Do humans have a biological predisposition for war?

[Sirona]

This question came up in my mind when I considered the current war in Ukraine and on the same day watched some documentary about some long-forgotten war in the Baltic Sea in the Middle Ages.

So I googled and found this blog entry:The Biological Roots of Conflict

I had similar thoughts myself and I dimly remember having watched a T. V. episode (I think it was Outer Limits) about an underprivileged yet peaceful all-female clan reviving one of their last males as an experiment. The man immediately starts a conflict with another all-female clan over some resources, which results in violence. The episode ends with the leader of the first woman's clan deciding that the man should be frozen again, after she shamefully admits he was her son.

 

[Firelight]

I don’t think humans have a predisposition for war, but here’s a couple of thoughts:

Humans are born with a basic instinct to survive and to be satisfied. In civilized societies, people generally work together and figure out how to survive and be satisfied in ways that don’t harm others. But, then there is GREED, intolerance, and strange beliefs that develop to one degree or another. When it gets out of control, some will use violence and war to get their satisfaction.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This question came up in my mind when I considered the current war in Ukraine and on the same day watched some documentary about some long-forgotten war in the Baltic Sea in the Middle Ages.

So I googled and found this blog entry:The Biological Roots of Conflict

I had similar thoughts myself and I dimly remember having watched a T. V. episode (I think it was Outer Limits) about an underprivileged yet peaceful all-female clan reviving one of their last males as an experiment. The man immediately starts a conflict with another all-female clan over some resources, which results in violence. The episode ends with the leader of the first woman's clan deciding that the man should be frozen again, after she shamefully admits he was her son.

I think so. Its instinctual and evolutionary like much of nature.

 

[Luchito Prays]

All species make wars, from insects to mammals.

With humans is a kind of different.

As the first humans acquired the knowledge of what is good and what is evil, then, many of their war actions involve MALICE.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm not sure we have a predisposition to war. We seemingly have a predisposition to defend ourselves, our kin, our 'tribe', and increasingly, our beliefs, and seemingly can easily be made to see others as aggressors or opponents such that we might wage war when conflict might be likely. I don't think chimpanzees are the only non-human species who seem to wage war in the human connotation of such either. There seems to be conflict within many species, especially the more social ones, with competition for resources and territory being amongst the many reasons for such probably.

Humans are not the only animals to engage in war - Similar behaviors are seen in chimpanzees, wolves, lions and even ants
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/do-animals-have-wars-like-humans-do.html
When It Comes to Waging War, Ants and Humans Have a Lot in Common | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

 

[Aštra’el]

War is an inherent aspect of our collective human nature.

 

[Valjean]

I don’t think humans have a predisposition for war, but here’s a couple of thoughts:

Humans are born with a basic instinct to survive and to be satisfied. In civilized societies, people generally work together and figure out how to survive and be satisfied in ways that don’t harm others. But, then there is GREED, intolerance, and strange beliefs that develop to one degree or another. When it gets out of control, some will use violence and war to get their satisfaction.

But it's not greed that motivates chimps or human aggressors to attack their fellows.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm not sure we have a predisposition to war. We seemingly have a predisposition to defend ourselves, our kin, our 'tribe', and increasingly, our beliefs, and seemingly can easily be made to see others as aggressors or opponents such that we might wage war when conflict might be likely. I don't think chimpanzees are the only non-human species who seem to wage war in the human connotation of such either. There seems to be conflict within many species, especially the more social ones, with competition for resources and territory being amongst the many reasons for such probably.

Humans are not the only animals to engage in war - Similar behaviors are seen in chimpanzees, wolves, lions and even ants
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/do-animals-have-wars-like-humans-do.html
When It Comes to Waging War, Ants and Humans Have a Lot in Common | Science| Smithsonian Magazine

I think humans are animals, although there are some things that might distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom. The desire for revenge, for one thing.

 

[Stevicus]

But it's not greed that motivates chimps or human aggressors to attack their fellows.

It might be the case with humans, though. Humans might aggress against others, even if their survival does not depend on it.

Even in nations where people eat well and have a reasonably secure existence, there are still those who wish to make war on others. In such instances, the motive is not raw survival, but greed.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think humans evolve. Human psyche restlessly evolves.
Civilization evolves. Someday Europeans will celebrate the first 100 years without war. It is a historical achievement: for the first time in history the European nations are at peace with one another, respect each other, think of their common good.
Wars are the result of mental and cultural patterns that need time to be abandoned. Cultural frameworks disappear not that easily.
Is the notion of war an inborn component of human nature?. No, it is not. It is a cultural pattern that does not exist, for example in certain civilizations of the Pacific Ocean.

 

[wellwisher]

If we put aside emotions and moral values of right and wrong, war has some practical value. It is one of the best ways to control population growth and help people retool their minds. War kills a lot of people and destroys many material and cultural things that were hold dear. After war, has to move on, without the mental and physical logistics of the past. This allows for a new future. War may not be the best way to do this, but it does get results.

If you look at the past and most of history, the majority of people were ruled by various forms of monarchies that often locked the people into generations of more of the same. War would almost be needed to shake the tree, since generations of one family of power will tend to get more restrictive, instead looser as the peasants get restless. War may become inevitable with all sides losing something that might help shake everyone up.

In modern times, we have elections. This is a way to avoid war by offering an outlet for the needs of change. This may be why politics is often fought as a war; dirty tricks, to avoid change or make change.

Once the election war change occurs, leaders are changed and the social priories often change. With these changes some things go into a state of disrepair, similar to the destruction of war. While others thing are added like building moments to the victory. The masses have a way to start fresh. But if this goes down the tubes and the masses get restless, another election war will be scheduled, to shake things up, with a new changing of the guard.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think humans are animals, although there are some things that might distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom. The desire for revenge, for one thing.

