80,000 Hours Podcast
#140 Classic episode – Bear Braumoeller on the case that war isn’t in decline
Episode guests
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
- The unpredictability of war can lead to catastrophic outcomes despite a perceived decline in conflict frequency.
- Contrasting views on war's decline highlight the importance of examining historical evidence and escalation patterns.
- Understanding the multifaceted nature of war initiation reveals complexity and variability in conflict trends and relationships.
- Research indicates no significant decrease in war lethality despite fluctuations in initiation rates across different historical periods.
- Methodological differences among scholars underscore the need for transparent data analysis in understanding war dynamics and escalation.
Deep dives
The Perils of War Escalation
War escalation is a major concern in modern society, and it is important to recognize that wars can rapidly intensify. The speaker uses an analogy involving a deck of 96 cards to illustrate the unpredictability of war, noting that while most cards represent wars with relatively low casualties, others, such as World War I and World War II, resulted in astronomical death tolls. This unpredictability emphasizes that even within a system with an apparent decline in war, the potential for catastrophic outcomes remains significant. As such, it is crucial to approach the prospect of conflict with caution and awareness of historical patterns of escalation.
Assessing Trends in War
The podcast examines the notion that war is in decline, contrasting perspectives from various experts. One key argument is that wars are incredibly escalatory, and despite contemporary beliefs that modern conflicts will remain contained, historical evidence does not support this optimism. Numerous predictive analyses, including those presented by Steven Pinker and Bear Braumoller, suggest that recent decades, while perhaps less frequent in terms of initiation, do not indicate the same level of safety from expansive and deadly conflicts as previous eras. This lack of evidence in support of declining war propensity calls for further reflection and study on the subject.
The Complexity of War Initiation
War initiation is a complicated and multi-faceted phenomenon influenced by factors such as international order and political relationships. Various data sets, such as the Correlates of War Project, provide insight into how wars start and the efficacy of different states in avoiding or provoking conflicts. For example, patterns surrounding the initiation of wars are often seen to fluctuate, leading to complexity in identifying clear trends. The insights gleaned from examining these initiation rates are vital to understanding the overall landscape of conflict and potential future engagements.
Differences in War Escalation
The measures of war escalation are crucial to assessing how conflicts might unfold once initiated. Escalatory propensity reflects the likelihood of a war increasing in scale or lethality over time, and this propensity can vary between different historical periods and types of conflict. In analyzing wars since the early 19th century, researchers have not found any significant changes in the escalatory patterns of conflicts, indicating a persistence of the violence associated with wars. This consistency reinforces the notion that escalation remains a critical factor in understanding the nature of modern warfare.
Significant Trends or Lack Thereof
Through extensive analysis, no clear trends emerge from the datasets regarding the overall decline of war and escalation over the past two centuries. Despite fluctuations in war initiation rates, particularly after the Cold War, the lethality of conflicts has shown no significant decline. Researchers highlight that while specific episodes, such as the end of the Cold War, correlate with decreased interstate initiations, the complexity of war dynamics suggests an underlying persistence of escalatory potential. Therefore, there remains a shared challenge in understanding whether optimistically framed narratives of reduced conflict can withstand rigorous examination.
The Importance of Methodological Considerations
Methodology plays an essential role in understanding war dynamics, yet researchers often encounter challenges in data collection and interpretation. Diverging results among scholars may arise from different frameworks employed to evaluate the causes, rates, and effects of military conflict. For example, while one researcher may focus on aggregate numbers across various war types, another may narrow their analysis solely on interstate conflicts. A more nuanced understanding of methodology not only enables clearer insights into trends in warfare but also underscores the value of replicability and transparency in research.
War Attribution and Fluctuations
The attribution of war to specific causes can be challenging, as numerous variables influence the likelihood of conflict. These variables can encompass historical grievances, territorial disputes, and political ideologies that shift over time. The metaphor of a 'powder keg' is often used to describe situations where underlying tensions are present, yet the trigger for such a conflict remains elusive. A comprehensive appreciation for these dynamics is critical, as understanding the complexities accompanying war attribution can inform preventative measures and provide vital insights into mitigating conflict.
Global Perspectives on Warfare
Adopting a comprehensive approach to understanding global warfare is vital, as military conflicts are often shaped by the conditions and actions of various actors worldwide. While it is easy to predominantly focus on major powers and aggressive nation-states, many local conflicts contribute significantly to the broader picture of war. Incorporating perspectives from different regions and time periods allows researchers to grasp the intricate web of interactions and relationships that inform contemporary conflicts. In doing so, one can gain a more holistic view of the factors that influence war and potential avenues for peace.
