Okay...first off, by comparing conflict/violence/friction to fire you are equating it to a natural process. Sadly, after humans learned to farm the "nature" of our beings has taken a back seat to morality and rational choice. Or minds can override any predeterminite instinct so saying something is "just how humans are" is a cop out.
Now...let's look at the fire analogy again. Rubbing two sticks is "friction", fire is "conflict". So I'll ask one question. Is fire bad? I mean, someone was rubbing those sticks together for a reason. Who and why? Were they cold and wanted to benefit from the fire's warmth?
But more to my point.
What you are calling "Friction" I would call "conflict" (as in two or more people having differing ideas about a topic) as I learned to use the definition when studying sociology in college.
What you call "conflict" I would call "violence" as that seems to be the implication of the arguement.
However, I would argue that you can have conflict and not have violence if you teach people that violence is not an answer to your problems. If it where I would go around slapping people who miffed me on the sidewalk...but it's not. We each have a responsability to police our behavior with other human beings and to police our fellow human beings as well. But to say "hey this pisses SOME people off, let's trash it" is a bad idea...if we did that then MANY buisenesses would cease to be...like, oh, the entire oil industry.
Conflict is a good thing. It challenges our notions of what is and is not acceptable to us. Violence is a reaction to conflict that we must condemn and not make excuses for. And if you disagree with that I will track you down and stab you. ;p
Lastly...who benefits from keeping society in conflict? I don't know about Canada but in America I think the people who benefit are rich people.
Black people, white people, yellow people, purple people...those in power have always (historicly) stayed in power by keeping those under them in conflictr with one another.
Rich man says, "The economy is bad? Well, even though I -do- have alot of money, I would bet it's more likely that there's a hand full of people, who are probably black crack smokers, abusing the wellfare system and keeping you from getting a job."
Poor man says, "Yeah? So if I go get them black fellas then the economy will be good!"
Rich man, "Yup. Go get them."
Poor man, "Alright!"
Then rich man goes to poor black man, "You know those white people only hate you because they feel guilty for slavery. I wouldn't let thier guilt and fear of you make me feel bad. Stand up to them. Do whatever you need to do!"
Poor black man, "Yeah? Yeah! I'm not gonna suffer to make those white people feel better."
Rich man, "You shouldn't. Teach them a lesson!"
Poor black man, "I will!"
Mean while richman is lining his pockets and profiting off of the missery of the lower classes. They did it in England, France, pre-bulshavik Russia, and most evey nation...the end result is revolution once the masses catch on. Democracy makes it harder to prove who you to overthrow...so you get a confused and disillusioned society that is ruled over by corperations via financial influence of political candidates.
It sucks.
But think for yourself. Decide if you REALLY have a problem with living by someone who has a different culture than you...if so, then ask yourself how can you work with them to get a situation you can live with. Railing against it and argueing how it's "nature" to make you feel better is masking hatred and biggotry...wether you are aware of it or not. And while in making the arguement you may not be a hateful biggot...you might give just enough justification to the mind of someone who is to turn his feelings of frustration into violence.
Think about it.
W-K