War a part of human nature?

[Hwen Hoshino]

Using history as a guide, absolutely not. Even history aside, no. Even on a biological level, talking about self-preservation, it's essentially guaranteed that in some instance somewhere in the world, self-preservation is only possible through war.

Really? Even today when hunger is going away and even if the middle class is going downward the lower class is going upwards. Why do i need to kill people to stay alive.

[nickle7]

Using history as a guide, absolutely not. Even history aside, no. Even on a biological level, talking about self-preservation, it's essentially guaranteed that in some instance somewhere in the world, self-preservation is only possible through war.

Really? Even today when hunger is going away and even if the middle class is going downward the lower class is going upwards. Why do i need to kill people to stay alive.

Looking at warring tribes in the Middle East or northern/eastern Africa, particularly prior to Islam, war as a necessity for survival. Even now, with groups like ISIS whose justification for killing are based on religious reasons (which cannot be reasoned with any sort of logic), war seems to be the only appropriate response. I'm not at all hawkish, but there are instances where logical reasoning fails. Thoughts?

[Ex-California]

Using history as a guide, absolutely not. Even history aside, no. Even on a biological level, talking about self-preservation, it's essentially guaranteed that in some instance somewhere in the world, self-preservation is only possible through war.

Really? Even today when hunger is going away and even if the middle class is going downward the lower class is going upwards. Why do i need to kill people to stay alive.

You don't need to kill people to stay alive, but your masters need you to kill people to make them more money. Its just the expanded version of the tribal wars of resources

[Okeefenokee]

I wouldn't say war is a part of human nature as much as survival is a part of human nature. Rationalization regarding survival often ends with a consensus on war, and for one side it's often born out.

Well, I would say war is a consequence of the human proclivity to band together in a group and then demonize an out group. Survival ends up being a mutual illusion, because the reality is that there is enough for all.

Enough... resources?

Yeah resources. There's also ideological warfare and economic. More besides that too. It's all just a perceived struggle for survival, whether it be physical, cultural, etc. We can accomplish almost anything once we've decided our survival depends upon it.

[nickle7]

Well, I would say war is a consequence of the human proclivity to band together in a group and then demonize an out group. Survival ends up being a mutual illusion, because the reality is that there is enough for all.

Enough... resources?

Yeah resources. There's also ideological warfare and economic. More besides that too. It's all just a perceived struggle for survival, whether it be physical, cultural, etc. We can accomplish almost anything once we've decided our survival depends upon it.

Makes sense. The problem then comes in where you have groups of people hell-bent on destroying other groups of people or other ideologies, whether it be for religious or political reasons.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Using history as a guide, absolutely not. Even history aside, no. Even on a biological level, talking about self-preservation, it's essentially guaranteed that in some instance somewhere in the world, self-preservation is only possible through war.

Really? Even today when hunger is going away and even if the middle class is going downward the lower class is going upwards. Why do i need to kill people to stay alive.

Looking at warring tribes in the Middle East or northern/eastern Africa, particularly prior to Islam, war as a necessity for survival. Even now, with groups like ISIS whose justification for killing are based on religious reasons (which cannot be reasoned with any sort of logic), war seems to be the only appropriate response. I'm not at all hawkish, but there are instances where logical reasoning fails. Thoughts?

I must have missed the somewhere in the world part. My bad.

Using history as a guide, absolutely not. Even history aside, no. Even on a biological level, talking about self-preservation, it's essentially guaranteed that in some instance somewhere in the world, self-preservation is only possible through war.

Really? Even today when hunger is going away and even if the middle class is going downward the lower class is going upwards. Why do i need to kill people to stay alive.

You don't need to kill people to stay alive, but your masters need you to kill people to make them more money. Its just the expanded version of the tribal wars of resources

Masters are fucking up in the West. i don't even know when was the last time they got mass involvement in one of these.

[BjornP]

Really? Even today when hunger is going away and even if the middle class is going downward the lower class is going upwards. Why do i need to kill people to stay alive.

At the end of the day, because other people will want to attack you to take territory, natural ressources that might improve upon their lives, from you. You're well fed? Well, then they'd envy you how much food you got. Or they believe that you simply have a degree of influence in the world which is in their interest to weaken, so that they can assert their dominance, and/or influence in the world. Or you're selling weapons to someone at war with a third party. War is just the form, the human nature part is the same nature as any other primate or mammal. We resort to violence to protect our territories, to protect that which makes our lives just that little bit better.

[DrYouth]

Human's are cooperators... War as Haumama points out is cooperation in aggression.
In a scarcity environment... war is nearly inevitable... as groups compete for scarce resources.
In an abundance environment... war is not.

If these nanofabricators work out... it may be that abundance is in the cards.

[BjornP]

Human's are cooperators... War as Haumama points out is cooperation in aggression.
In a scarcity environment... war is nearly inevitable... as groups compete for scarce resources.
In an abundance environment... war is not.

If these nanofabricators work out... it may be that abundance is in the cards.

You can't create raw materials (metals, for example), with which to build nanofabricators, from nothing. A post-scarcity society isn't science fiction. It's high fantasy. Magic. You can reduce conflict by compromising on ressource access, though.

[nickle7]

I'm willing to believe that every major conflict can be boiled down to a lack of access to resources. In other words, this is the most fundamental cause for violence. But perhaps the case could be made that religion is the fundamental cause.