No scientific proof that war is ingrained in human nature, according to study

December 4, 2018, Rutgers University
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Is it in our nature to go to war? Should we just accept the fact that humans have this innate tendency and are hardwired to kill members of other groups?

No, says R. Brian Ferguson, professor of anthropology at Rutgers University-Newark. There is no scientific proof that we have an inherent propensity to take up arms and collectively kill.

In a study published in Scientific American, Ferguson argues that war may not be in our nature at all. People might fight and sometimes kill for personal reasons, but homicide, he argues, is not war.

"There is definitely controversy in the field when it comes to this question," says Ferguson, who studies human nature, war and peace. "But it is the overall circumstances that we live in that creates the impulse to go or not go to war."

In his study, "War May Not Be in Our Nature After All. Why We Fight", Ferguson reached back thousands of years to look at the historical roots of warfare to shed light on whether humans have always made war or if armed conflict has only emerged as changing social conditions provided the motivation and organization to collectively kill.

It's a topic he's been studying since the Vietnam War, a period in history that sparked his interest. His research is an attempt to settle an age-old academic debate over whether humans are hardwired to fight wars or if war is a human invention. If war is not ingrained in human nature, that may help provide a basis for arguing against war as an option, he says.

Many scientists and scholars believe that humans as a species are aggressive, brutal and bloodthirsty and this behavior is part of our DNA. Ferguson argues, however, that there is no real indication or scientific proof that humans have been waging war for the entire history of the species.

"Warlike cultures in some places became common only over the past 10,000 years and in most place more recently than that," Ferguson says.

In his research, Ferguson looked at cases reported as throughout the prehistoric record. He found that 15 percent to 25 percent of deaths that many anthropologists and archeologists say were the result of war may reflect cherry-picking the most violent cases, which are contradicted by broad surveys of all archaeological sites.

"Individual killing is not the same as war on social groups," says Ferguson. "War leaves physical traces that archaeologists can find. When and where it began is very different in different places around the world, but there are stretches of even thousands of years when there are no clear signs of war."

Part of the reason for the debate, Ferguson says, is that the evidence used to identify prehistoric warfare – weapons, art and cave paintings, defensive structures and skeletal remains – are often ambiguous and difficult to interpret. Careful examination of all evidence typically finds no strong indication of war in early remains, which changes to clear signs of war in later periods.

He disputes the belief of many scholars that humans may have inherited their genetic makeup from their chimpanzee cousins millions of years ago. After examining every reported chimpanzee killing, Ferguson, who is writing a book on the subject, believes that war among chimps was not an evolved evolutionary strategy but rather a response to human contact and disturbances.

So why did war become so common in more recent archaeological finds? Ferguson says that preconditions that made war more likely became far more widespread, including social hierarchy, a more sedentary existence, a growing regional population, valuable resources and the establishment of boundaries. These conditions have sometimes worsened with severe environmental changes, he says.

Ferguson, who also studies contemporary war, brutal civil wars around the world and U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, agrees with anthropologist Margaret Mead that " is only an invention, not a biological necessity," but does he not see war ending.

"Anthropologists think about prospects for war in the long term," Ferguson says. "If the idea that war is part of is not scientifically supported, alternative futures open up. If more people work for prevention, the eventual eradication of war is a definite theoretical possibility."

Explore further: The 'Ferguson effect' or too many guns? Exploring the rise in violent crime in Chicago

More information: Why We Fight. Scientific American, September 2018. DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican0918-76

Related Stories

Washington state files $100 million suit against Comcast

August 2, 2016

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson on Monday filed a $100 million lawsuit against Comcast, saying the cable and internet giant deceived customers into paying tens of millions of dollars in fees for a "near-worthless" ...

Why this IndyCar driver is outpacing diabetes

May 25, 2017

New Michigan State University research is the first to help a professional race car driver with diabetes improve his performance during competition, helping him capture two top-5 finishes at the Indianapolis 500.

Recommended for you

65 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2018
Industrial conflict is certainly a new addition but territorial conflict, raiding others territory and territorial expansion resulting in the death of some or all of the occupants of that territory is seen in the majority of species on this planet.

