if those same resources were applied to something else. The law of diminishing returns probably applies here too. With more and more deadly weapons we could literally take civilization back to the stone age overnight.

 

[Fayd]

It's not religion that is a stumbling block, it's the pursuit of pleasure, power, and possessions that stop us from advancing. And while people obsessed with those things can be found in and guilty of using and manipulating religious systems and other people, they can just as easily be found in the worlds of politics or economics.

It's not religion or belief systems that are the problem so much as it is human nature. And people will justify anything and everything by whatever rationale, whether it is religion or something else. Just study the dictators of the 20th century if you don't believe me.

you got that ass backwards. it's the pursuit of pleasure/power/posessions that advances us...

 

[PrinceofWands]

It's not religion that is a stumbling block, it's the pursuit of pleasure, power, and possessions that stop us from advancing. And while people obsessed with those things can be found in and guilty of using and manipulating religious systems and other people, they can just as easily be found in the worlds of politics or economics.

It's not religion or belief systems that are the problem so much as it is human nature. And people will justify anything and everything by whatever rationale, whether it is religion or something else. Just study the dictators of the 20th century if you don't believe me.

No, it's religion. The need to be the 'one true way'. A moral imperative to be immoral. Religion is pure evil which must corrupt and destroy all it touches.

 

[Northern Lawn]

Clearly more advanced.

The Roman Empire was just one discovery away from the industrial revolution. All they need was a thick ink for a printing press. Would have landed on the Moon a thousand years ago.

 

[davmat787]

Religion is the major stumbling block to development, not wars. It cost us our ancient knowledge, put (and kept us) in the dark ages, and continues to inhibit advancement to this day. If anyone ever asks 'where's my flying car', point them to a priest. While wars do destroy some things it's not the kind of dedicated eradication undertaken by religion.

I thought the Barbarians, being hell bent on the destruction of Rome, was what brought on the Dark Ages? What did religion have to do with bringing, and keeping, the Dark Ages?

So thank those bastard atheist Barbarians for the Dark Ages!

edit: Don't forget the importance of the Gutenberg press. Guess what it was first used for? To print bibles! And guess what all those illiterate peasants now wanted to read and had access to?

For the record, I am not religious at all. Never have been. But it seems like trying to pin the Dark Ages on Christianity has become common, but does not fly when history is referenced correctly.

 

[jmarti445]

I thought the Barbarians, being hell bent on the destruction of Rome, was what brought on the Dark Ages? What did religion have to do with bringing, and keeping, the Dark Ages?

So thank those bastard atheist Barbarians for the Dark Ages!

The roman empire had colonized the places where the barbarians had came from and treated the subjects like the British Empire treated India. The Barbarians weren't Atheists they were Pagans believing in Gods and Goddesses like Odin, Thor, Freya, Loki, Tyr, etc. The Dark ages were not caused souly by the sacking of Rome though, when you have a 1000 year old empire you are going to develop issues with your infrastructure, and when you overconquest europe and asia you are going to start to show cracks when you stretch things too far. The Visagoths sacking Rome did affect the empire, but the Visagoths were literally slaughtered by the other tribes such as the Saxons and the Franks and they typically believed in the same gods, if not by exact name, by like name. But I don't even consider this the dark ages as the Byzantine empire probably would have helped rebuild the western roman empire if not for...the black death brought on by traders and merchants and the rats on their ships.

The Vikings were the best barbarians in my opinion.

 

[jmarti445]

Clearly more advanced.

The Roman Empire was just one discovery away from the industrial revolution. All they need was a thick ink for a printing press. Would have landed on the Moon a thousand years ago.

So tell me, if landing on the moon is such a great thing, why haven't we returned to it in 40 years? What about the Alexandrian Library? I believe a scroll is just as good as a book as long as you are able to read it, that is, if they emperor allowed freedom of speech.

