Subscription Center
May 19, 2010 05:30 PM | 28
In Isaac Asimov's science fiction series Foundation, the mathematician Hari Seldon invents a method, called psychohistory, that predicts social behavior as accurately as statistical mechanics predicts the behavior of gases. The catch is that the predictions may be thwarted if influential people learn about them and consequently change their behavior. Seldon's model predicts that civil war will destroy his galactic civilization. He never publicizes his prophecy, so it comes true.
A conference I attended last week at Ohio State University (OSU) got me thinking about psychohistory and the paradox of prediction. Titled "Hybrid Warfare: The Struggle of Military Forces to Adapt to Complex Opponents from the Ancient World to the Present," the conference examined past wars for lessons that could help us prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan and similar wars in the future. The speakers were military historians.
The implicit assumption of the entire conference was that there will always be wars. The meeting's chief organizer was Peter Mansoor, who teaches military history at OSU and has written well-received books about World War II and the war in Iraq. With his close-cropped hair, square jaw and no-nonsense demeanor, Mansoor looks and speaks like a soldier, and in fact he was one. After graduating from West Point in 1982, he served in the Army for 26 years, rising to the rank of colonel. He commanded the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division in Iraq from 2003 to 2005 and later served as executive officer to General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Mansoor knows war, as a warrior and scholar.
"No," Mansoor replied immediately when I asked him if he thought international war would ever end, as some scholars have recently proposed. He acknowledged that since World War II there have been relatively few international wars and no wars between major powers (although of course the U.S. and the Soviet Union fought through proxies). But he likened our era to the century of relative calm following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. "You had a long period of stability, punctuated by some regional conflicts—the Crimean War, the Franco-Prussian War—but nothing that drew the entire continent into a massive conflict."
By the early 20th century, some prominent intellectuals proposed that the growing economic interdependence of major European powers made war between them unlikely. "World War I and World War II show that obviously wasn't the case," Mansoor said. "And I don't think there's anything that could convince me that major war or even another world war couldn't happen in the future. Again, we could be in this long period of stability in the wake of the end of the cold war, where there are regional conflicts, little brushfire wars, as we're seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be decades or even a century before there is another major war or even a world war. There might not be. But I wouldn't rule it out."
The U.S. must remain prepared to wage war not only against hostile states, insurgencies and terrorist groups but also against major powers, including those possessing nuclear weapons, Mansoor said. Rather than banning all nuclear weapons, as Barack Obama has proposed, Mansoor believes the U.S. should retain a nuclear arsenal, "because you could never know if your opponent has somehow re-created the capability in secret." Nuclear weapons may deter but ultimately not prevent war between major powers from breaking out. "I just think it means that if it does break out, it would be a lot more deadly than what we've seen in the past."
I see a couple of differences between our era and the early 20th century that make me more optimistic than Mansoor. There are many more democracies in the world now, and democracies rarely fight against each other (although they obviously fight against non-democracies, as Mansoor pointed out). Moreover, modern media rub our noses in war's ugliness as never before.
What bothers me most about Mansoor's vision of the future is its potential to be self-fulfilling. To the extent that our political and military leaders see the world as a dangerous place, filled with actual and potential enemies, nations are more likely to remain fearful, distrustful and heavily armed. States will also be more likely to carry out preemptive attacks, as Japan did against the U.S. in 1941, and as the U.S. did against Iraq in 2003.
Consider these fictional counterfactuals: If Hari Seldon had publicized his forecast of civil war, the fighting might just have started sooner, as one faction sought to gain an early, decisive victory over the other. Conversely, if he had predicted enduring peace, maybe that vision would have become self-fulfilling by engendering hope and trust instead of fear.
Just because predictions of peace have failed in the past does not mean that they will forever. Does it?
Tags:
war
More Cross-check:
Next: Craig Venter has neither created--nor demystified--life
Previous: Artificial brains are imminent...not!
