Will we ever exist without war ?

[Cavegirl]

I didn't say 'get a life', I said you should take a look at life in context of the conversation.

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2013 at 15:36 ----------

 

Ok, I have a little more time so I want to expand a little.

 

Regarding the earlier link I put on to oxford dictionaries online here

 

Definition of war

 

noun

 

[mass noun]

 

a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country:Japan declared war on Germany the two countries were at war for the next eight years [count noun]:I fought in two wars

 

• a state of competition or hostility between different people or groups:she was at war with her parents [count noun]:a price war among tour operators

 

• a sustained campaign against an undesirable situation or activity:the authorities are waging war against smuggling [count noun]:a war on drugs

 

verb (wars, warring, warred)

[no object]

engage in a war:small states warred against each another figurativeconflicting emotions warred within her

 

I want to look at the definition in relation to your earlier claim of what war actually means via your description of warfare.

 

You said

 

Where in the definition does it state that it has to be prolonged? Where does it state that it has to be armed? Where does it state it has to have tactics (or indeed leaders), where does it state payment has to be involved?

 

Hence my earlier statement that you're using a limited definition of war, if you used the definition from the Oxford dictionaries site (and I agree btw, it is vitally important to get our definitions correct) it is highly unlikely that your earlier statement of discounts these people from engaging in war.

 

There maybe no evidence of orgnaised warfare, but as the definition of war says there was I'm sure we cannot discount from falling into that category. And I think to suggest all (or even any) of these things took place without a state of competition is incredibly naive and ignores some very basic patterns of human behaviour.

 

As for telling you to 'get a life' as you put it. I said you should 'take a look at life' in reference to the animal kingdom fighting each other for resources. I find your posts quite interesting, even if I do disagree with some of them, I certainly don't think you should abandon your studies and I definately didn't mean to imply you were somehow boring because of them. If that's how it came across I apologise.

 

Here is another definition of war:

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/war

 

There's no evidence of organised warfare and as I said, there's no real evidence for conflict between groups, certainly not enough that we could look at it and say it represents a widespread culture that used armed conflict to solve issues of territorial competition in the way that our modern culture does.

 

We are used to war, we expect it to occur, some people have argued that this very expectation of it makes it much more likely to happen. I wanted to challenge people to look for evidence so that they could see for themselves how thin and poor past evidence for it really is. I don't believe past people's had a warlike/ conflict culture like we have today and this is born out in some anthropological studies of modern hunter gatherers.

 

All modern hunter gatherer societies have strictly defined territorial boundaries and all have been noted to follow strict rituals to gain permission to cross these boundaries. The Kalahari Bushmen for example, have strict rules that they follow when one group's members enter the territory of another group. They enter unarmed and stick to a designated path. They sometimes need to enter another group's territory for a number of reasons:

- to exchange women of child bearing age to prevent inbreeding.

- to join another group if they've come into conflict with people within their own group.

- to share information about possible threats.

 

The benefits of having good relations with a neighbouring group far outway the risks involved with intergroup conflict. If they engage in conflict they risk wiping out all men of hunting age in their tribe which would put the whole group at risk, they risk revenge attacks, they lose their ability to procreate successfully etc etc. So stability seems to have arisen from a mixture of knowing the benefits of cooperation alongside a general fear of consequences.

 

The Bushmen are today living in a very harsh desert environment, but despite all of the surrounding population growth in Botswana and Namibia, they and neighbouring groups still manage to live in a territory large enough for them to survive. There wouldn't have been this problem in the past- population levels were much lower and in many cases the land would have been much more fertile. So it's unlikely that territorial disputes would even have arisen. We know that in some cases flint tools from a particular source were carried very long distances, it's possible that they were traded that far, but just as possible that hunter gatherers had freedom of movement across boundaries as long as they followed the rules.

 

Conflict did arise within groups, but again modern hunter gatherers indicate that people develop quite complex strategies to minimise this. They retain an egalitarian social structure, not by focussing upon equality as we do, but by respecting the individual autonomy of others because they wish to defend their own personal freedoms. People who try to lead are usually ostracised from the group and humility is regarded very highly.

 

Their culture is designed to promote humility and this is done through informal social control. They gossip, joke, ridicule, debate, shun and ostracise each other until the group reaches consensus (just as we often do on Sheffield Forum). Sometimes this is unsuccessful and conflict arises, most commonly between men and women. Conflicts that get out of hand end in violence, as I said we'd call them 'crimes of passion' today. Violence might also arise if a woman becomes pregnant and the group cannot sustain the child and so the child is murdered for the good of the group.

 

Warfare began to occur when the rewards from the risks began to outweigh the benefits of having good neighbourly relations.

 

Anyway I hope that clarifies some of my understanding of the past. As I keep repeating I'm not arguing for peace and harmony, but I am suggesting that our survival has depended upon us developing and maintaining a non-warlike society.

[PaliRichard]

An interesting post with interesting points but the nitty gritty is that the question is can we ever exist without war not can we live in a society where conflict is kept at a minimum. I really don't think you've presented enough evidence to argue that war will ever be eradicated.