Of particular relevance to humans, chimps raid territory of others and kill those they find, a well documented phenomena. They may also eat the vanquished.

The scientific support for this level of behaviour in humans is overwhelming, the authors of this article are mired in wishful new age thinking.

Note that war and its precursors need not result in deaths. Just why the authors equate war with death is mystifying. Even in modern wars only a few percent of combatants are actually killed on average, typically less than 1% of military personnel, higher for frontline troops, lower for support personnel in the rear (90% of soldiers who join up in war time never see action at all).

War in the industrial era is mainly political.
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2018
To continue, the authors have completely confounded the purpose of war and think that it is about killing. War is about territory and access to resources, killing is sometimes a means to that end.

How can respected scientists write such none sense without even checking the definition of the concept they are researching? The purpose of war is not murder, what would the point or purpose of that be?? War is a means to an end. This basic dynamic seems to have alluded these researchers.
Doug_Nightmare
not rated yet Dec 04, 2018
War Before Civilization, L. H. Keeley
Doug_Nightmare
not rated yet Dec 04, 2018
+1 RKS.

Eluded
Gigel
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2018
War is dialogue. It is the only language enemies have in common after running out of common things to base a relation on. After the war, after defeat and suffering they find new common things, which make war useless... War may not be in humans' nature, but they don't have a propensity for wisdom either. The problem is that wisdom is to be learned, while resorting to war seems to be instinctive.
Helga
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2018
Hunter-gatherers do not, generally, defend or expand territory by means of aggression. They ensure access to resources by means of kinship and friendship networks which extend over hundreds of miles and form interconnected webs of communication.

greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2018
Robert
The purpose of war is not murder
I don't see anywhere in the article where they argue that the purpose of war is murder. Surely this quote would indicate an understanding of a more complex set of causes
Ferguson says that preconditions that made war more likely became far more widespread, including social hierarchy, a more sedentary existence, a growing regional population, valuable resources and the establishment of boundaries


Why is there always a peanut gallery - ready to declare articles "none sense?" - and it seems to me the peanut gallery has so often not really read the article - just responded out of some kind of emotional reflex.
RobertKarlStonjek
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2018
greenonions1,
I don't see anywhere in the article where they argue that the purpose of war is murder

From the article:
There is no scientific proof that we have an inherent propensity to take up arms and collectively kill.

That is the wrong view of war. We are innately predisposed to attempt to gain sufficient resources to survive, though in humans the requirement can be very subjective.

Taking up arms and killing is not the purpose of war. And killing is quite rare in many ancient and tribal forms of war where display, threat and the signalled intention to defend or attack to the death is sufficient to settle disputes. Many wars end before they start in modern times when a military buildup shows the futility of an enterprise or defence.

Fighting to the death is only the extent of commitment and is not a goal as it stated in the article as quoted. They seem to think that the purpose of war IS war, which is wrong headed.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2018
There is no scientific proof that we have an inherent propensity to take up arms and collectively kill
War is the act of taking up arms - and engaging in collective killing. That is a statement of fact. That is not implying that this is the 'purpose' of war - but just a statement of what war is. That is an accurate representation of what war is. Vietnam war - 60,000 U.S. dead, and 3 million Vietnamese dead. How is that not the act of "collective killing." We don't even know what the purpose of the war was - but that is certainly what happened.
Fighting to the death is only the extent of commitment and is not a goal as it stated in the article as quoted
As mis-quoted.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2018
"Is it in our nature to go to war?"

-It is our propensity to overpopulate, something that few soft science academies can acknowledge. Overpopulation leads to scarcities in resources. Populations will congeal into tribes to aid in obtaining resources. This usually means war.

"Rude tribes and... civilized societies... have had continually to carry on an external self-defence and internal co-operation - external antagonism and internal friendship. Hence their members have acquired two different sets of sentiments and ideas, adjusted to these two kinds of activity" spencer
http://rint.recht...rid2.htm

Endemic tribal warfare is what made us human.

