war and aggressiveness

i have often heard people dreaming and clamoring for a world where there is no more wars!!! how ideal thoughts!!! what valiant dreams!!!! but i am saddened to realize that these pacifists are unrealistic fools!!!!

when you dream dream of something that is possible. you can dream of flying, and you can fly too, but you must be travelling on an aircraft to do that. if you want to fly without an aircraft you can always jump off a cliff or a particularly tall building, actually i would quite advice that to these unrealistic dreamers!!!!

these people who call for an end to wars do not understand why wars occur in the first place. true, politics and greed is the most visible culprit. but there is something deeper, an inherent characteristic in human beings that leads us inevitably to war.

aggressiveness.

this simple characteristic has been the driving force behind human species prevalent dominance in the planet. had this latent aggression not been there, we would never have dared to challenge nature, challenge our intellects, challenge our various obstacles.

it is the same aggression that drives an athlete towards that final lap , which also drives monarchs and generals to keep fighting wars.

the first use of aggression and war was in early days of human civilization when man began settling down and cultivate food. he had to wage a continuous war against nature and its predators. the first weapons were developed against these natural predators. had man not been aggressive he would have submitted meekly to being ravaged by the forces of nature and civilization would not have progressed.
now it was the same aggression that drove entrepreneur farmers to increase their arable land and this quest in increasing land gave rise to border system. where there was borders there naturally the aggression in man caused one to try and over come the border of the other. and the first war between men was fought.

in its essence modern war does not differ in anyway from the early conflicts and fist fights between neighboring farmers. question of greed that is driven by aggression.

now should we vilify this aggression?
think about it again!!!
if this aggression was not there, would man have tamed the continents, the deepest oceans, the tallest mountains and the farthest reaches of space?
aggression gives the passion that most often overtakes reason.
reason will not allow the wright brothers to attempt flight. it would be too risky and stupid of them if they thought rationally!!!
reason would not have allowed edmund hillary to conquer mt. everest. it was sheer passion driven by aggression which overcame all rationale and reason that said it was suicidal to attempt to scale that edifice!!!

it was same passion driven by aggression that led to napoleon and hitler to launch their wars against all reason. the same aggression also led nelson and stalin to defend those wars!!!

now what is the basic difference between hitler and hillary? both were driven by aggressive passion.
the difference is their intent.

what hillary aimed was noble and what hitler intended was evil.
would world have been a better place if both hitler and hillary were neutered of their aggression like some people do to dogs?
perhaps it would have worked in the case of hitler, but we would have lost an adventurous pioneer if hillary's aggression was neutered.

now is there anyway to decide whose aims are good and whose is bad? and can such determination be done efficiently and always? in a free society it is very difficult to find out a person's character. perhaps in a futuristic society where people can be better profiled it will be an option but then society will no longer be free and no more pure innovation will occur.

that is why i categorically believe that no matter how stable world is, wars are inevitable. human nature demands it.