Can war be called a “necessary evil” because of its contribution to scientific and technological progress?

War has caused great human suffering, but it has also led to advances in science and technology. However, it raises the question of whether the advancements brought about by war are really beneficial to humanity and whether we need to develop in a more peaceful environment.

 

We can all agree that war is morally wrong. The indiscriminate brutality of war – the infliction of suffering, displacement, and even death on others for the benefit of a group – cannot be justified by any moral standard. When I think of the consequences of war, I think of burnt-out countries, bodies strewn about, and parents grieving the loss of their children. Despite this, humans have consistently waged war throughout history. It’s not just about selfishness or greed, sometimes it’s about survival and power. The complex causes of war and its many consequences are paradoxical in that they have brought both tragedy and progress to humanity.
Ironically, however, the consequences of war have sometimes led to advances in science and technology. In order to increase military power, innovations in various industries related to war, such as production, transportation, and communications, have resulted in a vast difference between pre-war and post-war levels. If war is a product of human destructive nature, then the science and technology that develops as a result is a manifestation of our creative abilities. If the purpose of industrial development through conventional science and technology was simply to increase individual or group profits, the purpose of war is to determine the survival of individuals, the survival of groups, and even the existence of nations. In addition, in the special situation of war, where even the minimum morality of human dignity is ignored, unethical experiments such as human experimentation are conducted, and the rate of development is incomparable to peacetime.
Examples of scientific and technological advances due to war can be found as far back as prehistory. It was warfare that allowed humans to advance from the Stone Age to the Bronze and Iron Ages. New materials were constantly sought to make swords and spears harder and sharper than their enemies, and smelting and casting techniques became increasingly advanced. These technologies were used not only to improve weapons, but also to make farming tools, vessels, and other ceremonial objects, which contributed to the development of agriculture and a higher standard of living. In this way, warfare was far from just destruction, but perhaps the catalyst for a leap forward in civilization. However, the fact that these advances were made under unethical circumstances leaves a moral question.
This is especially true in the modern era, where World War II sparked the development of computers, an important element of modern technology. Alan Mathison Turing’s codebreaking machine, the Turing machine, created to break the German Enigma machine, is considered to be the beginning of the logical model of computers. The Internet is also believed to have originated from the ARPANET, which was designed by the U.S. Department of Defense as a new way to communicate over long distances in case of nuclear war. As you can see, war has been a constant feature in the development of civilization from its beginnings to the present day, and has sometimes played an important role in its evolution.
Some pro-war advocates argue that war, although destructive, has allowed science and technology to advance by leaps and bounds, raising the standard of living for humanity. However, war is an enormous drain on social and economic resources, and the damage it causes involves human suffering that cannot be expressed in simple numbers. The economic costs of war are enormous, and the long-term effects on individuals and nations are immeasurable. For this reason, it is essential to ask whether the short-term scientific and technological advances gained through war are truly beneficial to society and humanity in the long run.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant once said that if a group of peoples were united into a single entity and were not threatened by external threats, cultural progress would cease and they would become idle. Of course, he was never advocating war, but rather a methodology for achieving permanent peace. His theory was that the threat of war itself would help countries develop and stimulate the desire to move in a more peaceful direction. However, in the modern world, cooperation and dialogue between nations is more important than ever, and war can no longer be considered an essential element of progress.
To answer this question, we need to look at whether most of the science and technology we have today was invented and developed during wars. Most scholars point to the Industrial Revolution, which began in England at the end of the 18th century, as the starting point for the exponential development of science and technology. Three major technological innovations – the steam engine, the spinning wheel, and ironmaking – transformed European society from an agrarian to an industrial one, and soon spread across the globe. But in the process, Britain was drawn into a war with Napoleon. It’s easy to assume that the war and the Industrial Revolution would have played a large role in the development of the Industrial Revolution, given that these two huge events took place during the same time period. But did it?
Harvard University economic historian Professor Jeffrey Williamson wanted to find out. He concluded that the crowding out effect occurred in England, which fought a war at the same time as the Industrial Revolution. The crowding out effect refers to the phenomenon that when the government increases external spending, such as war or foreign aid, the demand for capital increases, interest rates increase, and private investment decreases. In other words, in a nutshell, when Britain fought the war against Napoleon, domestic investment decreased, and the war actually hindered the economic development caused by the Industrial Revolution. Later, the Keynesian school of thought argued that in the short term, external expenditures such as wars contribute to economic stabilization by stimulating consumption during recessions, but they also acknowledged the crowding out effect in the long term. In conclusion, wars were detrimental to the Industrial Revolution by limiting investment in scientific and technological advances.
Of course, wars can spark the invention of new technologies. Computers and the internet are two such examples. However, the reason why computers and the internet have become the centerpiece of our industry is because of the market’s constant consumption and companies’ desire to develop better products. In other words, capitalist principles have allowed technology to evolve, not just be invented. Without the help of the market, computers and the internet would still be just code-breaking machines and military-only communication methods. In conclusion, while wars have contributed to our current state of science and technology by sparking the invention of some new technologies, and by stimulating consumption, which has led to short-term economic growth, in the long run, it is the capitalist market that has made the greatest contribution to the development of science and technology, and the crowding out effect is detrimental to economic development. On the contrary, rapid technological advancement creates a technological gap between countries, which hinders communication and causes various international problems. While this may not have been a problem in a nation-centric society in the past, it is an outdated way of thinking in a globalized world with airplanes and the internet to think only about the development of one’s own country. After all, for the common development of mankind, scientific and technological advances should be made in peaceful conditions without war.
Whatever enrichment war brings us cannot be compared to the damage it causes. In the 21st century, human dignity is the most prioritized value in society. War is unacceptable because it violates the most basic laws of society and the ethics that underlie those laws. The advancement of science and technology due to war can never be said to benefit society in the long run. I would like to conclude this article by refuting Kant’s theory quoted above. Is it really beneficial for humanity to develop in the face of external threats and competition with each other? Although the level of civilization may increase, the human rights and happiness of individuals may not be protected. What makes human beings human is not just the civilization and thinking ability we have achieved; there are values that must be protected, such as individuality, emotions, and love. Even if a peaceful society without war is full of laziness, isn’t ‘slow development with everyone’ the direction we need more in the age of globalization?