This is the most absurd statement in the article:

"war among chimps was not an evolved evolutionary strategy but rather a response to human contact and disturbances"

-So Jane Goodall taught apes to fight? Ahaahaaa
Helga
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
Networks are individual; even couples and siblings, do not have complete overlap in friends and in-laws. Every band is essentially a ephemeral camping party, temporarily exploiting resources within about a small area (2 - 4 km radius). People join the party and get access resources by prearrangement, any unexpected newcomers must ask permission before being added. Primary access is via an "owner" who is essentially someone born there of a family that's used that campground the longest.

These networks connect thousands of people, at varying degrees of separation; multilingualism extends them outward into neighbouring communities. Forming an aggressive band will get you outlawed. When I asked the SE Kalahari Kua they scoffed: Who wants fools?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
Perhaps if the authors knew that "decimation" means one man in ten is killed they would think differently.

Warlike behavior has been observed in human aboriginal populations. Some of them have formal wars often in spring to take over areas in which crops can be grown. Young men are the majority of participants and are honored for their courage in their places of origin. The ritual bonds formed among these young men often continue lifelong. And that is true even in modern times; troops who were together during the fighting often maintain contact after re-integrating back into their home societies.

So I'd have to say that the anthropological evidence mitigates against this conclusion on multiple grounds.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
There is no scientific proof that we have an inherent propensity to take up arms and collectively kill
War is the act of taking up arms - and engaging in collective killing.
No it's not, and that's as true of modern warfare as tribal. Most of war is about getting food, clothing, and ammunition to the people doing the fighting, and getting those people- a small minority- to fight. I won't hesitate to say that's 90% of war. Hannibal got his troops to bring elephants over the Alps to attack Rome. So when I say "modern" understand I mean in the age of mass armies, not the age of tanks and aircraft. And that's been going on a very long time. Most victorious commanders were OK at strategy and tactics, but they were absolute experts at logistics, and I can cite many more examples on my side than you can on yours.

[contd]
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
That is not implying that this is the 'purpose' of war - but just a statement of what war is. That is an accurate representation of what war is. Vietnam war - 60,000 U.S. dead, and 3 million Vietnamese dead. How is that not the act of "collective killing."
Most of the Vietnamese killed were not killed by the US, by far. And there is a lot of debate about how many Vietnamese were killed. You really ought to provide links; here's one for you: https://en.wikipe...sualties

Fighting to the death is only the extent of commitment and is not a goal as it stated in the article as quoted
As mis-quoted.
Show that.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
We hear the stories about Sgt Rock who was on the front lines, not the stories about Joe Bloe from Kokomo who spent his war loading trucks.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
And Joe Bloe from Kokomo deserves as much credit as the fighters; without him, they'd have had no clothes, no food, and no ammunition.
FredJose
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2018
To truly understand the human propensity to fight one needs to look back at the history of human beings on earth.
Having rebelled against their Creator, human beings have acquired and continued the nature to fight the ultimate war - trying to usurp the authority of the one who created them.
The bible is clear on this:
Psalm 2:3-5

3"Let us break Their chains and cast away Their cords."
4The One enthroned in the heavens laughs; the Lord taunts them.
5Then He rebukes them in His anger, and terrifies them in His fury:…

Jeremiah 17:9

9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Genesis 6:5
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.

Genesis 8:21
"Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though a every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
Hello freddy

"God's Covenant With Noah
9 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill up the earth [with more of us and fewer of everyone else.]" gen9

-All you need to know about the nature of tribalism and the origin of war.

The tribal gods vision for the holy land [earth] and its rightful occupants [the chosen people.]
http://rint.recht...rid2.htm
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
We hear the stories about Sgt Rock who was on the front lines, not the stories about Joe Bloe from Kokomo who spent his war loading trucks
Guess you never read any bill mauldin
http://www.awon.o...ie2.html
Vietnam war - 60,000 U.S. dead, and 3 million Vietnamese dead. How is that not the act of "collective killing."
THAT is victory. Another victory to consider:

"The [soviet/afghan] war began in December 1979, and lasted until February 1989. About 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed, and about 35,000 were wounded. About two million Afghan civilians were killed."

-The testament to the long years of french/US/communist involvement in vietnam, is the FACT that vietnam is now a peaceful productive member of the world community, due in no small part to the destruction of the religion-dominated culture there that would have prevented the 28 MILLION ABORTIONS since 1976, and the subsequent reduction in pop growth.

