"There Is No Scientific Proof That War Is Ingrained..." Topic

…In Human Nature, According To Study.

"Is it in our nature to go to war? Should we just accept the fact that humans have this innate tendency and are hardwired to kill members of other groups?

No, says R. Brian Ferguson, professor of anthropology at Rutgers University-Newark. There is no scientific proof that we have an inherent propensity to take up arms and collectively kill.

In a study published in Scientific American, Ferguson argues that war may not be in our nature at all. People might fight and sometimes kill for personal reasons, but homicide, he argues, is not war…."
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

There is no proof that it isn't, either.

Goofy neo Marxist claptrap…science is supposed to be based on valid observations…so,based on observing human behavior over the last 4,000 years what conclusion could you make?

Except that there's proof that conflict is inevitable and war is just conflict turned up to eleven.

In general I find that if an era has no writing and hard to interpret archaeological evidence then those with an ideological bent like Ferguson will see what they want to see in the period in question.

"The Minoans were matriarchal feminists." What is this based on? The Minoans produced many paintings of women and have a written language not yet deciphered. There was also some kind of female snake deity. Wow! What solid proof!.

War-like behavior in chimps has been observed by several scientists, but this guy wants to dismiss all of that as caused by humans. I think it's fair for one scientist to reject the conclusions of another. But if one scientist wants to reject the conclusion of many others they should have contrary evidence, not just their own interpretation of the original evidence.

Plus, I heard this was now-Marxist claptrap, which I don't care for.

Sadly it sounds like wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking?

Some people would say that "Neo-Marxist claptrap" requires a very jaundiced view of some generally accepted conclusions.

And some would say that those generally accepted conclusions are also Neo-Marxist claptrap. WAAARRRGGGHHH!!

NOTE: the above statement was a lame attempt at being funny. If you were offended, please send me a PM, and I'll be happy to apologize. If you were mildly amused, please donate a beer to someone you disagree with, preferably by the side of a war gaming table.

Still fancy that Kool-Aid I promised you Stryderg?

As the author of "Neo Marxist claptrap" I should add "Post Modernist", but I do accept Stryderg attempt at humor but request Walters to enlighten me as to the "generally accepted conclusions" I might have missed.

Some chimps have exhibited on-going aggression against other bands over a period of years, but that's not war per se. It does suggest that they can see other chimps as not-chimps, just as we de-humanize other social groups. Most bonobos (also a variety of chimp) do not show this kind of aggression. The aggression has been blamed on people encroaching on the chimps home range, and the pressure that puts on their resources, but it has also been blamed on the adjacency of gorillas. The bonobos have people as neighbors, but not gorillas.

War as such in the anthropological view is organized aggression dealt out by state societies against other societies. Other group fighting is more like gang violence, and either may be caused by various factors. There is plenty of evidence that people are as inherently friendly as we are aggressive. There has been quite some war in the last 4000 years, but there has been quite some peace as well, and much archaeological evidence for intergroup trade, while less so for intergroup violence.

I regard this as hopeful. After all, this forum is full of people who like to keep their violence "pretend". We know enough about real war, many from personal experience, to know why.

I mean to say that embracing NMCT requires a level of comfort in rejecting a lot of conventional wisdom. And patent observation.

I wonder what Professor Ferguson deems to be "scientific proof". Does he consider world history worthy of serious consideration?

For example – Chart the history of, say, the British Isles in its various incarnations since the departure of the Romans and count the years of peace compared to the years of warfare.

B

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand