Will our species EVER lose it's love of war?

[mopaul]

or is war an utterly inescapable human trait? maybe even deeper, is war a mammalian trait, as in the male mammal habit of establishing dominance over territory? or perhaps even deeper, a reptilian trait?

all through our history, millions killed in wars, and we study these ancient and recent wars, and we observe how wars break out, over religion, territory, greed, etc., but it seems we've learned only to make wars more effective, and not prevent them.

when if ever will men turn swords into plowshares?

[DireStrike]

1. We have to wait...

At least until the people who can send us to war are required to fight on the frontlines.

[LynzM]

11. I don't think even this would stop it....

Look back to when those leading a war still used to ride into war with their troops... it still didn't stop the wars from happening in the first place :(

I'd love to think it will happen, but until women are the ones ruling the world, I doubt it.

[izzybeans]

2. I'm a member of the species and never had a love for war.

But then again I'm not into this whole imperialism thing either.

[Swamp Rat]

3. Not with Caligula in charge.

[ladjf]

24. Caligula Religion has put Caligula President on the throne.

Life on Earth can no longer risk everything by allowing crazy leaders to determine our fate. Some workable process must be devised that will unseat crazy leaders.

[orpupilofnature57]

57. Grassroots,thats Rovers best ,,trick us in to believing Shrub is common .

[Tsiyu]

4. When greed and hatred are conquered

then will war be.

Lots of luck.

I have always wondered why some people ( current administration as an example) lust for more and more and more, as if they can take it with them when they die, or as if all the $$$ in the world keep them immortal.

Lives mean nothing to them, justice means nothing, humanity means nothing. Only $$$$ and power count.

Figure them out and you've solved half the problem.

But blind prejudice keeps the poor man supporting the rich man's war, and I don't know how rampant bigotry happens either.

Good question mopaul.

[ixion]

5. it is possible we'll give it up, but not probable.

We're a species founded on conquest. That is not to say that we couldn't experience a collective enlightenment, but I don't see it happening in our lifetime.

Why? Because in the last 10,000 years we've only stuck one foot out of the cave, collectively speaking. :-(

[ananda]

6. is it a spore?

In one of his books, John Steinbeck discusses this very phenomenon. He says that every so often war fever catches in a group of people and spreads.. that it's like a spore and seems inevitable and unstoppable.

Is this just an aspect of human evolution that we have to deal with.. or can we change?


Sue

[mopaul]

9. freud called it the death drive

it's deep in us, way down there, and war is one of the things that got us to where we are i suppose, but there's got to be a better way.

but mainly i'm just spouting philosophical piffle.

[radwriter0555]

7. rephrase please: Will the MALES of our species ever lose their love of war

and hate, and crime and fighting and abuse and murder and death and rape and imposed horrors?

Not to man bash, but the crimes of the species are perpetrated by the male half of the species. Females comprise less than 1% of the perpetrators of the criminal and horror inflicting events of human-kind.

Ya'll mens need to shape up, and fast.

[mopaul]

10. glaringly true

name one big war of note fought by women exclusively. it could've happened i suppose, but i've never heard of it, outside of the amazon tales.

[qazplm]

15. that's a bit silly

but I can name several wars started or continued by women rulers, Catherine the Great, the various female rules of England, Queen Isabella of Spain I believe, Margaret Thatcher against Argentina...

I dont really think war is a "male" trait, its an animal trait, humans, apes/monkeys, even all the way down to ants "war" for various reasons, territory, resources, etc.

It might even be said that plants to a certain extent "war" each other although that's probably stretching the point a wee bit.

I think humans may finally be able to say we have taken the first step to a higher level when we can get past the animal nature that is war...but thats going to take a few thousand years.

[Deja Q]

8. No, but I can guarantee we'll all die for our love of war. But consider,

other species are territorial but you don't see a dozen chipmunks lining up in a neat row to tear the scrap out of another group of chipmunks ans lining up in a neat row.

Humans have the unique ability to act above and beyond their emotions. Pity nobody does.

[Flubadubya]

12. Our species will lose its love for war...

when all members of our species are lost to war!

[Jim__]

13. Make Love, not war

That's a hippie slogan from the sixties. There may be a lot of truth in it.

There is a book called Demonic Apes. It concerns warlike primates; and particularly chimpanzees. Chimpanzees do behave in warlike ways and the wars they have are extremely similar to wars that the Yanomano (sp) Indians have. The implication is that this behavior is indeed deeply embedded.

However, there may be hope. Bonobos, another primate species, never engage in this warlike behavior. A few interesting notes, bonobos do tend to be led by females, they are extremely active sexually, and are bisexual. Maybe they're just too tired after all that love making to bother fighting wars.

I think its worth a try. So, we should all practice exhausting ourselves through love making rahter than fighting.

[mopaul]

14. i'm in

mo bonobo. but i'll hang out with the lady bonobos.

[Stevepol]

16. That urge can't be eradicated, but the indulging of it can, IF ...

there are free elections fairly counted. The majority of people already favor peace over war even in the face of overwhelming propaganda. All it takes it free elections where the vote counting is open and transparent, i.e., where there's a democracy. Once we have a democracy again, we can talk about not indulging this urge. Until the voting machines are fairly audited for every election, that can't happen. The urge for mayhem will never be eradicated as long as we have this ape's body and mentality to call home. Too much fear and ignorance.

[Discord]

17. Not until we do away with religion. The #1 hostorical

cause of war.

[ladjf]

22. Another person understands the process. Good post.

[Discord]

26. Thank you!I have been catching alot of heat from DU christians

but I can take the heat.

[ladjf]

27. Me too. I've had some very heated and personally insulting

things said. But, as you said, that's just part of this process.

[Discord]

28. Yep. Have you seen the new Bill the RW is trying to pass?

The Constitutional Restoration Act?


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=104&ItemID=7569


Scary.

[ladjf]

29. I failed to mention that several of my posts have been deleted.

In one deleted post, I stated that the alleged resurrection of Jesus was a 2000 year hoax.

In another, the thread question was "Do you believe in the Easter Bunny"? My response that got deleted, "I believe in the Easter Opossum."

I would hate to see that DU has begun to censor divergent views on Religion.

[Zynx]

39. What if I said that atheists were mentally handicapped?

I most certainly DO NOT believe that, but to insult religious people like many have been doing on this board is not productive, it does not convince anybody to join your cause, it does not produce debate, it is just mean and spiteful behavior that has no place anywhere or anytime.

[ladjf]

48. I have not attempted to defend atheists. Had you said that

you considered atheist to be mentally ill, I might have wanted to hear your argument. I most definitely wouldn't have felt insulted. In the first place, I'm not completely sure of the definition of atheism and therefore don't even know if I'm one.

Animals on Earth proceed through their lives adapting to whatever resources available to them. To survive, they must conduct their actions efficiently. If they were to base their tactics of fabricated ideas rather that natural observation, they would soon perish.

Humans, in certain ways, are smarter than other animals. Their brains allow them to think abstractly. That capability is an assert and a liability. Humans naturally want to understand the why and how's of life. They need to connect with their spiritual side. It is my belief that religious leaders through the centuries have used this human need to convince people that the only avenue to connecting to their spiritual nature is through the church. I believe that they are wrong. People attend religious activities and make wonderful connections with others. There's a sense of belonging and understanding. All of that is good. But, it is at the point where
religious leadership begins to instruct their followers about matters that are not directly related to the core spiritual values that the big problems begin. Jesus never said anything about pre-emptive wars that would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Jesus never said to put unethical men into political office in order to receive certain financial benefits of that politicians tenure in office.

Lastly, my comment that religious activity being a sign of mental illness only would apply in cases of extremism. I would by no means consider say a Pres. Carter to be mentally ill. Far from it. He's one of the most cogent and articulate people on the American scene today.

I do believe organized religion is being allowed to get away with some very dangerous and immoral activities. I agree with you in a sense that my feeble attempts are not likely to spark much of a debate. I'm doing the best I can with what I have.

[Zynx]

33. If not religion, it would have been something else used to justify war.

That entire line of reasoning is overly simplistic and overlooks the fact that many tens of millions of murders have happened with religion not even a consideration in the matter. Humans are naturally violent because of our greed and lust and greed is the overriding factor that causes war. Religion is simply used by leaders to justify it, but I would argue that in the 20th century there is no doubt that nationalism was the most destructive force and not religion. WWI and WWII had very little to do with religion.

[indepat]

18. Religious hatred will assure our species will never lose its penchant for

war.

[ladjf]

23. I believe that the practice of religion is a form of mental illness.

And that there is a global epidemic of Religiosity. As long as the human race is guided by supernatural fantasies, they will continue to wallow in the fires of their own ignorance. Unfortunately, they religious zealots, who have claimed political power, particularly in the U.S. are on the verge of precipitating catastrophes of unprecedented proportions, adversely effecting all living things on Earth. Somehow, political power must be stripped from their crazy hands.

[Zynx]

34. You honestly think if everyone became atheistic there would not be violenc

e? HA! That's a good one.

[ladjf]

35. No. I said nothing even close to that. What I said was that

it is a dangerous practice to live by a code of values that has been fabricated from a well of fantasies. Just because a person is an atheist, there is no assurance that such a person would be free from superstition.

The human race knows some important facts relating to survival. And there are some important things we don't know, and probably never will. However, the best we can to is take what we do know and put it to best use in the quest for survival and quality of life.

[Zynx]

36. A cold realist with no superstitions is perfectly capable of violence.

I find this idea that because I have religious faith and what you would call a belief in "fantasies" that I am somehow prone to violence highly absurd. I am opposed to killing in every single form and I reject violence as a solution.

[mopaul]

37. sometimes you HAVE to kill somebody

like in self defense, or if attacked by an invader i suppose.

but anyone can be violent, male, female, catholic, atheist. i have no problem with being religious, but i wouldn't want atheism to be the official, enforced system anymore than i'd want jerry falwell in charge.

[Zynx]

38. Well, yeah, but I mean by choice.

I oppose any killing that is not necessary.

[mopaul]

43. this particular war in iraq is VERY unnecessary

war for all the wrong reasons, what sin could be greater?

[Zynx]

49. It is difficult to think of one off hand.

This war was a profoundly immoral war.

[ladjf]

40. Zynx, the fact that you are a person of "religous faith" does not

suggest that your personally are prone to violence. I would have no reason to doubt your assertion that you are one who abhors killing. I would presume that if a man of Jesus's views were walking the street today, he/she would be safe company.

My fears and prejudices about organized religion stem from knowing that over the past few thousand years, religious orthodoxy has been at the heart of much of the human suffering. The Inquisitions in Europe lasted over 800 years. It hasn't mattered much what particular brands of religion, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, all have violent pasts.

You asked about a "Cold realist". What about a "warm realist". I advance the idea that it is a wonderful and wondrous thing to have had the opportunity to live on this beautiful and bountiful planet. I came to that conclusion by realistically observing the context in which we live. There is nothing socially "cold" about realism. Yes, life is hard for most. But, through it all, most of us have opportunities of feel well, have some sweet children and grandchildren, and view the wonders of Nature. Why would a person who is able to see such glory everywhere decide to commit violence upon someone? Adding up the interrelated factors of such and act would lead anyone of reasonable intelligence to conclude that such an act would be stupid, immoral and unnecessary. Further, society seriously frowns upon such deeds and is likely to retaliate in kind.

We're probably going to need more space than is available on the DU to have any kind of meeting of the minds.

Proceed in peace Zynx. My comments are of a general nature. I didn't intend to apply them personally to specific individuals of good will.

[Zynx]

45. Our problem is the human trait of bigotry.

Whether it is religion, race, class, nationality, people always find some reason to hate their fellow man.

[ladjf]

50. You may be on to something there. How about expanding

your thoughts in that regard. I'm interested.

[Ladyhawk]

64. I think people would find other things to fight about, but religion...

...provides both justification and alleviation of fear. If a soldier thinks he's going to heaven when he dies, he'll be a braver fighter.

"There are no atheists in foxholes."

To my mind that isn't an argument against atheists, but an argument against foxholes.

[Swamp Rat]

65. LOL!

"To my mind that isn't an argument against atheists, but an argument against foxholes." - where have I heard that before? :D

:hi:

[Ladyhawk]

68. I am not sure...but I've heard it before, too.

Hmmm...I'll have to look in my "quotes" file. :D

[demnan]

19. No, of course not

as soon as our loathsome species was able to pick up a rock and throw it, they did.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Sadly, we are yet to move far enough along the path of evolution

to a point where the penchant for war is out of our genes.

That said, we may be close. First comes enlightenment then comes change. I honestly believe that at least half the species is now enlightened.

If we could only change the other half's breeding habits ..........

[ladjf]

21. There is a prime tendency of all living things to expand and

dominate as far as possible in search of greater survival odds. In Nature a balance among those competing forces is established. Various dominions come and go as contexts change. The human propensity for war is probably a social extension of that ancient mandate.

If this is true, how should humans manage such a powerful instinct?
By examining the overall context in which they live, understanding how it got that way and objectively computing the survival odds of (a) continuing to cause wars and (b) developing more sophisticated processes of territorial disagreements that offer greater opportunities of survival and quality of life.

In an era of WMD, wars become globally lethal, literally threatening the survival of all life on Earth. No one in their right mind would start a war in which all will die.

The key here is to establish political mechanisms that guarantee that leaders are sane.

[AlienGirl]

25. Sure, right after Pan troglodytes does...

[adwon]

30. One way

The real genesis of war comes down to one extremely overlooked point: one side thinks it can force an easy military solution on another.

The short term solution to war is to make it unprofitable for aggressors. In other words, make a easy win near impossible.

The long term solution is to teach the basic morality of war: that it is irresponsible to begin or fight a war without an idea of the peace that is to follow. This doesn't mean just any idea, but it also does not mean a comprehensive plan.

Perhaps the focus should not be on forswearing war, which usually ends up with a bigger war, but on limiting wars. That was the focus of the Concert of Europe in the 19th century and it worked fairly well.

[Skinner]

31. I believe we will, and we already are.

We are currently living in a period of rapid cultural evolution. I know it does not seem rapid, but compared to the scale of biological evolution where change takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years, the current rate of change is downright breathtaking.

Our species loved -- and loves -- war because it (presumably) was "adaptive". In other words, the "love for war" meme (or gene) was more effective than the "dislike of war" meme (presumably because those who loved war were killing off or otherwise beating the "pacifists") and spread throughout the population. If the warmongers are having more babies than the pacifists, or if the warmongers are having greater success spreading the "love for war" meme, then it is going to spread throughout the population.

But these days, the trend is very different. Yes, there are still many, many people who love war, but the "love for war" meme is not doing nearly as well as it has in the past. For example, in the relatively short period of half a century, Europe has gone from almost constant war (to the point of militarily subjugating almost the entire planet) to relative peace. These days, the idea of Germany fighting a war with France is absolutely ridiculous. But for much of human history it was the normal state of affairs.

So, what is going on here? I have borrowed most of the ideas for this post from a very interesting book, "Nonzero" by Robert Wright. Wright argues quite convincingly that among humans, cultural evolution is working much faster than biological evolution, so even if we have a "love for war" gene, the "dislike of war" cultural meme can win out -- but only if it is adaptive. The evidence is that in fact, the dislike of war meme is quite adaptive.

For those of you with a background in game theory: Wright argues that recent human history has been characterized by movement away from zero-sum relationships (war) to non-zero-sum relationships (cooperation). A zero-sum relationship means that the success of one side depends on the failure of the other. But a non-zero-sum relationship means that the success of one side does not require the failure of the other. In fact, both sides must work together for mutual success.

Over recent history the most successful societies have been those that have learned to work together with other societies. Yes, many people in the United States are still enamored with war. But the United States' success has been largely based on our willingness to cooperate with other countries. We have very strong trade and cultural links with many, many other nations. Our connections are so strong, that it would be utterly ridiculous -- even suicidal -- if we were to attack most of these nations. I doubt any of us could imagine the United States attacking Europe, Japan, or Canada. In fact, it's hard to imagine the U.S. attacking most countries in places like Russia, Latin America, The Far East, Africa, or South Asia. We're to the point where we could only imagine war with countries were our relations are almost entirely adversarial (or zero-sum): Iraq, Iran, Cuba, North Korea being the obvious examples.

I believe the long-term trend is clear. As long as the reward for cooperation is greater than the reward for fighting, then the trend will be toward greater cooperation, interconnectedness, and tolerance. Yes, there are obvious exceptions to the trend, but the long-term trend is quite clear.

[Skinner]

51. No replies at all?

I think I'm the only one who expressed a contrary opinion here, and I've been ignored.

It's because I'm the admin, isn't it?

[Karenina]

54. Sei geduldig, Du!

Oh, you sensitive conductor types... :loveya:

[mopaul]

52. i'm an unfrozen caveman

and i agree that we are in culture shock. the 20th century saw stunning advances in technology and discovery and industry, it made all previous centuries look like scenes from dinosaur days. and along with the industrial revolution, our civil war and world war two saw the industrialization of warfare.

i think it's making us all crazy, cause it's largely unnatural, we're like caged animals, and they behave totally different than free animals. caged by our social rules and our ancient mythologies.

but, i'm trying to be optimistic like you, i envy the optimistic.
i'm trying to go for the star trek model, where we can all work together, no matter what color, creed, or planet of origin.

[Skinner]

60. I think there is something to this.

I agree that our current way of life is unnatural. Obviously, we evolved in a world without any of this crazy modern stuff, like industrialization and overpopulation.

[Baclava]

62. War is simply our natural agression to defend our territory.

Say...like...when your neighbor keeps puting his trashcan in front of your house and you want to bash him in the face?

Only..like...on a bigger scale.

They don't let us pee on the bushes to mark our land anymore...so this war thing happens.

Glad I could clear this up.

[Swamp Rat]

63. Folks said Malthus was nuts, or wrong, but he may have been right.

He essentially said that the human population would grow to a point so as to outstrip the world's resources needed to support it. Of course, he could not foresee technological advances that curb population, etc. but the last few decades of resource consumption may indeed foster unforseen circumstances, thus erecting the Malthusian Wall the critics have poo pooed all these years.

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

[Ron Green]

56. The long-term trend ...

I admire your optimism about the long-term prospects for the adaptation of the species toward the "dislike of war" meme. I think that each of us has both the fear necessary for the "love for war" and the Higher Self to promote the "dislike of war."

If we allow that the natural state of fear-based (time- and space- bound) humans is slavery, and the natural state of love-based (spiritual, or striving for connection with others) humans is enlightened liberal society, then the prospects for progress are dim, because although the meme may change due to adaptivity, the fact of our animal nature and primal fear will not go away, unless we were to evolve into some sort of spirit being without our animal bodies.

When I think of the Elizabethan period as perhaps one of more general enlightenment than today, I also remember the awful tortures and degradations that happened then. Along with the civility of small-town life where I grew up, there was the ugliness of segregation and racism.

In all, I believe that it's always been cyclical, and that Enlightenment comes and goes. Two concerns for me: 1) Our war making methodology has become frighteningly efficient, even to the point of removing much of the danger from killing others. If war is too easy, how in the hell can we try to love our enemies? 2) We have used up large parts of our planet in recent decades, and our philosophy hasn't caught up with this reality. The slavery/enlightenment cycle is disrupted by this finitude of resources.

I hope with you, but my fear is that the long term is not any better than it's ever been.

[Skinner]

59. I don't necessarily think of my POV as depending on enlightenment.

I suppose that is one way to put it. I think of it more as a sort of cost-benefit analysis. While this is obviously a good/bad or moral/immoral thing, I don't think that the morality is the deciding factor. Ultimately, war will be less common as long as the costs of war outweigh the benefits.

In that sense, your point about the efficiency of war is extremely important. I suspect there may be a threshhold of "efficiency" where the benefits of war start to once again outweigh the costs. For example, going entirely to a system of unmanned warmaking robots would remove some of the human cost for the aggressor, and make it easier to go to war.

But keep in mind that no matter how efficient we make war, there will always be huge costs -- as long as we are locked into relationships of mutual benefit. For example, even if we could reduce the *military* cost of attacking, say, Canada, to effectively zero, we would still have the huge economic cost of severing most of our economic and social ties.

So, I think if we want the trend to keep going in the same direction, we need to do what we can to 1) keep the cost of war high, and 2) encourage greater economic and social integration.

[Karenina]

66. Na Du, DA

Rapid does not BEGIN to describe our jet-winds. The speed of technological developement has outstipped our ability to evaluate ANYTHING.

Beam Me Up Donating member (1000+ posts) Sun Apr-03-05 05:47 PM
29. Because

a) Most of us are too busy earning a living or too tied into the system in one way or another to rock the boat.

b) The full significance of what is happening (theocratic fascism) hasn't hit us yet and when it does it will be too late.

c) The CON keeps us distracted with all sorts of emotional issues that have no relevance to what is actually going down.

d) The extreme right wing has been working for years to gain control of all that it has: executive, congress, judiciary, media and military, CIA, etc., and have pretty much gotten everything they wanted. All that is left is US.

e) They have stolen elections and they've done this by not allowing the majority of people see that they ARE a majority. We do not get an accurate reflection of ourselves as a society in the mirror of the corporate owned news media; they portray us as they want us to see ourselves--which is as a diverse and disorganized group of issues and opinions.

f) They have compromised many political and other public figures with blackmail.

g) They have successfully marginalized much of our leadership--and when they haven't been able to do that, they have assassinated them either figuratively or out-right.

e) They control vast amounts of wealth and influence in circles that you and I have no access to--including international criminal sendicates.

%%%HOWEVER%%%

I somehow refuse to accept that those of us who have already or are willing and able to make the paradigm shift are too small a minority.
The reward for cooperation is LIFE. The reward for violence is... exponentially increasing violence.

[Squeech]

32. Good question

Barbara Ehrenreich, of Nickled and Dimed fame, had written another book called Blood Rites, which I read last year. The premise is that the human race keeps making war out of a weird allegiance to our collective memory of what happened to us in our evolution. When we first came down out of the trees we were especially vulnerable to predation from larger and/or tougher animals-- sabertoothed tigers would kill and eat us, woolly mammoths would trample us, etc. But as we evolved brains and social skills, learned to use tools and to talk about hunting tactics, we got the upper hand over the other animals and established ourselves as the top predators in the food chain. War is our way of re-enacting our manifest destiny of species dominance, she says, as evidenced by certain myths that pop up in widely diverse cultures. Ehrenreich's argument is complicated, and I should add that my friend with the Ph.D. in anthropology thinks it's specious, but I think it's a really interesting discussion.

[gollygee]

41. We'll have constant war until the oil is gone

We fight over stuff and land. Right now it's stuff. Maybe later it'll be land.

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. It's NEVER going to happen.

Human beings are, in general, despite evolution, not very far removed from the lower primates...especially as regards social organisation. ""War" as we think of it is a characteristic of social animals. So long as humans continue to organise themselves in groups, we'll continue to have war, to some greater or lesser extent.

[mopaul]

47. alexander, hannibal, the romans, cortez, ghengis khan, hitler, stalin, mao

bush. almost like the ants and other insects: ants have a queen/mother/leader, workers, architects, hunters, nurses, and armies, that invade, conquer, and exploit everything in their path, expanding ever outward.

and look how successful and lengthy their history is.

[THUNDER HANDS]

44. as soon as all the men die off, sure

and women rule the planet.

THen of course, there will be the inevitable wars over bargain prices and sales. :evilgrin: So maybe not.

[One_Life_To_Give]

46. No, but occasionally will accept

diplomacy instead. Which is just war by other means.

[mopaul]

53. ........

..........

[BrotherBuzz]

55. 'She who must be obeyed' says....

as soon as we return to a matriarchal society, we will lose our taste for war. Hmmm, she's never wrong, either.

[leftofthedial]

58. I think not

primates are tribal and often violent

they also tend to structure the tribe along lines of hierarchical domination that create violence internally

With our big brains, we overexploit available resources, which adds pressure to the competition between tribes. We're out of new supplies of natural resources.

