
Why Men Love War (1984) - sergeant3
http://public.wsu.edu/~hughesc/why_men_love_war.htm
======
xianshou
At its core, this piece claims "no life without death, no love without war" \-
and that there is no more intense experience of all of these than in the midst
of war. This is one of the great paradoxes of progress. In the most peaceful
age in human history (read Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" for a
deep statistical defense of this fact), our deepest fear is no longer death of
the body, but death of the soul. Most of us have no need to worry about death
in the form of starvation, or bullets, or awful diseases. Their replacement is
the fear of an inconsequential life: of dying without having ever really
lived. The greatest danger for many of us is traveling the well-sterilized
paths, starting on the carefully-monitored playground and continuing through
the Ivy League education, the comfortable Google job, the eventual promotions
and sensible marriage, the repetition of the cycle through our perfectly-
protected children, that allow us to deprive ourselves of all experiences of
true intensity or meaning.

It's a topic I often wonder about: now there is less war than ever, but also
more depression and despair, even among those with peaceful, affluent lives.
We humans have always been running from the fires behind us - what if, having
outpaced them, we discover that what lies ahead is ice?

~~~
ZenoArrow
"It's a topic I often wonder about: now there is less war than ever, but also
more depression and despair, even among those with peaceful, affluent lives."

It's an interesting point of view, but here's some food for thought... perhaps
there's plenty of despair because there's more to be concerned about than just
war and poverty.

Seriously, there's absolutely tons of things messed up about the world we live
in, and it can feel overwhelming, which leads to paralysis... people feel
powerless to find a better way as individuals. Feeling separated from
communities in their immediate vicinity doesn't help either. At least with
war, which is truly messed up too, there's an us vs. them, a clearer sense of
purpose. In our current world the answers are less clear.

If you'd prefer I mention something concrete that's messed up, I'd almost not
know where to begin. For the sake of simplicity in choosing, this was my most
recent discovery... it makes me sad that this exists...
[http://www.thebigroundtable.com/stories/damage/](http://www.thebigroundtable.com/stories/damage/)

~~~
UrMomReadsHN
Um... wow, that was an amazingly well written piece. Thank you for sharing.

~~~
ZenoArrow
It's a tragedy, a beautifully written tragedy. I found it on this subreddit,
perhaps you'll find other engaging stories there...
[http://www.reddit.com/r/FoodForThought](http://www.reddit.com/r/FoodForThought)

------
dmitriy_ko
Evolutionary phycologist Malcolm Potts explains this phenomenon as an
evolutionary adaptation developed in some species of primates. In particular,
we share this behavior, "the war instinct" with our close relative chimpanzee.
The behavior is the following: identify your "ingroup", the social group where
you live, and then attack an "outgroup", a competing social group. This is an
evolutionary-beneficial behavior because it allows a group to gain additional
resources: land and females. According to this theory human predisposition for
war is innate rather than cultural.

If you are interesting in learning more about this theory, here's the book:

Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a
Safer World by Malcolm Potts ISBN 978-1935251705

~~~
Intermernet
An interesting addition / counterpoint to this theory is presented in Frans De
Waal's [1] books.

"In 2011, De Waal and his co-workers were the first to report that chimpanzees
given a free choice between helping only themselves or helping themselves plus
a partner, prefer the latter."

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal)

~~~
sukilot
That's what "in-group" means. Whe. Plenty turns to Famine, behavior changes.

------
rdl
The main thing I liked about war was getting to work with powerful tools and
get immediate feedback on your actions. The US does a pretty good job of
insulating the military from this in peacetime -- bureaucracy, extremely
restrictive rules of engagement, etc. -- but as a contractor in a war zone, as
well as for soldiers involved in actual combat operations (5% of those
deployed?) it was pretty amazing.

It's pretty much the same high as working at a startup vs. a big company.

~~~
throwaway65434
The problem with the military is that it has unlimited downside. You're
literally giving up your freedom. I don't really think western armies
experience the realities of war either, at least not to the extent of their
opponents.

