Humans have been historically eager to kill each other. Throughout history, we’ve thought up all sorts of nutty reasons to slaughter our fellow man that had nothing to do with immediate survival of the fittest. We tend to chalk all these wars up to cultural differences fed by a species-wide need to be ideologically right (and impose that right-ness on others), along with a knack for weapons discovery culminating in a technology boom that’s constantly supplying bigger and better ways to off each other. Add governments to the mix, and you’ve got a big steaming pile of questionably necessary interspecies violence.
So it’s a little—but not a lot—surprising that the growing scientific consensus is that war not only dates back to the origins of humankind, but has also played “an integral role” in or species’ evolution. According to this theory, which emerged during a recent conference at the University of Oregon, the war “instinct” was present in our common ancestor with chimps, and has been a “significant selection pressure on the human species,” as evolutionary psychologist Mark Van Vugt put it.
His and his colleagues’ reasoning goes something like this: Evidence exists to show that war and humans have been friends since the beginning (fossils of early humans show wounds consistent with combat injuries). As such, we would have evolved “psychological adaptations to a warlike lifestyle.” To this end, researchers have presented “the strongest evidence yet that males—whose larger and more muscular bodies make them better suited for fighting—have evolved a tendency towards aggression outside the group but cooperation within it.”
In other words, men have evolved to be team players within their own clans, and be warriors with everyone else—much like the behavior observed in chimpanzees, who regularly engage in short bursts of intergroup violence to weaken neighboring groups of males.
So should we resign ourselves to a future of ever-escalating violence due to our Darwinist predisposition for war? Not necessarily, says John Tooby, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, who insists on looking at the bright side:
“The interesting thing about war is we’re focused on the harm it does… But it requires a super-high level of cooperation [within military organizations].”
Fair enough. Now if we could just figure out how to apply that trait to government.
Related:
RB: Over a Year After YouTube Ban, Military Launches “TroopTube”
RB: How Green Is My Army?
November 13th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Wouldn’t it be great if we could unite all the men on the planet into one cooperative group via a war? Perhaps the only way we’ll ever by a truly unified global cooperative is if we discover an alien species and declare war on them…
November 14th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Moose Muffins. The team work originated in hunting medium to large animals. The problem is that war is not the same as basic human violence. The article incidentally reflects this. But it is rather amusing how academics tend to ignore those who are knowledgable of war when they make pronouncements about it. One has to wonder how they can get away with such behavior when in any other mode it would ruin their careers? Perhaps because soldiers are not really human and we can send them off to die with clear conscience? Somehow it is sad that such has to emerge in the same week as Armistice Day anniversary.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Better yet, TAE, maybe we can manage to unite mankind in opposition to some imaginary enemy. Maybe one who threatens to enslave us for eternity. Hey wait! We’ve got one! I Guess we have to give the Devil his due on this one. War and religion have always seemed like two complimentary instincts, one reinforcing the other (”fighting for God and country”). But who knows, waging the battle of good and evil on some fantastic battleground may be a useful diversion from the real thing. Better to duke it out with phantoms in your head than in actual combat. Someone could get hurt.
November 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I believe it is all rooted in the socio-biological specialization which tends to produce groupings sufficiently alike to guarantee a decent gene pool.
These groupings - maybe 2000 people in human terms - then compete to get to the best breeding position and use the male as the way to progress their future.
“Nature” needs to have lots of slightly differing versions of each species so that no matter what catastrophe occurs some will be better suited to thrive (Darwin) To keep your gene pool pure you need to repel outsiders and compete for resources.
November 16th, 2008 at 1:12 am
I wonder if we could find a better example of ivory tower nonsense.
November 16th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
“I wonder if we could find a better example of ivory tower nonsense.”
perhaps we could, if we knew just what you’re deriding here as “nonsense”. care to enlighten?
November 19th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Us vs. Them” Naked Ape Mentality
The human species evolved with ‘us’ vs ‘them’ social group competitiveness. Competition for territory and resources dictated that whichever group dominated, best survived, & was deemed superior. Whichever group out bred the surrounding groups and could best sustain warfare usually won out & whatever ‘gods’ they worshiped gained sway.
This is facilitated when each group thinks of themselves as being The People aka ‘the chosen ones’. The Christian teaching that humans can ONLY approach God through Jesus Christ is a manifestation of this. It’s not enough to believe in God — you have to believe in Christ as the Savior in a very special way in order to properly go to Heaven. And, if you’re a Baptist, believing in Christ in a special way grants you superiority over Lutherans, Catholics, etcetera AND vice versa.
It’s all about ‘usuns’ being the superior social culture (aka ‘chosen ones’) & the rest being “thoseuns” (inferior — thus worthy of domination). It’s all quite primitive [think of the song, “Onward Christian Soldiers” then remember the Crusades]. Not at all what Christ represents = Love & Wisdom.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Feelings rule, whether plant or animal, and territory is a basic feeling, perhaps arising out of the feeling of hunger. Warfare is the name given to social animals acting upon territorial feelings. It goes back well beyond chimps. Even brainless sea anemonies try to kill their neighbors. Humanity cannot escape it until their brains evolve the capacity to hold such feelings in abeyance. We seem to be making progess, albeit too slowly.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:41 am
It goes something like this:
Early man is very, very hungry. See’s large animal with sharp horns. He knows he will die but hopes not. Hope works fifty percent of the time, so he ritualizes it. He discovers how rituals can manipulate others and religion is born. Utilizing this new found power he sends others out for food. Weapons escalate. War is the tool of acquisition. Are we flawed? It depends on who wins.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
According to Richard Dawkins, religion is an evolutionary survival advantage because it makes believers act cohesively, thereby increasing their success in warfare.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:58 am
The inherent principel of the nature is - survival of the fittest.This has been the creed since the evolution of life.When the so called civilisation evolved,the fragmentation human race also evolved.The result of such fragmentation was evolution of wars for survival.
The development of civilisation resulted in evolution of RELIGIONS which resulted in deeper fragmentations in human society.The religions, which are to be means for uplifment of humans to a higher plain, have instead become a curse resulting in wars.
The wars will be part of every generation as long as human mind does not uplift itself to higher plain and realise the nature ,i.e God ,in its true sense .