It could also be not about the energy that you have for warfare, but the fact that having resources stands apart from warfare itself in the sense that we value one over the other, and in different ways.
Another conclusion you could draw from the Yanomami study is that exposure (familiarity) reduces the drive for war. Wars that are not based on historic precedent are often between nations, cultures, religions - between groups who do not fully understand one another. Exposure, familiarity, the sharing of information and understanding... these are the things that reduce conflict. One can only hope that as we approach a Global Village state, the drive for war will evaporate.
Anyone who considers believing Horgan should also read the other side of the argument. For example the Harvard Psychology professor Steven Pinker lays, among other things, out an opposing case in his 2008 book "The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature" and recently wrote an entire book on violence called "The Better Angels of Our Nature". I can highly recommend, the evidence for war having always existed is much stronger than Horgan lets on here.
I think it is far more likely that a stalemate of powers is more likely to prevent all out wars the likes of WW1 and 2. Its like playing a game of Risk. There have been times in Risk where mine or mine enemies armies are equally as powerful but no large campaigns start. Small squabbles over small, insignificant territories do occur far more often than in the earlier stages of the game when we have less power. Of course a game is no model for real life, but it is something to think about.
As long as you have people with their own self interests that they need to meet, whether through war or working to meet their wants/needs, you'll always have the possibility of war. The only reason some 'groups' are less likely to have war is because they have what they want/need and are happy, but usually only for a period of time before they run out of resources or want more of what they do/don't have.
@Einheitskreis Wait but as he said, this is contradicted, it has been shown that with less resources and higher population density, less war occurs and it is actually really logical when you think about it. People only fight when they have vast empires and massive resources because the only way to expand is to fight, but when under pressure with less resources, everyone benefits from sharing and so they must share to survive.
War is essentially organized conflict. And it has as many reasons as any creature might have to attack one another, be it food, territory, beliefs or any kind of reason. War as a phenomenon is as complex as it is simple.
Reasons for most conflicts can be classified into power disparity between two or more groups, greed for greater control over others and unwillingness to pay for substances that you want but are in other group's possession.I agree this seems pretty crude and conflict origins are pretty complex but a key reason for most conflicts is one of the above.
Half the people on BigThink make me ask the question: "Who are you and why should I think you're special, why should I think you're credible, and what makes you think you know more than me?"
It's just a part of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When you get to the highest point and the struggle for survival become minimal, humans then realize that they need something else. And what is more of and endless well to fill than the need for power? That's what war is about
What has the amount of protein got to with war waged by nation states? The generals don't ask how energetic the grunts are feeling before waging war. But I think the flaw in Horgan's thinkking, is in pursuing any single root cause. Clearly in many modern cases, war has been about power, or acquisition of mineral wealth, but wars have been fought over religion, clan allegiance, macho posturing and more.
I would rather live in a world full of dangers and war, than live in a world so dull, so populated and so close that I can't even think for myself. War itself iself is the law of the universe, from the galactic scale to the atomic scale, we are always in a constant battle, light versus dark.
Yes, but it doesn't take much energy to pull the trigger of an AK47. Not fighting because you physically can't is much different than choosing not to fight.
@FireMark78 God has been a very popular excuse, but not a real reason. Religious motivations are cultural motivations. Until recently, religion and culture were inseparable ideas.
An entire universe around us. We're this insignificant and vastly special evolved conscious being. And we spend more on killing each other than all else. What a strange planet, universe, and species.
As long as there is avarice, pride, and more than enough resources, there will be war. However, I have a feeling people can become more compassionate and generous during times of trouble. If not, they will resort to violence.
@random0815 These are not postulations in the least. These are not only confirmed archaeologically on all accounts, but with the Greek colonizations confirmed with historical documents as well. Also, that the Indus valley had a large population without resorting to violence or expansion says nothing. It's not the population that is the issue, but the population relative to available resources. These aren't assumptions based on animal behavior, but on historical merit alone.
Warfare is not innate. Chimpanzees may have raids, but our other close cousins, the seldom mentioned Bonobos, are peaceful. We seriously need to study the difference.
I think it's fair to say people make war when their at the outer or inner limits; a lack of resources bellow a certain level will cause war, if there simply isn't enough to go around. On the other hand however; people will fight to gain control over resource in great amount because they have value. So as long as we have both these facts there will be war, a balance between the two may promote peace time.
For the last part of the video: the less resources the tribes had the less war there is. When have you heard of Argentina, Tibet or Thailand going into war? When have you heard of a powerful country like the US or Britain or Russia going into war? Exactly.
We are top of the food chain overall. If you look at a closed food chain the animal at the top is the least numerous and it works fine, so there should be less humans for the world food chain to balance out.
@antonb000 The trait you are talking about, though, is just veiled seal-interest. This trait does not stop the incredible amount of violence our species inflicts on one another daily, since it may be in one's (or a group's) self-interest to hurt others or other groups. It just so happens that a lot of the time it is in your self-interest to not harm others (which is why we created the concept of laws). Animals have shown altruism btw (even rats).
War and warfare is just a term we use. It's all about power and dominance. For instance, male animals fight each other about leadership in their "group". Isn't that a form of war? I believe war is a universal behaviour among most animals including humans, and its about power and dominance etc
@truvelocity Hum, I never thought of it or heard of anyone say that before about Vietnam and China. But it does make sense to a degree and reminds me of my high school social studies class about how the US went to war with Spain so they can take control of the Philippines. Thus, securing US trades with China because they now have territory in the Eastern market. I think resources are a HUGE factor in why anyone goes to war, whether it's over territory, energy resources like oil or money profit.
0ptimistPrim3 you are right, i think i expressed myself a little wrong. old things can be good, but being old do not make it good, or right for that matter. i do believe that as long as people sett quality and there own opinion, over age and the opinions of others, most people will do OK.
All human violence, including war, would easily be ended permanently with one simple change: fixing the component of our brain responsible for a lack of empathy. Just as some people are born taller, smarter, or more artistic than others, some are born with a physical difference in their brains that results in a larger capacity to empathize with others. The lack of the prevalence of this trait is the single problem of human welfare. The technology could be available now if there were a desire.
i dont find it surprising that war is less common in densely populated areas. I mean, why do you think international wars are more common than civil wars? Your simply more likely to be killed if you live in the same place as your enemy.
I believe at one point war may stop but considering our resources are not infinite at one point we will start to run out Horgan believes that the people will only fight if they are well fed or for pride but he fails to realize the places like africa who are always in constant war but are not doing it as a sport
@globalarte Even if you determine standard of living by HDI, that still includes Germany (15th most populous), United States, Italy, UK, Japan, France, etc. I don't think a high standard of living means high population but it definitely does not mean a low population.
It's like Israel vs Iran = nationalistic. But it's a little bit deeper than that. It also has to do with UK oil companies trying to get unlimited access to Iran's oil for half a century.
In balanced food chains the top animal is always the least numerous, The human population is much larger than a balanced food chain would allow. Think about why we are doomed as a species.
@random0815 Actually most animals will stake out claims of territory that they will defend from other members of their own species. Such behavior supports the survival of the species since it helps reduce "nutritional competition" and assure a sufficient hunting ground and food supply to each individual and group.
I wonder, if this holds to be true, that future human space colonies (or type 1 civilizations as Kaku would put it), are likely to war with each other? Of course in asking this question I am assuming that by that time the energy crisis is solved via nuclear fusion/anti matter etc. So perhaps the abundance of energy (leading to abundance of synthetic recourses) would lead to conflicts?
@ShinjukuHH Except for the US and Panama, the US and Serbia, India and Pakistan in 1999, Israel and Lebanon in 2006, and Russia and Georgia. So other than that, great theory.
As an atheist, I dont feel that I have "faith" that there is no god/gods. I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe the claims of the religious because they have not proved to me that I should. I live my life indifferent to the existance of a god, neither saying for certain that there is or isnt because (as you said) you can not prove something does not exist. To me Atheism is just a neutral stance to the question of "Is there a God", not a religion itself.
@random0815 Perhaps, but in this instance you're trying too hard to apply an abstract principle to something we can see occurring. That people spread out to reduce nutritional competition happens constantly throughout history: The Expansion of Greek Colonies, the invasion of the Sea Peoples, the colonization of the new world, the expansion of eastern peoples following the fall of the Roman Empire. These all occurred because the local population rose too high to avoid excessive competition.
Actually world war one was about Germany attempting to establish a certain degree of economic independence (east Belgian/French coal and access to Ukrainian wheat). This was because France/Britain along with Russian were making attempts to bully Germany in those regards. The lack of Coal and Wheat would have retarded Germany's economic growth which had an obvious appeal to Britain/France/Russia. Nationalism was just a convenient tool. So his example is not quite true to his point.
I can kind of see what he's getting at. If something is going to exert the effort to kill to survive why kill what you cant eat rather than just kill what you can. The Roman empire prospered because of cured meat. Wars require surplus to be successful. Scavengers are more prolific than predators, so I can see how survival isn't a factor in war. I think it is our thought that propagates war. Philosophy and pride cause many wars. Our advancing and conflicting thought is what causes war.
Wait, his info is flat out wrong. Neanderthal man lived as far back as 2.5 million years ago and their is strong evidence that human tribes conducted war with neanderthal man. Granted, there is also strong evidence that trade happened between the two as well.
World War 1 was economic, it was motivated by the bond market. Also, no one thinks wars are motivated by "food," what they mean is farmland, or maybe fishing waters (much like how wars fought over money aren't literally fought over printed pieces of paper). And the Yanomamo are just violent hunter gatherers, they don't fight over actual things, that's not war. They don't exist in a vacuum either: a lot of imperialism occurred on that continent in the past, perhaps it's a form of mobilization.
The day I see all of humanity stop fighting, or compete against on another is when we lose are humanity. When we all lie to one another and lie to ourself, either that or the humanity is beatin out of us.
The main argument against this would be it takes a certain level of cerebral development/evolution that makes it evolutionarily advantageous to wage war. I don't agree with those that say chimps wage war in the same conceptual way that humans do.
There's evidence for Horgan's view in the statistics which show less war/murder/crime per capita in the world than at any time over the last hundred years. Sure there may be a lot of it going on, but you also have to remember that there are 7 billion people on earth, a lot more opportunities to misbehave and yet refraining.
1:55-2:13 That's a remarkably irresponsible stretch, but not surprising in light of the fact the Horgan is a journalist, not a scientist. From an anthropological perspective I would certainly agree that in a broad sense warfare is a cultural activity, but that isn't the only perspective avaliable to us. War is also a behavioural phenomenon, and so ultimately a product of natural selection, and perhaps a function of any highly evolved, proliferated social species. More science, less conjecture!
War is always about struggle for resources and the security of them, or fought to maintain a way of life. The only way there will be no war is if everyone lowers themselves and doesn't strive for a better life. WW1/2 were not just national pride and global dominace, they were fighting to change peoples lives for the better. Both sides wanted to make peoples lives better. Both sides thought the other side would make life worse. Ensue battle for better living condition.
@random0815 Furthermore, this is isn't a Darwinian assumption. This has to do with species as a whole, not the competition of individuals within the species. This has absolutely zero to do with the theory of evolution based on natural selection. It's merely a logical conclusion based on a wide-spread observation that has particular historical significance among the human species specifically. That a follower of Darwin came up with the idea does not mean to imply it's Darwinian itself.
