The essential premise is correct: If humans reject war, there will be no war.
I agree that there isn't a biological imperative for war that can't be resisted.
The notion, however, that all it will take is a concerted effort of will to end wars is absurd.
Even if every man, woman and child in the Western world rejected warfare, warfare would not end.
What's more, the minute The West publicly rejects warfare, it's enemies will go to war against it.
The author has studied a social imperative without paying attention to the more powerful, underlying social imperatives.
Let's assume this guy's book has a miraculous effect on the population of the Western World and they all reject warfare. That will only hold up as long as war is not brought to their shores by Eastern enemies.
No manner of philosophical argument is going to convince the majority of losers in a war that they need to get over it and accept their fate.
Left or Right, no one will glorify such a surrender.
The author's argument could prove effective if all the world's players share the same value judgments.
Of course they don't.
Thus the long term goal of the global culture requires that all of thes 3rd World countries abandon the violence that is, clearly, to their advantage.
They will not unless some external force makes it worse for them to do so.
Here is the joke. What nation is willing to back up their opposition with force?
Very, very few, because they are paralyzed by charges of colonialism.
Arguing an end to war is not only a noble gesture, it could actualy be possible if an overwhleming participation of voters decided that we shouldn't gieve a **** about the dead and maimed s0ldiers we sent to Ira3