The Science behind War

Instinctivist theories on human aggressiveness often promote the notion that warfare is in the nature of humankind and therefore cannot be prevented. However Margaret Mead eloquently refuted this idea in her renowned essay Warfare: an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity. Mead states, “War is inevitable unless we change our social system and outlaw classes, the struggle for power, and possessions; and in the event of our success warfare would disappear, as a symptom vanishes when the disease is cured.” Through this statement Mead makes it clear that because aggression and subsequently warfare is a learned invention, it can be avoided. For the purposes of this essay, aggression will be defined as “a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism.” This essay will outline how and why aggression, and thus warfare, is not biological and is rather a behaviour that is learned as a reaction to social stimuli. Furthermore, it will be explained that violence is used by societies as a political weapon to achieve ostensible objectives.

War can be defined as “an active struggle between competing entities. It’s truly hard to tell who is right or wrong during a war. Both sides are fighting for what they believe in and what is true to their heart. In the end there is always two things promised – destruction and death. These two objects can explain the result in every facet of war from the physical to emotional.

From the beginning of recorded history was has always existed. The causes of war varied from disputes between lands, power, resources, religions, government systems, and economy status. No matter what they reason, war seems to be part of human nature. Every culture around the word has different views of war. In ancient times the Mongolians viewed it as sport and desired to conquer lands and gain more power. The Chinese considered it a great honor to serve their country and go to war. Customs were diverse throughout the regions about how to honor the soldiers, living or dead. Rules of war were developed in some places, but many accounts of war have been unregulated and bloody. Treatment of the innocents of the enemy side varied, as well as the treatment of captives and the dead bodies.

The conflict of war and its effects have been debated throughout history. Some argue that there are other peaceful alternatives besides war that would lead to a better outcome, but in reality this is not the case. War is a natural part of human interactions, and even though it brings death and destruction, war will not cease to exist. Wars are the human way of getting one group to look superior than the other. The idea of a passive approach is ideal, but it is almost nearly impossible and may not always lead to the same outcome as if a war had taken place.

Violence is an unavoidable terror that has played one of the, if not the most, important roles in all of history. Without violence, lands wouldn’t be conquered, empires wouldn’t fall, and people wouldn’t have any limits or restrictions. The French Revolution is one example of a violent uprising because the people of France revolted against the rule of King Louis XVI by raiding, storming, and slaughtering for their natural equal rights. The revolution marked the end of a government ruled by monarchy and the start of the Republic of France. One important reason of why the revolution was successful in bringing political change was because it was violent.

As long as mankind has existed there have been warfare. Nations or groups fight each other over religion, believes and interests, and billions of soldiers has let their life fighting for their country and culture values and believes.

Warfare is the engagement in war of violence it is believed that warfare is human nature and that it is enviable. Warfare can be caused by many things. Some which include, environmental factors, political , religious beliefs, completion between states and even excessive population growth. This has been studied through ancient civilizations. By studying them we can compare them to modern day humans.When this is done we can see that warfare is a huge part of our lives, whether we want to admit it or not. One ancient civilization that distinctly shows violence and war is the Mayans. Though in many books they are seen as a peaceful population, when loosely closely at their lifestye, you can see that was not the case.

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

Violence is an issue in human nature. Everyone has their own definition and their own interpretations of violence. The big question is if the world is still growing in its violent nature, or is it finally reaching its solemn, peaceful generation. The evolution of violence has grown in many different paths from survival of the fittest, genocide, slavery, etc. According to Steven Pinker’s article “Violence Vanquished,” he explains how the world is entering an era of peace because we do not deal with the same violence our ancestors did in the past. That is true. We abolished slavery, stopped brutal wars, and revolutionized with strategies such as commerce. Pinker analyzes his arguments very well, but negates common issues of violence that we still

War has been going on just about as long as people have been alive. Whether it is just some cavemen fighting over a fire, or multiple countries going to war for justice, there has always been some scale of war. I am going to be analyzing way through functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspectives.

As soon as there was man, there was war. The history of warfare can be traced all the way back to one of the earliest known civilizations, Mesopotamia. Since the development of organized city states warfare has been used to settle disputes including disagreements over land, resources, and religious beliefs.

Humans have engaged in war for thousands of years. The earliest recorded instance is circa 2700 BCE. Of course, the fighting extends much further back as this was near the advent of writing. Even

In this essay I will be giving the definition of war and conflict and I will be describing the causes of war and giving examples of wars that have happened because of the conflicts that I will be mentioning in my essay. The causes of war I will be looking at will be; Politics, Nationalism, Ideology, Land, resources, historical rivalry, ethnic conflict and religion. These are the main causes of war.

2. There are different theories that seek to explain why humans still fight in war. Some of the individual, state and global level theories of conflict are based on: Human Nature or Individual Leaders, States’ Internal characteristics, and Global Level System (Turetzky lec 11). Human Nature arguments for the causes of war are based in Sigmund Freud idea that “aggression is simply part of human nature that stems from humans’ genetic programming and psychological makeup.” Realists also “argue that violence is a product of bad human nature” and that there is not anything to eliminate this bad human habit. I believe that it is true that humans’ nature is composed with an instinct of violence (War). However, society has a lot to do with the expansion of this bad habit. Today aggression is embedded in everything, which enforces our acceptance and practice of violence. Obviously, as realists argue, it is almost impossible to eliminate this bad habit from human nature. In contrast, the individual Leader arguments blame the state leaders for wars. However, we can’t blame a country’s leader for war. The author Stoessinger, stated in his book that a state head’s perceptions are decisive in war (Stoessinger 65). I believe that a leader’s

Wars break out everywhere, bloody battles that are started for no real reason but to fight. Once a shot is fired, each side will try to get the upper hand, no matter what the cost are. War is not the pathway to peace. Bloodshed will only lead to more bloodshed. This is why we need to be as careful as possible to pull our troops out of Iraq and end the war. We need to restore peace in the Middle East and other countries that