Are humans becoming intolerant of war?

I know this is long but I worked really hard on it. It was for one of my college classes called International Security and Conflict. I read of lot of articles in preparation for writing this so it's not very opinionated but, to be honest, is probably informed by my liberal ideology. Nonetheless, it relies on a lot of facts. I am aware I don't have any followers, which makes me sad, but I recommend just reading this through and commenting on it if you want to. My professor really liked it and gave me an A on it and served it as a model for the class. I am self-aggrandizing myself a little bit but I just want to give people an incentive to read it and to mention that it is not just me who thinks you should read it (obvious bias). I hope you like it, but more importantly, I hope you read it.

Human Intolerance of War

Humans may have a deeply rooted, or even natural, tendency to support inter-group violence. Evidence of this can be gleaned from comparative studies between chimpanzees and humans. We both, at some point in history, descended from the same ancestor and evolved into different animals. It can be argued, however, that we still share some of the same biological traits. Beyond biology, we appear to share behaviors. As Thomas Hayden points out, a near indisputable parallel between chimpanzee raids and human wars is that conflict in both species tends to arise when there is environmental stress. Moreover, further studies between chimp and human warfare have found parallels that include the creation of “depopulated buffer zones between neighboring territories, amassing a vastly superior force before attacking, and ecstatic dances of triumph after a victory” (Hayden 2004, 2). In short, there is strong evidence that suggest that humans have a deeply rooted, or even natural, tendency to support inter-group violence due to our predisposed biology. But the case is not so solid that it cannot be questioned. There is also evidence that gives one the reason to believe that societies will grow less supportive of war over time, refuting this biological disposition. Because humans are uniquely rational animals and have the intellectual capacity to distinguish between what is moral and what is effective, societies will grow less supportive of war over time.  

First, humans have proven that they can identify an uncivilized and immoral act and stop its continuity. Dueling, at one time in history, was an accepted mean to settle a dispute between two individuals. Even one of America’s Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, partook in this act, and he did so even when he rationally concluded, as an individual, that it made no sense. The social expectations of his day instead determined his actions. Hamilton felt that he had to conform to “public prejudice in this particular.” Once society changed its view of dueling, the practice itself died off. If Burr had challenged Hamilton to a duel after society had concluded the act was “contemptible and stupid” (Mueller 2005, 152), he most likely would have laughed and continued to eat his breakfast without even thinking of accepting the offer. Violent and irrational practices like this are constantly being condemned and ended in contemporary human society. For instance, it used to be societally accepted that teachers could hit their students. Given that kids as a collective are hard to deal with and at times impossible to control without taking physical measures, when American society deemed it to be an immoral act it was put to an end.

In short, humans have the capability to identify immoral acts even when they make somewhat logical sense. And once an act is thought of by society to be uncivilized or immoral, humans usually have taken measures to stop it from occurring. Moreover, humans care so much so that they will take measures to stop it from occurring in places that they have no direct relations with. For example, there are organizations dedicated to protecting human rights globally, such as the Human Rights Watch. This proves that humans have an innate compassion for humanity, even if it is accompanied by an innate desire for violence.

Secondly, humans collectively are smart enough to determine what is moral, and what is effective. Statistically, state-based wars have declined in severity. Battle-death data shows that “the average battle-death toll per conflict in the 1950s was almost 10,000, while the equivalent figure for the new millennium has been less than 1,000” (Trends in Human Insecurity 2011, 169). Even acknowledging the fact that getting exact battle death (includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths) data is close to impossible, this statistic proves that there has been a decline in the deadliness of warfare since the 1950s. Also, the death toll from one-sided violence, which “refers to the lethal use of force against civilians by a government or an organized non-state armed group that results in 25 or more reported codable deaths in a calendar year” (Human Trends in Insecurity 2011, 177), was at its lowest number in 2008 since 1989. Another shift that occurred was that non-state armed groups were responsible for most of the deaths of one-sided violence, taking the place of governments, which was the case in 1989.  Furthermore, “there have been no wars between the major powers since the Korean War ended in 1953” (Cashman and Robinson 2007, 2). This evidence suggests that humans are becoming less tolerable of violence and of the killing of non-combatants, especially those that are carried out by governments. A recent example of this was when Syria was condemned by some countries in the international community, even Saudi Arabia, for their attacks on its civilians. The international community is shifting to a stance that values human life.