I think pretty much anything you can do in the military you can do better in
civilian life, you just have to be a bit creative. You rarely hear about it
though, because no one is trying to recruit people for it. Here's kind of one
example though: [http://www.theamphour.com/220-an-interview-with-shaun-
meehan...](http://www.theamphour.com/220-an-interview-with-shaun-meehan-
doctiloquent-dove-deployer/)

~~~
rdl
Bootstrapping a defense business with ~zero background in defense was tbh one
of the most amazing possible things to do in 2003-2005. I probably should have
bailed in 2005 or so and go back to startups, but I was still convinced the
2001 recession was there.

~~~
throwaway65434
I do find the idea that showing up counts for a lot, quite romantic (in a good
way). Even in the more dubious cases like Viktor Bout [0]. But for the most
case it's not an area where I'd personally want to "show up" in. I'd much
rather we semi-privatized disaster relief than war.

[0] That documentary with all the home footage is pretty cool, so is
"bulletproof salesman".

------
halfcat
The article "Is There Anything Good About Men?" by Roy Baumeister [1] takes
some interesting angles on the reasons and motivations for men choosing war,
and generalizes why the worlds most powerful people, as well as the
overwhelming majority of most prison populations, are men.

In some ways, the reasons look to clearly stem from culture and society's
influence, as discussed in the Baumeister article.

On the other hand, there is definitely a some element of the innate [2] "us
vs. them" at play, allowed to run unbridled in the suspenseful environment of
war. I imagine this _would_ result in an experience not easily replicated in
the real world.

No where else offers this:

1\. You might get to kill "bad people"

2\. You won't get in trouble for it

3\. You don't have time to think or process it. It just happens, split second,
you die or they die, you panic, resort to your training, you live. Instead of
being punished, you are a hero.

4\. You might die. Hearing a bullet whiz by your head and surviving, followed
by the subsequent huge adrenaline rush.

5\. If you don't die, you see yourself as an invincible super hero that gets
to save the world.

There are ways to replicate a lot of this, like joining a street gang or
getting involved in organized crime, but instead of becoming a hero, you get
20-to-life. Not quite the same risk-reward.

Something about it seems very juvenile, in the sense of getting to do "bad
things" with very little risk of negative consequence, and there's some
element of "playing super hero" here. It makes me think of going off to
college and partying your ass off for a semester, with unlimited access to
alcohol and sex, fully funded by the parents, with very little negative
consequence. I'm sure many people _do_ look back on that with fond memories.
To some people, war is probably like that, on steroids.

[1]
[http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm](http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm)

[2] [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/babies-help-unlock-the-
origins-o...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-
morality/)

~~~
stolio
I started reading that Baumeister article to complain about the current
political climate. Even though it turns out I'm sympathetic to his views there
were a few interesting angles, as you put it. One that had never occurred to
me:

> The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the
> most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What
> percent of our ancestors were women? It’s not a trick question, and it’s not
> 50%....Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two
> years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as
> men.

~~~
tormeh
That may be because most men never get any offspring. It's evolutionarily
convenient to only have the genetically best men get women pregnant. A common
theory is that the reason we have marriage/monogamy is that the men who get
left out of sex don't much like this arrangement and would prefer equal
allocation of women.

~~~
stolio
I might as well argue that women started polygamy so more of them could be
with the top males. If you lack all of the things it might take to attract
female partners (health, money, power, social status, charisma, intelligence,
humor, etc.) to the extent that you're getting left out of sex, you don't have
the clout to design and implement new institutions.

~~~
tormeh
There's kinda this thing about numbers, though. 50% of all men is a lot of
guys dissatisfied with the status quo. And you don't have to implement new
institutions within the existing power structure, you just have to get a group
of fellow guys together, run off with some kidnapped girls few will miss and
start your own society. Then you invent a religion to justify it, and voila,
soon your tribe has reason to go and pillage, burn, rape and convert.

~~~
stolio
Sounds like the plot from Revenge Of The Nerds. Very unlikely because of the
same problem as before: the ability to attract females correlates with the
skills needed to start a successful new tribe that can compete with the old.

The only way I see to save the argument is to say that the "losers" who left,
or were more likely pushed out, stumbled upon some favorable ecology, maybe
they stumbled into modern day Europe. But then you're back to geographical
determinism and so many things changed in society as agriculture developed
that singling out male envy as the cause of monogamy requires more evidence
than I think you have.

------
lukeasrodgers
For a book that develops a similar thesis, see Chris Hedges' "War is a force
that gives us meaning."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Force_That_Gives_Us_Me...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Force_That_Gives_Us_Meaning)

------
lazyeye
I think this whole concept is one reason why people become "doomsday
preppers". They choose to view the world in a way that has struggle, meaning,
where decisions have consequences. Since they cant live out that frontier
existence of 100 years ago, they try to create that world for themselves now.

