Thread: Why We Fight.

Simply put (and all of the best explanations are) it is human nature to fight.

Good video.

Originally Posted by AspirationRealized

Simply put (and all of the best explanations are) it is human nature to fight.

well I don't think it is human nature to commit wars and genocide.
for our first 35,000 years the human race barely left a mark on the planet. we were tribals and only fought off animals and hunted for food. However after the ice age ended. humans notice that certain plants survived the cold. Humans discovered how ou grow such plants and thus started agriculture. Agriculture let to the concept of Ownership. Over the years this spiralled into large civilizations, and along with religion. These were human made concepts that started war. therefore i don't think it is human nature to start wars, but instead our very own concepts created the need for war.

Originally Posted by ranma187

well I don't think it is human nature to commit wars and genocide.
for our first 35,000 years the human race barely left a mark on the planet. we were tribals and only fought off animals and hunted for food. However after the ice age ended. humans notice that certain plants survived the cold. Humans discovered how ou grow such plants and thus started agriculture. Agriculture let to the concept of Ownership. Over the years this spiralled into large civilizations, and along with religion. These were human made concepts that started war. therefore i don't think it is human nature to start wars, but instead our very own concepts created the need for war.

I think we didn't leave a mark because we didn't have the technology; that's all; if we had had it we would have of course.

Originally Posted by ranma187

well I don't think it is human nature to commit wars and genocide.
for our first 35,000 years the human race barely left a mark on the planet. we were tribals and only fought off animals and hunted for food. However after the ice age ended. humans notice that certain plants survived the cold. Humans discovered how ou grow such plants and thus started agriculture. Agriculture let to the concept of Ownership. Over the years this spiralled into large civilizations, and along with religion. These were human made concepts that started war. therefore i don't think it is human nature to start wars, but instead our very own concepts created the need for war.

All animals have a sense of ownership, and they don't need agriculture to have it. As you said, people used to be tribal nomads. Im sure these tribes attacked eachother all the time. War is simply a tribal war on a large scale.

Life is violent. It is an evolutionary advantage and fact. Arms dealers are not the cause of war. War is the cause of arms dealers.

In fact, I'm pretty sure we know humans have been murdering eachother for more than 35000 years. I'll post a link here in a minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare

All conflict is caused by difference. Every man is different.

Its the truth.

I'm with UM--sort of.

Those who start wars are almost universally unconcerned with the death that results from war, and all wars are started by someone or other. I think that it is, and was, very rare for one nation to start a war out of necessity against another, and that wars have been started primarily because sociopaths come into power and convince their people that war is a necessity, either to promote something good, prevent something bad, or, most commonly, both.

I think this applies to the Iraq War very aptly, since almost every party involved is concerned purely with their own self-interest. The US government has refused to prosecute private companies that defraud the military and harm the war effort, which rather indisputably reveals the mind-set of the US government at the highest levels.

It's tempting to say that weapons manufacturing companies are the ones pulling the strings, but it's not the whole story. They can promote war, but they cannot create it. Whoever has the authority to declare war must bear that responsibility, and, it is hoped, would punish any deception when it is discovered. If the people who put them in power do not reject the war and do not reject the deception when it is uncovered, then they must also bear responsibility.

Humans are prone to war with each other, but it's a bit of a cop-out to leave it at that. Many people know very little about wars, and perhaps most would reject war if they had a full understanding of it. One could easily blame virtually anything on human nature, but it doesn't stand as an explanation without something more specific.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Humans are prone to war with each other, but it's a bit of a cop-out to leave it at that. Many people know very little about wars, and perhaps most would reject war if they had a full understanding of it. One could easily blame virtually anything on human nature, but it doesn't stand as an explanation without something more specific.

On the contrary, I would say it is a perfect explanation.

You're being specific, which is fantastic... for specific things. You may fix the Iraq war with that thinking, but that specific solution won't stop another.

You're dealing with the branches. Instead, look at the roots. Find the source, a reason that is broad, rather than narrow.

As I said before. Every conflict by humans is caused by a difference.

The only reason why blaming it on human nature is pointless is because it is repetitive. The only way to have complete peace among humans is to lose all our individuality (our differences), and I don't see that happening, nor do I want to.

Could the world have less war? Yes. But complete peace isn't worth the price.

I'm going to go out on a limb and be specific with your generalization

Robots evolving to lie:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan...arn-how-to-lie

I can imagine that the behavior of complex animals has evolved a similar tendency, slight though it may be, to form individuals who are compelled to pursue their own self-interest, while others are compelled to act for the good of the species. We may call the former individuals sociopaths, and the latter individuals the average.

If such behavior is part of human nature, but has a genetic or developmental basis, it can be analyzed and, perhaps, removed without sacrificing individuality or our humanness, since the majority do not possess that trait anyway.