Is waging war built into our DNA?

Answer 1

You may say that our genetic makeup allows for us to go to war because of a combination of factors, but there wouldn't be a 'war gene'. Aggression, social orientation, intelligence, and the desire to pass on your genes are all factors that may contribute to war.

Genes for aggression have been found and isolated in mice. Increased presence of the gene (I forget its name) increases aggression, while removal of the gene makes for a more meek mouse. Long before genetic research though, human beings have bred domestic animals by choosing less aggressive individuals and having them breed with other less aggressive individuals.

We also are naturally social creatures; we form ourselves into societies and maintain cultures. It seems we draw prefer to draw together to make survival easier or more comfortable, as each person fills a niche in society and provides a service to others. Whether this is genetic or an evolutionary survival strategy, I can't say. Certainly it would be tied to emotion, which does have cerebral and therefore genetic roots. Our choice to form communities enables us to form large armies for war, and provides a sense of attachment which may imbue us with a desire to protect the community so that those in the community can proliferate.

Our intelligence, while you may think that it would prevent war, contributes to it merely in that we are able to create weapons. As weapons became greater, so does the death toll, and the side better equipped may be more willing to go to war because they feel that they are better able to win with their weapons.

Evolution has been a fight to pass on genes and find ways to pass on genes. Evolutionarily then, if someone can't have babies of their own, they'll choose to protect those with genes similar to their own to ensure their survival. Men are considered by some to be marginal in terms of their importance to ensure survival in certain types of societies. They provide the sperm, and then even if they disappear, the baby is born and can survive with some work from the mother. Because birth is a much larger investment for women than for men, they tend to invest time elsewhere, including providing food, specializing in jobs, and creating war. (This holds more true in agricultural societies and less so in modern societies, where there is a march towards equal opportunity). If the men die for their community, the community can still proliferate and live on so long as there are children. They want to ensure the survival of those who have similar genes as them. This may be a reason why race is such an issue, because each race feels they are significantly different enough that they want their genes to be passed on over others.

Answer 2

War for defensive? War for offense? Even that's a complex subject.

Its pretty well established that the amount of the hormone testosterone in men makes them more or less "aggressive".

Through history, men have rationalized their aggression. Popes once actually went to the battlefield to fight wars to preserve the Vatican City & its territores.

Richard the LIon-hearted to liberate the holy lands from the infidel.
George Bush ..... well, to act as protector of American.


Yeah, I'd say its somewhere in our makeup.

Answer 3

Hi. Some people seem to have a facility for leading others into war. That may be genetic. By most folks just follow.

Answer 4

You may be referring to a concept expounded on in 'The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal' , by Jared Diamond.

In Diamond's view, the current global political & ecological crisis aren't due to modern technology per se, but to basic tendencies in human nature that we do not understand well enough to curb properly. He lists current dominant theories and available evidence.
He discusses our genetic propensities toward cooperation, yet demonizing, even committing genocide, any we label 'other'.

The main mental trick is to see those we kill as different and separate from ourselves. The taboo against killing humans, Diamond reveals, is really just a taboo against killing members of our own family and tribe. Once we are able to see others as outsiders, we can demonize them and trivialize them, turn them into subhuman objects and turn on them in justifiable self defense.
His evidence is taken from observable behavior among other animals especially our nearest relatives the chimps. He never states the that to kill 'others' is an innate behavioral pattern, we do not possess a genetic-releasing mechanism for this fixed action pattern. We do not have to kill as soon as we identify something as 'other'. We learn to. Or we do not learn to understand that fearfulness and the instinct to cooperate can conflict.
An example of fear over coming even maternal instict is offered by Mark Deesing's own dog. The dog was birthing her first litter. Mark said, "When each pup was born Kay ran wildly around the room and would not go near them. (I) had to intervene and place the pups under Kay's nose; otherwise, they may have died." Kay's nervous temperament and fearfulness were a stronger motivation than her motherly instinct.
"Genetics influences the intensity of fear reactions. Research in humans has clearly revealed some of the genetic mechanisms which govern the inheritance of anxiety." Rogan and LeDoux state that all vertebrates can be fear-conditioned. Therefore if a person is raised to fear 'others', if they are raised to be intolerant of differences from self, their intolerance may lead to killing 'others' in a preemptive self defence.

Answer 5

If you define the immune system as a war machine against foreign invasion, then yes.

Answer 6

its not built into our DNA, its just the way we choose to be. If it were possible to avoid it I'm sure people would stop.