Trollheart

You'd have to wonder. Many of the wars we've fought down the centuries have been about territory, religion, or sometimes finances, but at the heart of it all, is Man (no offence to ladies, I'm using the term as an overall one) genetically predisposed towards war, fighting and conflict? Could such a thing as peace --- proper, true, complete peace, if it were ever achieved --- cause humanity to stagnate and even die out? Do we, as many have conjectured down the ages, need war to survive, to keep our instincts sharp, to assure the survival of the fittest and the most cunning?

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

John Wilkes Booth

disclaimer: this is basically how i see it... im not a scientist or any **** like that, just a guy with an internet connection and an interest in this sort of topic

survival of the fittest is about survival strategies. people are often mislead into thinking the fittest means bigger, more aggressive, more violent, etc. those are just particular survival tactics that, when implemented properly can lend to a successful survival strategy. but that is not the case in every organism. it all depends on what niche you have.

humans seem to value intelligence over brute force/strength. we evolved as hunters, from a group of animals that previously were not hunters. we don't compete with a lot of the immediate competition (in terms of hunting big game on the savanna) through meeting force with force. a lion, leopard etc easily can outhunt a human, as hunters relying on tradition tooth & claw predatory tactics. humans compete through hunting in more innovative and complex ways, that require more intelligence.

at the same time, humans have an inherent tendency towards tribalism since in the context in which we evolved, the tribe was a very important aspect of the human's survival strategy. so a lot of those in-group/out-group behaviors that seem so commonplace in people were once upon a time a useful survival strategy.

but i would say that, to put a sort of silver lining on it or a light at the end of the tunnel... human culture and technology seems to evolve much faster than human genes do. so i don't necessarily think it's correct to say there's no way around our warlike nature, because our warlike nature is like everything else, dependent on certain contexts.

and as human civilization becomes this increasingly isolated machine that isn't operating strictly on the basis of the selection of certain genetic traits, the more it becomes possible and feasible for us to withstand the fact that we might have certain counterproductive (in modern contexts) inclinations, without becoming a slave to them or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. because at the end of the day we have sort of started to develop priorities that go beyond just spreading genes.

and so in being conscious of those priorities we might have some incentive to modify our behavior in ways which frankly have little to no genetic value. in some cases we might even divert these instincts into slightly less deadly, more mundane and yet more productive activities. such as sports, for example.

ChelseaDagger

That's an interesting theory.

I think as a whole, humanity just inevitably and historically gravitates toward slavery, which comes in more flavors than ice cream it seems...

"Progress" is an illusion fabricated to make us feel safely superior to this instinctual pull...But there is just a certain predictability and security inherent in being a slave-- especially a slave in a nation full of slaves (herd mentality I guess). Humans love being told what to do and how to think. It's so much simpler and less risky than trying to maintain freedom--let alone knowing what one would even do with such a responsibility. Of course, where there are slaves (or any other resource for that matter, human or otherwise) there will be masters, the textbook nihilistic narcissists for whom nothing is ever enough. And where there is nihilistic narcissists, there will be war.

Humans, while arguably the most "complex" animals, are not nearly as complex as we pretend to be.

Wpnfire

Hobbes said yes.

__________________

Last.FM

My RYM Ratings

My Glitchwave Beta Profile

OccultHawk

Carl Sagan deals with this question. He says our brains have over 3 billion years worth of evolution that is hard wired toward destructiveness. However, since we also have an awareness of our ability to destroy and the intellect to see the advantages of not destroying ourselves the situation is not hopeless. He says it's important for humankind to understand our evolutionary origins and to not forget we're basically alligators with hydrogen bombs. By understanding that, he says, we may be able to show restraint and get through this very dangerous era of our development.

Guybrush

JWB pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Humans are great at cooperation and that's generally how humanity's greatest achievements have come about. We are basically tribal and are not particularly violent compared to other animals. As an example comparison, common chimpanzee societies are generally a lot more violent than human ones.

We're tribal and we have an us and them sort of way of thinking of people. When you look at another person, there's a lot of subconscious evaluation going on, but very roughly, you're trying to figure out if it's an "us" or a "them" you're looking at. Your internal moral interests will be a lot more protective towards an "us" than they will towards a "them". If everybody in the world felt like they were part of the same cooperative tribe and there were no "thems", I'm sure we'd be very peaceful.

