If there had been no war, would humanity have progressed faster, or more slowly?

There will be progress, because the progress of mankind is not driven by war, for example: China's progress was very slow during the war years, but reform and opening up has made such great achievements in just over 30 years.

Progress is related to competition, but war is plunder, the more human beings develop, the more their core tends to talents, talents cannot be plundered, progress is more related to unity, such as: the composition of the human gene pool. Can it only be achieved through unity?

War is a conflict of contradictions, and it is difficult to progress without contradictions, and the same is true for human beings.

Every industrial revolution is driven by war, and the military has always led the major development of science and technology.

Each industrial revolution is far greater than the pace of progress in decades than in thousands of years of peaceful development.

Without war, there are no guns, no computers, no rockets, no satellites, no nuclear energy, ......Where is the first power in the Americas without war or slash-and-burn farming?

Humans without war are like deer without wolves to chase, not running, getting fatter and fatter, and finally being crushed by their own weight and extinct.

I think that in ancient times wars would have advanced mankind because many civilizations in many places had made mankind progress through war, such as the Persian war against Greece. The spread of many civilizations was not carried out in a peaceful way, but through the fusion of aggression.

War is the driving force for counter-development in a certain direction. There can be no development without aggression. The same is true of the development of society, and the reason why the superstructure strives to develop the productive forces to suit the demands of the people is to a certain extent because it is afraid of the people's riots.

Countries will not compete with each other if they do not guard against each other. In conclusion, war is a potential motivator to drive social development.

Your statement is a bit too absolute. War hastened the progress of society to a certain extent, such as the emergence of various scientific and technological inventions in the First and Second World Wars to a certain extent conducive to the progress of society.

But war, after all, is cruel, based on bloodshed and sacrifice, and war also portends destruction. Every war takes a toll on life, and many cities are in ruins, and in that sense it is not human progress.

The progress of mankind is constantly evolving and developing over a long period of history, and war is inevitable in this long process, so human progress is not necessarily because of war!

People and people, like wolves and wolves. In essence, human beings are just delicate animals who live in the skin of a high-class civilization.

Throughout history, there have been fewer and fewer wars, especially after Gandhi invented the nonviolent protest movement.

War is the highest embodiment of science and technology, and in war, all kinds of science and technology directly determine the outcome of the war, so all countries are very concerned about science and technology issues and will invest a lot of manpower and material resources in scientific research. Therefore, after the war, science and technology will apply a large number of achievements made in the war to civilian use, so that the characteristics of scientific and technological progress are very fast.

Technology is a subtle word because it encompasses two different concepts: science and technology. In the case of the former, there is no doubt that greater development can be achieved in peacetime, and scientific progress often requires countless pre-knowledge as a background, and these are often so-called"unknown unknown", it is categorically not something that can be completed by initiating a project.

The margin of digging holes here and there is no way that you might have in wartime.

On the other hand, technology is different from science, it is obviously more engineering-oriented, and its purpose is how to better accomplish a task under the existing conditions, so it prefers others to concentrate on their own research, which is completely different from science. Typical chestnuts are all kinds of Soviet-style military products, which often play the same or even better performance than American products when the scientific level is not as good as that of the United States, but these technologies lack versatility, and often can only be used in a few related projects, and the life span is at most several decades - can give people a temporary advantage, but will make people lose in the long-term competition.

So, the answer is that war can promote the progress of (related) technology, and the progress of science requires peace.

For example, just like nuclear physics, in fact, before the outbreak of World War II, the relevant theories about mushroom bombs basically came out, and Fermi also built a small reactor.

But due to lack of money, development is slow.

When Commander Roosevelt initiated the Manhattan Project and gave it the highest priority, everything was different, and the project problem was quickly solved with a huge investment of funds and personnel.

In the previous world, scientific research led to the development of civilian equipment!

yes, at least that's what I personally think.

First, population. Do you know why there was always a plague in ancient times? It's very simple, in fact, geography textbooks say that the population carrying capacity of a region is limited, and if there are more, someone has to die in order to continue to develop.

What dead many? War. Now there are so many people on the earth, what do you say?

Moreover, in order to survive, people can burst out with unlimited potential, and the so-called troubled times produce heroes.

Second, technology. Grandpa Deng said that science and technology are the primary productive forces, but although there are people who study these things in peacetime, there are not as many as in wartime.

Third, literature. People have to be in painful moments to be able to think well. Of course, there is also a state, love. Feelings in times of war, because they are always facing death and separation, so profound!

Fourth, the economy. If it is not broken, it will not stand. How many jobs will be created! It's amazing!

Fifth, unity. What time have you ever seen when people are most united? It's a life-saving time!

To sum up, I think so.

All those who don't have back pain when they talk like this have never fought.

None of those who have been on the battlefield will feel that this can promote the progress of mankind.

In fact, every period of prosperity of human civilization is an era of relative stability. It's just that human beings will always use the most advanced things for the military.

War is the product of the inability to reconcile and resolve various contradictions in a certain historical period, and war is an extreme way to resolve contradictions, but after all, it has a positive effect on the resolution of contradictions.

I don't think so, it's mutual aid and cooperation that drives human progress.

Scientific progress drives human progress.