essentially reasonable, that what is called the utopian dream of pacifism is in fact a practical policy-indeed, the o~y practical, the only realistic policy that there is. Pacifists are people who have broken with an oldestablished convention of thought and, like all inno· vators, find themselves constantly subjected, off the platform as well as on it, to a process of more or less intelligent heckling. Thie being so, it has seemed beet to state the pacifist case in terms of a series of answers to common antipacifist objections. It is proposed to deal with these objections in order, beginning with the most general, based on considerations of biology, and proceeding to the most specific, based on a consideration of contemporary politics. I The first objection raised by our imaginary heckler is that "war is a law of nature." Therefore, it is argued, we cannot get rid of it. What are the facts? They are these: conflict is certainly common in the animal kingdom. But, with very rare exceptions, conflict is between isolated individuals. "War" in the sense of conflict between armies exists among certain species of social insects. But it is significant that these insects do not make war on members of their own species, only on those of other species. Man is probably unique in making war on his own species. Tennyson wrote of "Nature red in tooth and claw." But an animal can he bloodthirsty without being war• like. The activities of such creatures as tigers, sharks and weasels, are no more war-like than those of butchers and sportsmen. The carnivores kill members of other species either for food or else, like fox-hunters and pheasant-shooters, to amuse themselves. Conflicts between individual animals of the same species are common enough. But again they are no more war-like than duels or pothouee brawls among human beings. 4 Bib'1oteca Gino Bianco
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==