That is the only logical conclusion that can be reached. If, in fact, we continue one war after another war then, at some point down the road, we will have killed the last one of us. And, we are well aware of this possibility. Over a period of many years, many articles and books have focused on the 'end of the world' type of theme... 'end of the world' meaning end of human existence on the planet which will continue on for a long time after humans are gone.
And war is not the only issue facing humans at this time. Climate change is going to reduce humanity to a level that the survivors will be unable to wage wars as we've know them throughout history. The survivors will be engaged solely in surviving.
Serious, respectable people in the scientific community speculate with good evidence that one half of all living species on this planet will be extinct by the end of this current century. It is hard to comprehend. But we should be asking, "how can humans survive under those circumstances"?
We, in our collective wisdom have established the United Nations (in place of the League of Nations) as a world body to govern human activities on this planet. And, while the world government concept has some merit, the implementation has very serious fatal flaws.
The United Nations was set up to keep the victors of World War II in a permanent position of dominating the rest of the globe. The very rules of a 'security council' preclude democracy on a global level. The Council is composed of 15 Members:five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly.
The UN legalized “defensive” wars and any wars it “authorizes” for whatever reason. The danger lurking in the “responsibility to protect” doctrine must be addressed. Acceptance of murder by armed drone as either non-war or legal war must be decisively rejected.
To advance, the United Nations must be democratized so that all people of the world have an equal voice, and no single or small number of wealthy, war-oriented nations dominate the UN’s decisions.
The United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals don’t just ignore the fact that development isn’t sustainable; they revel in it. One of the goals is spreading energy use. Another is economic growth. Another is preparation for climate chaos (not preventing it, but dealing with it). And how does the United Nations deal with problems? Generally through wars and sanctions...
... Ending war is not among the goals. Disarmament isn’t mentioned. The Arms Trade Treaty put through last year still lacks the United States, China, and Russia, but that’s not among the 17 concerns of “sustainable development.”
And of course, here at home in the United States, our primary goal is winning the "war on terror'. We have enough history to look at a mountain of evidence... the war on terror creates terrorism.
World Beyond War has outlined specific reforms that would democratize the United Nations, and make nonviolent actions the primary activity engaged in. Please read them here.
If we can't get ourselves together on the important issues that face us, there is an expression that becomes appropriate... "bend over, put your head between you legs and kiss your..."