Is war an invention or is it a biological need? We engaged in this intriguing argument with many views. Scholars such as Chagnon (1988) have tried to prove that warfare is a biological necessity, but others for example, Mead (1940) asserts that war is an invention. War and warfare both carries various meaning but a common ground could be formed. An incorporated meaning of warfare may be, an act of violence, a struggle, or test of ability between people for a specific purpose. Regardless, the general concept that war is inevitable or universal still remains. One is compelled to think that generalizing about such phenomenon would be problematic, as our way of life and the activities we engaged in daily are affected by our culture, and culture can be altered. So the challenges lies in proving warfare to be something universal. Mead (1940:20) contends that war is an invention, and with this conception one attempts to argue that warfare materializers as a means to cope or succeed in some particulars situation but not all.
Firstly, contrary to the argument that war is necessary and universal, Mead (1940:21) positions that societies will go to war if they have war as an invention. For example, Mead (1940) speaks of two groups of people, the Eskimos and the Lepchas of Sikkim describe by Geoffrey Gorer. Both groups neither concede war. The Lepchas are meek, and it could be argued that aggression isn’t in their character. The Eskimos however, as Mead (1940) points out, were the opposite. They were more aggressive people, yet they had not chosen to engage in war even when faced with all possible situations to be aggressive and retaliate (Mead 1940:21). In contrast to the former context, Mead provides evidence of another group of people who ...
... middle of paper ...
...cultural situations. If we know war and have war as a means of getting what we want it will be use. Whether it is for respect, revenge, or display of our skills if we have war to our disposal, it would be employed. Mead (1940) and Magee(2008) proved warfare does emerge in some context , however there is also the problem of how war or warfare is defined, what kind of population were studied and how accurately it represents the majority of people living in our universe? Even Chagnon (1988) implicitly illustrate war is an invention as he suggest war is a thought of mechanism in responding to particular situations but not necessarily all. The argument that warfare is an invention created in some particular context still stand based on the evidence presented , although the absent of war could be disproved by others due to inconsistency with the definition of warfare,
Demolished cities, torn families and decimated countries are a few of the destructive properties of war. Throughout history, the world has been through war after war, never ceasing. Two of the greatest and most destructive wars were World War I and World War II. These wars involved most of the world’s countries and ended with tragic results. The wars also left many soldiers with various mental and physical problems that ruined their social lives. John F. Kennedy once said that “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” For the most part, he is right; if war does not end, it will end humankind. The main problem with this is that most people barely even know how destructive war can be; people believe war is the only way to solve problems with other countries. The problem with that is that war often uncovers or starts new problems that can affect others more than the past problems. Literature has helped people grasp at the understanding of what happens during wars and the problems that it can create. Some go into deep aspects of significant wars while others go into wars that everyone fights within themselves. Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Beowulf and John Milton’s Paradise Lost are a few pieces of the thousands of works of literatures that capture the tragic, destructive power of war, global and small.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.
Due to Chagnon’s unparalleled body of work in terms of quantity and, as many argue, quality, Marvin Harris draws heavily on his research to support his point, which is that the origin of war is ecological and reproductive pressure. One should question Harris’s theories (and all theories), especially in the light of the aforementioned article, but I do not believe his arguments are, or should be, adversely affected by the information presented in this article.
Mead’s opinion is very clear in her article; she believes war is caused by us, and the fact that we invented it. It isn’t a “biological necessity” (1), nor a “sociological inevitability” (1), in her mind. She presents to us an onslaught of facts and findings that back her argument solidly. We are shown groups of people that actually live without warfare, completely. As an example, Mead talks about Eskimos, and how they live together, and, mostly, in peace. They don’t
In Thayer’s article, he makes an attempt to incorporate Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory into the international security studies. The article tries to answer a central question that what are the implications of Evolutionary theory to realist theory of international security and in what way can peace be achieved if warfare is part of human nature? This paper agrees with Thayer that Evolutionary theory provides a scientific theory foundation for realism and is an ultimate cause for war and ethnic conflicts, as well as the assumption that origin of war is intrinsic in human nature as part of their evolution history. This paper will also suggest that a balanced structure of the world could contribute to temporary peace. But it need to be noted that the theory is also limited since Evolution theory could not fully explain many other forms of security problems like civil wars and terrorism. To review Thayer’s article, first, the paper will briefly explain how Evolutionary theory act as an ultimate cause for realist theory in terms of two human traits: egoism and domination. Following that, the paper will discuss the implications of Evolutionary theory to international relations. This paper will also evaluate the theory by comparing it with Waltz’s and Gleditsch’s theory on peace and war. Finally, it will conclude the paper by summarizing main points.