The greeks had the most free society of any of the ancient times, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle vs who in the Roman empire? The Roman empire in essence just copied the architecture of the Greeks after they conquered it, but the Roman empire wasn't the utopia of the ancient world like the ancient greeks, it just had a few hundred more years to be able to be able to perfect things. If I was to live in either ancient society, I would take Greek over roman any day.

 

[jmarti445]

Sorry if I went off topic, I would say that we would be more advanced.

 

[Northern Lawn]

So tell me, if landing on the moon is such a great thing, why haven't we returned to it in 40 years?

It's just a random milestone of advanced culture I guess. Romans were the brightest point on Earth till the Dark Ages. We didn't go back because there is nothing there.
It's not like Climbing mount Everest, very hard but cheap.

The greeks had the most free society of any of the ancient times, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle vs who in the Roman empire? The Roman empire in essence just copied the architecture of the Greeks after they conquered it, but the Roman empire wasn't the utopia of the ancient world like the ancient greeks, it just had a few hundred more years to be able to be able to perfect things. If I was to live in either ancient society, I would take Greek over roman any day.

You wouldn't want to be a slave in either culture.

This thread was about war, the Roman Empire took over the known world, and lasted 1000 years. Alexander lasted.. about what? 15 years?

What about the Alexandrian Library? I believe a scroll is just as good as a book as long as you are able to read it, that is, if they emperor allowed freedom of speech.

That library burned down, every scroll was one of a kind, copied but by hand. If the printing press was invented at the height of the Roman Empire would have flourished. They had it, everything but the ink.

Oh, another thing, the Roman had a republic, a Senate, for most of their history until Caeser turned it into dictatorship.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I thought the Barbarians, being hell bent on the destruction of Rome, was what brought on the Dark Ages? What did religion have to do with bringing, and keeping, the Dark Ages?

So thank those bastard atheist Barbarians for the Dark Ages!

edit: Don't forget the importance of the Gutenberg press. Guess what it was first used for? To print bibles! And guess what all those illiterate peasants now wanted to read and had access to?

For the record, I am not religious at all. Never have been. But it seems like trying to pin the Dark Ages on Christianity has become common, but does not fly when history is referenced correctly.

Two caveats:

1. My first undergrad degree was history, with a focus on Classical Antiquity, and lesser interests in the late Middle Ages and the Enlightenment (especially as they relate to philosophy and political science).

2. I am DEFINITELY biased against religion.

Having said the second, my training in the first is usually enough to let me validate my statements. In fact, I would contend that any serious study of the first would lead inexorably to the second.

The collected works of antiquity (Alexandria, as well as other libraries and collections) were destroyed by early Christians who found science and knowledge incompatible with their beliefs. As Rome became the vessel of Christian purification and unification centuries of focus on knowledge and reason were cast down in lieu of blind obedience (also coinciding with a rise of personal greed from within the government). The church then went on a multi-hundred year quest of obtaining and burning anything which offered alternatives to their structure and power. They executed anyone who questioned them or threatened their ways. They sought to erase anything that didn't come from them (other religions and beliefs especially, but also science which explained away the need for central religion).

The tribal invasions hastened the final collapse of nations (which were already crumbling anyway), not of knowledge. The dark ages were FAR more about the lack of reason and understanding than the lack of strong central government. In this area it is the church which is to blame.

While the broad power of the church remained largely unchallenged until the Enlightenment, the latter Middle Ages saw rise of more scholarly independence and a return to the 'worship' of rational thought. It is this return to knowledge and science which moved us from the Dark Ages into the Renaissance.

Yes, I am aware of the relatively modern movement to shift the blame from the church to other factors (such as economics). I find these arguments hollow and circular, and are generally fostered by extremists of religion and economic theory. I also have found that they simply lack historic credibility, as ample refutation for such theories abound among scholarly circles. In my opinion it is nothing more than a popular movement to do what organized religion has tried to do for 2000 years - keep mankind subject to ignorance and control. In short, they're liars and/or apologists.

