I think you are intertwining "war" with "necessity" a bit too much. Necessity has proven to be a powerful force with which to bring about change throughout viewable history, and war is a way that we as a species create necessity, which in turn brings about development, change, etc. However, necessity can exist without war (though probably not without conflict, with war being a sub-category), and it is entirely possible--probable, even, with the expanse of the Universe--a species could attain the technological heights required to travel through the cosmos without the artificial necessity created by war.
This is not to say that every species that is able to travel through their solar system, galaxy, etc. hasn't engaged in warfare at some point in their history, but I contend that the technological heights demanded by inter-stellar travel are too high to be brought about by the advancements attached to warfare, and it just doesn't seem like a practical evolution of the benefits of armed conflict.
And I maintain that we are still a very primitive species, at least relative to what it would take to traverse the solar system and our section of the galaxy with ease. Although we have become adept at war, we still engage in it, are motivated by it, and sometimes use it to valuate sections of our history and current population. We are still very in love with war, an undeniably primitive practice.
What's more, our technological advancements are all great and cool for us on this planet, but they aren't any great shakes in the scheme of everything. Our mechanized vehicles, power sources and even the way we process food to create energy are all grossly inefficient. Nuclear power is cool, but we are still pretty bad at it (as far as efficiency and waste goes), supposed "clean" energy sources are also inefficient and not very "clean". Yeah, in the context of what we see on this planet and what we can see around our section of the galaxy, our technology rules all, but when you think about what it would take to travel through space for extended periods of time to explore, colonize other planets and meet other intelligent life forms, we might as well be still rubbing sticks together to create fire.
Again a well reasoned rational post, and I thank you for it.
What do we know for sure? War exists, and humans didn't invent it. Ants go to war; apes go to war; even trees go to war with other trees; so I can agree war is "primitive", but primordial is probably more accurate.
Am I using a loose interpretation of the word "war" vs. battle vs. conflict? Perhaps; but if I wage "war" on weeds in my yard, that poison will drive their evolution or death; and on the other side of things, various infections are waging "war" on us; the current strains actually eat our best antibiotics, and seem to like 'em.
Macro/micro evolution = War/Battle/Conflict + Perspective/outcome.
In the "perfect place" nothing bothers to change or advance. Life is all good and it just chugs along for millions of generations, millions of years even, and same as it ever,
same as it ever was, whenever last "all things" became perfect. Little or no evolution is ever needed.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbDNOODrGZE&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbDNOODrGZE&feature=related[/ame]
We can certainly agree that conflict isn't necessary for life to thrive; examples of nonconflicting dissimilars living in close proximity can be found all over the place. Parasites are one example; the host learns to live with the parasite and a truce is drawn up in DNA code. Animal husbandry is another example; similar to agriculture in that it ultimately leads to harvest and consumption; but also that neither advancement is a human "invention" since examples of both can be found in lower/older life forms. But once we learned to rub those sticks together for fire, the "battle for the planet's dominant species" trophy became ours. Will we keep it for the next million years? I sure wouldn't bet on it.
Like you, I recognize our limitations in current technology; hell, even our current math is flawed. My brief discussion of human advancement wasn't intended to "beat the chest of man" or glorify war, but rather to point out how far we have come in such a short period of time. And I hold that we didn't advance in spite of conflict, but rather because of it. Consider that every technology you mentioned was driven to birth or rapid development entirely because of war. And not to put too fine a point on it, but the "bloodier" the conflict, the faster the advancement; from food production to metallurgy, rail and air transport, surgery and space flight...
Is conflict a good thing? Maybe not, depending on your perspective, but it's certainly as productive as it is destructive, and it exists at all levels of life on Earth. Why would alien life, no matter how advanced, be any different?
