Hey, you all are great. In the history forum, not one person referred to scientific information. You all have made a completely discussion out of the question.
We can know when men watch football their Testosterone level increases and this would indicate we come with a trigger for violence and even a desire for this stimulation.
We can know what very old books tell us of violence and efforts to avoid or control it. It has been said that athletic competition was encouraged to challenge our aggressive nature in a more constructive way. It seems pretty obvious we evolved the potential to kill and make war, but also we evolved an instinct to get along and to help each other, and avoid the conflict of war if we can.
I am all in favor of comparing our behavior with other animals. Which animals make war? Under what conditions do animals kill? Is there a male/female difference?
We can know, the environment effects the drive to be aggressive. History tells us some of chose to live in very harsh environments, so they have no choice but to be strong and aggressive. We know the nomadic way of life does not favor developing the arts and civilization, and that men like Genghis Khan commanded others to avoid religion and city living, to avoid being made soft. Nietzsche was really opposed to religion making people like sheep.
When we study humans we see differences between tribes and cultures. Only some native American tribes were aggressive and we know such tribes have very harsh child-rearing practices. We know some tribes are very peace, child-like, innocent and that they have very nurturing child-rearing practices.
I like the subject of status and hierarchy! Name some animals that are lead by alpha males or females. How is the leader chosen? How do we choose who is in charge? What of street gang status, versus preppie status, or hippie status?
(Apr 26, 2017 01:52 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Some people think that war is an aspect of human nature, while others argue that it’s globalization.
I think that we do have an innate capacity for warfare because we have the propensity for violence. The motives that drive animals to hunt, kill, and copulate, also drive us.
Do Chimpanzee Wars Prove that Violence is innate?
Once nature was the danger and the challenge. The cave drawings of Stone Age man bear witness to his preoccupy concern with animals as a source of food and as a source of danger. The ability to elude these animals, to capture or to kill them, was the locus of power. Now anyone can shoot a rifle, no animal poses a threat. The most significant power now is power over people. The ability to win respect, the belief, the support, the allegiance, the following, the obedience of people—this is power.—Wheelis
Power is the capacity to get others to do things that otherwise they would not do.—Michael Mann
Human societies form around four distinct power sources – ideological, economical, military, and political.
The brutality and barbarism of the individual is passed to the collective. The sword of the citizen gets thinner, vanishes; the sword of the state gets longer, sharper.—Wheelis
Is this a well-rounded argument, or might human nature include something that squishes raw aggression?
How about this- have you spent much time caring for a child? If so, did you notice any change in yourself?
I don't know who is male and who is female, but I do think our gender makes a difference, and I think our position in life makes a difference and so does our cohort make a difference. For example, I am very much in favor of traditional values and femininity and this is so for every cell of my body.
Violating our own values, whatever they are, is a very visceral experience. It just feels wrong. That sense of values is learned at a very young age and in every cell, not just our heads. I make this argument because
women's liberation did not liberate women but made it taboo for them be feminine and the result is a military state. This was not what the US was before WWII. The point is, your argument does not seem well rounded to me. When we bomb another country, I identify with the mothers trying to keep their children alive and I strongly oppose war. I can be as a mother bear, but making war as we make war is just wrong!
(Apr 26, 2017 03:14 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:I think that we do have an innate capacity for warfare because we have the propensity for violence. The motives that drive animals to hunt, kill, and copulate, also drive us.
What are we really doing in war? Protecting ourselves, family, country, way of life, rights? Methinks its all about protecting that which you hold sacred. Although violence is innate, I would wager a good majority of us would rather make love not war (I always liked that expression).
Although I'm sure my ancestors once killed smaller weaker animals for food or were killed by other critters for the same reasons, it must have been a real game changer to go from prey to top predator. Perhaps an infusion of power unrivalled in the history of life on the planet. The want for power/wealth is another thing. Amazing what we do for that.
We protested Vietnam. That was not a popular war and those young men who were drafted did not want to go to war. It makes me sick to my stomach knowing in the world wars thousands died for nothing. The US is now what it fought against- a military industrial complex. We are what we fought against. Everyone died for nothing.
The pain of war does not end with the end of war. As our nation mobilized for the second world war, the rate of marriage soared and at the end of war, the divorce rate soared, and the social breakdown continues, with children from broken homes being at risk of poverty and social problems, and this is passed on from generation to generation. Creatures capable of reason, should be able to do better than this!
Ah, I think we have assumed historians are authorities on truth, and that we need to remember "his story" is limited to a story about a person or group of persons who did something remarkable. In the telling of the Persian invasion of Athens, history is not about the citizens who fled the city, leaving it unprotected and open for the Persians to loot and destroy. Again and again, throughout history, people are fleeing from wars and today with the huge populations of refugees it might be obvious it is not human nature to war? Is it possible that our telling of history has resulted in a distorted understanding of our nature?