O'Connell gives a detailed, historically grounded argument that as society evolves, it grows more counterproductive to settle issues by holding mass killing contests. He suggests that war has outlived its usefulness. And indeed it has. Except, we keep turning back to old tricks regardless of how heavily the costs outweigh the benefits.

Interesting. Provides food for thought. Making use of archaeology and anthropology, O'Connell examines our distant past in an attempt to determine how and why war arose. O'Connell defines war as a specific institution - premeditated and directed by some form of governmental structure; concerned with societal, not individual, issues; featuring the willing (though perhaps not enthusiastic) participation of the combatants; and intended to achieve lasting, not ephemeral, results. He found that the rise of war occurred sometime after the human transition from nomadic hunting/gathering to agriculture, when society split between farmers and pastoralists. Various civilizations in the Middle-East, Egypt, China, India, Crete, Phoenicia, and the New World were examined as examples of the different manner and reasons for warfare. O'Connell also has an interesting hypothesis that since the industrial revolution, war no longer serves the demographic purposes it once did, and warfare should be on its way to extinction. This book was published in 1995, I wonder if the author still thinks this now?