Are we war mongers by nature?

Bloody well looks like it, doesn't it?

At least, it looks as though our tribalness can easily be manipulated to get us to make or support war pretty easily.

It sure does. Which is why my bubble of 'we can do better if we try' was burst today. I'm looking for some bubble glue to regain my optimism. Hopefully I'm not searching in vain.

i kind of thought we were warmongers by nature until i read ishmael and beyond civilization by daniel quinn. i liked the latter one better, i think more people could relate to it, but it's very short and makes a lot more sense if you've read ishmael first.

ishmael of course, is narrated by a talking gorilla. i think most people can get past that, but those that can't might as well skip to beyond civilization. both are fascinating reads. whether you find yourself agreeing completely with the author, i think you'll find your mind opened on any number of issues, including the "warlike" nature of mankind.

there's room for optimism, but it would have to be shared a little more broadly. as long as we have civilization as we know it, war will be part of that.

i don't just mean that in a circular way, "war is part of the world we know, so the world we know will have war." i mean that if you could somehow remove war itself from the world we know, the causes for global war would remain in civilization as we know it.

quinn proposes that civilization is not the final state of the progress of mankind, that it's actually self-defeating. when people think of civilization, they think of its fruits, technology, living indoors, etc.

quinn proposes that civilization is based largely on agriculture, and that if we can move past agriculture and the organized indoctrination and control of youth education, (like we have in modern schooling,) that we could create something advanced, but beyond civilization.

and mind you, he's not talking about getting rid of schools, but of getting rid of several of the educational and cultural paradigms that lead to an army of mankind that in a way, is to destroy everyone else. what are we really at war about? one, resources. two, the idea that *we're* right, that there is one way for everyone to live. can we move beyond that? i see no reason why we can't.

thanks, tg. Talking gorillas bring Planet of the Apes to mind -- I'll check it out.

If only we could kill all the warmongers so they couldn't pass on their genes.

(I know I'm being facetious, but I think I'm making quite a few points with that one statement.)

We are not war mongers but rather hunters, we will always be ruled by our basic instinct which is to reproduce and keep our mates and entourage safe expanding defeating other tribes etc.

This has merely stayed with us through the generations and affects the world on a much bigger scale. we are not war mongers bbut rather simply trying to allow our tribe to grow through the easyist and quickest means...... violence

Come come come, conflict drives us to excel, and if somethings worth doing, it's worth doing right (with thermobaric weapons). We could probably enforce peace - but then one way or another we'd end up enforcing somebody not getting what they want (other than slaughter) - it's better to just let it hit the fan now and then, and whatever the outcome will have some link to the laws of nature rather than the decree of man. I mean, you always have a choice to either get what you want (assuming it exists) or get the consequences of trying to take it (while you argue that, 5 liquor stores will be robbed, with something like a 60% success rate) - get rid of that possibility and you change who we are...

In the old days that was certainly true. I've been wondering if it's applicable anymore.

The 'excelling' in Iraq seems to be putting vast sums money in the pockets of arms suppliers (ie the few elite), while the US appears to be sliding towards recession.

Science is actively studied these days, where it wasn't (so much) in the past. Diversion of funds can't help, and a recession certainly won't help.

Iraq is small potatoes. That's not to say I disagree with a little ambient international aggression - I just think it's insignificant and the water has been clouded by indecisiveness and ulterior motives. I mean, who's afraid?

As for the advancement of science-you can't make a direct correlation to war. Look at how we went from the Wright Bros. to the moon in 66 years. Science and technology win wars - not only that - wars motivate people. It's not that we've suddenly seen the light and seek salvation through science as opposed to say physical prowess - I for one am not the type to seek salvation - just that being who we are we've found something that gets results.

I don't dig either - but the Dems pander to the poor and focus on solving problems with more money while the GOP panders to the rich and lowers taxes. Is it any coincidence that the GOP are the blue-bloods? I don't think credit either with magnificent vision - but I would say the Republicans with their relative privilege (although there is that breed of Dem that finds power a good compliment to cash) and military experience have learned that money is a fairly vulgar means of moving people - the kind of people perhaps who dig 24" rims or Abercrombie & Fitch maybe, but hell I don't know, I like Levis, Armor-All, and Craftsman tool.

My solution - as usual - buy the ticket, take the ride.