Do you believe human beings will ever evolve past the need to war?

[RiverStone]

We will all be long gone, but I wonder how many generations must pass before we as a species will evolve beyond the need to war to resolve differences?

If the earth remains inhabitable long enough, I believe we could make it there. Guess it just depends on which instinct is the strongest --- the need to survive vs the need to destroy.

I'd give it another 300 years or so, maybe 250 if we are lucky!

[sandnsea]

1. If we evolve past the need for greed and power

I love that art work. Whose is it?

[RiverStone]

11. Well, at least we can take personal responsibility...

To resolve the need for greed or power as individuals. The art? No clue --- just a cool image I saved from the Internet.

peace~ :hi:

[pink-o]

54. I bet it's Guido Daniele: he does handpainting for AT & T and a lot of others.

From Milan, (Of course, design and art capital of the freakin world). Check out his other stuff:










Oh, and back on topic: either our base instincts will catch up to our evolving brains, or else we'll destroy ourselves first. I really hope it's the former.

Back in caveman days, aggression was essential for survival--we had to fight other species and each other in a hostile world. So the agressive humans survived while the docile ones were killed. Now here we are, and our brains know we don't need that testosterone/agression/adrenaline response anymore, but it's still intrinsic. If you look at us objectively, and scientifically, we are a work in progress. Slow progress. We won't see any significant changes in our lifetimes re human behavior, but I believe we're working towards becoming more peaceful.

[Aviation Pro]

2. My short answer, yes....

...warfare and the technology for warfare has become so sophisticated that it will, in the near future, make no sense to expend the billions and trillions of dollars to continue. Economic forces will end warfare.

[elleng]

6. Thanks for this hopeful view.

.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. No.

There will always be those who love war, and who want to wage it. It's simply part of self-determination. Some people see their path to self-determination as dependent upon destroying that path for others, and I don't see how that will ever change.

[elleng]

4. No.

I suspect it comes not from need to 'war,' but some other 'hard-wired' need.

[cabluedem]

60. We are predators. Most humans like war/fighting as long its not theirs. Also humans are too greedy

unless we have intelligent, bebevolet rulers,I can't see it happening anytime soon.

[mucifer]

5. No.

[katandmoon]

7. Not as long as men produce testosterone and need to prove their dicks are bigger than each other's

[Edweird]

35. You clearly take your 'man hating' seriously.

[katandmoon]

41. And you are clearly unfamiliar with the role of male hormones and the history of war.

[Hosnon]

51. History has zero examples of women being involved in igniting war.

Excellent point.

[bertman]

62. I guess if you don't count Queen Victoria or Elizabeth I or Cleopatra or numerous

other powerful women who were "behind" the scenes. Elizabeth I didn't start the war with Spain but she did foment lots of unrest in Europe with her money and her military/diplomatic resources. Catherine de Medici was directly responsible for the massacre of thousands of Protestants in 1572 in Paris.

We probably shouldn't give Maggie Thatcher a pass on the Falklands War either. But, hey, it wasn't a WORLD war.

If I had more time I'd do more research and post it, but alas I have to go back to work tomorrow.

My gut tells me that if men had not been the dominant figures in history due to their physical prowess and the "rights" of patriarchical societies, the women who might have become queens would have been very adept at waging warfare.

[Amonester]

68. Joan of Arc

Saint Joan of Arc

I wonder how many human beings Sainte Jeanne D'Arc slaughtered...

This species of ours is very weird.

[bertman]

70. The only reason she slew them was because they didn't believe the right things.

Yes, very weird.

[mudesi]

45. Actually, it's to impress women

So really, it's all your fault.

[cabluedem]

63. Once again its all men's fault for war. Thatcher had no trouble spilling blood in the Falklands. nt

[CoffeeCat]

8. As a species, we are not...

...evolving fast enough. Our technology has outpaced our humanity.

It's very frightening.

I like the quote from "Contact" when the alien (who appears as Ellie Arroway's father), says that human
beings are capable of such beauty and such atrocities.

