Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

human nature to war?

Reply
#32
C C Offline
(May 5, 2017 04:07 PM)Carol Wrote: [...] I don't know what to think of those who focus on the people who make war and agree this is human nature, instead of paying attention to all the people who try to flee war and whose lives are in danger because of the conditions of refugee camps? [...]


If they're not attaching a principle of "what to do" in regard to their claim that war is innate, or deriving such from the claim... Then it's a rather impotent stance in terms of ethical influence.

But if otherwise, then as Secular Sanity pointed out... Even if something was part of human nature, then it's a "so what?" situation. Unless an effective argument or justification was presented beforehand as to how "innate / is" does get translated into an "ought". (In this case, a prescription to either engage in war or that there should be no attempts to prevent war, etc).

Of course, movements which advocate redesigning society have been disregarding that fallacy for ages by contending that something is okay because it is natural (as only one item in their arsenal). As well as some scientists seemingly grinding against evolutionary psychology or sociobiology fields when they try to extract moral prescriptions from genetic factors. So the momentum of that "we don't need no stinkin' logicians" attitude might be what those folks you refer to are riding on when ignoring the "so what"?
Reply
#33
Carol Offline
I think HOW we understand our nature to war is very important. The forefathers of the US understood we are both rational and irrational creatures and that can make us prone to engaging in poorly thought out wars. For this reason, they made it difficult for us to engage in war. Congress had to approve the spending and whenever government in a democracy has control over decisions, that slows things way down. It also shifts the response from an emotional one to one of reason.

9/11 created a huge emotional response, but it took explaining a war on terrorism, to expand the military response to Bin Laden to acting on the Neocons plans to have military control of the mid-east. Kucinich (SP) ran against Bush, he was a Catholic and he would have taken us down a complete path if he had won the election. His focus was on grief and knowing the whole world was on our side in that moment in time. He would have taken the US through the grieving and nurtured the boost in international relationships, instead of taking us to war. Our emotional response to 9/11 did not have to be war, and I think thinking people really regret Bush, Cheney and what the neocons have done to the world.

It is more our nature to be fast thinkers (emotional limbic system responses) than slow thinkers (cortex, problem-solving, rational effort), especially when people are poorly prepared to be rational and problem solvers. I will story tell to make my point. Secular Sanity makes very interesting post but is also prone to being intentionally offensive and putting people on the defensive. It is human nature to react emotionally to being offended or put on the defensive and this is very disruptive our ability to be rational. With enough cortex effort and practice, we can learn to override our limbic system that is screaming "attack, attack, attack". Laugh, when I was young and had no understanding of our how our brains work, I would have a knee jerk to Secular Sanity and play right into Secular Sanity's pleasure in being offensive and putting people on the defensive. This is an explanation of war on a small scale.

It was Herodotus or Thucydides who wrote about how war changes us and makes us suspicious and fearful and distorts the meanings of our words. War is a form of insanity that the media can make worse or dispel. How we understand ourselves and why we engage war, matters because it is also our nature to be rational and avoid war. With modern warfare and a standing military force that can be mobilized in a few hours instead of year, and can do more damage in a few hours than several months as it would have taken in WWII, it behoves us to take a better look at our nature, and intentionally take greater responsibility for making rational decisions. We might want a better understanding of the neocons, who they are, how they have power and why they have power. We might want to know the history of Central Asia and what Russia and China have to do with this region. Preventing war takes a lot of effort. Engaging in war takes no effort that we are aware of. In the past, we could not be so well informed, but today, our ignorance is inexcusable. I do not believe the citizens of any modern country want war, but that kings and now leaders of the modern countries, have their reasons for convincing people to accept wars.

Democracy in the US began in part as a stand against war. Democracy is supposed to be rule by reason, not rule by might. But Hitler, Secular Sanity, and Bin Laden can disrupt reason and make people highly emotional are reactionary. However, I think Bin Laden attacked the Military Industrial Complex, not the US, thinking he was going to wake people up and increase reasoning. We did not react with reason, but raw emotion and false beliefs about God's will.