 

For that to happen would take a monumental shift in how we use our cognitive capabilities and as much as I would like to see it happen I simply can't see human beings as a species going in that direction. As I said earlier, we are animals and our behaviour (even that we deem as above the animals) reflects this.

 

We would need a massive behavioural evolution to take place before we eradicate war.

[Cavegirl]

An interesting post with interesting points but the nitty gritty is that the question is can we ever exist without war not can we live in a society where conflict is kept at a minimum. I really don't think you've presented enough evidence to argue that war will ever be eradicated.

 

For that to happen would take a monumental shift in how we use our cognitive capabilities and as much as I would like to see it happen I simply can't see human beings as a species going in that direction. As I said earlier, we are animals and our behaviour (even that we deem as above the animals) reflects this.

 

We would need a massive behavioural evolution to take place before we eradicate war.

 

The world is currently a very unequal place, this leads to conflict. If it's easy for certain countries to invade another country for resources because that country doesn't have the same advanced technological capabilities to fight back then warfare benefits the aggressor.

 

However, look at the North Korea situation today, nobody wants to invade them because they have the capability to do real harm in revenge- despite the rhetoric the situation is quite stable, it would take an irrational move to destabilise it. It was the same with the Cold War- always the potential for conflict, but the situation was stabilised by fear of reprisals.

 

I'd much prefer to see a world where we end warfare through philosophy, but I can conceive a future world where warfare is ended by an equalising of destructive technology. As you say the potential would remain, but the risks would make the probability of it occurring very low indeed.

[MrSmith]

Here is another definition of war:

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/war

 

There's no evidence of organised warfare and as I said, there's no real evidence for conflict between groups, certainly not enough that we could look at it and say it represents a widespread culture that used armed conflict to solve issues of territorial competition in the way that our modern culture does.

 

We are used to war, we expect it to occur, some people have argued that this very expectation of it makes it much more likely to happen. I wanted to challenge people to look for evidence so that they could see for themselves how thin and poor past evidence for it really is. I don't believe past people's had a warlike/ conflict culture like we have today and this is born out in some anthropological studies of modern hunter gatherers.

 

All modern hunter gatherer societies have strictly defined territorial boundaries and all have been noted to follow strict rituals to gain permission to cross these boundaries. The Kalahari Bushmen for example, have strict rules that they follow when one group's members enter the territory of another group. They enter unarmed and stick to a designated path. They sometimes need to enter another group's territory for a number of reasons:

- to exchange women of child bearing age to prevent inbreeding.

- to join another group if they've come into conflict with people within their own group.

- to share information about possible threats.

 

The benefits of having good relations with a neighbouring group far outway the risks involved with intergroup conflict. If they engage in conflict they risk wiping out all men of hunting age in their tribe which would put the whole group at risk, they risk revenge attacks, they lose their ability to procreate successfully etc etc. So stability seems to have arisen from a mixture of knowing the benefits of cooperation alongside a general fear of consequences.

 

The Bushmen are today living in a very harsh desert environment, but despite all of the surrounding population growth in Botswana and Namibia, they and neighbouring groups still manage to live in a territory large enough for them to survive. There wouldn't have been this problem in the past- population levels were much lower and in many cases the land would have been much more fertile. So it's unlikely that territorial disputes would even have arisen. We know that in some cases flint tools from a particular source were carried very long distances, it's possible that they were traded that far, but just as possible that hunter gatherers had freedom of movement across boundaries as long as they followed the rules.

 

Conflict did arise within groups, but again modern hunter gatherers indicate that people develop quite complex strategies to minimise this. They retain an egalitarian social structure, not by focussing upon equality as we do, but by respecting the individual autonomy of others because they wish to defend their own personal freedoms. People who try to lead are usually ostracised from the group and humility is regarded very highly.

 

Their culture is designed to promote humility and this is done through informal social control. They gossip, joke, ridicule, debate, shun and ostracise each other until the group reaches consensus (just as we often do on Sheffield Forum). Sometimes this is unsuccessful and conflict arises, most commonly between men and women. Conflicts that get out of hand end in violence, as I said we'd call them 'crimes of passion' today. Violence might also arise if a woman becomes pregnant and the group cannot sustain the child and so the child is murdered for the good of the group.

 

Warfare began to occur when the rewards from the risks began to outweigh the benefits of having good neighbourly relations.

 

Anyway I hope that clarifies some of my understanding of the past. As I keep repeating I'm not arguing for peace and harmony, but I am suggesting that our survival has depended upon us developing and maintaining a non-warlike society.

 

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.

 

So it seems there’s some evidence that many species including some humans have evolved to resolved issues by using violence, there's some evidence that some species and some humans have evolved to avoid conflict.

I’m sat here typing this whilst looking at the birds fighting over a plentiful supply of food, several pigeons will eat together but attack other pigeons for some reason that I am unaware of. The robin attacks any bird that dare come to feed despite there being plenty of food for all. It’s quite amusing to watch and apparently normal behaviour within many species including humans, there’s no evidence at all to suggest the animals of this world once coexisted without conflict and insurmountable evidence that it is just animals have always done for their survival.

