Is humanity hard-wired for war and conflict?

Trollheart · 08-02-2015, 05:09 PM

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?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 08-02-2015, 08:32 PM

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~~ · 08-02-2015, 08:33 PM

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 · 08-02-2015, 09:05 PM

Hobbes said yes.

Guybrush · 08-03-2015, 03:51 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wpnfire

Hobbes said yes.

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.

Trollheart · 08-03-2015, 05:23 AM

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.

Guybrush · 08-03-2015, 06:05 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Wpnfire · 08-03-2015, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I think moral values are generally improving in our society.

EDIT: haven't we had the discussion of the subjectivity of morals before?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 08-03-2015, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

well, i do think you have a point in that resources and territory are scarce. since they are scarce, competing tribes/states/companies/whatever are sort of destined to compete for them.

but i notice a trend in warfare where as our weapons technology becomes increasingly efficient and destructive, more and more restraint is being shown in using them. that's not to say that war is going away, at least not any time soon. but if you look at humanity's history, when wars were fought we had a tendency to wage total war on entire populations, slaughtering as many as we could and in many cases trying our best to wipe out the enemy entirely. it seemed like this sort of climaxed in the early 20th century, with europe and parts of asia and africa being completely decimated by all out warfare using increasingly deadly technology. the 2nd world war ultimately ended with germany being sacked and then eventually the united states nuking japan twice, the first and only time nukes have ever been used by any nation.

the following half a century was dominated by 2 major global powers (usa vs ussr) that had every incentive, reason and inclination to go to war. however, they ultimately didn't. they engaged in proxy wars and **** like that. but they never had an all out war. and i honestly think nukes are the main reason why.

similarly, i don't think the iranian regime has the genuine intention of using nukes to wipe israel off the map. i think they use that sort of rhetoric in their domestic politics, because like it or not, israel is severely hated by most muslims worldwide, and there is also quite a bit of antisemitism within the islamic community. so it's popular to attack them. but ultimately, what is in iran's best interest as a geopolitical force is to get nukes as a bargaining chip. it's just a simple fact that nukes give you increased geopolitical leverage. and yet typically, so far, they never seem to actually get used.

Trollheart · 08-03-2015, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Charlie

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

Hippy nonsense. Back that up with some facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

It's not humanity.

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

Even they're human. If people weren't so weakminded and willing to be led, true, maybe not so many wars would be fought, or as easily. But we are, and that's a sad fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

well, i do think you have a point in that resources and territory are scarce. since they are scarce, competing tribes/states/companies/whatever are sort of destined to compete for them.

but i notice a trend in warfare where as our weapons technology becomes increasingly efficient and destructive, more and more restraint is being shown in using them. that's not to say that war is going away, at least not any time soon. but if you look at humanity's history, when wars were fought we had a tendency to wage total war on entire populations, slaughtering as many as we could and in many cases trying our best to wipe out the enemy entirely. it seemed like this sort of climaxed in the early 20th century, with europe and parts of asia and africa being completely decimated by all out warfare using increasingly deadly technology. the 2nd world war ultimately ended with germany being sacked and then eventually the united states nuking japan twice, the first and only time nukes have ever been used by any nation.

the following half a century was dominated by 2 major global powers (usa vs ussr) that had every incentive, reason and inclination to go to war. however, they ultimately didn't. they engaged in proxy wars and **** like that. but they never had an all out war. and i honestly think nukes are the main reason why.

similarly, i don't think the iranian regime has the genuine intention of using nukes to wipe israel off the map. i think they use that sort of rhetoric in their domestic politics, because like it or not, israel is severely hated by most muslims worldwide, and there is also quite a bit of antisemitism within the islamic community. so it's popular to attack them. but ultimately, what is in iran's best interest as a geopolitical force is to get nukes as a bargaining chip. it's just a simple fact that nukes give you increased geopolitical leverage. and yet typically, so far, they never seem to actually get used.

Well yeah: it was called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction): each side knew that in the event of the other launching their nukes they would do the same and most of the Earth would be destroyed. Only a madman would do that. Mind you, wasn't Nixon ready to use nukes to end the Vietnam War? I guess in the case of the Cold War though it really was a case of having the weapons as a deterrent, never actually intended to be used. Even the Cuban Missile Crisis was, I think, heavy sabre-rattling by Krushchev, a faceoff that luckily ended in a joint backdown. And that was really a reaction to Kennedy's siting of ballistic missiles in Turkey.

As for Iran, well I don't know: you'd wonder if they'd be so stupid as to nuke a country so close to them, but I wouldn't place any smart money on them not doing it if they could, or at least threatening to do so.

08-02-2015, 05:09 PM	#1 (permalink)
Trollheart Born to be mild Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 404 Not Found Posts: 26,996	Is humanity hard-wired for war and conflict? 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

08-02-2015, 09:05 PM	#4 (permalink)
Wpnfire Dragon Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Kansas, United States Posts: 2,744	Hobbes said yes. __________________ Last.FM My RYM Ratings *My Glitchwave Beta Profile*

08-03-2015, 05:23 AM	#6 (permalink)
Trollheart Born to be mild Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 404 Not Found Posts: 26,996	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

08-02-2015, 08:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	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.

08-02-2015, 08:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
~~ChelseaDagger~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: In the fires of your own disillusion Posts: 684	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.