War: The Product of Genes or Memes?

[NewSocialist]

The following is a pretty heated debate between Robert Wright (author of such books as The Moral Animal and Nonzero) and John Horgan (journalist for Scientific American and the author of The End of Science) regarding the topic of war.

Wright, of course, takes a more genetically-based approach regarding the cause of war, conforming with the views of evolutionary psychology, whereas Horgan believes war to be more memetic due to evidence found in anthropology.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/31183

Both of them present a compelling case and both of them agree that war can be prevented. I really encourage everyone to watch.

Which side do you favor and por qué?

[Reznov]

Eh, sorry but I just doubt the whole genes thing. I think influences when you are young are more likely to influence you to go to war then genes are.

Imo anyways. Interesting to see how the arugment plays out.

[NewSocialist]

War is the result of capitalism. End capitalism to end war.

Isn't this a bit simplistic and kind of besides the point? War can be traced all the way back to the hunter-gatherer era, so the fact war can be observed under capitalism is hardly surprising. The question over whether socialism or communism can serve to lessen or completely end war is another matter altogether. I don't deny that capitalism is the root cause behind many wars, but I do question why humans feel inclined to kill in the first place.

The question the debate raises isn't whether or not warfare has existed throughout human history, everyone knows that it has. The question is what causes it in the first place (genes or memes). Figure out the cause and we can better formulate a solution.

This is obviously a question that is going to be more appealing to those interested in biology and anthropology.

[Adil3tr]

Scarcity is the force behind war. Wars are fought over something. Thats why there was war before capitalism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Not the old its 'human nature' argument...

[NewSocialist]

When considered in today's era of capitalism, it is abundantly clear that capitalism is the only cause of war. Unfortunately for idealists like yourself, the earlier epochs of human history were not capitalist, so one cannot blame capitalism for those wars.

Capitalism entails the production of commodities, via methods of exploited wage labor, to be sold on a market. There is a reason why Marx and Engels referred to the hunter-gatherer phase as "primitive communism," and that's because labor wasn't being exploited--the hunters and gatherers divided the surplus they produced among themselves in a fairly egalitarian fashion. Wage labor wasn't employed on a large scale until the industrial revolution. Prior to capitalism, many workers were still exploited (peasants producing a surplus for their feudal lords, for instance) but this form of economic exploitation wasn't capitalist exploitation. Marxists shouldn't have to be reminded of something this elementary..

If war existed during primitive communism and monarchism, how can we blame capitalism for it? It's either memetic, genetic, or a combination of the two, and the solutions to war will stem therefrom.

Furthermore, I'm not an "idealist," I'm a socialist who also happens to believe in scientific materialism. If anyone is an idealist, it's a person who rejects uncomfortable scientific questions a priori simply because the answers might threaten their preconceived notions.

I'm genuinely interested in scientific facts. I'm on the fence regarding this particular issue and was curious if other members were interested in this subject as well. From there, I was hoping that fruitful dialog would emerge. However, if you're just here to give empty insults, maybe you should consider engaging in threads that you can actually contribute to in some meaningful sense.

[NewSocialist]

Scarcity is the force behind war. Wars are fought over something. Thats why there was war before capitalism.

I agree. The problem is, if we're evolved beings (which we obviously are), and we happened to have evolved in environments where scarcity was a regular concern, then perhaps the emotions and behaviors that helped our ancestors survive scarcity remain intact in the human psyche, thereby making "warrior-like" behavior a feature of our "human nature" as it were. Theoretically, as a result of resource scarcity, natural selection could have favored those with a propensity towards warfare to more successfully propagate their genes--which would survive in the human gene pool to this day and remain a feature of our "paleolithic brain."

That's the sort of argument that sociobiologists would make, and it's clearly question begging--which is why I'm skeptical of the genetic argument. The empirical evidence in favor of the memetic explanation, while not entirely perfect, offers a good and plausible counterargument, which I happen to find validity in.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would say that aggression is an integral part of being human, and that war is simply a particularly organised and directed form of aggression.

So the answer is not as simple as the OP makes out.

[NewSocialist]

I would say that aggression is an integral part of being human, and that war is simply a particularly organised and directed form of aggression.

So the answer is not as simple as the OP makes out.

Good point. Both Wright and Horgan actually make this point during the debate, but emphasize its significance differently.

I suppose then that natural aggression could manifest to war given the incentives and institutions supportive of warfare exist. Both men say that modern travel makes people empathize with foreign peoples more, and modern methods of information give people a more accurate view of how horrific warfare actually is, whereas in the past governments or tribes romanticized battle--thus ensuring young people would be willing pawns in the elite's "game" of war. These new advancements could be the reason why war has reduced in contemporary history, and can eventually be entirely overcome.

The fact we live in a culture where the burden of war is shifted onto the economically weak certainly must exacerbate the issue though, since of course young men with no other options will be willing to join the military--this is where capitalism steps in.. Noam Chomsky suggests that if we must have an army, the burden should be evenly distributed (perhaps through a program of mandatory temporary military service for all), which would most likely reduce society's compliance with unnecessary war and also reduce the material incentives businesses have to promote war since the corporate executives would risk having their little Johnny or Kaitlyn being blown away.

[Nolan]

Throughout recorded history, it's social. Ruling classes will try to secure and strengthen their power over populations and other ruling classes. This holds true in any system that has a ruling class. Before there were clear class divisions it was solely over scarcity and/or territoriality. For example I've heard that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals fought over territory in Europe. These were hunter-gather societies.

[ZeroNowhere]

It would probably be more reasonable to look at specific wars.

[Luís Henrique]

Neither.

Wars have cultural, politic, and economic causes. They have nothing to do with genes (which wouldn't be able to explain why sometimes we are at war, and sometimes we are at peace). Memes are a meme - a concept with absolutely no scientific base.

Luís Henrique

[Tatarin]

I don't deny that capitalism is the root cause behind many wars, but I do question why humans feel inclined to kill in the first place.

But then the question isn't war but why humans kill. War is "just" a shortening of "a very large group of humans vs another very large group of humans fighting", is it not?

Then, as you mentioned, war can be traced back throughout history, which is true. But it is also true that all societies in history have been hierarchical - regions, lands, kingdoms, nations etc. have always been controlled by one elite or the other. What is also true is that many, if not all, of these have been propagated to obey through religion, nationalism, patriotism and even for "the people" (both all and only some).

So in short, humans as individuals are what they are. True, some are more aggressive, some are less, and some change place with the other. But as far as I can see, no war has started overnight, that is, spontaneous human aggression, if you will. All are lead by some group or some belief. The great majority of people won't just walk into lethal combat without a very good reason, and often that reason isn't a choice of want, but a need. Be poor, or go to war. Starve or fight. You or them, so to speak.

And as a side note - all readers should mind that scientists are humans and like most of the people work within political frames. This isn't to throw pies, it could very well be that some scientists are simply unaware or unschooled on some topics which have led them to the conclusions they hold. ;)

[Pavlov's House Party]

Throughout recorded history, it's social. Ruling classes will try to secure and strengthen their power over populations and other ruling classes. This holds true in any system that has a ruling class. Before there were clear class divisions it was solely over scarcity and/or territoriality. For example I've heard that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals fought over territory in Europe. These were hunter-gather societies.

Not really, war is a human experience that can't be explained as simplistically as "the cause of capitalism, scarcity etc." For example, some hunter-gatherer tribes in New Guinea, the Amazon and in Easter Island would go to war for sport or ceremonial reasons.