Will we ever exist without war ?

[Cavegirl]

There is no reason to assume that early humans were peaceful, we cooperated in ever larger groups, not to protect us from other animals but to protect us from other humans. You are looking for evidence that can’t exist because we didn’t live in large enough groups, but once we started to build cities you can find clear evidence of our violent past.

 

Like humans, chimpanzees can engage in guerrilla warfare with their neighbours. As with humans, the prize is more land.

 

PEOPLE are not alone in waging war. Their closest living cousins, chimpanzees, also slaughter their own kind—in brutal attacks that primatologists increasingly view as strategic, co-ordinated assaults rather than random acts of violence. But however tempting it is to see these battles through the lens of human warfare, the motives for chimp-on-chimp violence are poorly understood. In particular, researchers have long debated whether the apes fight for land, or for females.

 

That chimpanzee behaviour was recorded by primatologists who were working in Gombe National Park which is the smallest nature reserve in Tanzania, not in the wild. It says this in your paper:

 

Even as bushmeat poachers, exotic-pet traders and encroaching farmers have landed the quarrelsome primates on the endangered-species list, decades of resource-driven conflicts between humans have destabilised conservation efforts.

 

So we know that these are chimps are under great stress from human encroachment. The authors of the original report state:

 

Here we present data collected over 10 years from an unusually large chimpanzee community at Ngogo... During this time, we observed the Ngogo chimpanzees kill or fatally wound 18 individuals from other groups; we inferred three additional cases of lethal intergroup aggression based on circumstantial evidence... Using our results to address an enduring question about why humans are an unusually cooperative species may prove to be a more productive line of inquiry. Our observations indicate that territorial conflict leads chimpanzees in some groups to cede land to members of other groups as a consequence of lethal coalitionary aggression.

 

http://jayhanson.org/_Biology/ChimpsKillForLand.pdf

 

I'm sorry but that data has been widely criticised as not being representative of 'normal' chimp behaviour for many years now.

[Hillpig]

Since when did a Penguin tool-up and strike a blow to an oilfield rich nation?

 

I've never understood this comparison with humans and the rest of the animal kingdom as a consideration of a natural state.

 

Please read whats written, your response is silly.

[Cavegirl]

There is no reason to assume that early humans were peaceful, we cooperated in ever larger groups, not to protect us from other animals but to protect us from other humans. You are looking for evidence that can’t exist because we didn’t live in large enough groups, but once we started to build cities you can find clear evidence of our violent past.

 

I'm not arguing that early humans were peaceful, I'm arguing that they didn't engage in warfare- it's a very different thing!

 

I'm far more aware than you I'm sure of all the prehistoric cases of infanticide, murder, cannibalism, ritual sacrifice etc but amongst all of that evidence there's no clear cases of organised warfare.

 

We didn't cooperate in larger groups to protect us from anything, we grew or reduced in population only as the local circumstances allowed us to.

 

I'm not looking for evidence of anything- it's you who keeps trying to provide evidence- my stance is quite clear and direct, there is no conclusive evidence.

 

Our violent past didn't begin with cities, it began much earlier with control over scarce and precious resources such as metal. Not long after discovering those we came up with the idea of human slavery, warfare, hoarding and many other dark elements that have since invaded our behaviour towards each other.

[MrSmith]

I'm not arguing that early humans were peaceful, I'm arguing that they didn't engage in warfare- it's a very different thing!

 

Any violent conflict between different groups of humans is by definition war, clearly warfare 12000 years ago would be different to the warfare we know, but the purpose is the same, to kill the people not belonging to your group.

 

In the tribal societies of the Amazon forest, violent conflict accounted for 30 percent of all deaths before contact with Europeans, according to a recent study by University of Missouri anthropologist Robert Walker. Understanding the reasons behind those altercations in the Amazon sheds light on the instinctual motivations that continue to drive human groups to violence, as well as the ways culture influences the intensity and frequency of violence.

 

Our violent past didn't begin with cities,

it began much earlier with control over scarce and precious resources such as metal. Not long after discovering those we came up with the idea of human slavery, warfare, hoarding and many other dark elements that have since invaded our behaviour towards each other.

I already said that, I think we must be at crossed wires, I assume because your definition of war must be different my definition.

[Cavegirl]

Any violent conflict between different groups of humans is by definition war, clearly warfare 12000 years ago would be different to the warfare we know, but the purpose is the same, to kill the people not belonging to your group.