Unfortunately, war in the developing regions has become endemic. Therefore, with these trends in mind, one could come to the conclusion that societal progression in developing countries is tantamount to decreasing the amount of conflicts worldwide. For instance, globalization is an example of societal progression. Economic integration between countries has led participating countries to be increasingly more diplomatic/benevolent and less coercive/threatening. Accordingly, economic integration gives nations incentives to cooperate. In other words, humans can rationally develop a system that encourages cooperation and diminish the likelihood for inter-group violence.

Thirdly, even if human beings have a biological disposition for violence, it can be surprisingly easy to suppress. Garnering nationalist support is an exploitive endeavor of humans’ irrationality. A leader of a nation that tells his or her people that another nation wants to kill their children, subjugate their men, and rape their women is tapping into human being’s primordial brain. “There is a structure deep inside the brain called the amygdala, which plays a key role in fear and aggression…when subjects are presented with a face of someone from a different race, the amygdala gets metabolically active – aroused, alert, ready for action” (Sapolsky 2006, 8). Thus, images of a differing race arouse fear and aggression within people because they instinctually believe that that person is representative of a malevolent adversarial group. “Subtly bias the subject beforehand to think of people as individuals rather than as members of a group, and the amygdala does not budge” (Sapolsky 2006, 8). This suggests that humans fear opposing groups rather than an opposing individual. In essence, humans have a biological disposition for violence when they see members of a different race. This occurs, however, with no knowledge about the person or any rationality involved whatsoever.

Despite our biological inclinations, however, more recent studies show that “a person who has a lot of experience with people of different races, and the amygdala does not activate” (Sapolsky 2006, 8). The international environment of the twenty-first century allows countries to practice diplomacy. It allows countries to get a sense of another’s intentions by interacting with each other. Furthermore, communication between cultures is much more plausible now. In the past, individuals of different tribal groups were not able to communicate with one another because of differing language. Thus, they were not able to convey their intentions. In other words, they were in the state of nature. They were in a constant security dilemma. Groups instinctively had to assume the other had devious intentions to best assure themselves of protection and survival. Based on the knowledge gained from the study, a rational human being can come to the conclusion that interaction between races mitigates fear and aggressive impulses, something that societies have increasingly become more engaged with.

Fourthly, after humans exhausted resources, which in turn caused them to fight others for dwindling resources, they developed a system that distributed resources more effectively. As a result, more and more nations are able to avoid a cause of war, and the most common cause at that. In essence, if resources in a given societal area were no longer able to support all of the people in that area, then violence would occur. Violence would most likely occur under these circumstances because animals have a natural desire to survive. Thus, they will fight for their own survival, if necessary. Joining forces, then, was the most rational calculation to maintain survival. There is primordial evidence that supports this theory. For instance, less aggressive primates “tend to live in lush rain forests where food is plentiful and life is easy” (Sapolsky 2006, 2). In other words, when food is enough for all living things the aggressiveness amongst them declines. In short, the instinct for survival when humans are experiencing fatally declining resources initiates the irrational impulse towards violence. Humans that rationally decide how to sustain their resources and distribute it evenly can thwart violence while still maintaining their survival.