 

[Northern Lawn]

I wonder if Religion was necessary for advancement. People are crazy, maybe religion *burn you at the stake if you disagree* and cult of personalty was necessary to make forward progress. We probably had to get everyone on the same page SOMEHOW or there would be anarchy. You can't flick a wand and cast a spell and everyone is enlightened.

Look at North Korea... ok bad example. But 2 steps forward, 1 step back.

 

[Double Trouble]

I think war and conflict are actually the things that spur innovation and technology the most, so I'd say we'd be much less advanced without them.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Absolutely less advanced. The conquering nations were typically the more advanced civilization. This allowed for the leaping of technology in the newly conquered region. Take native americans for example, how long had they been a simple nomadic people. Nothing was going to progress that culture except outside influence. Unfortunately the outside influence is typically violence.

 

[gorcorps]

No, humans advanced a lot due to our desire to trump other people.

 

[NetWareHead]

Religion is the major stumbling block to development, not wars. It cost us our ancient knowledge, put (and kept us) in the dark ages, and continues to inhibit advancement to this day. If anyone ever asks 'where's my flying car', point them to a priest. While wars do destroy some things it's not the kind of dedicated eradication undertaken by religion.

LMAO, where did you study history?

During the dark ages after the fall of the western roman empire, it was the Catholic church, priests and monks who were the only literate and educated people around (as well as being the only ones who could write). If it weren't for the church, MORE information would have been lost. The Church preserved this information (albeit in a censored form) and prevented the loss of countless documents and other knowledge from the ancient world.

The dark ages really only affected the Western Roman empire and those regions closely related to it after it's fall. Sure other civilizations had their rise and fall but a dark age after the fall of Rome, I don;t think has happend anywhere else. The Byzantine Greeks in the surviving Eastern Roman Empire would argue that they never fell into a dark age. The Muslims became one of the most educated and scientific societies during the Caliphates, in the middle of Europe's dark age. And of course on the other side of the world, we had the civilizations of Persia, India and China who thrived after the fall of Rome.

 

[Oyeve]

We would be more advanced medically but less advanced technically.

 

[mmntech]

There's a reason why WWII was the most important war in human history. Off the top of my head, innovations that came out of the war include...
-RADAR and it's derivatives, such as Doppler radar which warns of approaching storms
-aircraft cabin pressurization
-jet engine and viable jet aircraft
-the space program and the numerous things that resulted form it
-atomic energy
-electronic computers
-the microwave oven
-spread spectrum radio, which makes cellphones, satellites, and WiFi possible.
-women's rights and civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s sparked off during the war years.
-missile guidance, which makes autonomous vehicles possible.

 

[IronWing]

The roman empire had colonized the places where the barbarians had came from and treated the subjects like the British Empire treated India. The Barbarians weren't Atheists they were Pagans believing in Gods and Goddesses like Odin, Thor, Freya, Loki, Tyr, etc. The Dark ages were not caused souly by the sacking of Rome though, when you have a 1000 year old empire you are going to develop issues with your infrastructure, and when you overconquest europe and asia you are going to start to show cracks when you stretch things too far. The Visagoths sacking Rome did affect the empire, but the Visagoths were literally slaughtered by the other tribes such as the Saxons and the Franks and they typically believed in the same gods, if not by exact name, by like name. But I don't even consider this the dark ages as the Byzantine empire probably would have helped rebuild the western roman empire if not for...the black death brought on by traders and merchants and the rats on their ships.

The Vikings were the best barbarians in my opinion.

Point of order. The barbarians that sacked Rome were Arian Christians (non-Trinitarians), not pagans.

 

[darkxshade]

A lot of technology was discovered as a result of natural human curiosity. If there had been no wars, we may still yet have discovered many of them but that the application of that technology would be used differently.

Can you imagine what kind of discoveries and inventions we would have by now if we had always devoted the entire national defense budget on R&D?

 

[Possessed Freak]

Can you imagine what kind of discoveries and inventions we would have by now if we had always devoted the entire national defense budget on R&D?

We would have lost the war of 1812?