Evolving Strategies in Peacekeeping
Predicting the future landscape of warfare necessitates exploring evolving strategies for peacekeeping and conflict prevention. As geopolitical dynamics shift, the necessity for countries to adapt their approaches to international relations becomes evident. This involves developing mechanisms to manage heightened tensions and ensuring that diplomatic dialogue remains central in addressing disputes. New strategies may emerge that focus not only on mitigating immediate conflicts but also on dismantling the structural factors that contribute to the escalation of violence.
Learning from Historical Conflicts
Studying historical conflicts provides essential lessons that can guide contemporary approaches to diplomacy and conflict resolution. Patterns observed in past wars, including the interplay between local dynamics and larger political structures, inform how states might approach future challenges. Recognizing that conflicts can escalate rapidly reinforces the need for governments to remain vigilant and proactive in conflict management. By employing historical insights to navigate the complexities of modern warfare, policymakers can enhance their understanding of potential risks and opportunities.
Is war in long-term decline? Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature brought this previously obscure academic question to the centre of public debate, and pointed to rates of death in war to argue energetically that war is on the way out.
But that idea divides war scholars and statisticians, and so Better Angels has prompted a spirited debate, with datasets and statistical analyses exchanged back and forth year after year. The lack of consensus has left a somewhat bewildered public (including host Rob Wiblin) unsure quite what to believe.
Today's guest, professor in political science Bear Braumoeller, is one of the scholars who believes we lack convincing evidence that warlikeness is in long-term decline. He collected the analysis that led him to that conclusion in his 2019 book, Only the Dead: The Persistence of War in the Modern Age.
Rebroadcast: this episode was originally released in November 2022.
Links to learn more, highlights, and full transcript.
The question is of great practical importance. The US and PRC are entering a period of renewed great power competition, with Taiwan as a potential trigger for war, and Russia is once more invading and attempting to annex the territory of its neighbours.
If war has been going out of fashion since the start of the Enlightenment, we might console ourselves that however nerve-wracking these present circumstances may feel, modern culture will throw up powerful barriers to another world war. But if we're as war-prone as we ever have been, one need only inspect the record of the 20th century to recoil in horror at what might await us in the 21st.
Bear argues that the second reaction is the appropriate one. The world has gone up in flames many times through history, with roughly 0.5% of the population dying in the Napoleonic Wars, 1% in World War I, 3% in World War II, and perhaps 10% during the Mongol conquests. And with no reason to think similar catastrophes are any less likely today, complacency could lead us to sleepwalk into disaster.
He gets to this conclusion primarily by analysing the datasets of the decades-old Correlates of War project, which aspires to track all interstate conflicts and battlefield deaths since 1815. In Only the Dead, he chops up and inspects this data dozens of different ways, to test if there are any shifts over time which seem larger than what could be explained by chance variation alone.
In a nutshell, Bear simply finds no general trend in either direction from 1815 through today. It seems like, as philosopher George Santayana lamented in 1922, "only the dead have seen the end of war."
In today's conversation, Bear and Rob discuss all of the above in more detail than even a usual 80,000 Hours podcast episode, as well as:
- Why haven't modern ideas about the immorality of violence led to the decline of war, when it's such a natural thing to expect?
- What would Bear's critics say in response to all this?
- What do the optimists get right?
- How does one do proper statistical tests for events that are clumped together, like war deaths?
- Why are deaths in war so concentrated in a handful of the most extreme events?
- Did the ideas of the Enlightenment promote nonviolence, on balance?
- Were early states more or less violent than groups of hunter-gatherers?
- If Bear is right, what can be done?
- How did the 'Concert of Europe' or 'Bismarckian system' maintain peace in the 19th century?
- Which wars are remarkable but largely unknown?
Chapters:
- Cold open (00:00:00)
- Rob's intro (00:01:01)
- The interview begins (00:05:37)
- Only the Dead (00:08:33)
- The Enlightenment (00:18:50)
- Democratic peace theory (00:28:26)
- Is religion a key driver of war? (00:31:32)
- International orders (00:35:14)
- The Concert of Europe (00:44:21)
- The Bismarckian system (00:55:49)
- The current international order (01:00:22)
- The Better Angels of Our Nature (01:19:36)
- War datasets (01:34:09)
- Seeing patterns in data where none exist (01:47:38)
- Change-point analysis (01:51:39)
- Rates of violent death throughout history (01:56:39)
- War initiation (02:05:02)
- Escalation (02:20:03)
- Getting massively different results from the same data (02:30:45)
- How worried we should be (02:36:13)
- Most likely ways Only the Dead is wrong (02:38:31)
- Astonishing smaller wars (02:42:45)
- Rob’s outro (02:47:13)
Producer: Keiran Harris
Audio mastering: Ryan Kessler
Transcriptions: Katy Moore
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