Fifthly, primates, with whom humans share 98% of their DNA with, have proven themselves to be rational creatures. Therefore, it would do humans a disservice if they did not compare themselves with primates and identify possible biological similarities. First, primate pacifism is practiced among certain species. In 27 different species of primates, it has been observed that primates can make up after a fight. This is significant because it reduces the likelihood of further conflicts between previous enemies, and reducing conflicts as a whole. Societies, similarly, have taken reconciliatory actions with other societies. For instance, the United Nations was established to prevent another World War II. Second, it has been observed that coalitions can be made among some primate species. In these coalitions, reciprocity is practiced and a sense of justice can be administered. Even reconciliation and cooperation is practiced among the most violent primates. “Tension-reducing reconciliation, in other words, is most likely to occur among animals who already are in the habit of cooperating and have an incentive to keep doing so” (Sapolsky 2006, 4).  

In essence, a primate society has the power to determine individual primate action. This serves as a comparative model to human societies. For example, if a society fosters an attitude against fighting war, that society will be less inclined to fight wars. Japan and Germany used to be extremely aggressive nations. Now they have transformed themselves into very peaceful nations by changing their cultures. Germany is not even allowed to print war propaganda.

Accordingly, society has the ability to redefine social morals. In some societies, men gain recognition from their peers based on what their society has determined to be “manly.” In tribal societies, a man’s prestige was generally recognized in battle. However, in other societies men received that same prestige through nonviolent means. “But, as was the case with the Bush Negroes of Dutch Guiana, it is artistic ability which is necessary to win a girl’s approval, the same young man would have to be carving rather than going out on a war party” (Mead 1990, 3). This is already noticeable in modern industrialized societies. In America, as one example, the prestige of a person is determined by their job, and the value of a job is determined by society through how much income one is allotted and how noble of a job it is; also determined by society. It is the same human biological desire for recognition, but it is achieved through different means.

In other words, humans have a biological predisposition to be valued by others in society. That value, however, does not have to be gained through violence.  A rational society can redirect that recognition seeking desire into more productive and nonviolent means, as proven by today’s industrialized societies. Furthermore, even primate culture influences how primates act. A study where almost all of the most aggressive dominant males in a savanna baboon group died off birthed a culture of less aggression and more affiliating behavior. This culture persisted even when subsequent aggressive male baboons entered the group. Culture determined social behavior in this case.

In conclusion, humans have the intellectual capability to rationally determine what is moral and what is effective. The evidence suggest that human beings are leaving their violent past behind them. In the movie, Soldiers of Conscience, it said that soldiers in past wars were recorded only shooting at their enemy 25% of the time during battle, suggesting that humans have an either innate, or rational, disposition to not kill other humans. Also, wars are costly. The human toll is significant in itself and the financial toll on countries, which has been linked to the decline of once vibrant economies, is significant as well. Germany’s population after the Thirty Years War “declined from 21 million to under 13.5 million” (Mueller 2005, 150). Thus, the magnitude of devastation that wars have caused in the past, and continue to cause in the present will prove to be too much. It will cause humans to reassess the morality of war and its effectiveness, which could lead to its obliteration. 

Works Cited

Cashman, Greg, and Leonard C. Robinson. 2007. An Introduction to the Causes of War. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Hayden, Thomas. 2004. “The Roots of War: Can Humanity ever escape its age-old legacy of battle?” US News & World Report, 26 April: 44-50.

Mead, Margaret. 1990. “Warfare is Only an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity.” In The Dolphin Reader. 2nd edition. ed. Douglas Hunt. Boston, MA: Houghton Miffflin Company. 415-421.

Mueller, John. 2005. “The Obsolescence of Major War.” In Conflict After the Cold War: Arguments on Causes of War and Peace. 2nd edition. ed. Richard K. Betts. New York: Longman. 146-157.

Sapolsky, Robert M. 2006 “A Natural History of Peace.” Foreign Affairs, Jan: 1-9.

Soldiers of Conscience. Dir. Catherine Ryan and Gary Weimberg. Public Broadcasting Service, 2007. Film.

“Trends in Human Insecurity.” Human Security Report. Oxford University Press, 2011. Web. 3 Sept. 2011. <http://www.hsrgroup.org////‌HumanSecurityReport-Part3-TrendsInHumanInsecurity.pdf>.