As a citizen in the middle economic class of an affluent nation, a father of two sons and an admirer of old-fashioned ideas I would readily choose a peaceful, status quo society. I would give up quite a bit of "progress" for a guarantee that my home would not be destroyed and my children would be spared the risk of death.

Now, then, what are

War - Part 4 of 4

After much discussion in this column during the past few weeks on the causes, functions and myths of war we come to the $64 question --- is peace possible?

Yes, peace is possible. But before we opt for a social condition unique to civilization we should first honestly answer this question: Do we really want it?

With perpetual peace, technology would slow down. The world likely would change only slightly during a person's lifetime. Indeed, change would be resisted. For Americans, life would be pleasant enough. However, for people in the underdeveloped areas of the world, life would remain frustrating.

The diffusion of cultural ideas also would slow. Left to their own devices, people would revert to relative isolationism which in pre-civilized days led to the development of separate races of man. Harsh as it may be, war makes victor and vanquished more alike.

We probably would lose our ability to mobilize effectively, thus leaving geographical pockets of people to suffer alone when such natural disasters occur as disease, flood, storm, famine, fire and earthquakes. Likewise, we would be unable to protect ourselves from revolutions, holy wars and criminal raids organized by relatively small numbers of dissident men.

Economic inflation would be halted, but by stratification of society into classes--including a rather permanent and extensive poor class, in my opinion.

Despite all the forgoing, the world deserves an opportunity to try and make the good life practical though peaceful. Man is an inventive creature that can, and does, alter his environment. Perhaps he will yet discover a way to have his cake and eat it too.

As a citizen in the middle economic class of an affluent nation, a father of two sons and an admirer of old-fashioned ideas I would readily choose a peaceful, status quo society. I would give up quite a bit of "progress" for a guarantee that my home would not be destroyed and my children would be spared the risk of death.

Now, then, what are t

With perpetual peace, technology would slow down. The world likely would change only slightly during a person's lifetime. Indeed, change would be resisted. For Americans, life would be pleasant enough. However, for people in the underdeveloped areas of the world, life would remain frustrating.

The diffusion of cultural ideas also would slow. Left to their own devices, people would revert to relative isolationism which in pre-civilized days led to the development of separate races of man. Harsh as it may be, war makes victor and vanquished more alike.

We probably would lose our ability to mobilize effectively, thus leaving geographical pockets of people to suffer alone when such natural disasters occur as disease, flood, storm, famine, fire and earthquakes. Likewise, we would be unable to protect ourselves from revolutions, holy wars and criminal raids organized by relatively small numbers of dissident men.

Economic inflation would be halted, but by stratification of society into classes--including a rather permanent and extensive poor class, in my opinion.

Despite all the forgoing, the world deserves an opportunity to try and make the good life practical though peaceful. Man is an inventive creature that can, and does, alter his environment. Perhaps he will yet discover a way to have his cake and eat it too.

As a citizen in the middle economic class of an affluent nation, a father of two sons and an admirer of old-fashioned ideas I would readily choose a peaceful, status quo society. I would give up quite a bit of "progress" for a guarantee that my home would not be destroyed and my children would be spared the risk of death.

Now, then, what are

We probably would lose our ability to mobilize effectively, thus leaving geographical pockets of people to suffer alone when such natural disasters occur as disease, flood, storm, famine, fire and earthquakes. Likewise, we would be unable to protect ourselves from revolutions, holy wars and criminal raids organized by relatively small numbers of dissident men.

Economic inflation would be halted, but by stratification of society into classes--including a rather permanent and extensive poor class, in my opinion.

Despite all the forgoing, the world deserves an opportunity to try and make the good life practical though peaceful. Man is an inventive creature that can, and does, alter his environment. Perhaps he will yet discover a way to have his cake and eat it too.

As a citizen in the middle economic class of an affluent nation, a father of two sons and an admirer of old-fashioned ideas I would readily choose a peaceful, status quo society. I would give up quite a bit of "progress" for a guarantee that my home would not be destroyed and my children would be spared the risk of death.

Now, then, what are

Economic inflation would be halted, but by stratification of society into classes--including a rather permanent and extensive poor class, in my opinion.

Despite all the forgoing, the world deserves an opportunity to try and make the good life practical though peaceful. Man is an inventive creature that can, and does, alter his environment. Perhaps he will yet discover a way to have his cake and eat it too.

As a citizen in the middle economic class of an affluent nation, a father of two sons and an admirer of old-fashioned ideas I would readily choose a peaceful, status quo society. I would give up quite a bit of "progress" for a guarantee that my home would not be destroyed and my children would be spared the risk of death.

Now, then, what are

As a citizen in the middle economic class of an affluent nation, a father of two sons and an admirer of old-fashioned ideas I would readily choose a peaceful, status quo society. I would give up quite a bit of "progress" for a guarantee that my home would not be destroyed and my children would be spared the risk of death.

Now, then, what are the alternatives to war? Margaret Mead curator of enthology at the American Museum has examined the alternatives to war and rounded up a number of proposals by other anthropologists.

Development of nuclear weapons — principally by the United States and the Soviet Union, but to a lesser extent by France, China and Great Britain — has added a new dimension to warfare.

The first deterrent to war is recognition that nuclear warfare on a world scale is not only no longer functional but actually endangers the entire population of the planet.

With this fact clearly established we are ready to take one or more steps toward more stable world relationships.

An important peace requirement, according to Mead, is the development of values that may in time make it easier to discard war as a political tool.

"Warfare depends upon the establishment of unequivocal and mutually exclusive identities and loyalties, today represented by national boundaries," she declares.

"As long as there exists the permanent definition of one's own group within which to kill is murder, as opposed to groups whom it may be virtuous to risk one's life to kill, — warfare ... can easily he invoked."

Federation is suggested as one way in which the identity and power of member nations can be made dependent upon the identity and power of the group. The United States is the best known example of this model. The European Common Market seems to be developing into a workable federation.

If nations owed their status and security to the existence and prosperity of other nations, and if emphasis were placed upon interdependence rather than independence, concepts of nationhood could replace nationalism, Mead says.

"Such change