Human civilisation hasn't stayed the same so far and it won't in the future. Over thousands of years, humanity will change dramatically either for the best or the worst. if it changes for the best, we will find some kind of sustainable energy or colonise other planets, technology will evolve to the point where we don't have as many needs, we will have time to sit and think and debate our problems for long enough that we can come to a compromise. If things change for the worst, human civilisation will collapse to apocalyptic levels, either the population will grow too low for us to be able to safely wage war without annihilating ourselves or we will be too primitive to co-ordinate a large scale war.

"Were humanity dwells, war follows" This quote hits it on the head, war is a plague that has been with humanity from day one. With technological advances comes power and when power is feed into the human mind a sense of invinsiblity comes about, which leads to war. As oil and many other resources become less and less aviable, countries like the USA, China, Russia and the UK will be trying to get these much needed resources, and we all know that sitting down and talking isnt going to happen when you have massive populations depending on oil etc, war will continue, as long as humanity lives

civilization is part of evolution: we don't 'need' to kill each-other to resolve conflict. All disagreements are not wars.

'I wholly disagree with what you are saying but will defend to the death your right to say it'-Voltaire.

We don't need killer instincts to survive anymore; encouraging them will possibly lead to devolution.

War is not the only possible method of population control. Any large cataclysm would lower the population enough for it to be stable, or just running out of resources so we can't provide for everyone.

Who always acquiesce/agree-passively. We must 'think' about conflict as it paves the way to progress. we must believe in debate or the reason to stand up against one another on issues important to us rather than stand down like doped up yuppies.

Our natural/carnal instincts to compete/kill/feed have led us this far in evolution, why not farther still?

And some people advocate war for population control as cruel as that is; the Earth cannot sustain the human population at the current growing rate.(sacrifice the one for the many)

Fine tuning our natural defense mechanisms/killer-instincts is in-vogue and necessary given how we only have the illusion of security and we never know when/if we are left to just our own devices to safe our lives.

This passion does not necessarily have to end in wide scale bloodshed. How often do we actually have a passionate desire to kill millions of people? Unless you're a genocidal maniac, is that actually your end goal? Does this actually lead to anyone achieving the ideals that they are fighting for? It would be more logical of us to find a less wasteful and more productive way to resolve conflicts. That is what it means to 'grow out of' war. Young children throw tantrums and break things when they want something, usually destroying what it is that they want in the process if left to it. When they grow into adults, they learn other ways to get what it is they want.

War is basically a conflict between two countries. If we think about ‘war’ on an individual level, we would call it an argument. No what do we argue about? Things that matter to us. Love, security, religion, family. These ideals are what we as individual humans war about. Now, the same principle holds true for war between countries. It is an ideological battle, or a strive for protection and security for its own people. Survival of the strongest. This is so inbuilt into our nature, to fight about what we believe in that the only way to outgrow war is to out grow passion too. Passion for love, passion for family and ironically, passion for life; for our future generations.

Although the quote is correct that war made the state and the state made war it is not the case that war constantly occurs due to states. If the quote was correct and states need war in order to survive then we would have much more war than we have now. Rather now that war has made states there is no longer a need for states to make war. The cycle does not continue. The state does not decline now it is no longer needed to make war. Rather the state has found new ways of making itself vital. Control over the economy, welfare, health, education. While there are other things that mean a state is necessary war does not have the be the reason for the existance of states.

As argued by Tilly states are created by war and also sustained by them. It is impossible for a state to exist if it cannot defend itself and the only sure way a state has to defend itself is the fact that if another country were to try and invade or take over the state they would be threatened by violence, resistance and ultimately war.

Although in modern times foreign invasions are highly unlikely many international organisations have a collective pact to defend each other should another nation threaten a member of their organisation. The UN itself, which is a major stage for international diplomacy, was formed as the product of a violent war and other international organisations such as NATO are based on collective defence and the use of collective force^[1].

America is considered the 'great superpower' not because of its high GDP but because its high GDP allows a high level of military spending allowing them to develop the best weapons and defence systems.

1. ^ North Atlantic Treaty Article V

When Woodrow Wilson formed the League of Nations, it was thought that a world government would be able to end war. This hasn't happened yet, despite the formation of NATO and the United Nations. The first world war was thought of as 'the war to end all wars' and finally bring total peace. Since 1919, there have been many serious conflicts and enormous loss of life. Wars today aren't presented by country's leaders as acts of aggression to secure resources or land, but as 'liberations' or a response to a threat, but in the end they amount to the same thing. While ideologies differ and inequality exists there always be conflict.