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2013 at 13:36 ----------

 

The world is currently a very unequal place, this leads to conflict. If it's easy for certain countries to invade another country for resources because that country doesn't have the same advanced technological capabilities to fight back then warfare benefits the aggressor.

 

However, look at the North Korea situation today, nobody wants to invade them because they have the capability to do real harm in revenge- despite the rhetoric the situation is quite stable, it would take an irrational move to destabilise it. It was the same with the Cold War- always the potential for conflict, but the situation was stabilised by fear of reprisals.

 

I'd much prefer to see a world where we end warfare through philosophy, but I can conceive a future world where warfare is ended by an equalising of destructive technology. As you say the potential would remain, but the risks would make the probability of it occurring very low indeed.

 

There have been plenty of wars and conflict in human history and at times when the world was a much more equal place, but as a species we are getting better at solving conflict without the use of violence.

[PaliRichard]

The world is currently a very unequal place, this leads to conflict. If it's easy for certain countries to invade another country for resources because that country doesn't have the same advanced technological capabilities to fight back then warfare benefits the aggressor.

 

However, look at the North Korea situation today, nobody wants to invade them because they have the capability to do real harm in revenge- despite the rhetoric the situation is quite stable, it would take an irrational move to destabilise it. It was the same with the Cold War- always the potential for conflict, but the situation was stabilised by fear of reprisals.

 

I'd much prefer to see a world where we end warfare through philosophy, but I can conceive a future world where warfare is ended by an equalising of destructive technology. As you say the potential would remain, but the risks would make the probability of it occurring very low indeed.

 

I think that guaranteed mutual destruction being a catalyst for the end of war is frankly highly unlikely. For such a position to come into being you would have to virtually guarantee all the players were playing by the same rules. Such a guarantee is equally (I would actually say more) unlikely than the entire human race having a shift in behavioural habits.

 

I also don't think it would come about through philosophy, most philosophy is too entwined with morals which are too entwined with our intrinsic animal nature. If philosophy was responsible for any change in warfare I would suggest that it would increase the chance of it.

[Cavegirl]

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.

 

So it seems there’s some evidence that many species including some humans have evolved to resolved issues by using violence, there's some evidence that some species and some humans have evolved to avoid conflict.

I’m sat here typing this whilst looking at the birds fighting over a plentiful supply of food, several pigeons will eat together but attack other pigeons for some reason that I am unaware of. The robin attacks any bird that dare come to feed despite there being plenty of food for all. It’s quite amusing to watch and apparently normal behaviour within many species including humans, there’s no evidence at all to suggest the animals of this world once coexisted without conflict and insurmountable evidence that it is just animals have always done for their survival.

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2013 at 13:36 ----------

 

 

There have been plenty of wars and conflict in human history and at times when the world was a much more equal place, but as a species we are getting better at solving conflict without the use of violence.

 

It's an interesting study that you've linked Mr Smith, but the original paper by Walker & Bailey states that the vast majority of that violence relates to "in order of importance- revenge for previous killings, other wrong-doings like sorcery and jealousy over women"- all examples of interpersonal violence. They state that revenge killings are by far the worst in terms of loss of life and that the cycle of violence tends to increase over time. It doesn't at all go against the position that I've been arguing.

 

I wouldn't say we're getting better at solving conflict without violence, I think we're getting much better at killing each other. World War II still holds the record for the highest number of people killed during a war at 40-72 million and that was less than 100 years ago. Britain was involved in 22 wars in the 18th century, 65 wars in the 19th century (imperial expansion) and 33 wars in the 20th century. We've already participated in 5 wars since 2000.

[MrSmith]

It's an interesting study that you've linked Mr Smith, but the original paper by Walker & Bailey states that the vast majority of that violence relates to "in order of importance- revenge for previous killings, other wrong-doings like sorcery and jealousy over women"- all examples of interpersonal violence. They state that revenge killings are by far the worst in terms of loss of life and that the cycle of violence tends to increase over time. It doesn't at all go against the position that I've been arguing.

 

I wouldn't say we're getting better at solving conflict without violence, I think we're getting much better at killing each other. World War II still holds the record for the highest number of people killed during a war at 40-72 million and that was less than 100 years ago. Britain was involved in 22 wars in the 18th century, 65 wars in the 19th century (imperial expansion) and 33 wars in the 20th century. We've already participated in 5 wars since 2000.

 

Of cause we are getting better at killing each other but we are also getting better at avoiding wars and cooperating and trading will each other instead of conquering each other.

There are far fewer wars globally as a percentage of population than there was.

One of the reason there is little evidence of war 12000 years ago it because they involved much smaller groups and they used stick and stones, very few dead with one side running away in defeat, unlike later wars in which we were better at killing people which leaves more evidence.

 

Just thinking about the UK, when was the last internal war? We used to have them all the time.