Like other scientific subjects, especially if they are related to the human species, and primarily by human behavior, and war is the source of so-called scientific mystifications. But what is war?? Organized killing of members of the same species. Why is this happening??
First of all, which aroused the greatest interest, it is why the human species has no special mechanisms to avoid killing congeners. In other species, during the confrontations, individuals do not use their lethal weapons with their own congeners. Pictures of scorpions, the crabs, even fighting stags, avoiding getting stung, fatally slash or stab, are very well known and treated as examples in the sense of avoiding the use of the most dangerous natural weapons with members of one's own species.
As possible answers to this question, quoted many times, there are several possible causes, presented in ethology courses. The first is the distance the weapons give, especially fire ones. The distance between the combatants makes them no longer see the specific signs of submission of the weaker opponent, which would normally end the fight in other species. Firearms were, in their time highly criticized for their ability to kill in mass. If only those critics could see what it has come to now, when remotely controlled cars, even autonomous, sunt trimise să ucidă… Se consideră și acum, that the number of victims would be much higher, if the man were no longer involved in the decision to shoot. Cars are more psychopathic than psychopaths, from which the professional soldiers are recruited. If we think about the involvement of machines in war, only in the last world wars (I hope they are the very last ones), we have a picture of what the distance between combatants can do. Cars introduce not only a physical distance, but also a mental one. The robots, even if much more rudimentary than in science fiction films, they have proven in reality what they can do when they lead...wars.
However, people killed each other before, although, to quote an American journalist, Joseph Sobran, „bucată cu bucată”. But let's remember: on another level. However, Why? Un alt motiv important vehiculat ar fi ce se cheamă „pseudospeciație”, that is, the decay of foreigners from the quality of human beings. If often foreigners, enemies, it doesn't look very different (how much racism simplifies things!), cultural aspects play an important role. The Celts were animals, they were just sleeping on the floor, as a Roman commander showed his soldiers. So they could be killed without mercy. In general, the enemy is animal because of culture, religion or practices, rituals etc. Taboos are usually invoked in this regard. And what incredible sexual practices have been attributed to Jews or blacks! But what's interesting, and they did the same with christians/whites etc. It would be very interesting to know why white women have large dogs in the eyes of Africans.
Another reason people kill other people is…indoctrination. I mean the boss or a leader (spiritual?) convince the soldiers that they must kill the enemy. And the people, unlike other species, they can be indoctrinated very easily. How the experiments show, children are more gullible than chimpanzees. When they learned to open a box in several steps, some useless, the children followed the ritual faithfully, including unnecessary steps, while the chimpanzees removed them without problems.
People are easily indoctrinated, it is believed, precisely because of neoteny, that is, the maintenance of some characteristics of an embryo or a child in an adult. Man would learn for a long time because of this neoteny. Chickens are receptive, they learn, adults are less malleable. Neoteny would make humans submissive, I submitted, which would help them learn, but also to be easy to indoctrinate.
Ceva ce se discută puțin este că oamenii ucid… pentru bani. Most people who are currently involved in wars are doing it for money. And let's not forget, wars bring money. Now most armies are made up of mercenaries, paid soldiers, men and women. Who does such a thing now?? If you look at the US military, but not only, it is known. In a report on Lake Victoria, an extremely poor local saw only one solution to escape from poverty: a war. Because war is paid even there. This shows how easy it would be to end wars. And how complicated, if we think about financier relations.
Înainte „meseria armelor” era ceva ce îmbrățișau oamenii săraci, from poor areas, mountain, such as Albania a few centuries ago, Croatia, but also Greece, including Ancient Athens. After the terrible battles of Marathon and Salamis, perhaps the Persian armies were defeated, but not in the long run. Athenian democracy also disappeared in that many Athenians became mercenaries for the….Persians. It's hard to maintain a lifestyle, even an ideal organization system in the era, in poverty.
People kill for money. Hungry. Thousands of years have done this and are still doing it. It is interesting that in a book published during the communist dictatorship („Lumea hitiților” de Margarate Riemschneider) I found in the preface disputing this fact. Not, the war was not fought for resources, but it was a phenomenon resulting from the struggle of the dominant classes. This is what Marxism predicted, considered science (because Marx and Engels wanted to understand society on a scientific basis, before even biologists). In communism it followed, according to the predictions of Marxist theory, let there be no more war. Probably only in communism, but it seems that socialism was not yet ready for this, see Chinese and Cambodians, the Chinese and the Soviets. Maybe the ruling classes in those states were to blame...
It is in human nature to kill one's fellow man? Apparently so. forensics, here I quote the psychologist Tudorel Butoi, they say anyone can kill. Under certain conditions, most often in self-defense. Although at war, when possible, apparently many avoided doing it. But it is not true that only people kill each other. Lions do it, the chimpanzees do it in something that closely resembles what war is for us. Konrad Lorenz spune în cartea lui despre agresivitate „Așa-zisul rău” că de fapt oamenii ucid tocmai că sunt niște ființe atât de slab dotate pentru…a ucide. They do not have mechanisms to mitigate the effects on congeners precisely because they do not have redoubtable weapons. An evolutionary slip-up made us criminals, precisely because we are skinny monkeys.
That our relatives, the chimpanzees, they are also capable of such a thing, it wouldn't be a surprise. But one may say that lions have no lethal weapons? My hypothesis, expusă în „Civilizația foametei” este că motivul este ceea ce popular se numește putere de concentrare, that is, a narrowing of the field of consciousness. It's like when you can't see anything around you, only the thing that interests you.
