Over the past several decades, we have experienced a level of peace and tranquility surpassing any period of human existence since the emergence of bipedalism over 4 million years ago.
From the days of hunter-gatherers to post-industrial society, human deaths from war have decreased by close to 1 percent from around 65 percent since the days of early conquerors—a significant drop compared to the First World War.
Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September 1939, which led Great Britain and France to declare war on Germany, marked the beginning of World War II.
Predicting future global conflicts is a challenging prospect, but competition over limited resources such as water, energy, minerals, and arable lands could escalate tensions between nations.
Climate change impacts, like rising sea levels and extreme weather events such as the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Australia, may also contribute to the escalation of war, though the reality of such occurrences is still distant.
Factors like nuclear proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, economic inequalities, and geopolitical rivalries cannot be discounted, potentially leading countries into war.
Despite living in the best time of human evolution, world leaders may still engage in self-destructive activities, underestimating the significant role of human stupidity in shaping history.
Unlike the first world war titled ‘Call of Duty: Modern Warfare of real life,’ the expenses and damages a war inflicts may not be worth considering, as the repercussions often unwelcome, ultimately destroying the economy in the long run.
Despite Donald Trump’s constant accusation in 2020 before the presidential election that China is to blame for the COVID-19 pandemic, which had catastrophic effects in the United States, killing more than 200,000 people and leaving the White House in disarray, it’s highly unlikely that, without valid proof, the US would wage war despite strains in its healthcare systems.
Such an action could potentially impact defense capabilities and preparedness, indirectly affecting the balance of power between nations.
Strong international laws, particularly the United Nations Charter, provide a legal basis for condemning and responding to acts of aggression, preventing the US from engaging in a full-scale war.
While recent inflationary pressures globally have brought economic instability and social unrest, this alone cannot be considered a potential threat to future global conflict.
Global leaders need to carefully consider different factors and their consequences, recognizing that they are not living in the era of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.
In the past, great empires were built through violent conquest, looting, and exploitation.
However, the nature of the economy has changed.
With a GDP of almost $27 trillion at the end of 2023 in terms of purchasing power parity, it’s highly unlikely that China would risk its growing economy and civilians in a full-scale war against the USA for a few billion dollars.
China’s global infrastructure development strategy, the Belt and Road Initiative, aims to invest in more than 150 countries and international organizations, making it improbable that China would jeopardize its economy for minimal gains.
The proposition of conquering warfare being a high-profit affair no longer holds in the twenty-first century.
Modern societies are more diverse, multicultural, and inclusive, striving for respect for different cultures and traditions.
Today, technology allows for virtual military operations and attacks. However, even with the use of technology, warfare remains an unprofitable business in the twenty-first century.
Whether mankind can learn to exist peacefully in each other’s orbits is yet to be seen, but human absurdity in the pursuit of power and ambition cannot be discounted.
Despite living in the best time of human evolution, world leaders may still engage in self-destructive activities, underestimating the significant role of human stupidity in shaping history.
Rational leaders often find themselves making incredibly foolish choices.
This brings us to the question of the degree of trepidation warranted in relation to the threat of world war.
While war is not an inevitable occurrence, the peaceful resolution of the Cold War exemplifies that conflicts between superpowers can be resolved peacefully with the right decisions.
However, it’s precarious to adopt the belief that a new world is destined to occur, as this may escalate military forces and lead to an unavoidable eruption of war.
It’s also credulous to think war is beyond the realm of possibility.
The devastation of war serves as a reminder that human absurdity knows no bounds, impervious to natural laws, deities, moral precepts, or religious texts.
In conclusion, the world does not exist solely to cater to the desires of geopolitical rivalries between major global powers.
A bit of humility would put countries in their place and give leaders a reality check.
The impact of national, religious, and cultural tensions is amplified by the distorted mindset that one’s religion, nation, and cultural values reign supreme.
Whether mankind can learn to exist peacefully in each other’s orbits is yet to be seen, but human absurdity in the pursuit of power and ambition cannot be discounted.
(The writer holds a Master of Professional Accounting degree from the University of Ballarat, Sydney in Australia)
Comment