PS Secular Sanity is on my ignore list because this person triggers my emotions canceling out any intellect interest that is possible.
Reply
#34
Carol Offline
Anyone care how military technology changed war and government?  During the age of knights, landlords were knights and there was nothing better for a young man to be than a knight.  No one could be a knight without buying his own armor and horse or by being sponsored by a landlord who provided everything, including many years of training, so the cost on war fell on the knights/landlords, not the king and peasants.    

However, during the Hundred Years War between France and England the cost of war shifted to the king, because a peasant armed with a crossbow was a better fighter than a knight, and this collapsed the system of knights.   Instead of everyone playing into the knight system, the king had to ask the landlords for money, to pay the mercenaries and supply them with crossbows.  It was really a bad time to ask for money because plagues and wars reduced populations, and this meant labor was more costly, while at the same time profits were down.  So the king is forced into raising taxes on the poor because landlords didn't pay taxes and they began refusing the king money for war, or the king had to borrow money from a banker, and this was hard to do when the money isn't paid back and the bank collapses, as happened at least once.   So the poor are being taxed, while the landlords also attempt to increase their profits by raising rents.  Their right to own land based on their defense services is forgotten, while they still maintain their ownership of land.  We might be able to relate to this today with Presidents who slash domestic spending and increase military spending, the very thing the democracy of the US was supposed to prevent.  The US becoming a military might, could be a much worse blow for humanity than we rescognize?  

The bottom line is humans have not warred nor funded wars because they want to, since the age of knights, but somehow leaders who deem this military strength and wars necessary keep getting into power.  Might education for the Military Industrial Complex and a consumer economy have something to do with this?   Who learned in school the reasons for the Congress having control over the declaration of war and money spent on war?   Are we smart to remove the barriers to war and military spending?
Reply
#35
Zinjanthropos Offline
Ahh....If Landlords release land then peon King forces a tax on peasant knight fighters.

Moral of the story is : When the little guy is done fighting, he/she faces more attacks at home.
Reply
#36
Secular Sanity Offline
(May 10, 2017 05:57 PM)Carol Wrote: But Hitler, Secular Sanity, and Bin Laden can disrupt reason and make people highly emotional are reactionary.  

Reductio as Hitlerum (wikipedia.org)

Wow, and to think I was once offended by the word 'cunt'.  Silly me.  Blush
Reply
#37
Tongue  Carol Offline
(Jul 25, 2017 01:09 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Ahh....If Landlords release land then peon King forces a tax on peasant knight fighters.

Moral of the story is : When the little guy is done fighting, he/she faces more attacks at home.

Exactly!  But if you are a young man with nothing and the king is willing to pay you to go fight a war, do you see the bigger picture?   What do the young people today see?  It is a chance for an adventure, and a way to get away from home and family.  It is immediate money requiring nothing but a willingness to follow orders- why some people accept this while rebelling against parents is a mystery.  It might mean learning a trade or leadership skills that equal a better social position after military service.  But is that a very big picture?

The US opposed paying for the British military that supported its imperialism (economic empire) around the world, and the US fought two world wars against the Germans who used their military might to protect economic interest, and now the citizens of the US agree to cutting domestic spending to support the military industrial complex that protects its overseas industrial interest, and citizens are paying taxes into a system that is clearly working against them.   Yeah, Trump, he is going to make us great.  What is wrong with this picture as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and our tax dollars don't meet our needs but pay for military might?
Reply
#38
Secular Sanity Offline
(Jul 26, 2017 07:07 PM)Carol Wrote: Exactly!  But if you are a young man with nothing and the king is willing to pay you to go fight a war, do you see the bigger picture?   What do the young people today see?  It is a chance for an adventure, and a way to get away from home and family.  It is immediate money requiring nothing but a willingness to follow orders- why some people accept this while rebelling against parents is a mystery.  It might mean learning a trade or leadership skills that equal a better social position after military service.  But is that a very big picture?

