Simplistically put: War started when humans expanding over the Earth started encountering "others" who were coming from the opposite direction.

Could I get some references, links, what-not to this above notion?

Thanks, Hearthstone.

Views: 409

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Is not the search for the perfect bowl of noodles merely making a fetish of an everyday activity though,just a thought is all

While I respect your position I feel that Chimpanzees provide a fairly workable analogue for early humans, and therefore I would not suggest that early humans did not conflict with each other.To think that there would be enough for all and therefore no need to compete,smacks too much of some other Eden to be entirely feasible.

Keith Hart said:

It is not obvious that when human beings roamed the world without boundaries and encountered others, they took to fighting each other, war if you like. Since we don't know what human society was actually like then, we can only draw on a long history of speculation about the period. It seems likely that these were small mobile bands (no bigger than 25 persons and with post-menopausal women as leaders on account of their longevity) living off abundant animal and plant sources. The earth belonged to everyone and there was plenty of it. Why fight over it? Some think it took the invention of private property without states to regulate it to start war and others that states made to contain class differences built on property were the ultimate engines of war. If war is not part of human nature, the good news is that we might eventually get over it, the bad news is that may not be in your lifetime.

John McCreery said:

From the perspective of this scenario, the most interesting things about modern conflict is that warfare leading to mass slaughter or genocide appears to have peaked in the period between the American Civil War and the end of WWII. It persists where states are failing or failed, e.g., in Sudan and the Congo, but—barring the possibility of nuclear or other weapons-of-mass destruction attacks—modern warfare is both more deadly and more selective than in earlier periods. Civilian fatalities  in WWII are estimated to have been between 50 and 70 million.  Civilian casualties of the Vietnam War are estimated to have reached two million. Estimates for Iraq War civilian casualties range from 110,000 to a million, with most estimates clustered closer to the former than the latter. U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are estimated to have killed fewer than 1,000 individuals to date. While figures like these are no comfort to the dead and injured, they do represent substantial declines since the peak of mass conflict during the world wars.


Maybe--if the point of competition were control over resources (human labor included), then to incur casualties in opponents camp would not be as important as gaining control. And for that purpose warfare is not the only means.


(sorry--italics won't turn off for me on my machine).

In my view, "the xenophobia of humans" is explainable (in the simplest way) as a product of the increasing competition among humans for resources. Helped by the phenomenon of "cultural lag" and fueled by our ongoing competition for resources, this "xenophobia" will stay with with us well past the point of our civilization's (as we would like to know "our civilization", but, actually, how would we like to know it?), almost certain demise.

Any references to the above notion (either supporting or refuting it) would be appreciated.

The bellow is an idea that I am trying to develop, and that the above mentioned could pertain to.

I would like to suggest that it would be pointless to wait for this "xenophobia" to resolve itself on its own--our attempts to resolve this "xenophobia" have been proving themselves inadequate to the task to date--truly effective ways have to be implemented to start resolving all our differences. These ways could not be based on prevailing over some opposition (even protesting against what-so-ever is a form of violence--one side is trying to overcome the other), but rather based on the model created by rationally devising what our common existence on our common ground (the whole Earth ultimately) should be for all parties involved.

It would be no longer enough to keep on finding the causes for our problems and addressing those, as this approach not infrequently gives rise to new problems; our reasons for action should be based on what our ideal co-existence (agreeable to all) of all involved in what-ever situation should be.

This approach--not trying to merely extricate ourselves from problems, but, rather, to go towards a commonly held vision of what things should be ideally--is very commonsensical (we can never get anything that we don't know what it should look/be like), yet is not used often enough to be generally accepted. It is suggested for individuals by Robert Fritz in his book "The Path of Least Resistance" (1984 Salem, MA: DMA Inc.), and Donella Meadows (of "Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update" - 2004 White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company) started working on the problem of creating a commonly held "vision" (Robert Fritz calls this a "choice"), but her work was halted by her untimely death.
N.B. - it is worth reading her "Envisioning a Sustainable World" written for the Third Biennial Meeting of the International Society for Ecological Economics, October 24-28, 1994, San Jose, Costa Rica. (The abstract of this paper, from :

"Vision is the most vital step in the policy process. If we don’t know where we want to go, it makes little difference that we make great progress. Yet vision is not only missing almost entirely from policy discussions; it is missing from our whole culture. We talk about our fears, frustrations, and doubts endlessly, but we talk only rarely and with embarrassment about our dreams. Environmentalists have been especially ineffective in creating any shared vision of the world they are working toward — a sustainable world in which people live within nature in a way that meets human needs while not degrading natural systems. Hardly anyone can imagine that world, especially not as a world they’d actively like to live in. The process of building a responsible vision of a sustainable world is not a rational one. It comes from values, not logic. Envisioning is a skill that can be developed, like any other human skill. This paper indicates how.")
My note to the abstract: I would argue that D. M.'s "the process of building a responsible vision of a sustainable world" must be a deliberate and a rational approach.

Both--Donella Meadows and I--were inspired by Robert Fritz' "choice". She got to know his concept of "choice" (that she calls a "vision") through Peter Senge (Robert Fritz' collaborator), as she mentions in "Envisioning a Sustainable World", and I by reading his "The Path of Least Resistance".

If anyone is interested in this idea, it is best presented in "Universal Platform for Developing Sustainable Earth Vision/Model Cooperatively" - .

Thank you, Hearthstone.

It could be said that every species exists at the climax stage, when it achieves a state of a relative harmony with other life-forms. Humans, too, might get there one day ...

What I am trying to say is that we, humans collectively, can prevent a lot of unnecessary suffering to ourselves and other life on Earth, if we try to foresee what this "relative harmony" (climax stage) would be like, and try to arrive at that stage consciously (thus eliminating waste caused by various detours and such), rather than let "Nature" do it for us, because "Nature" doesn't really care whether we suffer a lot, or little during the successional process. To "Nature" it doesn't matter if our current overpopulation problem gets resolved by wars, epidemics, or natural disasters; to us it might matter.

I suggest what this "relative harmony", designed by humans" could look like at "Universal Platform ..." - www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html .

Reply to Discussion



OAC Press



© 2020   Created by Keith Hart.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service