The bad guys seem to be winning right now. The encourage us to "go shopping" and pull inward--instead of
reaching out, growing and evolving. Sociopaths can only get away with their crimes, if everyone around
them is stunted.

Obama seems highly self actualized. As far as leaders go, he's our best bet at evolving past the neocon
sociopaths.

Scary times.

[Ladyhawk]

67. Agreed. We are more "clever" than "intelligent." n/t

[Lost-in-FL]

9. First, people need to believe in evolution. nt

[billyoc]

10. No.

[spanone]

12. perhaps one day....one can only hope....we're still evolving...i hope

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

13. Biologically?

The question should be first, "will humans evolve?" That's impossible to say. We're not likely to have any genetic bottlenecks in the forseeable future, barring near-extinction events, societal collapses and subsequent isolations, or new colonizations of areas. Right now, the effective genetic pool you and I share extends to literally billions of people, and there are few genetic links to particular success in survival and breeding. If we do create future bottlenecks, though, some sort of evolution may occur.

The next question is, "will humans evolve in a way preventing war?" That's unlikely. War is, in my view, the near-unavoidable result of societies existing in a system in which at least one resource of some sort is limited. Humans, being highly social (and with societies having enormous advantages) are unlikely to evolve in such a way that societies no longer exist.

However, I think it's quite possible that war is ended. Such would require one of three things.

1. Humanity is merged into one effective society, that has one monopoly of force. Such can be either a utopia or a dystopia, or something in between.

2. There is no longer a limitation on resources. Either we find a way to achieve near-unlimited production, or a way to achieve zero population growth and adequate production.

3. There is no longer humanity in any significant number.

[ljm2002]

14. That's a tough question...

...and one I wish I could answer in the affirmative.

I remember being shocked in Jr. High to learn of some of the brutal rituals practiced by more "primitive" cultures -- Aztec altars where human sacrifices were made, throwing maidens into volcanoes, that sort of thing. Later, I was even more shocked to learn of the brutality of modern warfare, including the mechanized nature of the mass killing, the atom bombs, and of course the Holocaust and its 12 million victims. And of course, these are not exceptional events, although the scale is sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller. But mass, mechanized killing, warfare and genocide continue right now.

Reflecting on these things over the years, it has occurred to me that there seems to be an intrinsic blood lust in the human heart. Yes it's mostly the male of the species who carry it out -- and that also is problematic, in that the males of most mammalian species are indeed the ones who fight more. In most societies, the males were the hunters, and they fed their tribes by hunting and killing animals. So how ingrained is it? Is it necessary? Are we wimps for assuming it is something we need to get beyond? Without being anti-male, might we want to consider whether our mostly male-created social and political structures may contribute to the imperatives for war?

I don't have the answers. I just believe with all my heart and soul that it is something we can and should get beyond. With all of the scientific advances our species has made -- nothing short of magic, really, on a grand scale -- we're still morally stunted. Here's hoping this century will see some advances in our thinking.

[RiverStone]

19. Maybe men of the furture can resolve it through virtual reality...?

If you ever watched Star Trek --- imagine going into holodecks and fighting it out. Someday, holodecks may be as accessible as going to the movies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodeck

I agree, that men (on balance) have an intrinsic propensity for violence, or at least a much higher rage factor then women. Of course, that's excluding the exceptions --- and there are (see Gandhi).

I share your cautious optimism that ultimately we can figure out a way to get beyond it or control it. Till then, there is always football or rollerball!

[ljm2002]

25. While the virtual reality outlets may help...

...I think that changes to our social and political structures will be the most effective. We need to get away from ideas like: hierarchy; centralized control and its adjunct, the ability for one person to "control" everything by having control of the centralized command; winner-take-all; zero-sum games -- i.e. if one side wins another side must lose; stuff like that. Just IMO.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. maybe with bonobo gene splicing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Actually, the vast majority of the people on the planet have never experienced war.

I don't believe that war, or violence, is bred into us. It is rather the inclination to be "led" and the further inclination to follow the herd being led.

[MajorChode]

32. You are right, but I see it as a much bigger problem along the same lines

War is just a symptom of the problem, it is not actually the problem itself.