War is the strategic and organized conflict between two or more nations, countries, or groups. War is the inevitable aspect of human civilization and society as common disagreements and opinions often escalate at a parliamentary level leading to wide spread controversy between the opposing groups and eventually to war if a solution cannot be reached between the two groups. A good example of this was the widely known Second World War. Lasting between 1939 and 1945, World War 2 was the deadliest military conflict in history with over 60 million people killed alone. Adolf Hitler, the widely criticized Nazi leader of Germany at the time of World War Two, had different views than most of the Western World. His main objective was to serve the German people and only the German people by trying to dominate all of Europe and creating a society made up of only German people and eliminating all inferior races which is why he executed Jewish people as he did not want them as a part of his society. He won the favour of the German people by launching mass propaganda campaigns such as the Big Lie. Hitler and his minister of propaganda, Joseph Gobbles, launched a massive campaign to convince the German people that the Jewish people were their enemy and blamed all of Germany’s problems on them, including World War One. The Nazi party utilized this technique skillfully under the theory that no matter how big the lie is, people will believe it if you repeat it enough. This theory and Hitler’s unmatched confidence, persuasive techniques, and speech writing skills, lead the German people to turn on the Jewish people and alienate them from normal society. When he rose to complete power as the Fuhrer, meaning leader or guide, invaded Poland which caused...
Human nature will always corrupt the mind of modern man and send him down the destructive path of war. Due to this, the chronology of war is a constant stream of events that have dated back to the creation of civilization. The inevitability of it is based off something within the mind, that we call human nature. This phoneme pulls the attentions of man towards the path of greatest gain in the quickest amount of time. A part of this is due to mans greed to obtain as much power as possible. Power doesn’t hold one meaning however, it can be broken down into many aspects of appeal for man, creating even more of attraction. Whether the individual in control is seeking power through wealth, through control, or dominance their means of obtaining it includes war or destruction.
Every day we are surrounded by stories of war. In fact, we have become so accustomed to it, that we are now entertained by it. Video games, movies, and books filled with heroes who once dominated the battlefields. However it is constantly stated, “no good comes from war.” Even famous songs state “war... what is it good for… absolutely nothing.” But what if war was actually necessary? Throughout history, we see examples of the good things wars have brought. War has freed slaves, modernized medicine, brought down evil empires, and even brought countries together
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by man. There are many reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party, war is the last remaining option. Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun wrote in fourteenth-century Spain, that “War is a universal and inevitable aspect of life, ordained by God to the same extent as the sky and the earth, the heat and the cold. The question of whether to fright is not a significant moral question because fighting is constant; the minor decision not to fight this war will be made only in the context of knowing that another war will present itself soon enough because it is simply always there.” (Peter S. Themes. The Just War)
Warfare, the struggle between two or more nations, will continue to impact the lives of individuals in the world. Ondaatje uses the following introduction from Tacitus’s work, Annals, to expand on the idea of warfare in cultural history: “I begin my work at the time when Servius Galba was Consul.... The histories of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero, while they were a power, were falsified through terror and after their death were written under a fresh hatred” (93).
War is controversial, unfortunate, and certainly misunderstood; it is a transforming agent, a catalyst for change. Nonetheless, many people focus on war's negative consequences, while positive effects are downplayed. War is a necessary evil in the sense that it stabilizes population, encourages technological advances, and has a very high economic value. Without war, the overpopulation of the human race is inevitable. It is this reason that war is a useful tool by not only Mother Nature, but also humans themselves to institute population control.
All living things need the resources provided by our natural world to live, leading to them adapting to specific environments. Animals in particular are mobile creatures that move from place to place searching for the best environments for their survival. The most intelligent creatures in our animal world are human beings and like other animals, they moved from place to place while organized into races in search of the elusive desirable environments. However, there is always the likelihood of finding fellow humanity already thriving in that environment. This resulted to conflict as competition for the inadequate resources arose. Consequently, human beings formed nations, allegiance to the national system meant loyalty to the governance, and regions and they formed military groups to defend their resources. However, the military warfare has changed with international understanding, though the idea still rests heavily on fight for resources. Further, international politics illustrates the causes and effects of modern military war have changed due to chan...
War has been around for centuries. From the time modern civilizations began, war has played an integral part in human history. It shaped the world into the modern world we live in. War has been said to be a great motivator, for example, the Great Wall of China was built to fend off the attackers from the north. However, the negative aspects of war far outweighs any positive effects it might have. The destruction of civilizations, cities and countries, mass killings of men, woman and children alike, the disastrous effect it has on economy and the after effects of war can last for centuries.