Afghanistan is a work in progress.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
As long as cultures exist that allow the human tropical animal to reproduce at it's natural rate, or religionist cultures designed to exploit this rate by maximizing it for the purpose of outgrowing and overwhelming the competition, then war is absolutely and unavoidably INEVITABLE.

No treaty or progressive social system or oppressive, totalitarian form of govt can persist when children begin to starve.

"Any country is only 4 meals away from anarchy." Niven?

-Any responsible govt has duty to make war to secure essential resources for it people. And it is the only way for it to survive.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
Networks are individual; even couples and siblings, do not have complete overlap in friends and in-laws. Every band is essentially a ephemeral camping party, temporarily exploiting resources within about a small area (2 - 4 km radius). People join the party and get access resources by prearrangement, any unexpected newcomers must ask permission before being added. Primary access is via an "owner" who is essentially someone born there of a family that's used that campground the longest
You're talking about tribalism. Tribalism has specific aspects which need to be understood and conveyed, specifically the dynamic of internal empathy/amity in conjunction with external animosity/emnity.

Tribalism is the most significant force in human social interaction, which is why it needs to be talked about.
greenonions1
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
Da Schneib
and I can cite many more examples on my side than you can on yours
Sorry - I am not clear what you see as 'your side' vs 'my side' - could you clarify so that I can respond.
You really ought to provide links
I generally do - and what good does it do? Does it matter to you if 2 million brown people died, or 3.8 million? Seems to me that the point was just saying that war is the act of taking up arms and engaging in mass killing. Could you define war for me - if you disagree.
Here is a link - estimating 3.8 million dead brown people - https://www.hawai...HAP6.HTM

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2018
and what good does it do? Does it matter to you if 2 million brown people died, or 3.8 million?
It matters whether you make shit up as usual, or bother to use real facts.
Could you define war for me
"Carl Von Clausewitz said that war is merely an extension of diplomacy by other means. ... It means that war is just another tool in the political game. But Clausewitz also means in a more profound sense. For him, the objectives of war are always political objectives..."
greenonions1
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
It matters whether you make shit up as usual, or bother to use real facts
Well Otto - if you looked at the reference I gave you - you would see that by some estimates - 3.8 million native peoples died in the Vietnam conflict. I used a number of 3 million - which was actually from memory - from watching numerous documentaries on the subjects - as well as reading a number of books - and much internet reading. Here is another source for you - as many as 2 million civilians on both sides and some 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.
as many as 2 million civilians on both sides and some 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters
So as usual - you accuse someone of "making shit up" - which of course is projection on your part - cuz that is how you roll, and you assume everyone else thinks the same way you do. You sure love beating that head against the wall - don't you?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
War is armed conflict. Whether that results in mass killing or not is another question. If one side can persuade the other to run away or surrender, then was it a war? Under international law the answer is "yes."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2018
Well you do make shit up [citation needed][common knowledge] so you ought to source your facts in order to be taken seriously. Unless your facts are from the usual garbage libtard news outlets then oh well.

As far as vietnam deaths go, the 28M ABORTIONS since 1976 as well as the millions more prevented thru contraception [and their unconceived decendents to the 2nd and 3rd gen] trumps your 5-6M deaths during the war.

The successful french/allied/communist destruction of the obsolete religionist culture that would have prevented those growth reduction measures, is by far its greatest legacy.

Almost as great a victory as the elimination of the catholic culture in cuba by communist martial law, and the peace that reigns there as a result. Compare THAT with the ruin that is haiti.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2018
Re vietnam, heres another communist constraint on pop growth that I wasnt aware of

"The total fertility rate of Vietnam has been influenced by the government's family planning policy, the two-child policy."

