An End To War?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Striclty theoretically speaking if humanity lasted forever there could never mathematically be an end to war. This is because with enough time war will crop up again due to the right circumstances coming around again. Humanity is not likely to last forever so you could say there was an end to war if the sun blew up during a long period of peace or another galactic disaster wiped us out in one swift blow. However, I think if we had warning we would have riots and quite possibly war.

[Adrian II]

I don't quite understand why several posters think war is inevitable because violence is somehow in the 'nature of the human animal'. Couldn't it be the nature of society that determines both the need for and the character of war? One thing we know for sure is that the aspect and mechanics of war have undergone tremendous changes along with other changes in society (which have, in part, themselves been the result of war): changes of scale, of political, economic and social complexity, of technology, language, education and belief systems.

To name but one example: the division of 'labour' in warfare has made tremendous strides, just like the division of labour in all other fields. During the Stone Age, war took on the aspect of brief confrontations between entire villages, clans or extended families of hunter/gatherers, with practically everyone involved in the effort of killing enemies. Nowadays, complex societies of millions of peope are engaged in extended efforts to wage war whilst only very few of them do the actual killing.

To name another example: a main purpose behind the modern drive toward new technologies of warfare is the aim to reduce the actual killing of enemies during war. If killing is in the nature of the beast, why this effort to reduce it? One thing this seems to tell us is that humans don't have a genetic make-up that simply induces them to kill. They enjoy winning, that's for sure, but they do not necessarily enjoy killing.

I'm fascinated by the question whether certain human behaviours are merely an expression of the nature of the beast, or the result of a complex interplay of human nature on the one hand, and contingency and man-made social circumstances on the other.

Historical psychologists have tried to 'subtract' all historical circumstances from certain human behaviours in the hope that they would be left with some sort of residue constituting 'pure' human nature. I don't believe they have succeeded.

So let me ask the 'naturalists' a question.

If you say that violence is an attribute of human nature, your statement presupposes a concept of human nature as an immutable disposition to act in certain ways. On the level of elementary evolutionary biology, I understand man has certain immutable reflexes. There is a proven neural substrate for those reflexes. Is there one for a complex behaviour such as war? If so, what is the neural substrate for it?

[ichi]

Rather than saying that violence is a human attribute, I'd rather go with the idea tha humans are readily capable of violence. They just need a reason, and since the world is full of reasons to fight I think we will always have conflict.

Since envy and jealousy are human attributes, people will always want want others have. Same with greed, people will always want more and be willing to use others to achieve that. So some will always be trying to use others, and the others will always resent that.

As long as some have more than others (more time, more freedom, more stuff, more messages from God telling them they are right and everybody else is wrong, more power, more whatever) there will be tension between humans, and from tension will come conflict, and conflict will, on occassion, be violent.

ichi

[Franconicus]

Rather than saying that violence is a human attribute, I'd rather go with the idea tha humans are readily capable of violence. They just need a reason, and since the world is full of reasons to fight I think we will always have conflict.

Since envy and jealousy are human attributes, people will always want want others have. Same with greed, people will always want more and be willing to use others to achieve that. So some will always be trying to use others, and the others will always resent that.

As long as some have more than others (more time, more freedom, more stuff, more messages from God telling them they are right and everybody else is wrong, more power, more whatever) there will be tension between humans, and from tension will come conflict, and conflict will, on occassion, be violent.

ichi

Ichi,

this is a good analysis of the reasons of violance. Maybe you can add more abstract reasons like patriotism, intolerance ... . However, these are also reasons for crime (murderer, robbery ...) . Societies have effective ways to fight crime (even though there is still a bit left). Why should not be a way to erase military conflicts?

I know a world without war is hard to imagine. But just think of history. People could not imagine to live without slavery or to have democracy ... . Things are changing.

[Franconicus]

Imagine there’s no countries,
It isn’t hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
And no religion too,
Imagine all the people,
Living life in peace

Can you?

[Papewaio]

So let me ask the 'naturalists' a question.

If you say that violence is an attribute of human nature, your statement presupposes a concept of human nature as an immutable disposition to act in certain ways. On the level of elementary evolutionary biology, I understand man has certain immutable reflexes. There is a proven neural substrate for those reflexes. Is there one for a complex behaviour such as war? If so, what is the neural substrate for it?

The ability for something to survive means they must be able to have multiple strategies and for those strategies not to be easily predictable...unlike most game 'AIs'. Strategies for even simple organisms are not immutable so why should they be for more complex ones?

Intelligent creatures can learn and hence create more strategies. So you can see humans to monkeys to dogs to keas all solving problems.