@Nayr747 empathy has very tangible bounds. i'm not arguing with you on the fact that we are self-interested. like i said, humans are the only species that engage in non-kin social cooperation, i.e. we cooperate on a very large scale with people who are not our blood relatives. this requires far more empathy than any other animal can display (in fact i could argue that it is a uniquely human trait). we are all dependent on our society to survive, and being anti-social is counterprodutive
Perhaps we can merge with machines and remove the need for warfare. Or we could invest funding to science rather than military in the hopes that we can perhaps replicate resources and not have to worry about limitations? Just throwing whatever my mind comes up with here.
@random0815 No, I'm not trying to apply observations.. This was done by social psychologist Konrad Lorenz in his book 'On Aggression'. The patterns are of no particular species -- it's displayed by nearly ALL species. This includes humans. Furthermore, the reasoning for it is not observational, but based on observation. That is to say the logical conclusion is that the reason MAY be because it reduces nutritional competition, but not necessarily. You're not understanding the concept clearly.
I feel like he contradicted his previous arguments at some point when he brought up WW1 as an example. It seems to me that fighting for national pride is worse than fighting for resources. Also, I wonder about his "The violent people" example. How do we know "They kill because they're lightly populated" and that they're not "lightly populated because they kill?" How do we know "sparse populations cause killing," and not "killing causes sparse populations?" Sounds like shitty inference to me
@MrEdLoop Faith is need for those people that need something to believe in. Like a young child in the dark that holds on to their safety blanket, for many people faith is like that blanket. For the child, I seems that without that blanket they have to face a host of terrors, but in reality it is simply a blanket. It is the same with faith, it is something that some people believe in so that they don't have to face their problems.
@antonb000 it is not human nature, don't let Hobbes fool you. War was invented just a few thousand years ago. Man kind lived on earth for many many many years without war, sharing and practicing altruism. Agriculture was the main reason people started fighting, and then the creation of the state and classes developed what we know as war today. But this happened, when? about 10,000 years ago?
@AbsolutelyDetacular It was for nationalism and greed. As the presentor said, these were already the wealthiest states in the world. They could sick back and have their people live in relative luxury.
@Snufkin224 Not really war has been only a motivator, a crisis motivator. The same result came from other motivators, like the renaissance motivated by curiosity and search for knowledge.
It could also be not about the energy that you have for warfare, but the fact that having resources stands apart from warfare itself in the sense that we value one over the other, and in different ways.
Another conclusion you could draw from the Yanomami study is that exposure (familiarity) reduces the drive for war. Wars that are not based on historic precedent are often between nations, cultures, religions - between groups who do not fully understand one another. Exposure, familiarity, the sharing of information and understanding... these are the things that reduce conflict. One can only hope that as we approach a Global Village state, the drive for war will evaporate.
Anyone who considers believing Horgan should also read the other side of the argument. For example the Harvard Psychology professor Steven Pinker lays, among other things, out an opposing case in his 2008 book "The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature" and recently wrote an entire book on violence called "The Better Angels of Our Nature".
I can highly recommend, the evidence for war having always existed is much stronger than Horgan lets on here.
I think it is far more likely that a stalemate of powers is more likely to prevent all out wars the likes of WW1 and 2. Its like playing a game of Risk. There have been times in Risk where mine or mine enemies armies are equally as powerful but no large campaigns start. Small squabbles over small, insignificant territories do occur far more often than in the earlier stages of the game when we have less power. Of course a game is no model for real life, but it is something to think about.
As long as you have people with their own self interests that they need to meet, whether through war or working to meet their wants/needs, you'll always have the possibility of war. The only reason some 'groups' are less likely to have war is because they have what they want/need and are happy, but usually only for a period of time before they run out of resources or want more of what they do/don't have.
@Einheitskreis Wait but as he said, this is contradicted, it has been shown that with less resources and higher population density, less war occurs and it is actually really logical when you think about it. People only fight when they have vast empires and massive resources because the only way to expand is to fight, but when under pressure with less resources, everyone benefits from sharing and so they must share to survive.