 

In the tribal societies of the Amazon forest, violent conflict accounted for 30 percent of all deaths before contact with Europeans, according to a recent study by University of Missouri anthropologist Robert Walker. Understanding the reasons behind those altercations in the Amazon sheds light on the instinctual motivations that continue to drive human groups to violence, as well as the ways culture influences the intensity and frequency of violence.

 

 

I already said that, I think we must be at crossed wires, I assume because your definition of war must be different my definition.

 

That may be true, though I've already stated my definition of warfare in an earlier reply to you:

 

I think there's a big difference between interpersonal violence (crimes of passion if you like, where one person attacks another for some perceived reason) and warlike behaviour (where a leader sends those under his/ her control into war in order to gain control over resources). I don't believe that the former will ever vanish from human society but the latter most certainly will.

 

The important definitions here are the presence of leadership, intertribal conflict (between tribes rather than within tribes) and the aim of controlling resources (to have an army, which must leave behind their main source of providing for themselves to engage in a war, there has to be a reward at the end of a battle in order to pay the army for their service- even in so called religious wars).

 

I believe wars only really became serious business once taxation began to occur centrally. It was much easier to take control of wealth and productivity once governments developed because the attackers only needed to attack the main hub rather than attacking the entire territory to gain control over resources.

[MrSmith]

That may be true, though I've already stated my definition of warfare in an earlier reply to you:

 

 

 

The important definitions here are the presence of leadership, intertribal conflict (between tribes rather than within tribes) and the aim of controlling resources (to have an army, which must leave behind their main source of providing for themselves to engage in a war, there has to be a reward at the end of a battle in order to pay the army for their service- even in so called religious wars).

 

I believe wars only really became serious business once taxation began to occur centrally. It was much easier to take control of wealth and productivity once governments developed because the attackers only needed to attack the main hub rather than attacking the entire territory to gain control over resources.

 

There is no requirement for a leader in war, and payment 12000 years ago might have been a bride or food, if one tribe didn't have enough food or women they would simply attack another weaker tribe and take them, earliest human warfare, which evolved into what we know today.

[Cavegirl]

There is no requirement for a leader in war, and payment 12000 years ago might have been a bride or food, if one tribe didn't have enough food or women they would simply attack another weaker tribe and take them, earliest human warfare, which evolved into what we know today.

 

And your evidence for the above statement is what? Your gut feeling? You live in a warlike society so so must they? And 'a bride' are you kidding me??? You think they got married too? In a church or would you prefer a civil ceremony?

 

You need evidence to back up your assertion and if, as you say, they would 'simply attack another tribe' for food, women or whatever other selfish reason they could come up with, then evidence should be plentiful, you should be tripping over it, there are hundreds of thousands of known sites from the period in Europe alone- so why do you think you're struggling so much?

[MrSmith]

And your evidence for the above statement is what?

You live in a warlike society so so must they?

I have already posted some evidence and you have already agreed with it, you just define war differently to the definition.

 

 

And 'a bride' are you kidding me??? You think they got married too? In a church or would you prefer a civil ceremony?

 

I should have said mate.

 

You need evidence to back up your assertion and if, as you say, they would 'simply attack another tribe' for food, women or whatever other selfish reason they could come up with, then evidence should be plentiful, you should be tripping over it, there are hundreds of thousands of known sites from the period in Europe alone- so why do you think you're struggling so much?

 

There is zero evidence that humans were once very peaceful and living in harmony with their surrounding and other humans as you like to believe, there is enough evidence to conclude that we have always been a violent species capable of killing each other over resources.

[Cavegirl]

I have already posted some evidence and you have already agreed with it, you just define war differently to the definition.

 

I should have said mate.

 

There is zero evidence that humans were once very peaceful and living in harmony with their surrounding and other humans as you like to believe, there is enough evidence to conclude that we have always been a violent species capable of killing each other over resources.

 

I've never agreed with your evidence, I agreed that Megalithic's suggestion was a possibility. I've never stated that humans lived in peaceful harmony as you well know, all along I'm the one who's talked about interpersonal violence.

 

I'm glad you've been interested enough in the subject to engage in debate about it. Hopefully it's made you wonder about it enough to continue learning about prehistory.

[MrSmith]

I've never agreed with your evidence, I agreed that Megalithic's suggestion was a possibility. I've never stated that humans lived in peaceful harmony as you well know, all along I'm the one who's talked about interpersonal violence.

 

 

I think there is still some confusion being caused by our different definition of war, war is simply a conflict in which different people fight each other for one reason or another and humans have always fought each other over resources, be it food, mates, or just because they didn’t like each other.