w.a.r.
weapons against reason
If a teenager deliberately kicked down someone’s garden fence, or wilfully smashed a window just to feel momentarily empowered, we would naturally be appalled. It would be seen as a mindless act of vandalism against an innocent party. But when a nation-state does the same on a larger scale by bombing homes, destroying infrastructure, displacing and murdering families – let’s not be afraid to see it for what it is – they call it a strategic response, pre-emptive action, national security, regime change, or even humanitarian intervention.
Violence, when committed by an individual, is rightly condemned, but when perpetrated by politicians wearing smart suits, who have titles, and supposedly claim to be responsible, it is not only accepted, but applauded by those who may benefit from that display of aggression.
When it comes to weapons, give a child a toy, and they won’t just play with it – they’ll want to show it off.
Governments across the world are escalating military expenditure, pushing for 3.5% to 5% of GDP, whilst selling it to us as an economic win: more jobs, economic growth, and greater security. But there is an inherent irony in that strategy: the more we arm ourselves, the more others do the same, and the result is not security, but an arms race on a dying planet. Deterrence is a fragile illusion because it only holds until it doesn’t, until a deluded megalomaniac presses that red button. And with dwindling resources, deepening inequality, and ecological collapse accelerating, that pressure is already building. In truth, we are not defending ourselves, we are preparing for war. And preparation makes it not just likely, but inevitable.
This addiction to militarisation (violence) is not about security, but about power. A system that relies on hierarchy, superiority, and control must always be armed, and must always have an enemy. The stockpiling of weapons without an enemy would be somewhat tricky to justify, and peace would make its weapons obsolete and its ideology redundant.
The climate crisis, by contrast, represents an actual existential threat to all life on Earth. Yet it receives only a fraction of the funding – in the UK the spend is a mere 0.3% of GDP. Why? Because you can’t shoot a drought. You can’t bomb rising temperatures. And you can’t make a quick profit from cooperation.
We live in a world where preparing to kill is considered a sensible investment, while preparing to live sustainably is considered idealistic, if not irrelevant. And so, building weapons is a strategy for growth, yet protecting ecosystems, is an unwelcome expense. This isn’t realism, it’s idiocracy played out on a global stage. It’s a failure of imagination, a failure of values, and a failure of responsibility.
There is an alternative, and that is a society that is adaptable, that invests in education, sustainability, and cooperation, and views peace, not as a weakness, but as an expression of maturity and wisdom. A society that does not reward aggression, but cultivates a desire to nurture life, not destroy it. It would not require egotistic leaders and hierarchy, rather it would foster a common understanding through shared information and collective reasoning, one established on the real foundation of what life really is, so we can live as an integral and positive part of that experience.
Until we recognise war for what it is: an inherited and deliberately maintained habit (an inevitability that only endures because we refuse to acknowledge that violence is an inseparable feature of power), then the prospect of peace, let alone our survival, will remain a lost opportunity, entombed beneath the rubble of those wars. Believing we can endlessly arm ourselves and engage in conflicts, while the planet burns, and call it progress and security, is simply delusional. Remember, war is never right, yet someone has to win, and that is achieved by being more destructive, more murderous, than the other. It’s bullying on a mass scale, where the weak, the innocent, and life itself, are just collateral damage.
This same naivety extends to our understanding of democracy, that supposed bastion of liberty, a process we believe in for its fairness, when it is really just another tool to make us compliant to the primitive and destructive agenda of this system.
Democracy is just voting for self interest – ‘what’s in it for me’. It thrives on popularism: reflecting that which appeals to the majority, without any need to assess the value or integrity of the limited opinions of that majority. It is a great scam, because the politicians say they are representing us, yet our limited views are only a result of the beliefs and indoctrination that society imposes upon us in the first place.
With self interest being the only concern of the individual and the system at large, and war being the default means of engagement in an already threatened world, when it comes to the climate crisis, the prognosis is very frightening.
And this is now!
Two very real consequences of overconsumption and the resulting climate change are scarcity of resources and mass migration. Taking the latter, with structures already in place such as nationhood, border controls, visas, etc., and detrimental terms like illegal immigration and economic migrants, the privileged already view immigrants negatively. So when mass migration becomes a reality due to the effects of climate change, the rich – who caused the crisis in the first place – are not going to accommodate those refugees and displaced people with open arms, they’re going to demonise them with arms in hand. More extreme right-wing bigots will peddle nationalistic rhetoric to stoke up protectionist, populist votes, describing those desperate and poor victims as the new enemy. It is the preservation of their privileged position that the wealthy nations will fight for, not to preserve the welfare of the people (or the planet). And, as resources become scarcer, those rich nations will ultimately fight each other with the full might of their armoury, all with devastating efficiency.
The climate crisis is not the greatest threat we face. The end of humanity is not going to be because of climate change, but because we will exterminate ourselves with weapons so destructive that what will be left will not resemble in any way the remarkable planet we now inhabit. It’s going to be a brutal and bloody end, and nobody is going to win.
That is the system we have. If we want change, we need to look outside this primitive, selfish, and misguided system, and start listening to information and reason. They are our only hope for survival. But change, by definition, will necessitate a reassessment of our values and understanding of what life looks like.
The obvious fact is that the ruling elite will do everything they can to maintain their privileges and power, exploiting us, and forcing us to sacrifice our lives and those of future generations, to ensure their obscene short-term need for greed.
If the human race is going to survive in a positive and peaceful way, we have to recognise that we’ve all been manipulated into thinking of life in terms of self-indulgence, over-consumption, and a lack of regard for anyone else or the future. It’s not our fault that we’ve turned out as we have, and it’s not too late to take advantage of our full potential, which will allow us to think and care for the future, and respond appropriately to the planet, without which we cannot survive. We need to reclaim our nature-given intelligence and compassion. War and technology will not save us.
May 2025