“All war is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal.” (Steinbeck)
On March 20th, 2003 I took this picture as my convoy crossed the breach into Iraq. We were the first Marines to lead the march up to Baghdad. I returned with a heavy conscience and apprehension for our future causing me to bury most feelings involving this subject. But current events in our country’s global affairs have given me the courage to revisit my past experiences and explore the foundations within ourselves that advocate violence and war. This is not for justification of my actions but an effort to resolve the enduring question; has war always been inevitable within the human race? Did it transcended from a biological imprint within our psyche or is it a condition devised by our temperament which can be undone?
Some people believe in a deep-root theory, that this predisposition to violence is a component of evolution. E. O. Wilson is considered the “father of Sociobiology” and is a respected scientist in his field. In his article “Is War Inevitable”, he mentions an old parable. A scorpion wants to ride on the back of a frog across a stream. The frog hesitates at first but then realizes that if the scorpion stings him while they’re in the water they will both perish. So the frog agrees and halfway across the water the scorpion stings him. As they both drown the frog asks why he did that. The scorpion replied “because it’s in my nature.” Further in this article Wilson argues that war is “human’s hereditary curse”, and explains that, with the necessity of survival, our prehistoric ancestors have handed down over generations the “engrained” social behavior of competition and contention towards each other. These instincts, he says, started as small tribes of homo-sapiens fought over territories of land during the hunting and gathering era. Food was scarce so territorial conflict was an imminent product of this situation. Even with the development of agricultural techniques in Neolithic times (when humanity acquired more than enough food) our warring nature persisted. We multiplied more rapidly and food once again became a “limiting factor”. And so, he argues, this need for survivability and the enduring acquisition of resources has become forever intertwined into our natural behavior. Many argue against this theory and believe that fighting is a fabrication of our own design, not a biological modification of genes.
At the opposing end of this spectrum is a scientific journalist named John Horgan. Although he expresses his admiration and respect for Wilson in his article “No, War is Not Inevitable”, he argues that there are flaws in the deep-root theory. He explains that the first solid evidence of recorded violence was found in the Nile Valley dating not millions of years ago, but only 13,000 years. This grave was reported to contain combat weapons (not hunting tools) and with this Horgan tries to debunk Wilson’s theory by explaining that war was not manifested in human nature but was rather a “cultural innovation.” He says that further evidence supporting this was shown in observations of chimpanzees (our closest relatives) who share an estimated 98% of DNA with humans. His article states that the first reported chimpanzee raid on neighboring troops (after a decade of observation) was in 1974. Horgan says researchers also stated that from 1975 and 2004 only one chimp died every seven years by this manner. In Horgan’s article he mentions Richard Wrangham, leading chimpanzee researcher at Harvard University and deep-root theory supporter, who admits that these “alliance” killings were very rare. These observations in the wild seem to conclude that animals avoid actions of territorial disputes at all costs, even when resources are at stake. This might conclude that humans, on the other hand, are the only animals that rationalize the justifications of war even when resources are abundant. But are both these angles of approach shaded by a more imperative and imminent concern; the elimination of conflict altogether?
One other perspective invites the possibility of erasing the inevitability of war with conditions of problem solving. Jacque Fresco, a philosopher of science and a futurist, believes that whether it is genes or our own creation, the time has come for a drastic change in our thought process. He says in a video interview that “war is the most inappropriate way to solve differences and…we have to educate people so that they think differently than they do today.” His vision of the future is based on the idea of providing soldiers with an education involving social curriculum and problem solving for the purpose of uniting nations in an effort to restore our “damaged environment”. This thought process stems from a type of bottle-neck theory, viewed by many to be the only logical angle on the inevitability of war; either war goes or we do. This position is indifferent to the causes of violence towards one another, and proclaims that solutions are imperative to the survivability of our species.
My past experience with conflict combined with recent research has led me to believe in a culmination of perspectives. I think animals have always been naturally endowed with a premonition towards violence, and under rare inescapable circumstances, these actions are sometimes a necessity for survivability. But I also believe our ignorance has manipulated this primitive behavior to encourage and create technological advances our reasoning has not yet caught up with. In the wake of our current global concerns we desperately need to redesign our thought process and no longer fear the caliber of a bullet, but the caliber within ourselves to change.
-------------------------------------------------
"The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one" (Einstein)
Wilson, Edward. “Is War Inevitable.” Discover Magazine. Kalmbach Publishing Co. 12 June 2012. Web. 27 Sept 2012.
Horgan, John. “No, War Is Not Inevitable.” Discover Magazine. Kalmbach Publishing Co. 12 June 2012. Web. 27 Sept 2012.
