
Is there a war instinct? - jonbaer
http://aeon.co/magazine/society/human-beings-do-not-have-an-instinct-for-war/
======
s_q_b
I look towards our closest relatives, Chimpanzees, at least one subspecies of
which carries out organized troupe-based raids that echo much of what we see
in human warfare. Troupes of young males patrol the perimeter of a territory
by night, and periodically raid neighboring groups, killing adult males,
seizing females, killing male offspring, and conquering their territory.

I have a hard time believing that warfare is a pure invention, given its
(near) universality across space, time, and our most closely related genetic
relatives.

~~~
bane
Humans are also literally _the_ apex hunter on the planet. We can successfully
hunt and eat any other predator if we choose to. Even nearly perfectly evolved
hunters like sharks, lions and tigers are merely food and decorative pelts to
us. A right of passage for some human _children_ to be considered adults is to
track, hunt and kill other apex predators.

Humans have no natural predators. Zero. Think about that. Anything that may
have once threatened us, we've out organized, out planned, and out _thought_
on the way towards global dominance. Even superficially similar co-inhabitant
species like Neanderthal could not survive in a world with Humans. Today, only
microscopic creatures threaten us, and we once again organize, plan and think
about ways to defeat these creatures.

Even with stone-aged levels of technology we spread to every corner of the
world, in every known climate and ecology, in large numbers, and thrived. The
only thing that is dangerous to humans is other humans. And we've even arrived
at the point that, with no considerable effort at all, we're capable of wiping
out every living thing that inhabits the surface of a world.

Despite having poor biting power, diminished canines, running (poorly) on our
heels, lower than average strength and no claws. We are the the most dangerous
creature in the known universe.

~~~
mckiddy
Thats true, but I just wanted to point out that humans are actually one of the
best species on Earth at distance running

[http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/06/long...](http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/06/long_distance_running_and_evolution_why_humans_can_outrun_horses_but_can_t_jump_higher_than_cats_.html)

~~~
malka
We are extremely good at throwing things with precision as well.

~~~
bane
The combination of unusual tricep structure (also found in cats and the
extinct great sloth), remarkably mobile shoulder structure (inherited from our
primate ancestors) and grippy hands (thumbs!) gives us remarkable downward
thrusting power useful for smashing, grabbing and throwing.

~~~
s_q_b
One of the earliest inventions, the spear-thrower, enhanced that ability even
more, giving us the ability to kill big game from a distance with near
impunity. (It works by increasing the lever arm. Think of a lacrosse stick.)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-
thrower](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear-thrower)

------
CodexArcanum
> we don’t have a plural form for peace

Alliance, treaty, federation, united, concordate, joint, organization... And
that's just the large scale things that get names. There's also friendships,
marriages, corporations, cooperation's, and more. There are at least as many
words for peace as for war.

Sorry, pedantic nitpick anytime someone brings out the old "there are a
hundred words for X but only one for X^-1"

~~~
pistle
That's a fair point on the use of that literary cliche. Yet, the main thrust
of the idea is valid. Peace is a relief against from which special events
(wars) are defined. Whether it's valid AND important to his thesis is
doubtful.

I argue that we don't have a war gene, but we do have genes that are related
to our experience of fears, aggression, etc. and the power of these are more
easily manipulated to create societies prone to war than to peace. Despite
large groups of peace-loving people in most societies, violent subgroups will
wage wars and turn fear into profit. You don't see the peace-lovers standing
up against the war-mongers in a way which would stop the bloodshed.

False binary coming... Would you spend a trillion dollars on raising the most
helpless and hopeless up on a ladder of living standards or spend that same
trillion stamping out shadows and bogeymen amongst the same people?

~~~
sliverstorm
I would put it even simpler.

Peace is a state of existence.

War is a state of existence, and an event.

State is not plural, but events can be.

------
venomsnake
Starship troopers - 1959:

 _… I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an
inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings
to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never
settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte
and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could
referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger
Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives
and their freedoms. " He sighed. "Another year, another class — and for me
another failure. One can lead a child to knowledge but one cannot make him
think._

I personally am with Kissinger and Metternich on that subject - wars are
unavoidable, so it is better to have a system that limits their scope and
regularity.

------
aaron695
> It is said that the Bedouin have nearly 100 different words for camels

So the myth of Eskimos having 100 words for snow is now Bedouins and
camels....

I'd argue sport is just war but with a lot less people being killed. Or war is
just sport with a lot more people being killed. We love going to battle
against 'others'

> Many evolutionists believe that humans have a drive for waging war. But they
> are wrong and the idea is dangerous

To make statements like this, they really need a much better argument.

~~~
danieltillett
Who needs evidence? If the meme feels right then that is all that matters.

------
ISL
Sebastian Junger might disagree: [https://medium.com/war-is-boring/sebastian-
junger-knows-why-...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/sebastian-junger-knows-
why-young-men-go-to-war-f163804cbf6)

~~~
asgard1024
Thanks, that was an interesting article. Yet, in the light of the OP, it also
seems to be tied to specific American culture. It seems that there are
societies (like in Europe) where going to war doesn't have so much that
connotation of "being a man". Maybe they just do the ritual differently, for
example, in Nordic countries, by trekking and hill-climbing.

Now that I think about it, I am not sure this article is in disagreement with
OP. The OP argues that war is a capacity, not some given natural trait. This
article claims that people have need for "the ritual of manhood", whatever
that is, but doesn't claim it has to be "going to a war". So even Junger may
consider the war to be a capacity.

~~~
joshuapants
> Maybe they just do the ritual differently, for example, in Nordic countries,
> by trekking and hill-climbing.

... or by compulsory military service

------
kstenerud
I'm rather surprised that he has made no mention of Marvin Harris, who has
studied culture and war extensively, including the case of the Yanomamo.

Their way is warlike because they have their roots as "foot" indians, and
over-hunted animals in the forest, and their farming practices are primitive
and very deficient in protein. The resulting collapse of animal protein
sources created a longstanding ecological pressure leading to the cycle of
high female infanticide and war. And since they've already passed beyond the
point of ecological replenishment, they can't break out of it.

They actually have two words for hunger: One denotes an empty stomach, and the
other a full stomach that craves meat.

------
digi_owl
I don't think there is a war instinct directly. But when you mesh self
preservation with social status you get weird interactions where you end up
being compelled to attack so as to not lose face with your in group.

Damn it, the cold war almost went hot as much because neither side wanted to
be the "weak man" and bend as it was because of a overt threat.

------
gyardley
It's odd that the page title is 'Human beings do not have an instinct for
war', while the article title itself seems to be the far more representative
'Is there a war instinct?'

The author is only arguing that we don't _know_ if human beings are
instinctually predisposed to war - as a counter to other writers who've been
assuming that we are.

~~~
dang
"Human beings do not have an instinct for war" is the doc title as well as the
url, so the submitter didn't make anything up.

But since the question is more neutral, we'll change it.

