The pendulum swings back and forth on this. In recent years it has swung to the "inherently warlike" side to the extent that it may have become popular accepted truth. So it is good to see a sceptical review of the evidence.



Either way, spotty evidence. Just fill in the gaps with ideological assumptions about "human nature" .

Is there a period in human history where the entire planet was at peace and no nations were at war with other nations or each other (civil war)?

I certainly hope it won't be a long-living question, if mankind is inheritantly "warlike". It's a question too tainted by morals. Also, the question seems... wrong. Not too sure how to explain, but I'm damn well gonna try because I'm in an argumentative mood today.

I'm going to try and argue based in what I remember about litterature from Dawkins and Axelrod, on what I consider the basis of what is termed war.

Organisms carry around genes, humans included. We (humans and other organisms) are biologically "programmed" (figure of speech) to want to make sure those genes survive. We do this through reproduction, of any sort. To jump ahead in the tale, securing not only the best genes, but also securing the best environment for those genes to survive (either through moving there, or through manipulation) will become an evolutional benefit. For a bird, this becomes the ability to build nests. For a wolf this becomes the ability to work together in a pack not only to hunt for your own food and that of your offspring, but also a greater security for your genetic copies of your self = your offspring.

Humans, like so many other animals, have an interest in securing the optimal conditions for our offspring to grow into maturity. This is accomplished by the same method as the wolf, the pack tactic. Our families, being to in various degrees genetic clones of our selves, and due to a natural tendency to preserve same genetic material, the indivuals we associate with gene "clones" (i.e. family) are bonded to us closer than the rest of the pack. The rest of the pack provide a mutual guarentee for the well-being of multiple, inter-dependant gene communities, a guarentee for safe, continued gene copying through reproduction.

So, in a situation that threatens the stability of the pack, and thus the genetic reproductive guarentee of its members, like the threat of losing hunting grounds, the pack will want to counter that threat. Even if the threat is posed by same species packs, that only are threatening pack 1's gene stability, because pack 2's gene stability is threatened by starvation.

And I would even argue that it's precisely those aspects of humanity that many associate with precisely the argument for why we haven't moved away from warfare, that defend why pack 1 and 2 doesn't simply join together. The aspects that some put forth are empathy, imagination and rationality. Well, empathy is popularly speaking the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. However, that also means empathizing with the not so nice emotions. I'm gonna get back to empathy in a bit. So lets take rationality instead. Boil it down to two choices for pack 1. Either kill them or beat them so hard they never come back, or let them all join with you. However, rationality would speak for second option only if your pack itself had access to enough ressources yourselves, on top of the ressources you'd have to share. Otherwise, you'd risk decreasing your own pack's, and thereby your own genes optimal conditions for succes. This leads me back to empathy, and imagination. You will be able to imagine that your rival pack, are rationalizing the same thing. Making a pre-emptive strike, becomes the most rational, the most secure decision that could maintain your pack and gene groups continued survival and success.

So, to make a long story abit longer, are we inheritantly "warlike"? No, we just take survival very serious.

I think it depends on what "inherently" means. If the question is of whether there's some innate tendency which leads to violence and war arising in human societies I think the evidence makes it hard to argue otherwise. If the question is whether it's possible to have relatively peaceful societies, or to raise individual humans who are gentle and unlikely to resort to violence, then that's different. In the right conditions people are kind, compassionate, and peaceful. In other conditions they will become aggressive. Both tendencies are "innate" inasmuch as co-operation is a necessary part of being a social animal but so is dominance behavior, hierarchies, and aggression.

I think what the quote means by "all the time" is everywhere all the time, since it is biological (i.e. part of all of us).