The problem exists practically everywhere on earth to varying degrees. The problem is it's possible for minority interests to gain an upper hand over the majority and then use that advantage to work against the majority's interests. Societies that are the most immune to those problems are those that delegate the most power to the people of the society as a whole.

[tekisui]

17. Evolve beyond the NEED for war, we already have.

Violence is obsolete. Too many hold on to the old ways of war for various reasons. We don't NEED it anymore than a fish needs a bicycle. But, it is the "easy" tool to turn to in disputes, it is the old habit, and will take the peacemakers growing to the point that we can convince the warmakers that there is a different and better way.

[stray cat]

18. Only if people never disagree on anything and never dehumanize another

[FarCenter]

20. Only if we evolve a lower fertility rate

Since the fertility rate is above replacement, the population expands until it is limited by an increase in the death rate.

The death rate can increase due to either starvation, disease or war. War is better than starvation or disease, particularly for hunter-gatherer populations living in climates that make game populations and the availability of forage uncertain due to annual variations in climate, ecological cycles, etc. Warfare among hunting bands ensure that the territories are large enough to sustain them during lean years. It also keeps the population thin, limiting disease, and the reluctance to engage with other groups also helps minimize spread of disease.

Although the propensity for war, and its advantages, are clearest among primitive populations, it has similar benefits for civilized populations. War allows the city-state to acquire a greater hinterland with more resources, or to plunder the neighboring cities. Any loss of breeding age males is easily made up through fertility or through polygamy, and their temporary loss decreases competition for resources.

If the world population were 500 million or so, there would probabaly be little war. However, with 6 billion and rising, the future is pretty bleak.

[jhrobbins]

21. Absolutely-we are hurtling toward the tipping point and I would just as soon

not be around when that happens. We desperately need to control the world population-at least until we can figure out how to eat dirt and sand and drink the River Ganges.

[stuntcat]

22. Nope.

It IS possible that our species could evolve to realize what a waste war is, but we'll kill ourselves off first because we won't be able to stop fighting long enough to take more than a lazy grope at saving the Earth. I have a feeling it will be another century or two before the most well-off humans even realize how stupid conspicuous consumption is. Our species MUST defend it's right to consume, gosh-darnit x(

[Kermitt Gribble]

23. Yes, but

not as long as anyone is making a profit from it.

[IsItJustMe]

24. I believe we will, but I am afraid that before we get there something horrendous will happen.

That is a bad thing. But at the same time, because of that bad thing, good will come out of it and we as a human race will be forced to evolve (transcend) because of it.

At some point, fish came out of the water and began to walk. What cuased this. My quess is that over a period of time the water dried up and the fish had to walk or die.

It is no different with the human race. I do believe we will get there though. Why? Because we will have to.

[cobalt1999]

26. We are bascially chimps with powerful weapons.

Take the weapons away and we'd be flinging poop at each other.

[RJ Connors]

27. We could, but most likely we will exterminate ourselves first. n.t

[gcomeau]

28. We're past the need for war now.

We always have been. No war in history has ever been needed in the context of "humanity needs this war to happen".

The question I believe you are trying to ask is whether humanity will ever develop socially to the point where no person or group of people will consider resorting to armed force to solve a problem they have with another person/group of people.

And the answer is no, they won't. Ever. I'm quite confident in that projection. I'm not happy about it, but I can conceive of no possible way in which that situation could be achieved and maintained short of forcibly reprogramming the brains of every member of the species and then maintaining the integrity of that programming constantly... which isn't happening. We might be able to achieve the elimination of war for limited periods of time, but it would never be maintained indefinitely. War isn't necessary... but the factors that lead to it happening, even when nobody is really intending that outcome when things kick off, are too numerous, too powerful, and too firmly entrenched in the realities of our existence to ever eliminate completely. War doesn;t have to happen... but it will. Over, and over, and over.

[Uncle Joe]

31. I agree with the first part of your post, however I believe our brains

are being programmed now, toward the concept of oneness with the continued advancement of mass two way communications technology, combined with the science of the humanities; sociology, psychology, philosophy, history.