In man, as in other animals, there are natural inhibitions against harming congeners, which manifests itself not only by perceiving signals of submission, but also of the serious situation in which an individual finds himself (injured). Humans have an innate inhibition to deal certain blows, which is overcome through training. Martial arts practitioners know the problem all too well. People learn to ignore these stimuli. For some it is easier, some can more easily ignore environmental stimuli, even if they have a strong emotional impact. Random, psychopaths are among these people. Narrowing the field of consciousness is easier for them. Not by chance, psychopaths often become mercenaries, spies (but also CEOs or surgeons) for this reason, pe lângă alte „calități” ale lor, such as risk appetite. But it seems that not only psychopaths have this quality. It could be a quality of people who pursue long-term goals?
Lions are animals that walk through fire in the circus. For animals, to ignore the fear of fire, to learn to ignore this fear, is a performance. On the other hand, lions are animals that must hunt, to risk, and who often face hunger. The ability to focus on certain stimuli, ignoring others, would represent an advantage in their environment.
Under these conditions, would be the ability to kill people the price they would pay for their other qualities?
Why there is aggression in animals? According to some well-known assumptions (Lorenz), its role would be to regulate population density. Animals disperse in the environment because of or to avoid conflict. But ultimately resource crises are at the root of aggression. That resources are food or access to sexual partners, it's about resources. But as I said, animals have the means to regulate these conflicts, simpler or more complex, depending on the species. There are specific rituals that reduce intraspecific violence (that is, the aggression shown). Violence is a behavioral failure, a defect in the regulation of interactions. Some species manage to be extremely gentle indoors, although those species are highly accomplished hunters (some canids). Unfortunately, the great primates are not among them.
Chimpanzees kill each other in a way similar to what we would call war, keeping the proportions. When there is tension between the males in the group, when grooming doesn't seem to be enough, atunci masculii pornesc într-un fel de expediții în afara grupului, which results in the killing of some males outside the group. The violence is extreme, very similar to what happens in the lynching scenes. In this case, violence serves to de-tension the male group, to strengthen the relations between them, maintain or modify hierarchies.
We can deduce that this role would also exist in humans? And, ample evidence suggests that it does. Certain groups of males resort to behaviors very similar to chimpanzees. It's not just neighborhood gangs that behave like groups of chimpanzees, but also some political leaders use war to regulate hierarchies among themselves. Cartea „Capcana lui Tucidide” de Graham Allison pare extrem de transparentă în acest sens. He talks about Russia and China like neighborhood gangs or groups of chimpanzees who have to settle their hierarchy with each other through war. Historical data shows that country beta, to speak in ethological language, attack the alpha country, to establish a new hierarchy. As if they were packs of dogs…
This is civilization, in the conditions where there are hunter-gatherer societies that fight in…gifts? Eibl-Eibesfeldt în „Agresivitatea umană” vorbește de astfel de societăți, some being in Papua New Guinea. They raise pigs to give to rival bosses. Terrible humiliation to receive more pigs than you can give!
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, who was Konrad Lorenz's student, he says that all the societies he studied experienced war. But there are societies with a warrior ideal (like ours) and societies with a pacific ideal. Those with a pacific ideal have such complicated rituals to regulate entry into war that war becomes highly improbable. Among the societies with a pacific ideal are the Inuit. One reason for the very pacifist character was the fact that they would be heterogeneous, would result from the union of several populations. But in Eibesfeldt's book, but neither in others, nu am văzut o comparație între societățile matriliniare și cele patriliniare, as a warrior ideal. Inuit, at least some societies, they are matrilineal. That is, women inherit rank and wealth. In matrilineal societies, even if the boss is a woman, the issue of war is also men's. Kabyles are matrilineal, but very warlike, according to Leo Frobenius (African culture). But in general, probably matrilineal cultures, even if they also knew the war, they were probably more peaceful. And especially, they were probably less successful in war. This would be the main reason why they have become so rare. Most, as was the Cretan civilization, were defeated by more primitive patriarchal societies, but more warlike.
There is hope for us, as primates, to avoid war in the future? If bonobos manage to be very peaceful thanks to female solidarity that prevents acts of violence, it could be a hope for us too. The numerous traditional hunter-gatherer societies would again be proof that societies can become gentler. Their variety, as well as the solutions they brought including to the problem of war, shows that human society can evolve in many ways.
In recent centuries, western societies have become less and less violent. Apart from poverty reduction, of inequality, increasing the level of education, probably also increasing the role of women in society, including participation in social and political life, they had a role. Women make war very well, when needed (as if ever?), as history shows. Studies show that they, even if they don't make more wars, they are more efficient in accumulating territories. Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great are clear examples. But those queens operated in patriarchal systems, that is, the rules were made by men.
Violence in society can be reduced by reducing traditional male socialization (the formation of gangs, with hierarchies similar to those of chimpanzees). But, as history shows, reducing violence in society does not necessarily lead to the avoidance of wars. Recent history, not only of Europe, shows the opposite. Japan is a very peaceful society. And what a warrior she turned out to be in the 20th century! But if there is a warrior caste, where the same rules and hierarchies apply, things will not change. Probably the actual participation of women in politics, otherwise creating high-level interactions and hierarchies, could change things.