See what we're tweeting about
scicurious Friday weird science! Can a slug live in your stomach?...
dbiello quick: canada is stealing all our air! http://t.co/P060KUo0wB (ok, ok, quebec is returning some of it)
curiouswavefn What is chemical intuition? On #SciAmBlogs http://t.co/zORJiK3xOG
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
28 Comments
Add CommentWorld population has increased from 2.5B in 1950 to nearly 7B today, doubling in the past 40 years. With nutrients and other resources nearing depletion, if no humane means of reducing world population can be found, other means will. Is any more evidence really necessary?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe cannot just have armies and not give them something to do, can we?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTechnology has advanced far ahead of old-fashioned war as it has in the auto-mobile world. We can now make land based vehicles that no man can drive and accelerate at speeds no man can survive. The racing industry outlaws these technologies for its survival.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe war industry too has reached a stage where you can destroy your opponents completely almost instantaneously. As a response to the September 11 attacks, the USA could have launched thermo-nuclear attacks against the perpetrator nations that would have totally and utterly destroyed them. Problem is no one would have made any money out of that war. US interest rates would have increased, there would have been less home building activities, less jobs, less spending and eventually no global financial crises. The rich & powerful loose every way you look at it.
The united nations (the powerful within) outlaws high technology warfare to maintain population growth, lower scientific education levels, increase religious beliefs and maintain the existing wealth and power structures.
jimmywat - My guess is that you've never been to war, perhaps never even been seriously threatened. Otherwise, I have to conclude that you're sick rather than ignorant. Many people (especially those who grew up with raging testosterone levels) do like to play warlike games and display aggressive and even threatening behavior, if that's what you're referring to... watching movies and reading books... Reality can be much more difficult and scarier than imagined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is organizations that profit from war and tend to sustain formal conflicts, not the disposable individuals fighting them.
I don't think the Taliban or the next Hitler give a damn what Hari Selden (Yes, I know he is fictitious) or any other thinker thinks. They go to war to take what they want and kill those whom they hate regardless of other peoples' moral or logical beliefs. Predicting peace will never change the hearts of man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjaqcp - I agree, although I think it's more about egos and stomachs than hearts. The oil and religious issues have just been preliminary maneuvers - it'll soon enough be all about protein.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDemocracies are not a cure all. Infact they are highly constrained systems and only work well in countries that have a high education rate and exposure to western thought. Expect the number of democracies to reduce as they fail more and more people and citizens look for stronger leaders and faster solutions. This "golden age" of democracies is at an end and that might be a good thing for many people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not "people" that fight wars. Let's be very clear on this point. It's heterosexual men that fight wars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeterosexual men are responsible for the worst atrocities that have occurred, and continue to occur all over the world. Almost all of the aggression and violence and awfulness that exists on the planet is almost exclusively done by this segment of the population. This isn't anti-hetero male speak ... it's simply facts.
I say this not just to point blame at ~40% of the population, but rather to focus our efforts in identifying the target demographic that is wreaking havoc for the other %60 who are not heterosexual and male. So, it's not 'people' engaging in wars; it's heterosexual men.
If you want peace on Earth, if you truly want peace on the planet, then all we have to do is find a way to temper the heterosexual male. The world won't be perfect, of course, but it will be a hell of a lot safer!
AS long as state sponsored terrorist and bigots (called armies of major powers) control the world, wars will continue. People who want to establish just peace will fight these western terror organizations even though they may be disadvantaged financially and militarily. They certainly represent a higher moral ground to fight arrogant and facist military states.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember, you're hearing from military experts that believed the WWIII was 'winnable' and that WWIV would be one by the country that rebuilt their infrastructure first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is cause for optimism, but it does seem to be a long-shot.
justmesayin - Your perspective of recent events involving an all voluntary military in the U.S. was not valid in the past and won't be in the future, when starving masses and countries determined to avoid starvation will be knocking down our doors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the past it was the conscripted minority of young males that served the military bidding of the majority of other citizens. In WWII you could also count the plurality of women who went to work in factories manufacturing munitions for those young men.
In the future our situation is more likely to resemble that of Russia in WWII, where men, women and even children, young and health or not, struggle for survival in their own country. American have not suffered similar experiences since the horror of the civil war, now reenacted by those who enjoy military fantasies.