@vive
What "inherently" means is a fair question. The article states that humans (well human males) have an innate (as in genetic) "predisposition" towards coalitionary violence (i.e. inter-group violence). "Predisposition" is obviously open to tremendous interpretation. If predisposition just means humans have the capacity for intergroup violence then that's a duh. What this argument usually means is that a position of aggression towards other groups is the "default setting" for humans. Peace happens when war isn't feasible. You will see this a lot to justify state violence. In our society moral judgments are often expressed in terms of "Natural" and "Unnatural." War isn't wrong because it is natural. People who regard state level violence with suspicion are thus in denial of their basic "human nature" .

This article argues that the evidence for intergroup violence being a biological imperative is pretty scanty. I agree with that. The usual "recorded history shows" argument is a bit of a problem since it is biased towards certain kinds of societies.

@BjornP
In the context of the article you realise you are arguing for intergroup violence, as a genetic imperative, as inherent? It seems to me you have simply provided an evolutionary back-story (what is technically known as a "just-so" story). While I always enjoy Dawkins as a spokesman for science and evolution, I am not a fan of his actual views of evolution. He is way too reductionist for me.

Your argument takes off from the assumption that humans are like wolves, which is a curious choice. Wolves are pack hunters, whereas humans evolved from pack scavengers (like rats). Given our genetic heritage it seems a more apt animal analogue would be chimps or bonobos, (or even rats). Based on analogy with those animals human evolutionary origins are in loose non-hierarchical territorial groupings interbreeding with adjacent groups. Intergroup violence happens in situations of crisis where there is competition for scarce resources. With chimps for example the violence is a result of environmental constriction through logging, etc.


As for me, I tend to regard "human nature" statements with suspicion, regardless of what they say. Human nature is defined by its adaptability.

Intergroup violence isn't a genetic imperative, it's just a strategy for survival and stability of genetic reproduction, just as cooperation with those you could instead wage war on is a strategy for the same. Two strategies to achieve the same goal, basicly. I realize that by focusing mostly on the genetic argument for war, I did not focus on the genetic argument for cooperation of greater groups because I didn't think that was the question you wanted answered.

What part of his views on evolution do you consider reductionist? And although, I can imagine what that word reductionist means could you describe it? (I'm guessing simplying complex issues to such a reduced argument, although you really destroyed your argument in the simplification itself?) Even though I'm not a biologist, though I'm usually quite adept at detecting scientific flaws in most arguments, I can follow his and Axelrods argument for why altruism and cooperation is an inheritant part of evolution, even though (or indeed because) the genes itself are "selfish". Dawkins or Axelrod don't focus on the genetic arguments for war, afaik. My argument is simply based in that same line of reasoning as the reasoning for altruism and cooperation.

Intergroup violence isn't a genetic imperative, it's just a strategy for survival and stability of genetic reproduction, just as cooperation with those you could instead wage war on is a strategy for the same. Two strategies to achieve the same goal, basicly. I realize that by focusing mostly on the genetic argument for war, I did not focus on the genetic argument for cooperation of greater groups because I didn't think that was the question you wanted answered.



Humans have always been active hunters. Never heard of humans referred to as scavengers before, tbh. I don't consider the ability for a hunter pack to bring down a monstrously huge animal such as a wooly mammoth, a herd of bisons, or simply deer as a scavenger ability.

Human evolution as I've read it, has been propelled early on by (I'm forgetting what mineral, fat or vitamin) the nutrients in bone marrow. Those nutrients spurred a growth of the brain. Although I do know chimps eat meat, like other smaller primates, I don't think you would call them a hunter-gatherer society. They are too much gatherers for that, I reckon, though I could naturally reckon wrong.

Many animals, especially pack animals are fiercely territorial. Not always lethally so, and in this humans differ from other pack animals to an extent. They don't care if the wounds they inflict on another same species animal in a territory fight proves lethal, though.



I'm not entirely sure that the verdict on chimp warfare is fully out yet. But you seem to view intergroup violence among humans as a cause for simply scarce ressources, and yet seem to paint the cause for chimp violence being something different, such as logging. Well, how is logging not impairing on a pack's ability to gather ressources? If a forest fire reduced the hunting grounds of a human pack, how is that different from logging? It doesn't matter that one is a natural disaster, and the other an economic one, they both have the same effect on the environment. And both logging, forest fire, and a competing tribe presents the same potential threat to ressource gathering, be it hunting, foraging or scavenging. Dealing with that threat does not need to include violence, but violence would work, even if it that too can have potentially disastrous consequences.



