August 10, 2012
Is War Inevitable?
E.O. Wilson in Discover Magazine:
Also see John Horgan's response to this piece, “No, War Is Not Inevitable.”
“History is a bath of blood,” wrote William James, whose 1906 antiwar essay is arguably the best ever written on the subject. “Modern man inherits all the innate pugnacity and all the love of glory of his ancestors. Showing war’s irrationality and horror is of no effect on him. The horrors make the fascination. War is the strong life; it is life in extremis; war taxes are the only ones men never hesitate to pay, as the budgets of all nations show us.”
Our bloody nature, it can now be argued in the context of modern biology, is ingrained because group-versus-group competition was a principal driving force that made us what we are. In prehistory, group selection (that is, the competition between tribes instead of between individuals) lifted the hominids that became territorial carnivores to heights of solidarity, to genius, to enterprise—and to fear. Each tribe knew with justification that if it was not armed and ready, its very existence was imperiled. Throughout history, the escalation of a large part of technology has had combat as its central purpose. Today the calendars of nations are punctuated by holidays to celebrate wars won and to perform memorial services for those who died waging them. Public support is best fired up by appeal to the emotions of deadly combat, over which the amygdala—a center for primary emotion in the brain—is grandmaster. We find ourselves in the “battle” to stem an oil spill, the “fight” to tame inflation, the “war” against cancer. Wherever there is an enemy, animate or inanimate, there must be a victory. You must prevail at the front, no matter how high the cost at home.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 05:12 PM | Permalink






















Comments
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," sez I.
Posted by: Don McArthur | Aug 11, 2012 12:24:08 AM
The most enlighening statement on the futility of war was made before WWII by General Smedley Butler, two time medal of honor recipient. He gave this speech, portrayed by Graham Frye hundreds of times before 1940:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0
War is a Racket by General Smedley Butler from Pennsylvania.
Posted by: W.J. Abbe | Aug 11, 2012 7:55:31 AM
Wow. This is precisely where a scientist, as a scientist, should display intellectual humility. Group selection is, as we have seen, massively controversial. Even its supporters recognize that it is not the sole kind of natural selection (hence Wilson's use of the phrase "a principal"). How, then, does it follow from the existence of group selection that war is inevitable? It doesn't. If selection also operates at the level of the individual geonome, we can't help but notice that war is awfully bad for most participants and only good for a select elite on the winning wide (in terms of survivial and reproduction).
Evolution does not tell us whether war is inevitable, and Wilson is showing unfathomable hubris to claim that it does. The sins of sociobiology were supposed to be dead and buried, yet, here they are. In the past, we had excuses for racism and sexism, now, we have excuses to avoid seeking peaceful resolutions to conflicts. All grounded in "science" that is no science at all.
Posted by: Joe | Aug 11, 2012 11:17:10 AM
There is a way out. Democratic societies do not wage war with each other. They tend towards lower birthrates and are moving in the direction of living in a more sustainable manner. Tribalism, however, is still alive and is thriving in regions where it isn't tempered by democracy and secularism. As a scientist, E. O. Wilson doesn't need to fudge his theory to be politically correct. Wilson's earlier theory, sociobiology, ascribed human motivations to genome preservation, and it was partially correct. But it did not explain Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son and heir; group selection or tribalism does.
Posted by: Sam | Aug 11, 2012 5:27:41 PM
Post a comment