human nature to war?

[Carol]

  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?  

In fact, it is so against our nature to war that people must be forced into wars.  They can be driven into the enemy against their will.  They have been drafted into wars with punishments for those who are drafted but run.   

Given these facts, how do we maintain the belief that it is our nature to war?

[Carol]

I took my question about it being our human nature to war to a history forum and already have three replies arguing we want to war and it is popular. I have asked each one which country they want to destroy and what part of the destroying they want to take. I could use some morale support in this. When I are read the arguments that it is our nature to war, my first impulse was to say bad words and flee. Thank goodness I was able to override my emotions and respond with questions to encourage reasoning.

[C C]

The earliest modern humans and their ancestors, due to the instability of their nomadic travels, lacked the fixed settlements to protect and the elaborate collectives that could foster and engage in the scale of systematic warfare. There weren't selective pressures for instilling "war" tendencies into molecular patterns transmissible to descendants (although there were probably some occasional frictions between passing hunter-gatherers; but little valued property to raid slash battle over).

Which is to say: If "war" is a conflict between two or more cultural and economic organizations (higher-order social groups), so as to make the concept distinct from synonyms like "feud" (a bitter quarrel between two parties, families, etc)... Then it's probably not part of the genetic inheritance of humans. But an emergent activity falling out of developing population structures and practices -- affairs adopted over time in response to new contingencies. Gradually there were novel items like property and resource ownership, treaties, alliances, etc to fuel the genesis of wars.

Admiration of warrior qualities and the "job" of fighting in bygone eras revolved around propaganda that painted warfare as glorious and heroic; an idealistic depiction in "stories and descriptions" rather than the bloody carnage and suffering on an actual battlefield, the flames of burning villages. This was complemented by belief in afterlife and special rewards dispensed for gallantry, courage, and sacrifice on the part of military participants.

But as literature and other mediums became more realistic, as life for the average person achieved greater quality, liberty, and a richer array of options for goals (i.e., abiding longer in "this mortal shell" became important), as the latter expectations were stolen from massive civilian populations as the result of slaughter, genocide, and countryside devastation... War became less celebrated and sanctified in contrast to other solutions and resolving of disputes.

[Zinjanthropos]

human nature to war?

It's human nature to eat to survive. By survive I mean procreate, pass on the genes. I'm thinking that perhaps early on that food was worth fighting for, the first reason for killing another human being. I don't have proof but I wonder if anthropologists have ever determined whether we began our tour of Earth in hierarchic groups. I mean its so prevalent among species that its hard to ignore. I would have no trouble believing an alpha human would dispatch a low rank just for want of a meal.

[Secular Sanity]

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

[Zinjanthropos]

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.

[Carol]

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?

---

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!

---

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!

[Secular Sanity]

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!

What are your traditional values and your definition of feminine?

Did you come here to tell us that war is wrong?  I thought you were asking about human nature.

Violence, anger, aggression, revenge, avoidance, sympathy, reconciliation, and cooperation are all part of human nature.

Women can be and are aggressive.  We’re not all sugar and spice and all things nice.

Horrible daycare worker abuses 4 year old girl

Nanny mercilessly beats toddler

Look at the little girl trying to cover her rear end.  Listen to the girl’s voice when she says okay, and then tell me that you’re not prone to violence.  I could and I would knock their fucking teeth out. Empathetic anger can also motive us to help.

Assertions of injustice can lead to war.

[Syne]

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!

For nothing? So the Holocaust should have proceeded unabated? What about those Jewish families? Or do your sympathies stop at your own in-group? The US never fought to stop the formation of large militaries alone, but to stop specific actions. The US has not engaged in any of the actions it has fought a war to stop.

Before WWII, premarital sex was still highly stigmatized, requiring marriage for those men seeking acceptable sex before facing death. And as such a pretense, it's little wonder why divorce should spike afterwards.

Because men were marrying women they hardly knew before leaving for war, there was little time to build a relationship leading to infidelity on both accounts: men falling prey to prostitution and women abandoning their husbands for lovers they met in their husbands’ absences. If they managed to stay together until the end of the war, there was estrangement due to separation to deal with upon men returning.
- https://familiesatwar2014.wordpress.com/...d-divorce/

But

The 50s saw a decrease in divorce, and the rate remained relatively static until after 1967 when divorce laws begin to change. - http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Historical...Statistics

So it doesn't follow that the trend of marriage/divorce in the 40's had a lasting effect. Nor is there such a thing as generational poverty, aside from culturally promoted bad habits/beliefs.

The larger contributor to broken homes, poverty, and social problems is the change in divorce laws in the 60's, which greatly exacerbated women entering the workforce during WWII. The potential glut of workers that would eventually lower wages was held at bay by women leaving the workforce once married. It was only after the National Association of Women Lawyers started pushing for no-fault divorce around 1960 that broken homes, poverty, and social problems came to the fore.

[Zinjanthropos]

I agree that something akin to the Holocaust would test my moral fibre immensely. Would I be so angered knowing the atrocity is taking place and would I pick up arms to stop it? Or would I be comfortable feeling just as guilty as those committing the actions if i did nothing? By not doing anything would future genocidal actions be encouraged? What do you do?