An End To War?

[Productivity]

Europe was 'the world' back then, as in the most important part of the world, politically speaking. Now the US and China are. See what I mean?
I'd say, in a good 15 years WWIII will start. Kaisers estimated Casualties? Over 1 billion.

How do you think this war will be fought? China taking to the US, or the US taking to China?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Franconicus]

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

So we have to make sure that noone will have a benefit!

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

This is also the root for terror, isn't it.
Papewaio, I think this is a very short but very precise analysis. So you have to make sure that nobody has a benefit of was and everyone has a unmilitary option to solve conflicts.
Now we have the basic concept and can work on the details

[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.

[Adrian II]

Anyone just watch that tv programme on 4 about the jungle?

What is 4?

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.

What about swinging from used car tires?

[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...

[bmolsson]

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.

Modern warfare have very little to do with fligth/fight behavior. The technology have put us far away from reality and therefore it's more a political and abstract thing for most people. In a modern war most casualties never get to fire their weapons.....

[Adrian II]

Modern warfare have very little to do with fligth/fight behavior. The technology have put us far away from reality and therefore it's more a political and abstract thing for most people.

True. I'm still hoping for an answer to my question about the genetic or neural substrate for man's 'warlike nature', but it seems to me to be just an ideological short-cut. Modern war is a complex collective effort, at best a second-hand reality for some and a far-away rumour for most. Social organisation plays a much larger part in it than flight/fight and other elementary ethological principles.

'War is an activity that modern Western man prefers to banish to the remotest corner of his consciousness. Violence is blessedly absent from his everyday world of work and family, and such images of fighting as he receives come to him from distant places through television or newspapers. (..) The fact of war he cannot deny; its potential to disrupt the settled order of things his emotions will not admit.'

Introduction to John Keegan, Joseph Darracott, The Nature of War, 1981

[Fragony]

True. I'm still hoping for an answer to my question about the genetic or neural substrate for man's 'warlike nature', but it seems to me to be just an ideological short-cut. Modern war is a complex collective effort, at best a second-hand reality for some and a far-away rumour for most. Social organisation plays a much larger part in it than flight/fight and other elementary ethological principles.

'War is an activity that modern Western man prefers to banish to the remotest corner of his consciousness. Violence is blessedly absent from his everyday world of work and family, and such images of fighting as he receives come to him from distant places through television or newspapers. (..) The fact of war he cannot deny; its potential to disrupt the settled order of things his emotions will not admit.'

Introduction to John Keegan, Joseph Darracott, The Nature of War, 1981

Simple one. War is group behaviour, and 'globalisation' makes the groups bigger then they were. Kind of an urge with a cellphone.

[Adrian II]

Simple one. War is group behaviour, and 'globalisation' makes the groups bigger then they were. Kind of an urge with a cellphone.

Oh. OK. Problem solved.

[Franconicus]

Oh. OK. Problem solved.

So what do we do know? Overwhelm hunger or understand women?

[Fragony]

Oh. OK. Problem solved.

What a fascinating yet cold stabbing device between my lifting apparatus! Wow you are in a bad mood today!

// looks at timetable, nope not yet friday

still, it was the truth

[Kraxis]

The day we meet an outside threat, in this case it has to be another race (as something like big rocks will just have some going "it's a trick").
That way all our 'us-them' mentality can be projected onto those newcomers. Problem is just that it could very likely lead to war with them, and I think we want war with other races even less than war with ourselves.

And AII, swinging from the cartyres is the same as when we do something out of idleness. But children do swing from cartyres, so it is not that far from our behaviour.
The fact that humans aren't the only ones to engage in deliberate war (ants doesn't count) is interesting in itself. In fact humans are very peaceful compared to chimps as we can easily be in large groups of very different people. Chimps can't. So we must have evolved away from this highly aggressive behavior.
It was quite disturbing to see the look in the eyes of the chimps when they went out on their raid into another group's territory, and the way they ambushed one of them. Silence and determination, I have only seen that look in human eyes...

[Adrian II]

What a fascinating yet cold stabbing device between my lifting apparatus! Wow you are in a bad mood today!

Hehe

Seriously, Frag, do you think there is such a thing as a Dutch sense of humour? You and I seem to disagree on just about everything, and deeply so - yet we share a sense of detachment whereby we can say the most horrible things without anyone being offended. You know, our favourite passtime in company is 'zuigen' - drawing out differences of opinion, subtly ridiculing others, worrying weak spots in other peoples' argumentation, etcetera.

Anyway, who am I asking? You don't even have a sense of humour.

[Fragony]

Seriously, Frag, do you think there is such a thing as a Dutch sense of humour? You and I seem to disagree on just about everything, and deeply so - yet we share a sense of detachment whereby we can say the most horrible things without anyone being offended. You know, our favourite passtime in company is 'zuigen' - drawing out differences of opinion, subtly ridiculing others, worrying weak spots in other peoples' argumentation, etcetera.

Anyway, who am I asking? You don't even have a sense of humour.

The dutch are horrible, you better have a sense of humour over here or you will be ridiculed alive Yes there is a dutch sense of humour, which isn't the most subtle in it's subtlety. It is really offending with a wink and we dutch get it, but people visiting have a hard time dealing with it, I know that from experience. Humour is sort of a buffer zone, one can disagree but it never trancends the importance of the job at hand, a solution has to be negotiated after all; you could say that we deal with the gray area's with humour and it works. So we can disagree, but I disagree with your views and your views are only your 'dayjob', there is nothing funny about extremists. Opinions should always be respected, no matter how UTTER REDICULOUS they are, like yours.

[Adrian II]

Humour is sort of a buffer zone, one can disagree but it never trancends the importance of the job at hand, a solution has to be negotiated after all; you could say that we deal with the gray area's with humour and it works.

Wise words. You may go back to your usual nonsense.

[Fragony]

Wise words. You may go back to your usual nonsense.

Thanks.

Hitler wasn't so bad

[Adrian II]

Thanks.

Hitler wasn't so bad

To think he could have married Stalin. Bunch of losers.

[Fragony]

To think he could have married Stalin. Bunch of losers.

That russian mustache would have caused the sort of irritation to his ubertesticles that no skin friendly shampoo can counter. Funny that the biggest crime in history will be reduced to a love affair, mark my words. Why don't people understand that they were just lonely?

[Adrian II]

Funny that the biggest crime in history will be reduced to a love affair, mark my words. Why don't people understand that they were just lonely?

Hmm. And I hear Molotov's Dad was a flaming drunk. No mystery there either.