I'd certainly appreciate you not blaming previously healthy young men for the horrors of war, played as a team sport. The problem's a little more difficult than that. Thanks for your support.
Sadly, the polarization that is occurring now in the US suggests that a democracy based on reasonable compromise can't stand the modest strains we've had the last few years.Fortunately, Canada presents a hopeful contrary example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting topic. As has been noted many times (though I have never seen a scientific verification), it is much easier to make an enemy than a friend. All it takes is one fearful leader to lead a country into war with its neighbors. Consider the war over the Falklands not too long ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the science of emotional manipulation has progressed faster than teaching the public on how to avoid being manipulated, I do not see how democracy alone can keep wars from happening. It is far too easy to convince people that the people over on the other side of some imaginary line are maliciously out to get them. What we need is better regulation of such types of manipulation. But I see this as being difficult, since this sort of thing is the politicians stock in trade.
@jtdwyer I appreciate your comments, but unfortunately they are not relevant to mine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thrust of my argument is a very simple one; that is, heterosexual men account for almost all of the violence and aggression in society today and in the past -- including, of course, wars. The fact that you mention women had a role to play in WWII does nothing to counter my point that hetero men are primarily responsible for most of the crimes and atrocities on the planet.
Moreover, the main reason women and gay men were involved in these wars, was because there was a sense of responsibility to do something to help now that the wars were engaged.
You seem to think that "we're all in this together" with your comment on "team sport". First, war is hardly a sport, and using that term to describe war in any way is highly inappropriate. And second, because women and gay men help heterosexual males in their wars, does not somehow refute the argument that wars are almost entirely an agency of heterosexual men.
When hetero men start wars, yes, women and gay men step in to help. This is hardly done with enthusiasm, but rather sparked via a sense of duty.
Again, I say all this ONLY so as to identify the target DEMOGRAPHIC that is damaging our society. Once identified, we can take steps to better curb their tendencies for domination and aggression (through educational programs early on in school that focus less on competition and aggression, for example, and more on comaraderie, thinking rationally and encouraging emotional intelligence).
Unfortunately, most positions of power are held by heterosexual men, and so they act as the yoke toward any group or individual that tries to upset this "balance".
I predict war will continue around the world as long as population levels continue to rise and that it would cease (mostly) if populations fell back to sustainable levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPopulation rise is absolutely necessary for the rich "American Way of Life," so now that the rest of the world wants their own rich Way of Life, we'll continue to grow and so war is inevitable.
Too bad.
"... then all we have to do is find a way to temper the heterosexual male."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI submit that women will tend to be less interested in and attracted to such men, and natural selection/environmental influence will take its course...
justmesayin is apparently not familiar with the history of Ancient Greece and the extremely gay Spartan and Theban armies (among others). Their homosexuality was enforced as a way of life and very much a factor in conflict. This applies to much of the ancient world in general when hetero-males, homo-males, women (as queen warlords), and even eunuchs played vital roles at all levels of warfare.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWars make profits thus are funded by folk who may not be the political instigators.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisasimov great. the robot series is excellent and much much later he wrote a few that merged the second foundation with the robots of dawn. in all there are a dozen or so in the various series all of which are required reading, imho
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone here REALLY think the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a pre-emptive strike? You cannot be serious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSophro - The double posts are a site/browser issue. I'd explain but I'm tired of it & it ain't my job, man. SciAm should correct the issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn retrospect, I think most Americans realize that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was primarily a post-op cleanup of the Kuwait response, and are satisfied with that. I'd agree that getting Saddam would not have been considered adequate political justification, but I always felt that we'd left something undone. We did finally complete the retribution against Saddam for his unjustified invasion of Kuwait, apparently without upsetting Middle-East political stability too much... We'll see how it turns out.