War is essentially organized conflict.
And it has as many reasons as any creature might have to attack one another, be it food, territory, beliefs or any kind of reason.
War as a phenomenon is as complex as it is simple.
Intelligent people realize we all gain far more in times of peace than in times of war.
There are some good ideas there, I may research this Chagnon fellow.
one of the reasons for ww1 was to maintain empires and power which can kinda relate to resources
Reasons for most conflicts can be classified into power disparity between two or more groups, greed for greater control over others and unwillingness to pay for substances that you want but are in other group's possession.I agree this seems pretty crude and conflict origins are pretty complex but a key reason for most conflicts is one of the above.
Half the people on BigThink make me ask the question: "Who are you and why should I think you're special, why should I think you're credible, and what makes you think you know more than me?"
It's just a part of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When you get to the highest point and the struggle for survival become minimal, humans then realize that they need something else. And what is more of and endless well to fill than the need for power? That's what war is about
I think globalization alone will decrease the prevalence of war dramatically. It shows that our future involves us being more united.
Give those politicians and big-shot gun manufacturers an astronomic merit for winning an argument in TH-cam. The End of War.
What has the amount of protein got to with war waged by nation states? The generals don't ask how energetic the grunts are feeling before waging war. But I think the flaw in Horgan's thinkking, is in pursuing any single root cause. Clearly in many modern cases, war has been about power, or acquisition of mineral wealth, but wars have been fought over religion, clan allegiance, macho posturing and more.
I would rather live in a world full of dangers and war, than live in a world so dull, so populated and so close that I can't even think for myself. War itself iself is the law of the universe, from the galactic scale to the atomic scale, we are always in a constant battle, light versus dark.
Yes, but it doesn't take much energy to pull the trigger of an AK47. Not fighting because you physically can't is much different than choosing not to fight.
I studied the Ya̧nomamö indians in anthropology in highschool. Interesting stuff.
Wars have generated the greatest and fastest technological progresses.
Conflict has always existed ,the words,the language,the conscious self awareness of war did not exist.
War is addictive. Humans enjoy war the same way they enjoy sports as long as your winning!
@FireMark78 God has been a very popular excuse, but not a real reason. Religious motivations are cultural motivations. Until recently, religion and culture were inseparable ideas.
An entire universe around us. We're this insignificant and vastly special evolved conscious being. And we spend more on killing each other than all else. What a strange planet, universe, and species.
War will never end because greed cannot stop. Humans will never turn into a one cultured race.
Is it just me, or do we really, really need to run into some aliens to fight?
This should be called: 'Small think'
As long as there is avarice, pride, and more than enough resources, there will be war. However, I have a feeling people can become more compassionate and generous during times of trouble. If not, they will resort to violence.
Great stuff
@random0815 These are not postulations in the least. These are not only confirmed archaeologically on all accounts, but with the Greek colonizations confirmed with historical documents as well. Also, that the Indus valley had a large population without resorting to violence or expansion says nothing. It's not the population that is the issue, but the population relative to available resources. These aren't assumptions based on animal behavior, but on historical merit alone.
He forgets one thing!
...War never changes
Warfare is not innate. Chimpanzees may have raids, but our other close cousins, the seldom mentioned Bonobos, are peaceful. We seriously need to study the difference.
I think it's fair to say people make war when their at the outer or inner limits; a lack of resources bellow a certain level will cause war, if there simply isn't enough to go around. On the other hand however; people will fight to gain control over resource in great amount because they have value.
So as long as we have both these facts there will be war, a balance between the two may promote peace time.
For the last part of the video: the less resources the tribes had the less war there is. When have you heard of Argentina, Tibet or Thailand going into war? When have you heard of a powerful country like the US or Britain or Russia going into war? Exactly.