Not even that perhaps.

 

[Valjean]

It might be the case with humans, though. Humans might aggress against others, even if their survival does not depend on it.

Even in nations where people eat well and have a reasonably secure existence, there are still those who wish to make war on others. In such instances, the motive is not raw survival, but greed.

Extending moral consideration to The Other, ie: non-band members, is unnatural. We're a band-centered, hunter-gathrer species, psychologically little changed from our ancestors. Cosmopolitanism is learned attitude.

Hunter-gatherers have no material wealth that can't be carried on their backs. Acquisitiveness -- material greed -- is useless to them, and not understood.
In many primitive cultures, a non-band member is a potential threat, and in a chance meeting, one is likely to kill the other -- just in case.

Then there is recreational warfare or killing, also practiced by chimps.
In Anthropologist Tobias Scheenbaum's ethnography: Keep the River on Your Right, he recounts an incident where a handful of natives he was traveling with in the Amazon chanced upon a native village. They slaughtered the entire village -- just for fun.

In Papua New Guinea, highland tribes will skirmish, and kill, for no obvious advantage; just for sport.

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Anthropologist Jared Diamond recounts the Maori conquest of the radically pacific Moriori. On hearing of a primitive, vulnerable, hunter-gatherer population from the Chatham islands, 500 miles to the East of New Zealand's Big Island, 500 Maoris, armed with clubs, primitive axes and primitive guns, sailed to the Chatham islands in November, 1835. They enslaved, ate or slaughtered the entire, defenseless Moriori population:
"We took possession...in accordance with our customs, and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, those we killed, and others we killed -- but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom."

That's just how humans are: violent, tribal savages, who enjoy killing others. For millions of years this was a selective behavior. It's hard-wired. A few thousand years of civilization won't change our basic nature.
Even when aggregated in large societies, our "civilized behavior" is a thin, easily stripped veneer.

 

[Stevicus]

That's just how humans are: violent, tribal savages, who enjoy killing others. For millions of years this was a selective behavior. It's hard-wired. A few thousand years of civilization won't change our basic nature.
Even when aggregated in large societies, our "civilized behavior" is a thin, easily stripped veneer.

Excellent points. Yeah, I guess we humans are a piece of work. We like to pretend that we're civilized and enlightened. Moreover, as long as we're fed and trained, we can be quite orderly, obedient, tame - kind of like cattle or sheep. We are trainable.

I'd like to think that we've made some progress over the centuries, but I suppose we could always regress back to our "wild side" again.

 

[Firelight]

But it's not greed that motivates chimps or human aggressors to attack their fellows.

Why did you not support your claim?

BTW, Chimps have nothing to do with this topic.

 

[Valjean]

Excellent points. Yeah, I guess we humans are a piece of work. We like to pretend that we're civilized and enlightened. Moreover, as long as we're fed and trained, we can be quite orderly, obedient, tame - kind of like cattle or sheep. We are trainable.

I'd like to think that we've made some progress over the centuries, but I suppose we could always regress back to our "wild side" again.

All it takes is a perceived threat to strip away the veneer; and a few weeks of boot camp will replace all of a youth's social, moral and religious training and create a tribal warrior, even without an immediate threat.
Insecurity; or moral or replacement panic, will also expose the underlying killer-ape.

Fear, insecurity or a perceived threat creates authoritarian aggression.
Humans have always had different moral codes for neighbors and 'foreigners'.

 

[Valjean]

Why did you not support your claim?

Read some anthropology.
Greed is an artifact of complex, hierarchical, settled societies, with accumulated wealth. It's a new thing in human history.

Anthropologist Colin Turnbull found that hunter-gatherers might delight in novel gifts and trinkets, but leave them lying on the ground when they moved on.
For millions of years, if something didn't directly contribute to survival, and couldn't be conveniently carried, it was a mere curiosity of no value. Greed is "a new thing, under the Sun."

BTW, Chimps have nothing to do with this topic.

They share our underlying psychology.

 

[Balthazzar]

This question came up in my mind when I considered the current war in Ukraine and on the same day watched some documentary about some long-forgotten war in the Baltic Sea in the Middle Ages.

So I googled and found this blog entry:The Biological Roots of Conflict

I had similar thoughts myself and I dimly remember having watched a T. V. episode (I think it was Outer Limits) about an underprivileged yet peaceful all-female clan reviving one of their last males as an experiment. The man immediately starts a conflict with another all-female clan over some resources, which results in violence. The episode ends with the leader of the first woman's clan deciding that the man should be frozen again, after she shamefully admits he was her son.

I read the topic title and thought: "Good question"

My question: Do other species in the animal kingdom have wars with other of their own kind? Resources - food, water, shelter, climate issues, etc. It would seem that these would be precursors to such wars between same species. I guess it comes down to territory and resources and much less about greed, although it does, at times, seem as if power or want for power, or after tasting the fruits of having power plays a role.

 

[Valjean]

I read the topic title and thought: "Good question"

My question: Do other species in the animal kingdom have wars with other of their own kind? Resources - food, water, shelter, climate issues, etc. It would seem that these would be precursors to such wars between same species. I guess it comes down to territory and resources and much less about greed, although it does, at times, seem as if power or want for power, or after tasting the fruits of having power plays a role.

Many social animals, like wolves, compete violently with others of their species for territory.

And as Dr. Goodall &al reveled, those most like us, like chimps, do actively go to war with neighboring bands, for no other reason than the excitement of it.