Study: is war not inevitable?

Is war inevitable? Debate rages among anthropologists

War is not an inevitable feature of society, according to two scientists who analyzed acts of aggression in 21 hunter-gatherer societies.

Among people who live today most like our ancestors did long ago, most acts of murder occur as a result of individual conflicts rather than as part of major battle-style events, the researchers report in the journal Science. That would suggests that war is an artifice of society, and not an intrinsic feature of human nature.

It’s a hopeful message, but one that has met with strong criticisms from a community of anthropologists who have long debated whether warfare has an extensive evolutionary history with roots embedded in the structure of our brains, or whether war is a response to more recent developments in how societies are structured.

Read the arguments here:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/war-i...sts-6C10680040

It is a very interesting question.

The researchers here claim that violence is on an individual basis, based on their findings.

Critics claim that you cannot prove that on those findings " you just do not know." Nevertheless I note that the war is intrinsic in human nature school place their proof on the same findings - If I understand it correctly.

“It’s clear that warfare occurs very commonly wherever there are people, but it doesn’t always occur. If we can find why people are less likely to go to war in some instances, then we’ll be doing something useful. I think it’s a very optimistic way of going forward.”

So - is war inevitable?

Have you been able to eliminate human desire? It seems that as a race historically someone has a resource or whatever and another individual covets the item and then voila you have conflict.

Their logic seems badly flawed. They study small, widely-dispersed groups - of course there is little inter-group conflict, because there is little inter-group interaction of any kind! Just like individual people spread across wide areas will rarely have sex - not because they don't want it, but because there's little opportunity if you live miles from the nearest person of the appropriate sex. As soon as groups have something to fight over - territory, scarce food, water - they'll fight unless some more powerful entity intervenes to resolve the matter peacefully.

These days, I would expect anything but the tiniest conflict between such groups to attract outside intervention, unless it somehow took place unobserved - perhaps in a remote patch of rainforest? It seems much more likely to me that they have simply noticed that current circumstances make conflict between such groups very unlikely.

I think that the debate is fine and no amount of subjective sophistry on the part of the pro peace side of the argument can change the ever increasing facts that support the other.

We have even now recently discovered how many of these small societies of hunter gatherers were often part of larger groups that would make primitive ritual sites built at the confluence of their conjoined territories. They frequently banded together to fight outsiders along the migration routes of their big game herds. Conditions naturally developed in the environment that made war unavoidable (IE population growth/rescource aquisition/etc) at least from the perspective of those who made it. So far when viewed objectively warfare was much more prevalent then the new age we love peace so much crowd wants to see.

It shows every sign of being a natural process of evolution. One that may or may not be alleviated as we gradually synthesize ourselves in the future (provided what science so far predicts our future to look like happening the way they see it). And if we do go into the stars and encounter other civilizations, I am guessing it's just as likely that the same evolutionary process will be at work there as well.

[QUOTE=denuseri;982916]
We have even now recently discovered how many of these small societies of hunter gatherers were often part of larger groups that would make primitive ritual sites built at the confluence of their conjoined territories. They frequently banded together to fight outsiders along the migration routes of their big game herds. Conditions naturally developed in the environment that made war unavoidable (IE population growth/rescource aquisition/etc) at least from the perspective of those who made it. So far when viewed objectively warfare was much more prevalent then the new age we love peace so much crowd wants to see. [/FONT]

Can you send links?

So, you say that war is inevitable due to lack of resources for all? Sounds a bit odd to me, seeing how few people there were at the time??

Quote:

---

It shows every sign of being a natural process of evolution. One that may or may not be alleviated as we gradually synthesize ourselves in the future (provided what science so far predicts our future to look like happening the way they see it). And if we do go into the stars and encounter other civilizations, I am guessing it's just as likely that the same evolutionary process will be at work there as well.

---

Hm. evolution is supposed to be about how to get better to adjust to present condition - what we are looking at now is unnecessary wars that could end up killing us all. Doesn't sound like evolution to me.

If there is a conflict between two sides and one is weaker, rather than accepting defeat, it'll strengthen itself with any means at their disposal...
One side will be the aggressor, should the other side let themselves be occupied or "assimilated" for the "greater good"? if there is a huge difference in power, they will(nowadays at least).
While greed exists, so will war, but the absence of greed doesn't mean the end of war.
Is it greedy for a mother to want her child to have water/food instead of you?

All of the above applies to conflict in general, not just all-out state wars.

Edit: Don't forget economic warfare, one could argue that economic warfare is happening as we speak, aside from all the civil wars.