on war

why does war happen? is it in human nature, a product of society or a combination of both?

 

Because, I said so.

 

oh

well mabe its cause i said so.

 

It is a combination of both, as I have said ona different thread, it is in human genetics to survive, the instinct for survival can lead to war, rce against race to determine the stronger. Societc causes war through it's generalisations and unwilligness to accept that which is different.

There are many causes behind war, it cannot be pinned down to just one thing.

This is intelligent discussion, please post appropriately in future :)​

 

Deja Vu?

Aggression is in human nature. War is man made, and occurs when people see the petty differences between them as being something so much more.

 

yeah, also there is religion. they fight which one is better. that's why iraq hates the jews.

 

interesting

hmmmmm an amplification of small agression. interesting idea.

 

But, didn't yeah know? I'm Cain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain

 

hmmmmm

are you now? wow you've been around for a long time. so if you've been around so long, where did atlantis go?!

 

And this is my little friend the warning button. We are great friends. :3

But seriously, stop spaming or I will bite your head off >_>

On topic, I think war is caused by the element in a persons brain that wants more, more food, more water, more land, more power... As much as we hate to say it, its part of human life.

AND NO LINKING D<

 

sorry

*sheepish grin* sorry. i just joined yesterday if you know jade rhade you can ask her im not making it up. i guess i need to learn the rules. anyway that also is an interesting theory. your right i think in the part about human nature as well.

 

Holy... sh*t.. so much spam! No wonder Darky suggested this merge with anything else, the inteligence has left. The only two people to make a good post are CTR and Rosey, grats to them. This thread has much potential and you all ruinied it. Bring some thoguht into these threads, that's what they're for!

 

"Scientists disagree on whether violence is inherent in humans. Among prehistoric humans, there is archaeological evidence for both contentions of violence and peacefulness as primary characteristics."

http://www.livescience.com/history/060316_peace_violence.html

"William L. Ury, editor of a book called “Debunking the "Killer Ape" Myth Must We Fight? From the Battelfield to the Schoolyard--A New Perspective on Violent Conflict and Its Prevention†brings together discussions from two Harvard Law School symposiums. The conclusion was that “we also have lots of natural mechanisms for cooperation, to keep conflict in check, to channel aggression, and to overcome conflict. These are just as natural to us as the aggressive tendencies."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200205/ai_n9060833

"Stephen Pinker in a New Republic article “The History of Violence†offers evidence that on the average the amount and cruelty of violence to humans and animals has decreased over the last few centuries'

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2007_03_19_New Republic.pdf

:/

 

I would say that there is enough evidence in our history as well as that in primate history to show that there is competition and such. We are social creatures and so of course, we unite and group, work together and expand. However, other groups with different agendas, stances etc can become recognized as threats when hostility becomes an avenue or people simply can't communicate any common stances they share with one another so it causes turmoil and friction.

When something happens with another group to get our attention, I believe it is in our nature to say it is 'us versus them' in some ways once we reach a point where communication doesn't work. Often reasons such as religion, political views, better land etc are given but at the same time, how do we convince people to gear up and go to battle? Often soldiers are rallied and civilians are told what we 'should know' by making the 'enemy' out to be a true villain of some sort. This isn't to say that sometimes the people who are fought against, some of them might really be cruel and despotic, but also because there is a mentality of 'us versus them' others around these people are also considered 'less than human'.

Another side thing to mention is the fact that many people tend to not think of how others live, the regular people (not the leaders necessarily), and how they suffer etc without it being broadcast to them in some way. We can tend to disassociate things such as the bad case of Aids that troubles Africa or Malaria there, militant groups running wild in areas and also subjugation to people that are little more than war lords. If we see these activities however, and can sympathize, we want to reach out. It does take a lot though to make the regular populace care when of course we are working, feeding our families etc and have things to concern ourselves with at home. This is a lighter version of 'us versus them' in that of course, the groups you are in, you would defend first. Also, think of how some families have fights within but if someone outside of that family starts things, well the family comes together. It also can be seen with gang mentality.

It has become too easy a thing to use things such as political agendas are different, beliefs and thought patterns are different, religion is different, the color of skin is different, the clothes they wear are different etc as reasons to get people of a social group to mistrust another. That to me would be the main underlying cause of war in the end and it is instinctual. To survive in social groups and bands, a person would want to be part of that group and another group is less of a concern, and if there is any genuine compassion, that group tends to merge with the other, making that culture more diverse and killing off some immediate 'prejudiced' thoughts. If contact fails to find enough likeness to merge and co-exist, it becomes a threat. If communication is successful though, societies change and expand. That to me seems to be the trend.

 

I think it's a combation of both. If u think about it deeply, we're technically fighting over land. Since war is between opposing forces, if one was to lose, they would eventually relinquish their power to their opponent which allows them to go on their land. This kinda goes with human nature because we tend to strive and succeed. So if we see something wrong, we might want to go fix it or in this case, take over some kind of government the initiate what we think is "rite"

All in all, I think it's a combination of both...