War Is An Invention Of Man Caused By The Aggression Instinct

“The Cause of War” is a book written by Australian author Geoffrey Blainey. The book is a collection of studies from wars since 1700’s and it analysis the relation of rivaling nations. The book is divided in four parts it starts discussing the weakness behind the current theories of peace, it then moves to talk the “ingredients” which are key for a nation to determine whether they will go to war or not. Third part of the group is about some misleading theories of war, and the last part just deals with the variety of 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.

     And what of war? The author continually makes reference to man?s innate cruelty throughout the essay, and adds that war is just another example of this behavior. It is with war that man brutally slaughters one another for some minute matter of insignificance. Twain makes known that the animals in his experiment never fought with organization against another. This is ludicrous. First of all, there are many real-world examples of animals attacking other animals for a wide variety of motives. It could be that an animal has trespassed into another group?s territory, or has taken something that belonged to another party. But how, then, is this different from humans? Secondly, people show a love for peace much more than war. War is ugly, and anyone would side-step it as opposed to standing in its way. Individuals of this earth are a people wanting to get along, and live a life of harmony with one another.

a more complicated (perhaps even non-Euclidian) solid. The areas of conflict are inextricable linked together; any discussion of slavery must include economic aspects, economic differences are at the root of political conflicts, and political ideas lead to Constitutional questions. However, to examine all possible causes would be far beyond the scope of this paper; consequently, the discussion will be limited to a more manageable discussion of two of the more important aspects of the road to war

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.

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.

In “Warfare: An Invention,” Mead talks about the invention of war, and how it is completely unnecessary. She uses examples of different civilizations such as the Eskimos, the Pygmies, and the Pueblo Indians to show us the differences between cultures who do/do not condone warfare. Mead also uses other models to justify her claim, such as the concepts of marriage and fire. “And yet even such universals as marriage and the use of fire are inventions like the rest, very basic ones, inventions which were perhaps necessary if human history was to take the turn it has taken, but nevertheless inventions”(275-276). Just like marriage and fire, warfare was invented by aggressive/ competitive humans. For some cultures it has been embedded in our history

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.

Political Violence has been affiliated with governments and nations since the beginning of political history and plays a huge role in the causes of Wars around the world. What causes leaders to declare war? Many philosophers have based their studies and theories on this question; many have different perspectives. One philosopher, John Stoessinger, has expressed his theories on the causes of war through what he calls his “misperception framework.” Stoessinger shows great interests in the personalities of world leaders; he is less impressed with the roles of abstract forces such as nationalism, militarism, economic factors, or alliance systems as the causes of

War should not be used just as an excuse to settle arguments. My claims are, firstly, war involves mass killings and is unethical. Secondly, war destroys economies. Thirdly, war has a negative impact and ruins the lives of children. Lastly, war can only be justified when it can be proven to be a necessity.

War is controversial, unfortunate, and certainly misunderstood; it is a transforming agent, a catalyst for change. Nonetheless, many people focus on war's negative consequences, while positive effects are downplayed. War is a necessary evil in the sense that it stabilizes population, encourages technological advances, and has a very high economic value. Without war, the overpopulation of the human race is inevitable. It is this reason that war is a useful tool by not only Mother Nature, but also humans themselves to institute population control.

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.

Sun Tzu understood the nature of war as “the province of life or death,” and a “matter of vital importance to the state.”1 I agree. In my own experience, war awakens your primordial instincts and strips you of your self-rationalizations. Sun Tzu defined the character of war when he wrote, “water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.”2 Accordingly, Sun Tzu’s principals of war offer a framework adequate to explain the nature and character of 21st century warfare, which I rationalize as a near-continuous battle of ideologies fought through asymmetric means to advance the values and interests of state and non-state actors.

War is an inevitable feature of international politics. Assess with reference to liberalism or realism

The question is: is war a part of our biology or is it a cultural phenomenon?