Absolutely agree. Most of those statements go along the lines of such and such behavior going "against nature", and therefore being "wrong", or based in a view of human nature being selfish and being about the strong defeating the weak (social darwinists loving that), or alternatively that human nature equal survival of the human species based in dated misconceptions that evolution itself concerns the survival of species. However, claiming that humans are not animals governed by the same biology (and biologically motivated behavior) as everything else living, is equally not someting I take very serious.

But ultimately the whole notion of "human" nature is inherintly flawed. So much (or indeed all, though that would need further investigation) of our "nature" is rooted in biology, and that nature is shared not just between humans, but also with chimps, birds, ants and single-cell organisms. So asking if humans are inheritantly warlike is species-centric when it shouldn't be. There is no "human nature", there is just nature that humans just so happens to be a part of.

However, if we move from here into philosophy, yet at the same time maintaining that Dawkins and Axelrod are right concerning cooperation being just another evolutionary stable strategy just like killing off genetic competitors, then you also get great hopes for the future of mankind.

For if it to everyone becomes evident that there is greater benefit for yourself in peaceful cooperation among seemingly competing "packs" (countries), than in simply using weapons to achieve that same end, then even if the fact that humans really are what you would call "warlike" because biology determines all life so would by the same biological reasoning be a "peaceful" species. It all comes down to if everyone feels they win more security and stability for reproduction by using either strategy. (let me call it a "peace for our children"-rationale to get away from my constant biological references ).

On chimpanzee warfare, here is a writeup of a recent study that suggests that chimpanzees go to war over land. However the same post brings up that chimpanzee conflicts may not necessarily shed light on human reasons for war as archeological evidence of war only goes back 10-15 thousand years. The article also mentions bonobos, another species of great ape that settles all its conflicts with sex and cuddling .

So obviously the question is way more difficult to answer at first brush. Semantically it's a bit of a nightmare as "human nature" is open to interpretation as is "war" because we could be talking about very different subjects depending on the combatants. Are we talking about state-on-state action or tribal skirmishes or "garland wars" or ritualized combat or contest for the purpose of settling disagreements?

I think we need to really sit down and parse out what we are really asking before we submit answers.

Here's the article link- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... -for-land/

Here is an article on bonobos- http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... c=y&page=2

haha I wish I was a bonobo, life would be so much simpler

What's stopping you?

Let everyone else do the yelling and marching on... while you just hit the clubs and 'have at it'

Pretty much.

Imagine that extended to international conflicts, armies of people going off to "resolve disputes".

There'd be no dramas taking the founding father militia, and national conscription routes with that one.

Give peace a chance? FUCK THAT SHIT!

Literally.

I really like the new direction this thread is taking

This is my favorite thing to listen to concerning this topic. Just wanted to give it some notoriety here.

A personal observation: Before my first deployment to the combat zone, I was concerned that I would experience things that would be very unpleasant. Despite my experiences, I have to admit that I loved my first deployment (2003) so much that I actually volunteered for a second in 2005, which I also really enjoyed. I would have gone back at least 2 more times (voluntarily) if it would have not meant that my wife would not be waiting for me when I got home-the second deployment almost wrecked my marriage. To this day, I think about volunteering and hope almost daily that I get an involuntary MOB so I could blame it on the Army. When I think about this from a standpoint of considering whether or not humans are inherently warlike (which I have actually thought about quite a bit), I think of my experiences (very positive form my point of view), as well as many others I served with with similar feelings, and I have to say that not all, but some humans inherently enjoy going to war. As a frame of reference, I am a political moderate, but I occasionally lean to the left-so I don't think politics plays a huge role in this.