-The fertility rates on that page begin in 1950 and dont show the reduction in growth because the french indochina was began in 1946.
greenonions1
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
Well you do make shit up
No I don't - and you have provided no support for such an assertion.
so you ought to source your facts in order to be taken seriously
I care nothing about you taking me seriously or not.. If you attack me (as on this thread) I will respond and show that you are a moron (as in someone who promotes pseudo science like Rossi and the e-cat). Otherwise I have no interest in engaging with you. You know my opinion of you.
greenonions1
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
Da Schneib.
War is armed conflict. Whether that results in mass killing or not is another question
Sorry Da Schneb - but I don't get your point. Here is pretty clear definition of war -
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state
Now surely you would agree that this presents a distinction between murder (small scale violence) - and war (state sponsored - large scale violence). War generally results in mass casualties. Please reference a war that did not result in mass casualties. It seems to me you are splitting hairs - if you want to say 'well sometimes war is short - and so not too many people die.' The discussion of war - as in the article above - is regarding state sponsored violence - that pretty much always leads to mass casualties. I am just not sure why you are trying to pick this on to death. The question on the table is about the nature of war, and if it is inevitable.
greenonions1
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
Da Schneib - a quick point on this topic. You chided me for not providing a source - for what I felt was a pretty well understood piece of information - and also not critical (is it 2 million or 3 million) for the point being discussed. So I went ahead and provided two sources that support my assertion. And look at what Otto does with that
Unless your facts are from the usual garbage libtard news outlets then oh well
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2018
I care nothing about you taking me seriously or not.. If you attack me (as on this thread) I will respond and show that you are a moron (as in someone who promotes pseudo science like Rossi and the e-cat). Otherwise I have no interest in engaging with you. You know my opinion of you
Ack?
https://youtu.be/ZZqg98JcsYI
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
@greenos, let's suppose your invasion army shows up and invades, and there are no opposing soldiers there.

Is that war?
greenonions1
not rated yet Dec 05, 2018
Is that war?
Yes. Now can you give me an example of when that has happened? Did the invading army kill any civilians? And if your answer to those questions are yes, and no - I still don't see your point. You want to include in your definition of war - situations in which there is no casualties? Fine with me. I just don't see your point - or what you meant by
and I can cite many more examples on my side than you can on yours
I don't know what you mean by 'my side' vs 'your side.' And despite asking you to clarify - you have not done so. It is frustrating asking for a direct answer - and getting obfuscation.
FredJose
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
...continued: Genesis 6:11-12

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was FULL OF VIOLENCE.
12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.
FredJose
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
@GhostofOtto:
As long as people refuse to acknowledge their creator and to follow His commands so long will they continue to follow the evil inclination of their hearts and covet and crave for things they don't have and perhaps shouldn't have. This is the real cause of war.

Right now, earth can support a whole lot more people but because of what goes on in people's hearts there will always be the super rich, the super poor and strife for things that do not belong to them. Here "things" are not just physical, it could also be power over others and a need to satisfy the ego so it is not limited to lack of material things. The human heart is deceitful above all things and decidedly wicked.

Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2018
@greenos, I expected more honesty from you. You defined war as
Seems to me that the point was just saying that war is the act of taking up arms and engaging in mass killing.
But you just agreed that there can be war without mass killing.
greenonions1
not rated yet Dec 06, 2018
But you just agreed that there can be war without mass killing
Yes I did. And it is not a question of honesty. I don't understand your point - and you keep refusing to clarify. The point of the article is clearly - that war is a dominant factor in the history of the world. Define war how you want Da Schneib - but you surely have to agree that it has led to shit loads of mass killing. So the authors are asking "is this hard wired into our dna, or is it possible we can evolve beyond it?" Do you agree so far? So what are we fucking arguing about? Robert argued that the authors say that the 'purpose' of war is murder. I questioned that assertion - and showed that the authors understood that the 'purpose' or drivers/causes of war are more complex than just 'murder.' I don't think Robert was justified in referring to an interesting bit of research as non sense. Seems you jumped all over me - and I don't understand your point - and you can't clarify.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 06, 2018
As long as people refuse to acknowledge their creator and to follow His commands so long will they continue to follow the evil inclination of their hearts and covet and crave for things they don't have and perhaps shouldn't have. This is the real cause of war
What you're saying is that if everybody accepted YOUR creator and worshipped it in YOUR own specific way, and BTW made as many babies as possible to glorify its name, then there would be peace throughout the world.