I believe humanity will evolve to the point of shunning war based on this global mental programming taking place as we all communicate, I also believe at this point, we're only at the zygote stage of development.

[gcomeau]

33. I would agree progress is being made...

...but there is a ceiling on how far it can be pushed, and that ceiling is well below the level required to eliminate war from human society. You can strive to reach a point where "humanity", in general terms, rejects war. But the problem is that won't do the job. There will always be extenuating circumstances, variations in the population, freak occurances, outside stresses... a million different variable that can all lead to an outbreak of violent conflict at any time and as long as we retain the capacity to employ armed force... which we ALWAYS will... then someone, somewhere, WILL eventually resort to it. And then it's either respond in kind or let them have the run of the place and either way there goes the peacful utopia.

[Uncle Joe]

40. I agree with your general reasoning and logic..

.. but I also see a glimmer of hope.

As I stated above, I do believe we're only at the zygote stage toward this ideal.

However, should humanity reject the concept of war long enough, armed forces will gradually wither on the vine, there will simply be no need for them. Variations in population, freak occurrences and outside stresses will be considered humanitarian; all in the family, problems.

I do see a challenge to this hypothesis, should intelligent life; an alien species be discovered at some point in the distant future, the family bubble will need to expand.

In order for this to take place, human DNA will literally evolve, aggressive genes will go dormant or be eliminated, empathetic genes will reign, further decreasing the chances of going to war.

Should we succeed, at some point our mass will evolve more toward an energy form as we come to rely more on energy than mass for existence. Our physical bodies will literally change, we will become as drops in an energy ocean. On the other hand should we continue to focus on mass more than energy, we will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs; who were actually quite successful for what they were.

[RiverStone]

43. Your interpretation of my question is correct

...and I do believe that down the road, humanity may be faced with new and compelling questions which we can't fathom right now. Yet if continued hostilities results in our extinction, folks may have the wisdom to resist the urge to fight. We can only hope.

I can't say if we will realize it in time, but giving that even life on earth itself beat out some amazing odds (from an evolutionary perspective) I'll go with that we will continue to beat those odds.

It would be interesting to see what happens...

[SoCalDem]

29. Probably not.. As long as party A wants land that party B is living on

or they want their resources, there will always be "war".

If someone you did not know, showed up and said, "I'm taking your house..get out"...would you? If you were forced to leave, wouldn't you do whatever it took to get your house back?

[roody]

30. Yes, a higher consciousness will soon be reached, and it

will take us by surprise.

[Occam Bandage]

36. Another theory: it won't. nt

[roody]

58. It will---after people stop believing in the invisible sky-man.

[Edweird]

34. As long as violence releases endorphines, war will be around.

[RiverStone]

46. Sex and exercise also release endorphins..

And I expect, thankfully, that they will be around for a long time too!

The difference is war (or simply violent reactions) revert back to that ancient fight or flight reflex that our cave dwelling ancestors needed in response to not becoming something else's dinner. Tragically, what is happening in Gaza today seems no more evolved than that.

If one were to ponder it, it is truly amazing that we have advanced so far technologically, and so little when it comes to violence.

[EFerrari]

37. No, never And that's why peacemaking has to be a conscious endeavor.

[Raksha]

38. Yes...and I hope it happens BEFORE the earth becomes uninhabitable.

[leftofthedial]

39. not at this rate.

the greed-is-good repukes and apologists for repukes (DLC and their ilk) are moving us steadily in the wrong direction.

[4 t 4]

42. I've been saying that for years, will we never evolve ? n/t

[mudesi]

44. When religion disappears

I don't know if that will ever happen...

[Ex Lurker]

47. When religion disappears

there will be something else to fight about. Not all conflict has based on religion. There have been ethnic, political, and economic wars, and even the ostensibly religious ones have often been proxies for other causes. I'm not optimistic, and I think we'll eventually blow ourselves up or do something equally catastrophic.

[mudesi]

48. Religion is the key ingredient of a military

Without brainwashing people to think they are going to a better place when they die, it's tough to get them to willingly risk their lives for an unjust cause.

There's a reason there are "no atheists in foxholes". And it's not because they converted after the fact.