Its always going to be "us against them" and thats why there are wars. We need to find solidarity as human beings.
We are top of the food chain overall. If you look at a closed food chain the animal at the top is the least numerous and it works fine, so there should be less humans for the world food chain to balance out.
@antonb000 The trait you are talking about, though, is just veiled seal-interest. This trait does not stop the incredible amount of violence our species inflicts on one another daily, since it may be in one's (or a group's) self-interest to hurt others or other groups. It just so happens that a lot of the time it is in your self-interest to not harm others (which is why we created the concept of laws). Animals have shown altruism btw (even rats).
@TadRaunch obviously a typo. glad you could make an intellectual contribution to the conversation.
Less food = more team work. That's my guess.
@ShinjukuHH I was refuting your McDonalds theory.
War and warfare is just a term we use. It's all about power and dominance. For instance, male animals fight each other about leadership in their "group". Isn't that a form of war? I believe war is a universal behaviour among most animals including humans, and its about power and dominance etc
@truvelocity Hum, I never thought of it or heard of anyone say that before about Vietnam and China. But it does make sense to a degree and reminds me of my high school social studies class about how the US went to war with Spain so they can take control of the Philippines. Thus, securing US trades with China because they now have territory in the Eastern market. I think resources are a HUGE factor in why anyone goes to war, whether it's over territory, energy resources like oil or money profit.
You win this time. Don't forget. June 16th 2017. We will meet again.
0ptimistPrim3 you are right, i think i expressed myself a little wrong. old things can be good, but being old do not make it good, or right for that matter. i do believe that as long as people sett quality and there own opinion, over age and the opinions of others, most people will do OK.
All human violence, including war, would easily be ended permanently with one simple change: fixing the component of our brain responsible for a lack of empathy. Just as some people are born taller, smarter, or more artistic than others, some are born with a physical difference in their brains that results in a larger capacity to empathize with others. The lack of the prevalence of this trait is the single problem of human welfare. The technology could be available now if there were a desire.
Horgan has some thought-provoking ideas that are not without merit.
@ShinjukuHH Your response explains more than the first two minutes of this video.
War will end when humans end.
i dont find it surprising that war is less common in densely populated areas. I mean, why do you think international wars are more common than civil wars? Your simply more likely to be killed if you live in the same place as your enemy.
I believe at one point war may stop but considering our resources are not infinite at one point we will start to run out Horgan believes that the people will only fight if they are well fed or for pride but he fails to realize the places like africa who are always in constant war but are not doing it as a sport
The indigenous people are called "Yanomami". Source: I'm from the same country as them, it's called Venezuela.
It felt wrong not having both top comments about Michio Kaku.
........ the only videos i want to ever watch from this channel are the ones from Michio Kaku
@globalarte Even if you determine standard of living by HDI, that still includes Germany (15th most populous), United States, Italy, UK, Japan, France, etc. I don't think a high standard of living means high population but it definitely does not mean a low population.
It's like Israel vs Iran = nationalistic. But it's a little bit deeper than that. It also has to do with UK oil companies trying to get unlimited access to Iran's oil for half a century.
I have to think Horgan IS an optimist, nothing wrong with that, but before too long, the 'war' gene will be discovered.
As long as there are two subjectively minded human beings on earth, the possibility of war and violence withh be there.
War ends when we elect Michio Kaku for president of the world.
In balanced food chains the top animal is always the least numerous, The human population is much larger than a balanced food chain would allow. Think about why we are doomed as a species.
@ReassuringSmile stupid mistake, rectify it so you dont have to post it and we dont have to read it again.peace
@random0815 Actually most animals will stake out claims of territory that they will defend from other members of their own species.
Such behavior supports the survival of the species since it helps reduce "nutritional competition" and assure a sufficient hunting ground and food supply to each individual and group.