Military recruiters have unfettered access to high school students even before they turn 18. The No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to let military recruiters have student's contact information and other access to the student. The penalty for not disclosing information requested by military recruiters is a potential loss of federal funds.

Some people think that the draft is a form of slavery. That if our government forces people to fight then there’s no free society left to defend.

Professor Michael Sandel disagrees. He feels that even in modern times it’s still a “Rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight”. He doesn’t think that the military should be treated as if it were a service industry. He thinks that if the decision to go to war does not involve any risk or sacrifice on the part of those making the decision, wars will be undertaken too lightly.

However, Milton Friedman made a great case against the draft. We now have recruiters armed with propaganda—honor—duty—glory.


https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/0mCV29j9_nY

If you’re uncomfortable with controversial issues, stay out of them because others are going to challenge your values and world views.  If you’re going to resist intellectual discussion because you feel threatened and angry then you’re not as refined and sophisticated as you may think.

Heated discussions are uncomfortable and difficult, but some of us thrive on such moments.  You’re trying to stifle them because conflict prevents you from learning.  That’s your problem, not ours.

It’s not that you’re unwelcome, unwanted, or unaccepted.  Almost everyone has tried to engage you.  We’re just not willing to engage you on your terms.  

If you want to discuss controversial topics then put on your big girl pants and stand on your own two feet.

If not, then just buy us a coke and keep us company.  


https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_zCsFvVg0UY

Either way, you're wanted here.

Once again!  Welcome to SciVillage where the adults play.

Happy to have you, Mrs. Carol.
Reply
#39
Zinjanthropos Offline
Perhaps it's not human nature to war but human nature to convince, one way or another, another person to fight one for you. Is it also human nature to desire power over others?
Reply
#40
Syne Offline
(Jul 24, 2017 11:57 PM)Carol Wrote: Anyone care how military technology changed war and government?  During the age of knights, landlords were knights and there was nothing better for a young man to be than a knight.  No one could be a knight without buying his own armor and horse or by being sponsored by a landlord who provided everything, including many years of training, so the cost on war fell on the knights/landlords, not the king and peasants.    

However, during the Hundred Years War between France and England the cost of war shifted to the king, because a peasant armed with a crossbow was a better fighter than a knight, and this collapsed the system of knights.   Instead of everyone playing into the knight system, the king had to ask the landlords for money, to pay the mercenaries and supply them with crossbows.  It was really a bad time to ask for money because plagues and wars reduced populations, and this meant labor was more costly, while at the same time profits were down.  So the king is forced into raising taxes on the poor because landlords didn't pay taxes and they began refusing the king money for war, or the king had to borrow money from a banker, and this was hard to do when the money isn't paid back and the bank collapses, as happened at least once.   So the poor are being taxed, while the landlords also attempt to increase their profits by raising rents.  Their right to own land based on their defense services is forgotten, while they still maintain their ownership of land.  We might be able to relate to this today with Presidents who slash domestic spending and increase military spending, the very thing the democracy of the US was supposed to prevent.  The US becoming a military might, could be a much worse blow for humanity than we rescognize?  

The bottom line is humans have not warred nor funded wars because they want to, since the age of knights, but somehow leaders who deem this military strength and wars necessary keep getting into power.  Might education for the Military Industrial Complex and a consumer economy have something to do with this?   Who learned in school the reasons for the Congress having control over the declaration of war and money spent on war?   Are we smart to remove the barriers to war and military spending?

The counterpoint to all this is that armed peasants were ultimately able to fight for their own freedom...rather than work for landlords or suffer under the taxes and edicts of a king. Knights were such a revered class that they could do whatever they wanted to peasants with impunity. And peasants were no more than indentured servants to the landlords whose lands they worked.

The US is a republic, not a democracy. And no, the president doesn't determine spending. Spending is determined by elected representatives. Our leaders are elected by the people, so yes, by proxy, the US people do agree to fund wars.

Who's talking about removing barriers to war spending? O_o
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The bad news on human nature: 10 findings from psychology C C 4 654 Dec 14, 2018 01:01 AM
Last Post: confused2



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)