~~~
sukilot
And that's a hedge, like prepping for afterlife!

If doomsday doesn't come, then all choices are equally successful. But if
doomsday comes...

------
hackuser
My impression is many foolish people like the idea of war in prospect -- they
like war movies [1] -- but hate it when confronted with its horrible reality.

* First, anyone who applies the slightest intellectual effort will see war is a catastrophe, though occasionally better than its alternative.

* If I remember my history, for both the American Civil War and WWI, people were excited by their beginnings. People picnicked beside the first Civil War battles. Needless to say, they soon learned of their mistakes. Similarly many Americans were excited for the second Iraq war. (And those examples hardly are unusual.)

* Civilians and soldiers who die, are maimed, are raped, are tortured, who see those things happen to family members, or lose their homes, jobs, assets, or see their nations and communities reduced to chaos and poverty, -- they do not love war.

* Those who kill and see others kill usually do not love war. What we compel soldiers to do is horrible, killing is unnatural and damaging to the killer too. We've made others into torturers [2] -- what if you were made to torture or kill someone? War costs many survivors their souls and peace of mind. Read any history of any war's aftermath, including our recent conflicts: Those who return often are not the same. PTSD is widespread, and note the very high number of suicides currently among our soldiers, despite the recent conflicts being among the safest, lowest-intensity wars in American history.

* Those who have experienced prior wars came out of them seeking to end war for ever, for example after WWI (the League of Nations) and WWII (the United Nations and the predecessors to the European Union). Some today mock these people as idealistic, but these were the people who led us to victory in existential wars -- they knew far more of war's reality than we ever will.

The glorification of war, military, and soldiers is highly irresponsible and
dangerous. We consign soldiers, affected civilians, and whole nations to
nightmarish horrors, and then glorify it so we don't have to think about what
we have done. [3]

[1] [http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/01/if-only-america-
care...](http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/01/if-only-america-cared-about-
actual-wars-much-war-movies/102288)

[2] Not just CIA prisons and Abu Ghraib, but of others too; for example:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/politics/24abuse.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/politics/24abuse.html)

[3] [http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-
trag...](http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-
the-american-military/383516/)

~~~
sukilot
Abu gran was done voluntary for no good reason, in opposition to the desires
of the home office. Aka it happened because the perpetrators enjoyed it.

~~~
hackuser
> Abu gran was done voluntary for no good reason, in opposition to the desires
> of the home office. Aka it happened because the perpetrators enjoyed it.

Thanks for offering that. It doesn't match what I've read. My impression is
that government and military leadership encouraged such practices as a method
of interrogation, legitimized it in the troops' eyes by authorizing and
publicly advocating for torture and denial of prisoner's rights, and did not
enforce rules against it.

------
dkarapetyan
Biologically man's closest relatives are chimps and bonobos. Chimps are
violent. Bonobos love sex. According to the article war is the perfect
combination of the those two aspects. Seems to check out.

------
CmonDev
_" But life without death has no meaning"_

Who came up with this moronic idea?

------
s_baby
What about women? Mother's in Nazi Germany sent their sons off to war with
proud smiles on their faces.

~~~
halfcat
_> What about women?_

I wonder the same, and more specifically, about women who have been in war.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Oh yes, there is not enough about it. Maybe women have note been part of the
military for long enough, or maybe its because they censor themselves more
than men, and would never admit to enjoy fighting. I only remember that in
Vietnam, the strong advice was given to kill the female enemies first, for
they would fight much more furiously and with less fear than the men.

Also, there was a study (sorry, I'll try to find the source) that male bonding
behaviour is disturbed when there are women present, due to the implicit
rivalry. I suspect thats a reason why women weren't allowed to join the
military for a long time. Also I guess the heightened libido in war might lead
to problems there.

I'd be very interested in how these things worked for the mixed sex armies in
the Israeli wars, any links highly appreciated.

