Agnostic.com

3 2

LINK Do human beings have an instinct for waging war? | Aeon Essays

FTA: Let me be clear. Violence is widespread and, sadly, deeply human, just as the adaptation for violence under certain circumstances is similarly ingrained in many other species. But war is something else. It is a capacity, and involves group-oriented lethal violence. Thus it deserves to be distinguished from rivalry, anger, ‘crimes of passion’ or revenge, or other forms of homicide. To engage an absurdly positive simile: violence is like marriage, in the sense that some sort of process whereby adults solemnise their relationship appears to be a cross-cultural universal, and is a likely candidate for being an adaptive part of human nature. War, on the other hand, is like arranging a wedding with a bridal shower or bachelor party, and laying on a hotel ballroom, an orchestra, a four-course meal and dancing. It is safe to assume that neither employing a photographer, serving a multi-tiered wedding cake, enlisting bridesmaids nor tying baby shoes to the bumper of the newly-weds’ car spring from the human genome, although people are capable of doing all these things. By the same token, plain, old interpersonal violence is a real, albeit regrettable, part of human nature. War is even more regrettable, but is no more ‘natural’ than a bridal shower or the assembly line used to construct a stealth bomber.

zblaze 7 Oct 3
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

It is hard to believe, these modern times on a per capita bases. Has had the least amount of wars in human history. In most peoples hearts and minds would like to abolish war.

What do most beauty's pageants contestants speak out about? I want world peace.

2

We are hardwired for protection and expansion of resources. Pre-Industrial societies were tribal based and so the group was the most important asset where everyone’s roles were interchangeable.

Durkheim called this mechanical solidarity. The Modern period brought the opportunity for individualist expression which gave rise to specialists in the Industrial Revolution. Durkheim would call this organic solidarity and so a greater affinity for disparate groups became evident placing a greater emphasis on nationhood rather than tribalism

Nationalism is tribal in its essence and demands a unity of purpose from its members. However with the rise of populism in recent years, the political environment is forming, as we can see globally, around individuals rather than party politics. Left and Right are less important as we move toward neo-tribalism with specific interests and agendas.

Factionist warfare could be a future as factions rather than nations engage for dominance: The Wars Of The Roses but with more lethal weapons and the equivalent Battle of Bosworth Field taking place in cyberspace rather than the countryside of Leicestershire.

2

I saw a YouTube video of a group of male chimpanzees staging a raid on a neighboring clan. Chimpanzees are our closest animal cousins, so yes, I’d say that war is in our blood. Young male humans in cities are forever forming up into gangs and waging war—further evidence.

Just because some behavior pattern is in our genetics doesn’t mean that we are slaves to that behavior. Maybe conscious awareness will step in at times and direct us into more fruitful ventures. Libertarians generally oppose war. Vote Libertarian.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:409956
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.