Fresco, Jacque. “Jacque Fresco – War.” 27 October 2009. Online video clip. YouTube. Accessed 28 Sept 2012. < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXbN1w2cbjM>
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
War brings death and destruction, merciless slaughter and butchery, disease and starvation, poverty and ruin in its wake. Although war may not always be the first answer or the most beneficial, it is an inescapable evil because war has brought the world peace and prosperity while banding people together to fight for a cause. It leads to national growth and solves domestic problems between countries; Injustice and tyranny can be quelled as the aftereffect of war. On the contrary, war includes loss of human life, spreads of diseases, and induces a feeling of anxiety and dismay among communities. The brutal sacrifices that innocent people undergo may not be worth the outcome.…
- 510 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Michael Howard's short manifesto has impacted the way many people look at war, and how they start. Michael without a shadow of a doubt states in his essay The Causes Of War, “Force, or the threat of it, may not settle arguments, but it does play a considerable part in determining the structure of the world in which we live.” Although Michael merely shrugs at the claims made by sociobiologists he also brings a few important ideas to the table himself. When Michael discusses the subject of fear in parallel to the idea of U.S joining WW1 he tries to emphasize that as a justifiable reason to take part in the war. The author does so by showing how fear was inevitable in the national community.…
- 636 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
References: Alcock, John. (1978). “Evolution and Human Violence,” in L. L. Farrar, Jr. (ed.), War: A…
- 9995 Words
- 40 Pages
Better Essays -
All through Part five of her book Shadows of War, Carolyn Nordstrom shares her perspectives on war regarding social, physical and mental objectives and rebuffs of such viciousness. To start, one of the main objectives of war as characterized by Nordstrom is an immediate consequence of a risk of loss of control. She clarifies that it is basic for one military to want to decimate another when their control over a specific (arrive range claimed or controlled by somebody) is under risk (56). A fascinating point that Nordstrom makes is identifying with/about (group of individuals/all great individuals on the planet's) don't differentiate between the presence of various violences. As expressed by Nordstrom, a great many people will normally tell/demonstrate the contrast between various wars; nonetheless, not very many tell/demonstrate the distinction between the experience of brutality all through such wars (57).…
- 604 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
In today’s society war and peace is put on display for the mass public to be seen more than ever. War is glorified through movies, videos games, comic books and many more. Horrific images of war were first seen in the Civil War in North America of a “Dead Confederate Solider with Gun” this photograph no longer “romanticized” war but bought the reality of war through a black and white photograph. The video game “Call of Duty” is another display of war, it…
- 858 Words
- 4 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
This juggernaut of war has crushed millions of humankind. Its savagery and decadence is consummate. Such butchery has patently marked all the wars of this century and before. This cannibalization of mankind on its own is unparalleled. Scenes of human massacre that few persons would believe will be imprinted perpetually in the minds of the combatants. Many of those who experience the immoral, offensive and degrading trauma of war can be physically and psychologically scared indefinitely. Their sense of what is right and wrong is in constant conflict. The tragedy of war and incomprehensible death will change whoever you thought you were and whatever you think you will become when you encounter…
- 3663 Words
- 15 Pages
Best Essays -
“It seemed clear that wars were not made by generations and their stupidities, but that wars were made instead by something ignorant in the human heart” (Chapter 13, 201)…
- 449 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In the Lord of the Flies William Golding has a group of schoolboys crash on an island and become barbaric. The reason why the boys turn wild is because of their innate primal instinct to hurt others. This innate behavior is inherited from early ancestors killing to stay alive. Mans innate tendency towards violence, how people take sides and divide into groups, and the struggle for power are three ways mans behavior will generally occur. Each of these suggests that violence is a key factor to getting what they want.…
- 817 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
War is ubiquitous; there will always be one country at war with another during all the times of the year. The first recorded war was in 2700 BCE in Mesopotamia between Sumer and Elam, and the latest have been the Syrian and Iraq wars. Although there have been countless amounts of changes in warfare since 2700 BCE there will forever be a constant controversy about what good comes from war. While soldiers are risking their lives across the world civilians are at home contemplating the pros and cons of warfare. Though trauma that accompanies war is unforgivable, war is not entirely useless. Without it countries and people around the world would be taken advantage of. The destruction left behind by war is nothing in comparison to the catastrophic…
- 696 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
War has become a game for the United States, an addicting one. Many years ago, war was always seen as a last tragic sult, but when forwarding in time, this is no…
- 415 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Historically, war has been the leading solution for solving conflicts globally. Though combat tactics have become increasingly more sophisticated over many centuries. The ability to affect and change the world through war stayed the same. All the while, the mentality of the public has become increasingly dissociative, and people have less interest on a large scare. From World War I until now, war has constantly evolved, and support has constantly fluctuated.…
- 1636 Words
- 7 Pages
Better Essays -
What justifies war? Who justifies it? Why as human beings do we feel the need to fight, harm, and kill others to achieve certain goals? These questions have been pertinent to our society since the beginning of time and continue to challenge us to better understand the human psyche, and code of ethics that give Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines credence to kill in the name of the United States of America. These ethics of war lay the foundation for that code of understanding and righteousness for when it is justifiable to pull the trigger and take the life of another, or commit an act of war.…
- 1946 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In Warfare: An Invention- Not a Biological Necessity, Margaret Mead states that war is a creation of man, not a necessity we need in order to thrive. She begins by stating that those who believe war is a biological necessity see men as aggressive by nature. This natural aggression leads men to need an outlet for their frustration which, in this case, is war. She proceeds to suggest that war is a creation of society. The origins of war, such as the struggle for land and natural resources, are not man’s nature, they are the nature of the society and history. Lastly, Mead points out that war is inevitable until we change our social system and our desire for power and possessions. If this change of system is successful, “warfare would disappear,…
- 1109 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
Violence has a long standing history in society. Violence is ingrained in human nature in many ways. An understanding of violence now plays a key role in many of our social interactions. Some people have even evolved to be more aggressive because as as a society we reward aggression.…
- 753 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Some people would agree with the statement because people will always have a difference of opinion. One person will always believe he or she is right in what they think, there will always be that one person who doesn’t want to just believe that he or she could be wrong, it’s basic human nature to fight over things such as; race, religion, land and wealth etc. As long as that continues in the world there will always be wars. For example “The conflict in Northern Ireland. “The troubles” the Republicans are Catholics who want to become an independent country. The Loyalists are Protestants who want to be part of the United Kingdom. In order to keep peace between them there is a peace wall, but I don’t think the peace wall keeps a lot of peace between them because of the negative feelings and violence associated with it.” There are not many quotes that support violence in neither the Bible nor any other…
- 590 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays