People will fight over an abundance of resources. When there's a lack, they pull together and help each other. Why has America caused war for since WW2 when they were the richest nation in the world? Not because they lacked resources.
David Swanson's premise "war is not natural" and the interviewer's point are kinda agreeing, but both having what strikes me as two conversations. David, while not agreeing organized, large scale, societal war is not popular in human history, but violence is. The interviewer, David's premise isn't denying that violence is very much what you say, evidence of an eternal human tool, used against animals and definitely used against other humans in grand time, as conditions encouraged it.
Look I am VERY against war, but to claim that most tribes dont do war sounds crazy. One stat I heard was that 90% of tribes when asked went to war in the previous year. Far from being the exception it might be the rule, especially where resources are limited...
Much of the argument being made is based on certain assumptions about how war is defined. I believe that any conflict between two or more individuals can be catagorized as war. Such conflicts arises out of the primal and naturally competitive nature of all humans. The actual foundation of war, is then driven by certain aspects of dominance behaviours which are also present in other species. Human intelligence allows us to project the fearful primal thoughts, which dirve all conflict into a more abstract construct which are unique to us. The primal instinct to fight for food, mates or dominance expands and becomes a part of a shared cultural paradigm. It is this shared paradigm which allows the idea of war to take root within a specific culture, at a given time, with the right circumstances. Leaders are generally selected because they are understand the cultural paradigm which forms a collective national identity. They can use that understancing to influence behviour. By drawing on deeply embedded, instinctive patters of thought, they can manipulate thinking and perception and in so doing tap into the most primative and ancient part of our human consciousness. So called dominance behaviour is what causes riots at soccer matches, gang violence, or any other mass acts of violent behaviour. War is simply a more calculated and controlled expression of these more chaotic examples of basic primal behaviours. We should not be surprised that those with an understanding of this natural behviour are able to manipulate and exploit it to their own ends. War, in my opinion is nothing more or less than dominance behviour played out on a large scale. It is a scaled up bar fight and equally pointless.
If there was no wars, Malthus would have been proved right i.e. the population growth will be such that there won't be enough land to grow the food that we would need and we would starve.
There are two aspects to war. The perpetrators (cultural) and the enablers (human nature). The perpetrators we are all familiar with. They are the powerful liars who get others to fight and die. The enablers are the key aspect. They either do nothing about war or they participate on the battle field. Those who do nothing see war as happening to someone else and are practitioners of the saddest aspect of human nature - indifference.
This was more debate than interview. One could argue that tribal wars were as much culture as today's marketed versions of war. But the point was lost in the interviewer's insisting on his own view.
Here is a good read for David and you both if you haven't read it yet. www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/about/index.html David, I have heard that over the last 3,000 years there has been roughly 365 years where the entire world was at peace; no one at war with anyone. This gathered together three months here a couple of months there. Is that untrue? Here is a link to the documentary Guns, Germs and steel. Guns, Germs, & Steel - EP1: Out of Eden (2005)
This discussion claiming native tribes fought each other - is inaccurate - natives version of "war" was more like a boxing match in many cases, the plains natives such as the lakota and dakota skirmished. You would hit another man with a stick non lethally ( a coup), chief plenty coups. Look it up.
But beyond culture there is common human nature as one species 99.8% the same which emerged from one geographic area in recent times, anthropologically speaking, and as in basic needs (sustenance, shelter, community, purpose), common morals (protect the group/family, organize, killing is almost always wrong, etc.), a spiritual need or wonder or oneness with nature and enjoyment of ritual, music, laughter, tears, treatment of the dead etc. Does war come more from culture or tribal nature? A certain Yale professor about 20 years ago wrote a book arguing after examining wars over 3,000 years or so that pride and perceived slights, then propagandized, within a delimited culture writ large (Persians, Germanic peoples, etc.) had more to do with war than reason, needs, or objectives.
To say that all of those cultures were warlike because they engaged in was is not logical. those tribes and nations were still not at war 97 to 99% of the time. War is the exception. It is the failure of leadership, and the failure of morality and order.
Bloodshed is very much part of nature. However, it is a rather recent development in the course of evolution, for it to be a months to years long uninterrupted back and forth of attacks. Yet, now that our species has developed a taste for sending youth into this vortex of blood, it is more likely to escalate into a global way of life. This will be the future of those we would send into this world after us..
No war in Australia huh? What exactly is this statement based on? Study of the Aboriginal Australian Murngin people in the late 19th century found that over a 20-year period no less than 200 out of 800 men, or 25% of all adult males, had been killed in intertribal warfare.
I agree war is cultural but ... Australia lacked war until Europeans brought it here? Sorry mate, try reading a few dream time stories for a start. Ullaru is supposed to be red because of the blood of the dead from a massive battle. "The Three Sisters" turned to stone by the tribal magician while he and the rest of the tribe fought another tribe to stop them taking the three women. The magician died in the battle which is why the three women are still stone today and now a major tourist attraction. Then you have the largest aboriginal nation the Waragni. For people "unused to war" they picked it up pretty quickly when settlers crossed the blue mountains and some of them started treating them like shit. All those shields, spears and boomerangs specifically designed for war lying around meant several farms were massacred. They did leave the nicer Europeans settlers alone though. Aboriginal nations resisted the European settlement violently and with some initial success all over the continent. I'm sorry but if your going to talk about "the teaching of past wars being inacurate" do some research into Aboriginal conflict and get your facts straight.
Much of the argument being made is based on certain assumptions about how war is defined. I believe that any conflict between two or more individuals can be catagorized as war. Such conflicts arises out of the primal and naturally competitive nature of all humans. The actual foundation of war, is then driven by certain aspects of dominance behaviours which are also present in other species. Human intelligence allows us to project the fearful primal thoughts, which dirve all conflict into a more abstract construct which are unique to us. The primal instinct to fight for food, mates or dominance expands and becomes a part of a shared cultural paradigm. It is this shared paradigm which allows the idea of war to take root within a specific culture, at a given time, with the right circumstances. Leaders are generally selected because they are understand the cultural paradigm which forms a collective national identity. They can use that understancing to influence behviour. By drawing on deeply embedded, instinctive patters of thought, they can manipulate thinking and perception and in so doing tap into the most primative and ancient part of our human consciousness. So called dominance behaviour is what causes riots at soccer matches, gang violence, or any other mass acts of violent behaviour. War is simply a more calculated and controlled expression of these more chaotic examples of basic primal behaviours. We should not be surprised that those with an understanding of this natural behviour are able to manipulate and exploit it to their own ends. War, in my opinion is nothing more or less than dominance behviour played out on a large scale. It is a scaled up bar fight and equally pointless.
Much of the argument being made is based on certain assumptions about how war is defined. I believe that any conflict between two or more individuals can be catagorized as war. Such conflicts arises out of the primal and naturally competitive nature of all humans. The actual foundation of war, is then driven by certain aspects of dominance behaviours which are also present in other species. Human intelligence allows us to project the fearful primal thoughts, which dirve all conflict into a more abstract construct which are unique to us. The primal instinct to fight for food, mates or dominance expands and becomes a part of a shared cultural paradigm. It is this shared paradigm which allows the idea of war to take root within a specific culture, at a given time, with the right circumstances. Leaders are generally selected because they are understand the cultural paradigm which forms a collective national identity. They can use that understancing to influence behviour. By drawing on deeply embedded, instinctive patters of thought, they can manipulate thinking and perception and in so doing tap into the most primative and ancient part of our human consciousness. So called dominance behaviour is what causes riots at soccer matches, gang violence, or any other mass acts of violent behaviour. War is simply a more calculated and controlled expression of these more chaotic examples of basic primal behaviours. We should not be surprised that those with an understanding of this natural behviour are able to manipulate and exploit it to their own ends. War, in my opinion is nothing more or less than dominance behviour played out on a large scale. It is a scaled up bar fight and equally pointless.
Good talk, an actual discussion, I like that. Good job, Paul.
People will fight over an abundance of resources. When there's a lack, they pull together and help each other. Why has America caused war for since WW2 when they were the richest nation in the world? Not because they lacked resources.
nothing more to be said....
David Swanson's premise "war is not natural" and the interviewer's point are kinda agreeing, but both having what strikes me as two conversations. David, while not agreeing organized, large scale, societal war is not popular in human history, but violence is. The interviewer, David's premise isn't denying that violence is very much what you say, evidence of an eternal human tool, used against animals and definitely used against other humans in grand time, as conditions encouraged it.
Look I am VERY against war, but to claim that most tribes dont do war sounds crazy. One stat I heard was that 90% of tribes when asked went to war in the previous year. Far from being the exception it might be the rule, especially where resources are limited...
Great, thank you
Much of the argument being made is based on certain assumptions about how war is defined. I believe that any conflict between two or more individuals can be catagorized as war. Such conflicts arises out of the primal and naturally competitive nature of all humans. The actual foundation of war, is then driven by certain aspects of dominance behaviours which are also present in other species.
Human intelligence allows us to project the fearful primal thoughts, which dirve all conflict into a more abstract construct which are unique to us. The primal instinct to fight for food, mates or dominance expands and becomes a part of a shared cultural paradigm. It is this shared paradigm which allows the idea of war to take root within a specific culture, at a given time, with the right circumstances.
Leaders are generally selected because they are understand the cultural paradigm which forms a collective national identity. They can use that understancing to influence behviour. By drawing on deeply embedded, instinctive patters of thought, they can manipulate thinking and perception and in so doing tap into the most primative and ancient part of our human consciousness.
So called dominance behaviour is what causes riots at soccer matches, gang violence, or any other mass acts of violent behaviour. War is simply a more calculated and controlled expression of these more chaotic examples of basic primal behaviours.
We should not be surprised that those with an understanding of this natural behviour are able to manipulate and exploit it to their own ends. War, in my opinion is nothing more or less than dominance behviour played out on a large scale. It is a scaled up bar fight and equally pointless.
If there was no wars, Malthus would have been proved right i.e. the population growth will be such that there won't be enough land to grow the food that we would need and we would starve.
There are two aspects to war. The perpetrators (cultural) and the enablers (human nature). The perpetrators we are all familiar with. They are the powerful liars who get others to fight and die. The enablers are the key aspect. They either do nothing about war or they participate on the battle field. Those who do nothing see war as happening to someone else and are practitioners of the saddest aspect of human nature - indifference.
This was more debate than interview. One could argue that tribal wars were as much culture as today's marketed versions of war. But the point was lost in the interviewer's insisting on his own view.
It's the criminals taking advantage of people's ignorance
If interested in the nature of humans have a look at D.Fry. "Beyond war". I found it very interesting.
Can I have a summary of this video
War what it is good for, absolutely nothing
So what's wrong with the death penalty?
The Real News should look into the videogame Bioshock Infinite.
Here is a good read for David and you both if you haven't read it yet. www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/about/index.html
David, I have heard that over the last 3,000 years there has been roughly 365 years where the entire world was at peace; no one at war with anyone. This gathered together three months here a couple of months there. Is that untrue? Here is a link to the documentary Guns, Germs and steel.
Guns, Germs, & Steel - EP1: Out of Eden (2005)
Nationalize the finance sector
This discussion claiming native tribes fought each other - is inaccurate - natives version of "war" was more like a boxing match in many cases, the plains natives such as the lakota and dakota skirmished. You would hit another man with a stick non lethally ( a coup), chief plenty coups. Look it up.
But beyond culture there is common human nature as one species 99.8% the same which emerged from one geographic area in recent times, anthropologically speaking, and as in basic needs (sustenance, shelter, community, purpose), common morals (protect the group/family, organize, killing is almost always wrong, etc.), a spiritual need or wonder or oneness with nature and enjoyment of ritual, music, laughter, tears, treatment of the dead etc. Does war come more from culture or tribal nature? A certain Yale professor about 20 years ago wrote a book arguing after examining wars over 3,000 years or so that pride and perceived slights, then propagandized, within a delimited culture writ large (Persians, Germanic peoples, etc.) had more to do with war than reason, needs, or objectives.
To say that all of those cultures were warlike because they engaged in was is not logical. those tribes and nations were still not at war 97 to 99% of the time. War is the exception. It is the failure of leadership, and the failure of morality and order.
Ask a lion and a gazelle if war is part of nature
Bloodshed is very much part of nature. However, it is a rather recent development in the course of evolution, for it to be a months to years long uninterrupted back and forth of attacks. Yet, now that our species has developed a taste for sending youth into this vortex of blood, it is more likely to escalate into a global way of life. This will be the future of those we would send into this world after us..
No war in Australia huh? What exactly is this statement based on? Study of the Aboriginal Australian Murngin people in the late 19th century found that over a 20-year period no less than 200 out of 800 men, or 25% of all adult males, had been killed in intertribal warfare.
I agree war is cultural but ... Australia lacked war until Europeans brought it here? Sorry mate, try reading a few dream time stories for a start. Ullaru is supposed to be red because of the blood of the dead from a massive battle. "The Three Sisters" turned to stone by the tribal magician while he and the rest of the tribe fought another tribe to stop them taking the three women. The magician died in the battle which is why the three women are still stone today and now a major tourist attraction. Then you have the largest aboriginal nation the Waragni. For people "unused to war" they picked it up pretty quickly when settlers crossed the blue mountains and some of them started treating them like shit. All those shields, spears and boomerangs specifically designed for war lying around meant several farms were massacred. They did leave the nicer Europeans settlers alone though. Aboriginal nations resisted the European settlement violently and with some initial success all over the continent. I'm sorry but if your going to talk about "the teaching of past wars being inacurate" do some research into Aboriginal conflict and get your facts straight.
Completely Random? Is you f×cking kidding me?
It goes much deeper than cultural acceptance , sorry , but this is useless resoning as much as its nice to hear.
Much of the argument being made is based on certain assumptions about how war is defined. I believe that any conflict between two or more individuals can be catagorized as war. Such conflicts arises out of the primal and naturally competitive nature of all humans. The actual foundation of war, is then driven by certain aspects of dominance behaviours which are also present in other species.
Human intelligence allows us to project the fearful primal thoughts, which dirve all conflict into a more abstract construct which are unique to us. The primal instinct to fight for food, mates or dominance expands and becomes a part of a shared cultural paradigm. It is this shared paradigm which allows the idea of war to take root within a specific culture, at a given time, with the right circumstances.
Leaders are generally selected because they are understand the cultural paradigm which forms a collective national identity. They can use that understancing to influence behviour. By drawing on deeply embedded, instinctive patters of thought, they can manipulate thinking and perception and in so doing tap into the most primative and ancient part of our human consciousness.
So called dominance behaviour is what causes riots at soccer matches, gang violence, or any other mass acts of violent behaviour. War is simply a more calculated and controlled expression of these more chaotic examples of basic primal behaviours.
We should not be surprised that those with an understanding of this natural behviour are able to manipulate and exploit it to their own ends. War, in my opinion is nothing more or less than dominance behviour played out on a large scale. It is a scaled up bar fight and equally pointless.
Much of the argument being made is based on certain assumptions about how war is defined. I believe that any conflict between two or more individuals can be catagorized as war. Such conflicts arises out of the primal and naturally competitive nature of all humans. The actual foundation of war, is then driven by certain aspects of dominance behaviours which are also present in other species.
Human intelligence allows us to project the fearful primal thoughts, which dirve all conflict into a more abstract construct which are unique to us. The primal instinct to fight for food, mates or dominance expands and becomes a part of a shared cultural paradigm. It is this shared paradigm which allows the idea of war to take root within a specific culture, at a given time, with the right circumstances.
Leaders are generally selected because they are understand the cultural paradigm which forms a collective national identity. They can use that understancing to influence behviour. By drawing on deeply embedded, instinctive patters of thought, they can manipulate thinking and perception and in so doing tap into the most primative and ancient part of our human consciousness.
So called dominance behaviour is what causes riots at soccer matches, gang violence, or any other mass acts of violent behaviour. War is simply a more calculated and controlled expression of these more chaotic examples of basic primal behaviours.
We should not be surprised that those with an understanding of this natural behviour are able to manipulate and exploit it to their own ends. War, in my opinion is nothing more or less than dominance behviour played out on a large scale. It is a scaled up bar fight and equally pointless.