There are those who exploit and who are outright nasty to others of their tribe. To the extent that such criminal and anti-social behaviour is genetic, we're generally creating an environment where these genes are penalized (ex. societies are growing bigger and we create laws and send criminals to prison). So, our social traits are evolving and will continue to do so in the future.

Hobbes was very wrong. Let's just say his ideas about human nature would be a lot more challenged today than they were in his day.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Trollheart

There's another point that hasn't been adequately discussed here. It's something Orwell was particularly interested in when he put forward the theory that "the purpose of war is not to win but to perpetuate the conflict". You can see how this has worked even recently, with both Thatcher and Bush Jr getting the public on their side when they went to war, and how it increased their popularity. Often, the "God is on our side" idea works to a leader's advantage in waging what could even be an unjust and unjustified war. Look at the Crusades: what right had the Pope to go trying to take the Holy Land back from the Moors, yet he and his bishops convinced all the kings of Europe that Jerusalem had been seized, when in fact all the Muslims were doing was taking it back from we Christians, who had usurped it in the first place.

War exists as a tool, a reason to justify often barbarous treatment ("This is war!") and make landgrabs that otherwise would not be possible in peacetime. It's an excuse to suspend the usual conventions of human relationships and treat those we were only recently friends with as our deadliest enemies.

And because it gives us that power (and **** what anyone says, we like it) then it's always a possibility in the back of the minds of world leaders. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the likes of England and France were always going to war. Why? Were there grievances? Sure, but they were historical. Nothing new had happened to justify going to war. The simple truth of the matter is that war was "good for business". A king or queen who went to war always had popular support and looked "strong", and there never needed to be any real justification for that. In the "House of Cards" trilogy by Micheal Dobbs, as his power begins to slip and his popularity wanes, the Prime Minister arranges "a small war", and everyone's attention is diverted from the problems at hand.

So it's also a useful instrument for the unscrupulous. Humans are by nature competitive (what? Yes we are! Bet you anything! Okay then, first to the end of the street and back...) and forever trying to one-up each other, and countries vie one against the other for the upper hand. If America was not the power it is today you can be sure it would be struggling to attain that superiority, and Iran is certainly attempting to gain power over the Middle East with its nuclear program, intending on wiping out its great enemy Israel, who are in turn trying to reduce Gaza to dust, month on and month off, all in the name of "national security".

There's no doubt Man is genetically tuned towards the need for war, if only to keep him sharp and alert, and stop him from becoming complacent. You can bet that at this point, at some meeting in some city in some country, someone is plotting a coup, a terrorist attack, even laying plans for a war.

It's just how we are. I'd love it if we could change it, but I think we can no more subdue our desire for conflict and challenge than we can stop the sun rising in the morning.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Guybrush

Something I find interesting is that internet and social sharing is helping to rapidly change moral thinking. This is often thought of in a negative way, for example several comedians have reacted to the new political correctness where you can't really make fun of X because so many people will be offended today. But, it's not necessarily all bad. I think the interest in animal wellfare has increased tremendously over the last two decades. The women's rights / equality movement has gained a lot of popularity and just now the world has basically told trophy hunters they are assholes.

When our grandparents were young, morals was about being polite and keeping a neat facade, like a clean house. Smacking kids around wasn't such a big deal and women were inferior beings. Today, you can swear and tidyness is more optional, but being a kid-smacking misogynist is considered horrible. Overall, I think equality and children's rights are bigger issues and so I think moral values are generally improving in our society.


If a dog loves treats, you can use the promise of treats as a tool to train them. Humans love sex so you can use sex to sell a human a car. Rousing conflict or even war is certainly a handy tool and is used politically all the time for achieving various ends .. but I think blaming humanity for this is less productive than recognizing it and blaming the system or people who try to manipulate by such methods. If humans being exploited or corrupted is a problem, then perhaps we need better education, laws or systems to ensure that this doesn't continue in the future.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Mr. Charlie

One only need look inside their heart to realise the answer is no.

Chula Vista

It's not humanity.

It's the ****ing idiots that are put into positions of power by the stupidity of the masses.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”