I wonder, if this holds to be true, that future human space colonies (or type 1 civilizations as Kaku would put it), are likely to war with each other? Of course in asking this question I am assuming that by that time the energy crisis is solved via nuclear fusion/anti matter etc. So perhaps the abundance of energy (leading to abundance of synthetic recourses) would lead to conflicts?
@rustman888 if i remember its because people with a lower standard of living are usually farmers and need a lot more children to help
He missed a big one. War makes money and advances technology.
@ShinjukuHH Except for the US and Panama, the US and Serbia, India and Pakistan in 1999, Israel and Lebanon in 2006, and Russia and Georgia.
So other than that, great theory.
As an atheist, I dont feel that I have "faith" that there is no god/gods. I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe the claims of the religious because they have not proved to me that I should. I live my life indifferent to the existance of a god, neither saying for certain that there is or isnt because (as you said) you can not prove something does not exist. To me Atheism is just a neutral stance to the question of "Is there a God", not a religion itself.
@random0815 Perhaps, but in this instance you're trying too hard to apply an abstract principle to something we can see occurring. That people spread out to reduce nutritional competition happens constantly throughout history: The Expansion of Greek Colonies, the invasion of the Sea Peoples, the colonization of the new world, the expansion of eastern peoples following the fall of the Roman Empire. These all occurred because the local population rose too high to avoid excessive competition.
Actually world war one was about Germany attempting to establish a certain degree of economic independence (east Belgian/French coal and access to Ukrainian wheat). This was because France/Britain along with Russian were making attempts to bully Germany in those regards. The lack of Coal and Wheat would have retarded Germany's economic growth which had an obvious appeal to Britain/France/Russia. Nationalism was just a convenient tool. So his example is not quite true to his point.
I can kind of see what he's getting at. If something is going to exert the effort to kill to survive why kill what you cant eat rather than just kill what you can.
The Roman empire prospered because of cured meat.
Wars require surplus to be successful. Scavengers are more prolific than predators, so I can see how survival isn't a factor in war.
I think it is our thought that propagates war. Philosophy and pride cause many wars. Our advancing and conflicting thought is what causes war.
We're complex society that kill each other with nuclear missiles, tanks airplanes and guns =( I lost hope for humanity.
Wait, his info is flat out wrong. Neanderthal man lived as far back as 2.5 million years ago and their is strong evidence that human tribes conducted war with neanderthal man. Granted, there is also strong evidence that trade happened between the two as well.
Higher standard of living keeps population down.
World War 1 was economic, it was motivated by the bond market. Also, no one thinks wars are motivated by "food," what they mean is farmland, or maybe fishing waters (much like how wars fought over money aren't literally fought over printed pieces of paper). And the Yanomamo are just violent hunter gatherers, they don't fight over actual things, that's not war. They don't exist in a vacuum either: a lot of imperialism occurred on that continent in the past, perhaps it's a form of mobilization.
@InfectedInHD and it's not right now?
@rustman888 I disagree. Among the most populous countries are the most wealthy, such as China, India, United States, Brazil, Japan...
The day I see all of humanity stop fighting, or compete against on another is when we lose are humanity. When we all lie to one another and lie to ourself, either that or the humanity is beatin out of us.
The main argument against this would be it takes a certain level of cerebral development/evolution that makes it evolutionarily advantageous to wage war.
I don't agree with those that say chimps wage war in the same conceptual way that humans do.
There's evidence for Horgan's view in the statistics which show less war/murder/crime per capita in the world than at any time over the last hundred years. Sure there may be a lot of it going on, but you also have to remember that there are 7 billion people on earth, a lot more opportunities to misbehave and yet refraining.
1:55-2:13 That's a remarkably irresponsible stretch, but not surprising in light of the fact the Horgan is a journalist, not a scientist. From an anthropological perspective I would certainly agree that in a broad sense warfare is a cultural activity, but that isn't the only perspective avaliable to us. War is also a behavioural phenomenon, and so ultimately a product of natural selection, and perhaps a function of any highly evolved, proliferated social species. More science, less conjecture!