Despite our big briains, throughout our history whenever the species starts to develop a wise intellectual progressive movement, fundamentalist superstition and intolerance rises to destroy it.

I am 100% pessimistic about the future of our species.

[yodermon]

61. There is a perfectly reasonable psychological explanation for war.

Stop wringing your hands.

http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln06_war.html
Lengthy article, worth the read. As are other articles on this site.

War as Righteous Rape and Purification

Happy people don't start wars. They don't need "purifying" or "liberation," and their everyday lives are already full of hope and meaning, so they don't need a war to save them from anything.

What sort of strange emotional disorder is it that war cleanses, liberates and saves people from? And how can killing, raping and torturing people be acts that purify and restore hope in life? Obviously war is a serious psychopathological condition, a recurring human behavior pattern whose motives and causes have yet to be examined on any but the most superficial levels of analysis.

STANDARD THEORIES OF CAUSATION OF WAR
All standard theories of war deny that it is an emotional disorder at all.1 War, unlike individual violence, is usually seen solely as a response to events outside the individual. Nations that start wars are not considered emotionally disturbed--they are either considered as rational or they are "evil," a religious category. Although homicide and suicide are now studied as clinical disorders,2 war, unfortunately, is not.

Most historians of war have given up in advance any attempt to understand its causes, claiming "it is simply not the historian's business to give explanations."3 Genocide, in particular, appears outside the universe of research into motivations, since if one tries to understand Holocaust perpetrators, one is said to "give up one's right to blame them." At best, historians avoid the psychodynamics of the perpetrators of wars entirely, saying, "Leave motivation to the psychologists."4

The standard explanations given for war by political scientists and anthropologists equally avoid clinical understanding. Instead, they break down war causes into three general categories:

1. Instincts and Other Tautologies..<snip>
2. Greed as a Motive for War .. <snip>
3. Stress Theories of War .. <snip>

THE NEUROBIOLOGY OF VIOLENCE
People start wars when something changes in their brains, neurotransmitters, hormones and cellular neuropeptide systems.47 This "something" is the result of a developmental process that begins before birth and is turned into a capacity for violence during childhood. Contrary to the views of Freud and Piaget, children are actually quite empathic toward others from birth if treated well. Neonates cry in response to the crying of another baby; "even 6-month-olds...responded to distressed peers with actions such as leaning toward, gesturing toward, touching or otherwise contacting the peer."48 Babies who are treated well can be quite generous with their love, gently touching and patting other babies and even their mothers when they notice they look sad.

But the majority of children throughout history--particularly boys, who are physically and emotionally abused more than girls--feel so helpless and afraid that they grow up in what has been called a "culture of cruelty,"49 where they graduated from violent families to form gangs and try to dominate and hurt each other in order to be perpetrators rather than victims, thereby preparing themselves for cooperating in the violence of war. In one study, for instance, Lewis and Pincus report "a significantly greater proportion of very violent children demonstrated...paranoid symptomology (and) believed that someone was going to hurt them...constantly feeling the need to carry weapons such as guns and metal pipes for their own protection..."50 The more violent children, Lewis reports, "had been physically abused by mothers, fathers, stepparents, other relatives and ‘friends' of the family. The degree of abuse to which they were subjected was often extraordinary. One parent broke her son's legs with a broom; another broke his fingers and his sister's arm; another chained and burned his son; and yet another threw his son downstairs...Several children witnessed their fathers, stepfathers, or mothers' boyfriends slash their mothers with knives. They saw their siblings tortured with cigarette butts, chained to beds, and thrown into walls."51 Severe neglect and emotional abuse have been shown to be equivalent to and often worse than physical abuse in producing lasting traumatic effects upon children.52

[Contrary1]

67. My species has,

but then we have that other species...the "Compassionate Conservatives".

[Karenina]

69. I can say with certainty

that those who have had bombs dropped on their heads overwhelmingly find WAR abhorrent. It's only YOU, whose gub'mint controls the most powerful military in the world, who seem confused... :shrug:

[porphyrian]

70. I'm not holding my breath.

It probably won't be in my lifetime, but I'm keeping my ear to the ground.