Does Civilization cause humanity to trend more toward conflict or is civilization the path away from war? Why?

Here are the answers to your four questions:

1) What is the root cause of conflict?

[Note: Conflict covers anything from a strong disagreement to a nuclear war.]

Belief that everyone is a separate being who lives then dies, is the root cause of all conflict. To understand this further, type "Belief in Separation" into the Google search box.

2) What are the root causes of war?

Relatively few women own weapons, start wars, fight wars, promote wars, or like wars. A great many men do all five, however. Study and understand this well, and you will better understand war, the cause of war, and possibly the ending of war.

[Hint: In general, how might you expect the capability/experience of giving birth to another human being (and intimate responsibility for nurturing the new human) to affect disposition/attitude toward killing and war?]

3) What is civilization?

Civilization can be viewed as an attempt to recreate the "Garden of Eden" in world that has "Fallen". [Note: I am not a Christian, but the "Garden of Eden" and "The Fall" *are* mythological keys to Great Truths. Study the deeper meaning of these myths, and the meanings of the symbols in these myths, and you will be on the right track.]

4) Does the further development of civilization led to less war or more war?

War did/does not exist in the "Garden of Eden", so civilization (although it has a long way to go) is a step in the right direction.

Especially the Internet :-)

You can't have conflict or war without people.

There is no such thing as a natural state for adult humans. We are a product of our environment and our choices. Things like mental disorders and even autism can be linked to childhood trauma says the latest research. Humans aren't even born with a sense of causality much less any tendency for corruption.

None of the wars in the 20th or 21st century would have been capable without fiat money and treasury bonds that depended on the labor of future generations. That is to say if you had competing currencies based on hard assets then it would be impossible to pay for offensive wars.

If the United states didn't have a government then any potential army to invade us would find it incredibly difficult and not worth it because all invading armies always take over the tax structure of the country they invade in order to help alleviate the massive debt they incur from paying for the war.

You cannot have a war without governments. Governments are the largest polluters on the planet, responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths just in the past 100 years (not including wars) and are completely unjustifiable in any capacity whatsoever. Doubt that? read this:

http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/PracticalAnar...

I would suggest that civilization and war are not so much related, civilization is necessary due to exchange of services and social reasons, conflict is simply a natural part of life because there will always be individuals void of empathy and defiled with greed (for psychological or social reasons) who relentlessly cause suffering to others for their own benefit.

So, perhaps ever growing civilizations will allow evil powers to expand, consider media control today and the example of cannabis, outlawed in 1930s America after a racist smear campaign began by William Hearst in the papers branded it as an evil thing to the public, as its counter-part, hemp, is a massive threat to wood, cotton and medical corporations.

There was a quote from Edmund Burke which was 'all for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing'

So the question is whether people are able to unite against evil or undesired acts, and it seems somewhat else evident that their influence does not match the power of big brand corporations.

So, perhaps it has done more evil than good, thus resulting in further conflict and thus war.

So the question is whether a growing civilization has benefited in reducing conflict between citizens, but it still appears that conflict still occurs due to differences in sports, race, tastes, what city theyre from etc but perhaps it has reduced conflict due to acceptance having grown over time, especially due to the vast differences that people have.

My conclusion here is that it has done more good than bad, because larger groups of people take power and influence away from individuals and groups of individuals who try to speak out against certain thing, but there always so much going on thats just not enough time for everyones story as it were, thus it allows greater political control.

Referring back to marijuana, one reasons government aims to keep it illegal it because the chemical THC, induces critical and creative thinking, and the powers want to keep most people stupid so they stick to their day jobs and not ask questions about the society we live it, I know this is a rather sceptical point but it does seem that civilizations cause issues than they solve.

However, another advantage is that a greater number of people equal a wider scope of services which makes things more things possible for the individual alongside convenience

guy will probable reason the tip of Humanity. The appalling component is that for subsequently long it replaced into assumed that nuclear conflict might end civilization. Now, it might seem that guy's result on the ambience could do it. what's the bigger tragedy: (a million) that our movements brought about our own dying; or (2) that we had the capacity and technologies to alter our detrimental habit yet lacked the want to do it?

if we are to follow our nature the way we should, then everyone would have love for one another..and when we don't then we can not get along, to get along..this is my simple answer for such a deep question that you ask, and i think that to keep it simple is so much easier, right? Blessed are the peacemaker's. we will be called children of God, and that is what we all are..so we are not as different as what people think..so why fight about it?!

Civilization is city centric approach that accumulates wealth leading to tension in villages. It leads to war thus.

a good thriving city encourages people not to go for wars.