<a href="http://www.andremoves.com">man and van </a> thinks that wars always will happen as long as there is people that desagree in something to get power bieng stuburn some times leads you to war perhps if we stoped bieng may was not happen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisprediction cause war when it predict the outcome, but it prevent war when it predict the cause of war. This is because; people who is interested in war likes to look at the result of war, while people who try to prevent war like to look at the cause of war. -thus, prediction will either help the 'warmonger', or help the peace-maker. (it depends on whom giving the prediction)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you John Horgan, told or written stories, moreover if they become world bestsellers can generate an ambiance of their own, this is basically how empathy and compassion work; it could be as well world events that brings a sort of human solidarity rather than fragmentation followed by states isolation, distrust and possibly conflict. Simple logic makes us believe like you that Mr. Mansoor's wording and "broadcasting" of past mistakes, as if they were part of the human genome, can easily be described as ideology, and for that very reason necessitate self-fulfillment like any other ideology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny freedom that one give up to ideology shrinks the potential for new creative paradigm.
The principle of preemptive strike is an abomination that cannot flourish in a real democracy.
Yes, the invastion of Iraq in 2003 was a pre-emptive strike in light of what was known at the time. I am supremely serious about this. No one could be absolutely sure that Saddam did not have a WMD at the time, not even his own generals knew for sure. Because left-wingers all know so much more today after we went to Iraq and thoroughly searched for WMD's does not invalidate George W."s decision that the safe thing to do was not to take the chance that Iraq could hurt the US as badly as the 9/11 attack did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think "W" was a good president for making that choice. Quite obviously Obama will be willing to take a lot larger risks with America's security in order to maintain his aura of being high minded to the point of deserving the Nobel peace prize. We will see if that works out.
This game is for real marbles, or rather real American lives. "W" had been in office less than a year when the 9/11 nasty surprise happened. Obama 18 mos. in already has more ownership responsibility for whatever happens at this point in time.
Prophets do not create history unless they have sufficient political power to energize self-fulfilling prophecies. Even somebody as genuinely afraid of the near future as Glenn Beck does not have significant worldly power.
It is the White House that directs nearly invisible drones miles in the sky to surgically kill everybody in a house in Pakistan. It is the White House which decides to let Hezbollah have Scud missiles, or Iran to succeed with its nuclear program, or the North Koreans to get away with sinking the Cheonan because dear crazy little leader felt like it that day.
It is the White House occupant today who is responsible for what happens to the rest of the country tomorrow. I suppose if the Democrats want to follow John Horgan's prompting and severely de-militarize the USA and de-fund our defense industry, they could do that tomorrow.
Israel is a democracy and Israel very well make a doozy of a pre-emptive strike any day now, but not because the world's first Jewish nation in a whole lot of centuries has too many heterosexual males. Tel Aviv will act because and only because the best minds in their councils come to believe that their nation has no choice but to act.
People compete (think "Darwin"), in fact all living things do. Get over it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjustmesayin: Your theory makes little sense. The reason you say this is because for the majority of history, men have been controlling history. I doubt women could do any better than us heterosexual men. Visit junior high, and note that, though there is a difference in the manner of abuse, both genders tend to seek to stratify social structures, creating tension and an "us against them" mentality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have seen and heard of women back-stabbing, gossiping, and excluding others for power. Men and women are both aggressive, just in different ways. Your attempt to turn men into women is laughable. Men are aggressive by nature, but this aggression also leads to good things, when channelled correctly. Men attack problems with gusto, change things for the better, because of it. It is not annihilation of aggression, but proper channelling of said aggression. This, unfortunately, is not something easily taught. It is something that must be learned. Men that think rationally and have strong emotional intelligence without aggression will be steam-rolled by those that have aggression. That drive is what makes men "men", in a lot of ways. A utopian society cannot exist, because it only takes one person to turn it into another hell.
When a society gets in deep enough doo-doo they will often turn to a woman leader to rally them. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. Attacking with gusto is not a sure thing either against a wily opponent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMen don't control history. One can look at the wars between Germany and France in the last 500 years as a product of German jealousy that the French enjoyed a lot of good light bread because of rich grain fields, a lot of good wine from perfect grapes, and a lot of good cream and butter from cows that grazed the lush grasses of French valleys. The Germans had a saying, "As rich as God in France."
The Germans ate a lot of potatoes, cabbages, radishes, and coarse dark breads or beers nearly as coarse. Worse yet, when the French had a Little Ice Age cold spell the rich they tended to get quite warlike, which gave the world Napoleon.