Is war a natural human function?

Question

Think about it carefully...

Answer 1

I've always believed it is but on second thought, I'm not so sure I would call it so much of a 'natural HUMAN function" as simply a 'natural function.'
It may be cynical but I've long viewed war, and humanity's tendencies toward not only war, but individual murders and the actions that breed the hatred that can lead to murder, as being a natural form of population control.
On one hand we strive harder than any other species on the planet to reach the highest levels of self preservation, developing our science and medicine to achievements that ancestors of any culture would have though only possible by the power of gods.
So, as a balance to this commitment to self-preservation, we also have a natural habit of violence that includes the killing one another on scales both small and large.

Answer 2

If you mean "war" in the sense of guns, bloodshed, and mass death (as opposed to a "war of words"), then I'd have to say that war is not a natural human function. This is separate, however, from whether people can disagree or not. War as an institution might not be natural, but certainly the possibility of disagreement exists as long as people are free to think and decide what they will. Unless some people somewhere devise a perfect method of indoctrination where you can control what people think and when they think it, people will have differing opinions.

By the same token, differing opinions does not necessarily lead to war. I believe it was Clausewitz (among the men most associated with belligerence and bellicose positions) who said "War is the continuation of politics by other means," but even he thinks that people have no right to kill each other. Consider the moral implications of such a statement. Such an unqualified rejection of homicide means that killing is recognized to be inherently wrong, and if people can recognize something as inherently (and morally) wrong, then that state itself connotes a certain illegitimacy in the act of killing. In other words, if we recognize that killing is wrong, then by extension, war (which is lots and lots of killing) is wrong too, and our recognition of that means we don't really see that as our natural state; after all, how can what you do be natural or unnatural? It merely is.

War is rather the sad (but not inevitable) result failed ideology and lack of respect for the common right to peacefully dissent. If war is the natural resort for humanity every time we want to impose our will on others because we didn't get it the first time around, governments all over the world (especially democracies) would be subject to great turmoil because the winners and losers would never agree to a set of lasting policies.

Hope that made sense.

Answer 3

Human beings are unfortunately quite a lot like animals instinctively.... even after we have invented language and perfected communication, a lot of differences can still lead to the beastly resolution through a fight. Our social living and advanced technology convert these animal instinct fights into war.
I would therefore say that to fight to resolve a difference is natural in us, but we ourselves are responsible for giving it the hugely threatening proportions of a war!!

There is also a school of thought that believes that wars are Nature's way to square up with us who are inventing new ways everyday to extend our life-span ever more.

Answer 4

you have only defined the palms Race which became the main function of the chilly conflict era. The opposition have been, as you understand, the united states of a and the Soviet Union. The objective became to have extra and 'extra ideal' nuclear weapons than the adversary, allegedly to deter it from attempting a preemptive strike. human beings lived in concern on the two factors and a impressive style of in different worldwide places did as properly. there have been adequate nuclear weapons to destroy the planet, or a minimum of the presence of existence on it. So the opportunity of an entire annihilation of the human species became real. even nonetheless it did no longer ensue. The Soviet Union caved in and the U. S. did no longer launch the attack after all. maximum of those nuclear weapons have been dismantled and allegedly destroyed, or maybe nonetheless there are extra gamers now on the nuclear interest, infrequently every physique speaks approximately escalating their nuclear reserves. besides, my factor could be that our species has the aptitude to self annihilate yet given the prospect controlled to sidestep it. So whether conflict became a organic human interest we as a species produce different supplies to sidestep the extra severe consequence. We only could concentration on the latter.

Answer 5

War used to be a way to occupy one's time in the historic ages..

But now , we are civilised , we know better than to fight wars..
War is NOT a human function

Answer 6

No. It is a social disease, a disease we bring onto ourselves, like cannibalism, human sacrifice and slavery and burning people at the stake for not knowing the correct number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Answer 7

Yes. From the instant we are birthed (not concieved), we are at war with everything and everyone. Have you ever heard of a newborn laughing at birth, of course not. We are botn into a life of pain and fear and a struggle just to survive. War, hatred, greed, envy and mistrust are our birthrights. Love, compassion and trust have to be learned....we are'nt born with these qualities.

Answer 8

War is in our instincts. It comes from wanting to be the strongest or be the alpha male.