War is always about struggle for resources and the security of them, or fought to maintain a way of life. The only way there will be no war is if everyone lowers themselves and doesn't strive for a better life. WW1/2 were not just national pride and global dominace, they were fighting to change peoples lives for the better. Both sides wanted to make peoples lives better. Both sides thought the other side would make life worse. Ensue battle for better living condition.
@random0815 Furthermore, this is isn't a Darwinian assumption. This has to do with species as a whole, not the competition of individuals within the species. This has absolutely zero to do with the theory of evolution based on natural selection. It's merely a logical conclusion based on a wide-spread observation that has particular historical significance among the human species specifically. That a follower of Darwin came up with the idea does not mean to imply it's Darwinian itself.
@Nayr747 empathy has very tangible bounds. i'm not arguing with you on the fact that we are self-interested. like i said, humans are the only species that engage in non-kin social cooperation, i.e. we cooperate on a very large scale with people who are not our blood relatives. this requires far more empathy than any other animal can display (in fact i could argue that it is a uniquely human trait). we are all dependent on our society to survive, and being anti-social is counterprodutive
Perhaps we can merge with machines and remove the need for warfare. Or we could invest funding to science rather than military in the hopes that we can perhaps replicate resources and not have to worry about limitations? Just throwing whatever my mind comes up with here.
War. War never changes.
@random0815 No, I'm not trying to apply observations.. This was done by social psychologist Konrad Lorenz in his book 'On Aggression'. The patterns are of no particular species -- it's displayed by nearly ALL species. This includes humans. Furthermore, the reasoning for it is not observational, but based on observation. That is to say the logical conclusion is that the reason MAY be because it reduces nutritional competition, but not necessarily. You're not understanding the concept clearly.
A lack of evidence is not the absence of evidence. Proof can be there, you may just have not found it yet.
@TheOneBlackSheep1973 base statement? what do you mean by that? was the lone word "statement" not eloquent enough for your pretentious comment?
I feel like he contradicted his previous arguments at some point when he brought up WW1 as an example. It seems to me that fighting for national pride is worse than fighting for resources. Also, I wonder about his "The violent people" example. How do we know "They kill because they're lightly populated" and that they're not "lightly populated because they kill?" How do we know "sparse populations cause killing," and not "killing causes sparse populations?" Sounds like shitty inference to me
@MrEdLoop Faith is need for those people that need something to believe in. Like a young child in the dark that holds on to their safety blanket, for many people faith is like that blanket. For the child, I seems that without that blanket they have to face a host of terrors, but in reality it is simply a blanket. It is the same with faith, it is something that some people believe in so that they don't have to face their problems.
subtitles please...
@antonb000 it is not human nature, don't let Hobbes fool you. War was invented just a few thousand years ago. Man kind lived on earth for many many many years without war, sharing and practicing altruism. Agriculture was the main reason people started fighting, and then the creation of the state and classes developed what we know as war today. But this happened, when? about 10,000 years ago?
@WifiFreedom And that does sound horribly brutal, but there's really no other way you can put it.
I could have sworn I said something like that, perhaps I worded it wrong.
We fight wars because we are stupid
@Brianap21 I just noticed that link isn't working... just google "Kenneth Pfeiffer shrooms" and click the first link
@HarrisonRocks marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms aren't drugs. Drugs are created in the laboratory.
@TheDb884 That idea will take hold... Really deep and profound. Consider yourself ignored until you can muster more than idiotic platitudes.
@AbsolutelyDetacular It was for nationalism and greed. As the presentor said, these were already the wealthiest states in the world. They could sick back and have their people live in relative luxury.
@Snufkin224 Not really war has been only a motivator, a crisis motivator. The same result came from other motivators, like the renaissance motivated by curiosity and search for knowledge.
War . . . war never changes . . .