[Adrian II]

Strategies for even simple organisms are not immutable so why should they be for more complex ones?

Many behaviours of simple organisms such as bacteria or Republicans are immutable; a slight change of circumstance may spell extinction. And even complex organisms have simple neural reflexes -- eye-blink, knee-jerk, etcetera -- which cannot be 'unlearned'.

The word 'strategy' in itself implies a range of possible alternate behaviours. In complex organisms such 'strategies' arise out of very complex interactions between neural levels from the simplest reflex arc through the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems to the cortex. The most elementary model looks something like this:



Now try and imagine, if you will, such a model for modern warfare in all its complexity. I can't. And while you're at it, please demonstrate the neural substrate for Nelson's decision to break with standing Navy orders regarding line tactics at Trafalgar...

Joking of course. What I mean to say is that biological models often result in what Karl Marx called 'Crusoe-ism': a model of human behaviour in isolation of its social context. Certain behaviours are presented as belonging to the 'nature' of the human animal out of which all social arrangements and interactions arise.

If warfare is the nature of the beast, how come so few people actually engage in it? It is an infinite minority that kills fellow human beings.

[bmolsson]

We need to create global laws against war and the enforce them on a global level. We don't need a global government for that, just a global legal system.....

[Papewaio]

Many behaviours of simple organisms such as bacteria or Republicans are immutable; a slight change of circumstance may spell extinction. And even complex organisms have simple neural reflexes -- eye-blink, knee-jerk, etcetera -- which cannot be 'unlearned'.

Considering how prolific bacteria are I would assume that even they do not consistently have the same strategy for every event. Neural reflexes are not the same as stategies. Nor do all organisms of a species have the same reflexes.

If warfare is the nature of the beast, how come so few people actually engage in it? It is an infinite minority that kills fellow human beings.

I would say that it is a very little used strategy / low percentage chance it gets 'activated' in people.

[ichi]

Societies have effective ways to fight crime (even though there is still a bit left). Why should not be a way to erase military conflicts?

Societies have ways of minimizing crime, but it will never be erased. The power and control that would allow a society to erase crime would turn out to be uncontrollable and would eventually lead to the state becoming criminal (absolute power corrupts absolutely) and hence to crimial resistance (a la Russia / Chechnya).

There is a difference between minimizing crime (or war) and eliminating it. We can (and should) try to accomplish the former, but the latter is a pipe dream and an unreasonable goal.

ichi

[Papewaio]

As long as there is a perception of benefit wars will be fought.

Also it may see to the parties that no options are left and pressure is pushing them towards conflict.

[Adrian II]

Neural reflexes are not the same as stategies.

Exactly, and if we are to assume that humans are somehow genetically predisposed to complex behaviour like waging war, it must be demonstrated that there is a neural substrate for it. Otherwise, as far as we know now, war is not in our genes.

I would say that it is a very little used strategy / low percentage chance it gets 'activated' in people.

It would seem so. You did a good job by singling out important possible motives for wars such as perceived benefits and threats. Very little to do with an inbred need for violence being a motive. But we have Freud's hydraulic vision of man to fall back on in case of emergency: organised violence as a way to give free rein to our pent-up civilisational frustrations.

[BDC]

Anyone just watch that tv programme on 4 about the jungle? Showed chimps organising hunts to kill other monkeys, even though they didn't need the meat, just to show who was boss. And them murdering another chimp. So might well be in our genes if they do it too. Or it just comes with being social and intelligent.

[Papewaio]

Exactly, and if we are to assume that humans are somehow genetically predisposed to complex behaviour like waging war, it must be demonstrated that there is a neural substrate for it. Otherwise, as far as we know now, war is not in our genes.It would seem so. You did a good job by singling out important possible motives for wars such as perceived benefits and threats. Very little to do with an inbred need for violence being a motive. But we have Freud's hydraulic vision of man to fall back on in case of emergency: organised violence as a way to give free rein to our pent-up civilisational frustrations.

War is an escalation of flight/fight behaviour and many other basic responses. Also social grouping...looking after your mates is often cited as the main thing when in war... watching out for your mate on your left and the right. War can be broken down into smaller pieces and then we can see how we would react to that... how any animal may react to situations. Corner an animal and expect it to be far more violent then if you give it a way out.

Also humans are far more then just genes we employ memes for survival. We use ideas to shape us and these allow us even greater flexibility.

Very little to do with an inbred need for violence being a motive

That would be the beat of the drums, the demonisation of the enemy, the feeling we get from seeing justice done to such evil inhumane beings, the lust of conflict... a lot of people get off on violence just go to a football match and watch the spectators...