You do understand that every other religion in the world is saying exactly the same thing dont you? And they're all desperately trying to fill up the world first, just like you and your fellow tribalists.

THIS is the cause of war. And also the need for ABORTION (the prenatal version of infanticide) to try and prevent it. Religions make both inevitable.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 06, 2018
What really happens, time and again, is that as soon as one religion gains control in a region and continues to reproduce without limit, and resources become short and children begin to starve, sects and denominations form, all with the same intent of filling the world at the expense of their wicked forebears.

ALL religions want to grow without limit. ALL religions want to dominate the world. The many religions throughout history without these 2 requisites were outgrown and overwhelmed by those that did.

You think your god and your church is the salvation of mankind? You're willing to die for that belief arent you? SO ARE THEY. And as all the flocks grow and all the grass disappears and all the little lambs begin to starve, WAR erupts. Again.

Onward xian soldiers, marching off to war. With the cross of jesus and Constantine and Joshua and gideon and inquisitor and conquistador. Expect buddha and Mohammad and all the rest of the pagans to meet you in the gate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 06, 2018
The human heart is deceitful above all things and decidedly wicked
-And there lies the crux of the problem. Its not enough for religionists to believe that theirs is is the only way to heaven. They have to believe that all unbelievers are not just doomed but evil.

Heathens and infidels and goyim threaten the world. They are the cause of strife and misery and crime. They are the source of revolution and war. Their very existence threatens your own salvation. And if left to exist they will corrupt your friends and family, and prevent the messiah from ever returning to earth.

Do you understand the stakes here? Religionists believe that the next world is the real world, and they are willing to destroy this one in order to get there.

God promised never to flood the world again but you godders would have no problem with it. You all expect your god to roll up the world in the end times anyway, just like your living room carpet on moving day.

You wont be allowed to do this.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2018
"His research is an attempt to settle an age-old academic debate over whether humans are hardwired to fight wars or if war is a human invention. If war is not ingrained in human nature, that may help provide a basis for arguing against war as an option, he says."

Possibly good research - it *is* an open question AFAIK - but for the wrong reason: the naturalistic mistake. How we build a good society does not necessarily need to be biologically based; and in most cases the 50/50 % biology/social reason as behind human behavior is a good thumb rule.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
How we build a good society does not necessarily need to be biologically based
Any 'good society' that does not restrict the natural reproductive tendency of the tropical human animal, will eventually degrade and collapse.

The west has employed a number of strategies to this end, among them the emancipation of women, an extended educational system that occupies people throughout their most productive years, and an economic system that requires people to plan for their own futures.

It has also mitigated the effects of religions that would ban the use of contraceptives and ABORTION. ABORTION alone reduces the number of pregnancies brought to term by 20%-50% in developed countries.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
These unprecedented measures are not the expected incidental outcome of enlightened societies. Their direct and concerted effect on the growth of populations indicates that they were instituted for exactly this purpose, and at exactly the proper time when western society had at last subdued the world, and its influence need no longer be spread by force of numbers.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
But you just agreed that there can be war without mass killing
Yes I did. And it is not a question of honesty.
But that's not what you said before. You said
War is the act of taking up arms - and engaging in collective killing. That is a statement of fact.
And I disagreed, and disagree.

War is far more about logistics than it is about tactics and strategy.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
And my deeper point, which may align with yours, I don't know, is that war is merely an extension of one human fighting another for resources: sex, food, whatever. It's not genetically predetermined; it's determined by circumstances. In the simplest cases it's merely a fight over who controls what resource, turned into a gang, who demonstrate their willingness to kill or die for control of those resources, as demonstrated among primitive tribes. But it was far more than that even long ago. It certainly isn't genetic; you wouldn't call sharks or birds eating (other) fish "war," but it's certainly mass killing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
It's not genetically predetermined; it's determined by circumstances
??? Evolution is determined by 'circumstances'.
who demonstrate their willingness to kill or die for control of those resources
But dear scheide, why would those resources be worth killing and dying for unless there werent enough of them to go around?
demonstrated among primitive tribes... certainly isnt genetic
Self defense is genetic. The tropical human repro rate is genetic. Ever since protohumans developed the tech to hunt the animals that were hunting them, overpopulation became their main problem.

