Warfare: An Invention or a Biological Necessity?

Violence take multiple forms, many of which are covered in the nightly news. Murder, rape, familial abuse, bullying, workplace hostility, armed robbery—all of these are societal problems with far-reaching repercussions. There have long debates and discussions regarding whether nature or nurture influences individual violent behavior. People are concerned about what makes an individual to engage in violent behavior such murder or burglary among other types of crimes. They are also concerned about what makes people stop such behavior. However, there is no precise conception whether nature, nurture or both influence violence. Some people assume that, violent behavior results from individual’s life experiences or upbringing also known as nurture. Others feel that violent behavior is more complex and results from individual’s genetic character or nature. In other words, it is not clear whether violent behavior is inborn or occurs at some point in persons’ lives, but even it’s hard, emphasizing one and ignoring other influences is always an unwise way to go.

Advances in technology within the fields of medicine and biology have allowed researchers to investigate deepen into why humans behave the way they do. The issue that is of interest these days is the study of the “Warrior Gene.” There is debate on whether or not the Warrior Gene has an influence on an individual’s behavior and if it can be used to determine if someone will commit criminal acts. On one side you have those that claim the warrior gene can be related to aggressive and violent behavior. “In fact, humans with a low-activity form of the MAOA (Monoamine Oxidase A, or the warrior gene) gene are much more prevalent in groups with a history of warfare” (Hickey 49). The opposition claims “nature and nurture are inexplicably linked and that there is always an environmental component to human behavior” (Hickey 49). The question is, does a warrior gene make people more prone to violence? I will summarize the yes and no sides of the argument while also providing my own opinion on the

During our lifetime every one of us feels anger and aggression occasionally, some more than others, maybe as a child in the play ground or later as an adult when somebody cuts you up when you are driving along. But what causes anger and aggression and why do we all suffer from it? Well there are lots of different theories to what causes aggression and where aggressive behaviour comes from. So throughout this essay I will examine the different concepts and theories from different psychologist and develop and show an understanding of Aggression

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.

Cormac McCarthy once said, “I think the notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone can live in harmony is a really dangerous idea.” (Overview) This quote leaves us with the impression that humanity as a whole is innately violent, and we will explore this idea by examining “Blood Meridian.” This paper consists of three

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

Lorenz and Freud have, in a large section of their work labelled aggression as mostly negative and destructive, but looking at its positive side, aggression is necessary as it contributes to our growth and development, independence, self-assertion, can address and remedy inequality and social injustice and above all promotes the survival of many

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

Humanity’s natural aggression means that civilization is “constantly threatened with disintegration” and it must make every effort to ensure these urges are curbed, in order for its continued existence. He continues in this vein, by stating that, in order for people to “forgo the satisfaction of their tendency to aggression” civilization encourages us to form into groups, however for this to work their must continue to be “outsiders,” that the aggression can be turned towards. This is in accordance with On the Genealogy of Morals, where it is the Slaves ascetic nature that forces them to also control their instincts. Likewise, both Freud and Nietzsche assert that these restrictions cause people to internalise their aggressions, turning inward.

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.

Physical assault and aggression is the second leading cause of death among 14 to 17 year olds, next to vehicular accidents (Loeber). But why are humans so aggressive in the first place? There are two sides of the debate: Nature, and Nurture. Some say that it’s human nature, genetics that cause most behaviors, while others say that we act as we learned during childhood. This argument applies to aggression as well. Aggression is mainly caused by things during childhood and adolescence where people learn from various sources about aggression, although, human psychology plays a slight factor.

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.

There are clearly no simple genetic or hormonal factors that can explain the variation in aggressive in males and females. Studies of human males suggest that there is at most a small genetic component to aggression, but a greater one for personality traits associated with such behavior. The biological mechanisms translating the message in the genes into antisocial or criminal behavior are not known. Therefore, there is clearly no simple aggressive gene effect. Many genes are likely to be involved, and each may have a weak effect on aggressive behavior. A direct genetic effect on aggression, for example, may determine how quickly an individual responds to aggravation. Aggression may also be influenced indirectly; for example, a man's size and strength may affect the way he behaves and how others react to him. (Turner, 253)

War is strongly ingrained into our world today whether we like it or not and while it may seem more prevalent and worse lately considering the advances in technology and the increase in hysteria over security, war is not a recent adjunct to society. That poses the question, where does war come from? As human beings, are we hard-wired biologically to fight each other or is it a behaviour influenced by peers and morals?

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