We have been discussing a lot in class about what causes war. I our debate the other day about whether war was an inherent part of human nature, religious / ethnic differences, necessity (i.e. resources), defense (retaliation), and imperialism were all brought up as possible reasons for starting a war. Real world examples of the initiators include:
Religious / Ethnic Differences: Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
Defense: Americas responds to the attack on Pearl Harbor by entering WWII
Imperialism: Ottoman Empire spreads through Europe
Necessity: Iraq Invades Kuwait for oil
I know these are probably not the best example but they are the ones that I am most familiar with.
As you can see, these example spawn from very early in history to only fifty years ago. Therefore, these factors have clearly been with us for most of our history. The question still remains however, is this an inherent quality of humans?
First of all, I can not answer this question and I don't think anyone can absolutely, because no one knows what the nature of the first human was. However, I would say that it is an inherent quality of ours to be superior to others. Do not take this to be a negative connotation. In a biological viewpoint, it is a survival mechanism. In the modern world, it may give us the edge in getting good grades or attaining a job. So how do we settle disputes if humans strive to be better than one another? War. War is a medium in which one side WILL lose and one side WILL win, and thus it is often times the most efficient way of getting conflicts resolved.
Therefore, humans do not inherently wage war, but rather war is the most efficient medium with which to attain supremacy, which is inherently human.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Connor, I don't think you could have worded your views any better. This is truly a great post. I agree with you, almost entirely. I think you're right on when you say we, as humans, have the need to be superior to others. War, as you state, has simply become the way for us to state our dominance.
In my post, I talk about similar ideas. I think the reason we have accepted war as the medium to resolve conflicts because it is the most extreme way to do so. Because of this, nations essentially must be prepared to either defend an attack or they see this as the best way to defeat an opponent. Because, let's face it, conflicts will not be settled through a chess game.
This is the last post for me to read, and i think you captured some really good ideas in it. Perhaps war is not inherently human, but the factors that cause it certainly are: greed, differences, necessity, defense... All humans feel those factors influence them in some way. The difference is how we each react to them.
Connor, I agree with you completely. War is just the extreme form of human nature, which includes violence, aggression and greed. It is exactly what I have been saying, that war is a result of human nature, you just said it better than I could. And Mikey, I agree when you say conflicts will not be solved through a game of chess. History has forced nations to build armies and navies and they are not going to go unused.
You did a great job backing up your points with specific examples. The issues of war as a part of human nature is debatable and without one clear answer. I do agree with your claim that humans have the need to be superior to others. This statement can even be extended to different countries, religions and faiths. There is a constant battle for people to be superior and prosper above all others. The idea of war exemplifies humans asserting their power over one another. Different issues cause war, but in the end humans have conjured this format to resolve conflicts and problems. Are these conflicts a part of our human nature that forces us to go to the extreme resolution of war?
Well said Connor. I think your examples are really solid and your argument supports them well. I think your post goes along well with mine in saying that war is caused by other parts of human nature (such as attaining supremacy as you say).
I completely agree. People just have the need to feel like they have the upper hand. People are naturally suspicious and it's become necessary for countries to have armies just in case because the world hasn't been all too reliable when it's come to working everything out diplomatically.
This is a very good post. Where I feel the need to add something is when you mention that we cannot truly know what the first human's nature is. I do not think we need to find the nature of the first human to discover human nature. After all, we are all humans, and our human nature can be different to the nature of a human who had 1/10000 the resources that we had. I believe that human nature changes as surroundings change. Therefore i believe that we can just look within ourself to find our human nature.Or ask Sigmund Freud.
I really like your take on this. I agree that people do want to obtain more power and have the ability to look down on others. And war is just only a mean for supremacy. However I say that even if it was in the "first human" it doesn't mean it's human nature because we have evolved in slight ways to where a lot of things that were human nature are not the same now.
I agree with you completely on war. It is just a way to state our dominance. Why do you think the U.S has so many more Nuclear weapons than any other country, to show off what we have. With your examples I have to say that only two could be considered true human nature qualities, defense and necessity. Religion can play a huge role in some peoples lives, but if you were to go around the world and ask would you choose food over a believe I bet that most people would choose food. With our whole human nature talk it pretty much ask, what are you willing to die for? The main point to our class.
Hi Connor! At the risk of sounding strange, could please drop me a line at: mira(dot)alhussein(at)gmail(dot)com?
Cheers
Post a Comment