Tribalism became the most effective way of securing necessary resources. People have been living in tribes since before they were human. It domesticated them. Domestication is genetic. Intertribal war is an inextricable aspect of tribalism.

Ergo humans have been selected for the ability to fight and the propensity for fighting in the context of the tribe. So yes warfare is genetic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
Here is the thread where I present evidence that our domestication is expressed genetically.
https://phys.org/...ans.html
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
@Blotto the Bigot demonstrates ignoring important points. The fish and the birds.

Got a response for that, @Blotto the Bigot? Would you call birds eating fish "war?"
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
I would call apes waging war on other apes war, just as Jane Goodall and many others have.

You'll note the difference between my posts vs yours. Yours are merely a series of declarative statements without direction or purpose. Otto presents a logical argument with a series of facts that reach compelling conclusion.

You're welcome to attack any one of those statements to derail my argument. Go on, give it a try.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
@Blotto the Bigot demonstrates further ignoring of important points. If you ignore my points, I see no reason I shouldn't ignore yours, especially considering you're a bigot.

You still haven't answered whether flocks of birds eating schools of fish are "war."
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
Sorry scheide, fish and birds are non sequitur. IOW idiotic.

"The Gombe Chimpanzee War lasting from 1974 to 1978, was a violent conflict ... but by 1974 researcher Jane Goodall, who was observing the community, first noticed the chimps ..."

-Chimp warfare is genetic. Goodall didnt just happen to come by the one ape band in 5-6 million years that had responded to just the right 'circumstances' and invented war.

Our precursors were fighting war long before we were human, long before technology.

That's a little more relevant than fish and birds dont you think?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
@#Blotto the Bigot demonstrates yet more avoiding of the subject. It's not gonna work, @Blotto the Bigot. Answer the question or be obviously and publicly pwnt.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
One question: do you tend to drink in the afternoon? Perhaps it's not afternoon where you are. If not I apologize.

Unless its morning where you are. You a morning drunk scheide?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
And now @Blotto the Bigot turns to insults.

Typical troll.

Noted you have no answer for birds and fish and try another attack vector. Not even an original one; now you're imitating @105LiarRC because you're not smart enough to make up your own, even after seeing @105LiarRC pwnt just like you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
This is an answer
Sorry scheide, fish and birds are non sequitur. IOW idiotic
Do you not like that answer? Perhaps you puked on your iPad again and merely couldn't see it.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
They're not a non sequitur; you're just outright lying, @Bloggo the Bigot. Waiting for an answer whether the mass killing of fish by birds is "war."
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
Are iPads waterproof? Or pukeproof? Perhaps this subject is one at least that you could offer some cogent input on.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
Waiting for an answer whether mass killing of fish by birds is "war," @Blotto the Bigot. Don't see any reason to move along while you're trying to ignore it and make up various ways of avoiding it.

Is it war? Yes or no. Simple question.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
I assume you already tried the dishwasher and found out it voids your warranty. So your mom bought you a shiny new one.

You could tell that story for everyone.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
Waiting for an answer whether mass killing of fish by birds is "war," @Blotto the Bigot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
Maybe it will help them forget that you actually came up with
you wouldn't call sharks or birds eating (other) fish "war," but it's certainly mass killing
-as if birds and fish had anything to do with whether war among humans is genetic; or even that its 'mass killing'??

It had better be a very long and animated story.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
@Blotto the Bigot tries yet again to avoid answering the question. Is flocks of birds eating schools of fish "genetically determined?"

TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
For alignment purposes that is.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 10, 2018
@Blotto the Bigot again attempts to avoid answering the question. Is flocks of birds eating schools of fish "genetically determined war?"

@Blotto the Bigot can't figure it out and doesn't want to because of its political bias.

@Blotto the Bigot can't tell the difference between nature and nurture.
antigoracle
not rated yet 13 hours ago
LMAO.
It is amusing to see the astonishingly stupid, like Da Snot and greenASSions1, having a "war" of words, to prove who is the dumber of the two.

No need to look any further for proof that war feeds on the ignorance of the masses and is just another tool exploited by opportunists.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.