Yesterday, I wrote about the possible origins of war. When I write these pieces, I don’t devise a plan; I just count on myself to write what I think right now. What often happens is that my thoughts about the subject evolve while writing, so it can also be a surprise what my point is when I am done. I am not a scientist in the sense that I do extensive research and fieldwork to gather data and, from there, a theory about a problem, one that I stated at the beginning. I am curious and know that what my opinion is; it is probably nonsense or just vaguely hitting some truths. So today, I searched on the internet for some academic papers about wars and whether we homo-sapiens made it up when we had already evolved into what we are now or if we inherited this trade.  I may think more like an old-fashioned philosopher who searches for solutions and problems (either order will work) while sitting in an armchair, but these scientists might be strict and rigorous in their methods, they also disagree with each other, even with all their theories and proofs. It is not a practical science where a big bang clarifies that that recipe didn’t work or a pill cures or not. My first thought after reading and browsing through some of these papers was that they should do some interdisciplinary work. A philosopher and psychologist might have some helpful input. But they might have already done that. This kind of research reminds me of the time when we tried to dive as deep as possible without scuba gear; the deeper you get, the more you get overwhelmed by the thought of suffocating; the deeper you dive into this material, the more you realize that there is too much information to consider, you struggle to get deeper out of pride and want to get air out of cowardice.  

The following is a quote from a scientist named Luke Glowacki. I read most of his paper, and though I don’t know where he stands in his field, he seems legitimate and a real scientist. 

“Abstract: The role of warfare in human evolution is among the most contentious topics in the evolutionary sciences. The debate is especially heated because many assume that whether our evolutionary ancestors were peaceful or warlike has important implications for modern human nature. One side argues that warfare has a deep evolutionary history, possible dating to the last common ancestor of bonobos, chimpanzees, and humans, while the other views war as a recent innovation, primarily developing with the rise of sedentism and agriculture. I show that although both positions have some support warranting consideration, each sometimes ignores uncertainties about human evolution and simplifies the complex reality of hunter-gatherer worlds. Many characterizations about the evolution of war are partial truths. Bonobos and chimpanzees provide important insights relevant for understanding the origins of war, but using either species as a model for human evolution has important limitations. Hunter-gatherers often had war, but like humans everywhere, our ancestors likely had a range of relationships depending on the context, including cooperative intergroup affiliation. Taken together, the evidence strongly suggests that small-scale warfare is part of our evolutionary history predating agriculture and sedentism, but that cooperation across group boundaries is also part our evolutionary legacy.”

Link to the paper: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VEDNdEgRpG2IovIIP9if_gR8NBm5Wh3T/view

I also read a paper by Guy Massie. I don’t know him either, but he is also interesting and more scientific than I ever will be. 

“Abstract: Much of the academic literature written about the First World War has tended to revolve around questions of diplomacy, foreign policy, and the International System as it existed in Europe in the decades before the war began. To balance this, I analyze the intellectual history of evolutionary thought as it applied to the question of war, peace, and the alleged “pugnacity” of man before and during the war years. Many people viewed the world of international conflict through the lens of socio-biological progress and a “struggle for existence” among humans, nations, and races. By identifying three broad intellectual trends, I argue that these evolutionary narratives of the war question were diverse. Some used the language of human evolution to argue that war was an inevitable engine of progress whereas others stressed different concepts in evolutionary science, such as cooperation, to make pacifist arguments. A third school of thought, the pessimists, argued that man was inherently warlike but that this instinct could be tamed. As the centennial anniversary of the July Crisis and the beginning of the First World War approaches, it is worth investigating the ideational “mood” of the era and the intellectual climate which allowed for such a devastating war to take place.”

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/cria/article/view/116/61