[Ex Lurker]

52. The bolsheviks didn't need it. Just sayin n/t

[pipi_k]

49. I think there are probably lots of reasons why people wage war on each other but

as to whether any/all of them are something we can evolve through, who knows...

Some people wage war because they have something fundamentally wrong with their brains. It would be nice to think that someday there could be peace, but I don't hold out much hope.

It would take a WHOLE lot of therapy and self awareness for the entire world to come to the conclusion that war just doesn't work.

Oh, something I just remembered reading a long time ago...the author said that many different species wage war on each other, but Mankind is one of the only species that actually wages organized war in order to KILL members of his own species.

That doesn't make us very smart...

Or very civilized.

[pl259]

50. Absolutely! But by then they won't be "humans" as we know them (us) now.

:-)

[Hosnon]

53. 300 years? No way. Eventually? Possibly.

The problem is evolution. Unfortunately, killing your opponent is a great way to ensure that you and your family will not be killed by said opponent.

[Gwendolyn]

55. Theory based on the intelligence we have now, no.

We are animals stuck in our evolutionary past. Other creatures cull their herds and so do we. Because we have some higher form of thinking we cull backed by ideology. But if we skim past the surface we're really no better or worse than other creatures we share this planet with. We have alpha male syndrome, along with some empathetic qualities as well as homosexual tendencies that ensure our survival. This vid basically says it all as we haven't progressed beyond its contents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNL1MR5aj1w

[TayTay]

56. Never

It is a part of the mystery of human nature.

We don't evolve away from that. It is part of the total package of what makes up human kind.

[Cetacea]

57. Cetaceans did millions of years ago

Maybe that fourth lobe they possess has something to do with impulse control.

I know of one cognitive experiment in which dolphins and humans reached the same result in the same amount of time. However, while the humans expressed relief and resignation upon completion, the dolphins got more excited and more interested in continuing.

In a lab experiment in the 1950s, a researcher stimulated the pain centers of monkeys, humans and dolphins. The monkeys and humans got violent and flailed about while the dolphins shook but remained non-violent.

[Muttocracy]

59. if you mean biological evolution, no, certainly not in that time frame

Humans are not going to evolve into anything substantially different in 10 generations. And it's not just a matter of moving the mean - you'd have to pull the whole distribution of human behavior up. It's a small number percentage of people who drive war into really happening.

[cliffordu]

61. Nope. Too late.

[opihimoimoi]

64. Obama will do it in 5 years,,,,,

:toast:

[1]

65. the answer lies in our own little community. will du evolve past the need for our wars?

i think that is your answer...

[Gwendolyn]

69. Everyone seems to have an agenda.

So the logical answer would be, no, no one evolves. DU is the empirical evidence.

:cry:

[1]

71. i don't see evolution as diagonal line going from the lower to the upper...

more like a comb. it goes up, it goes down, then it goes up... but always moving toward the upper.

i saw a tv program about hitler the other day (i watched because it was mostly about his cars. i am fascinated by those old, 20 foot long, perfectly engineered beautiful cars.) when things were going well in his country he was basically ignored. hitler hated the good times. but when things dropped into the shit, hitler could make significant inroads. my knowledge of hitler is admittedly minor but i can see how that would make sense. when we are all fat and happy, screw hitler. when i am unemployed and hungry, "see that guy over there? the one with the food? i bet a bunch of us could take him and get that food."

so in my mind, since evolution is a comb and not a line, there will always wars.


and i might be perfectly wrong about this. just my thoughts...

[bertman]

66. In answer to the OP, NO WAY.

As another person posted earlier, we are apes with better weapons. Tribes of baboons and monkeys will literally wage war on other tribes, killing adults and babies and taking over their territory.

Right now we're waging war on the worst enemy we could possibly have picked--the Planet Earth. Gaia doesn't play. And she's in the process of teaching us apes a big lesson.

[Greyhound]

72. There is, and never has been, a "need" for war. War is imposed on us by the parasites we allow

to rule us.

Read "The Chalice and the Blade", it's one of those "now it makes sense" kind of books.