War ! What Is It Good For? Absolutely Nothing Analysis

From prehistory to 21st century, violence and warfare permeate human existence. Tribes, cities, and nations have pitted their youth against one another in hopes improving their position. However, these Soldiers regularly fall short of maximizing their killing potential. In the book On Killing, Dave Grossman scrupulously examines war throughout recent history; specifically the human element in killing. His thorough assessment of the psychological factors associated with homicide is vitally important to individuals who wish to successfully lead their Soldiers during and after combat. Its ultimate value clearly visible in light of four major facets: the background of the writer, the general points of the book, analysis of essential concepts, and the insight provided.

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.

Lee looks at this through a very different approach. Based on a study conducted by Jane Goodall in which she would give a surplus of bananas to a group of chimpanzees for eight years, we can see that apes are not as peaceful as they would appear. Once Goodall stopped providing the bananas, the chimps began to split into competing groups. The groups would fight, raid, and kill each other in order to preserve available resources. Lee argues that this consequence prove that violence is not a human condition. Goodall’s study proves that hominids fight in times when they need to preserve resources, and fight in tactical manners in order to protect their communities.

War is a dangerous game, many people would likely agree to this, however, very few have ever seen a battlefront. The truth is that war, no matter how awful we can imagine it, is always exponentially worse. In Timothy Findley’s The Wars, Robert Ross, the protagonist,­ faces a situation that he finds difficult to come to terms with, and when faced with a similar situation later on in the novel, he must take drastic measures to reconcile the uncertainties of the past situation. Timothy Findley suggests, through the life of Robert Ross, that one’s need to reconcile the uncertainties of past experiences dominate our actions when such situations come up again in our lives. In the words of Hiram Johnson, a US Senator during the First World War,

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

Are humans inherently violent is a question that has been asked throughout history. Its existence started with the wars, the murders, the attempted genocide and the countless acts of violence and death portrayed in written and spoken history. Human’s inability to understand our own nature is what drives this question and many like it. They want to know what drives them, as an individual, as a society and as a race. Humans wish to know what needs are the most important, what needs are unnecessary, what needs are actually wants, what needs aren’t part of nature but what is given through nurture and so on. These questions allow for humans to better understand their own mind and body. The question really being asked is why do I do the things I do? This question leads to the creation of other questions about human action, thought process and the follow through measure. In wondering about violence, there is a distinctive fear that humans are inherently bad, which is what violence is considered to be. There is a great deal of evidence for both sides, though most historical and older scientific evidence supports the yes sides of the argument. While the no side is more often than not portrayed by newer evidence given in studies, psychological data and observations of the human race. This evidence allows for humans to make arbitrary conclusions about human nature, it does not necessarily make a solid factual statement. It all depends on one’s own interpretation.

The article makes an apt comparison, finding that, “Overall, humans and chimpanzees showed comparable levels of violent death from aggression between groups.” At the point when humans—the pinnacle of evolution, the apex predator, the perfect machine—can objectively be compared to chimpanzees, an arguably lesser evolved animal, shows that we have no right to call ourselves evolved. Biologically we may be superior, but morally and emotionally, we have a long way to go. The evolution of murder as an effective means to a desired end, what the article calls a “by-product” of competition, is proof enough that we cannot call ourselves evolved. If we can produce such an atrocity simply as a by-product, humans cannot claim to function any different than wild animals. Evolution entails ascension, not only biologically, but also mentally, emotionally, and, most importantly, morally. The moral evolution that humanity has yet to achieve will provide the stepping stones towards substantial

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.

When humans are nurtured, they want to maintain order and work with other in harmony in order to avoid conflict, as demonstrated by Roger when he was still under the societal influence. On the other hand, when humans are removed from societal or parental effect, they turn to their natural and savage-like instincts in order to survive in the wild, as shown by Roger when he wanted to kill Ralph and Piggy in order to gain power. Whenever a war is started or ended, remember that it will always be started because of a human’s true nature and always be ended because of a human’s taught

In 1986, the Seville Statement on Violence was convened by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Part of this statement says that “it is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature”. Though this may be a widely accepted idea, it is quite obvious that Glover rejects it. He does not let our species off easily; he specifically says that, “We need to look hard and clearly at some monsters inside us. But this is part of the project of caging

World peace is a topic chosen to prove that there is currently no possible way for us, humans, to achieve peace between all the nations without us having to deal with current problems we have now. The study of the topic has been quite hard, but fascinating as the research forehand has to lead me to discover more unknown problems that are likely to be preventing us from world peace. With evidence from credible articles, the paper determines that a solution to a war-free world without any problems is quite impossible. The evidence in the paper includes overpopulation effects, current arguments that can be possibly leading on to fatal war, and the design of the human brain which may be the direct cause of the violence that goes on in the world today. The evidence gathered will help assist that World Peace will not be happening in the world anytime soon.

The history of human nature has been bloody, painful, and even destructive. Nonetheless, before understanding their environments humans used to kill each other based on their own mindset on the ideal of violence, and what it actually meant. Pinker describes narratives of violent acts from the past, that today are foreign to us. He gives us a tour of the historical human violence and how the violence in human nature has changed throughout time. The main idea from Pinker’s book,“The Better Angels of Our Nature ', is “for all the dangers we face today, the dangers of yesterday were even worse.” He provides its readers with explicit violent stories beginning from 8000 BCE to now, and describes how violence has evolved from a blood lost to more of a peaceful existence.

In the book Our Kind Dr. Harris mentions the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. He went to great details about our closest living relative the chimpanzees, and how their survival was base on they will to fight. Therefore, our willingness to fight wars and kill each other for nonsense reasons is simply our nature.

Throughout the history of mankind there has come to be two factors that are seen as inevitable. The first is progress, humans are naturally competitive creatures who not only want to insure their own safety but also get one up on their neighbours. Progress has led to huge leaps forward, not only technologically but also socially. However, aside from progress there is another factor, war. Time and time again throughout history humans have fought and killed each other for their own selfish reasons and security. And according to political theorists such as Hobbes this is simply the state of nature, a perpetual state of ‘war of all against all’, further surmising that it is due to this that mankind is fundamentally selfish. However, just because so far, mankind’s history has consisted of an endless cycle of wars, does that mean that it must continue to be this way? Political Philosopher Immanuel Kant outlines a number of articles that he hypothesises could lead towards a perpetual peace. There are many criticisms of Kant’s perpetual peace, many argue that it is to idealistic and utopian. However, Kant doesn’t deny these claims. Instead Kant argues that if this ‘perpetual peace’ is even a remote possibility then for the good of mankind, we have a duty to try make it a reality.

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