~~~
cryptoz
> Oh yes, there is not enough about it. Maybe women have note been part of the
> military for long enough

I can't speak for most of the world, but I believe the USA only started
allowing women into direct combat roles in 2013. So there's certainly not
enough data here [for the USA].

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#Policy_ch...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#Policy_changes)

------
agumonkey
Reminds me of drone operators feeling quite the opposite about "modern"
warfare.

------
milesf
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can
understand it?

------
guard-of-terra
I was thinking it is weird that 90% computer games (non-casual ones) are about
war, which in our life is around 0%. I also looked down on the military.

Now the war in the Ukraine is happening, and it's an eye-opener (even for
those in neighbouring countries). Yes, war is rare nowdays, but when it's on,
it trumps everything. Every card you have in your hand, war beats.

When armed and organized people come, money and business and culture bow to
them.

It is really that important how games show to us.

~~~
meric
You're right to look down on the military.

Weapons are ominous tools. They are abhorred by all creatures. Anyone who
follows the Way shuns them. In peaceful times, the noble ruler honors the left
side. At war, he honors the right side. Weapons are ominous tools. They are
not the noble ruler's tools. He only uses them when he can't avoid it. Peace
and quiet are preferred. Victory should not be praised. Those who praise
victory relish manslaughter. Those who relish manslaughter Cannot reach their
goals in the world. At times of joy, the left side is honored. At times of
grief, the right side is honored. At battle, the second in command stands to
the left, And the commander in chief to the right. This means they stand as in
funerals. When many people are killed They should be mourned and lamented.
Those who are victorious in war Should follow the rites of funerals.

Tao De Ching - Chapter 31

------
justatdotin
menstruation envy

------
somecrap
Its a perpetuated scam, part of psychological operations against the populous
of the planet.

Whats really sought after is invulnerable no form-factor options with beyond-
time communications, that are forced to do security stuff for everyone & more.

------
rokhayakebe
This is why I believe there is no religious, political, or any sort of
particular war. Men (or male I think) just like to kill each other for some
very strange reason. It may even biological.

EDIT:

The downvotes seem to prove my point. We just like to hurt each other.
Disagree with someone downvote. Disagree with another punch them. Disagree
with another, to the sabres.

Why do we do this?

If men did not have a proclivity for harm, I would not get downvotes when
people disagree. They would instead correct me and put me on the right path.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Downvoters: Go ahead, but please do not delude yourself and think otherwise;
for with every downvote you prove your propensity for violence. Feels good
doesn't it to just click and see the text go lighter. You can't explain it
anymore than those guys can explain the rush of holding a shot gun and
contracting their finger repeatedly under the pretense of maintaining peace,
or some other reason.

~~~
etherael
Here's a better reason; speech has value, some less than others, a feedback
mechanism allowing the audience to make a judgement on how much value a given
piece has is no more evidence for the innate psychopathy of men than a mute
button on a TV remote or an install of adblocker is.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Last statement on this subject:

I will just hold it that I do not agree with all of you and see it as violent.
That you do not see as such scares the living crap out of me. Your idea of
mute is to downvote, not ignoring a commentator, someone else's idea is just
more physical, but ideologically similar.

~~~
icebraining
I think I know what you mean. Your comments remind me if an excerpt from a
Situationist work, _The Revolution of Everyday Life_ (by Raoul Vaneigem):

 _" an obscene hobbling rhythm. In the ebb and flow of the crowds sucked in
and crushed together by the coming and going of suburban trains, and coughed
out into streets, offices, factories, there is nothing but timid retreats,
brutal attacks, smirking faces and scratches delivered for no apparent reason.
Soured by unwanted encounters, wine turns to vinegar in the mouth. Innocent
and good-natured crowds? What a laugh! Look how they bristle up, threaten on
every side, clumsy and embarrassed in the enemy's territory, far, very far
from themselves. Lacking knives, they learn to use their elbows and their
eyes."_

[http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5](http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5)

