From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.war
Subject: Re: Why do we all believe war is inevitable?
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:04:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: yang.1992Apr15.180433.16993
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <1992Apr10.012633.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, mgreer@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.191457.16827@yang.earlham.edu>, allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>> 	There is the possibility that [some] sociobiologists are right and 
>> humankind is inherently aggressive. I doubt that it is anything more than 
>> an overcomeable tendency, but it is something to be thought about.
>> 	Of course, it can be argued that war does good in the long run. It 
>> spurs on some scientific and technological advancement, for instance. It 
>> also reduces the population. It can remove societies which are falling 
>> apart and replace them with more vigourous ones.
>> 	-Allen
> 
> 	In fact, two years ago the American Psychological Association came out
> with a statement which stated:
> 	1) There is no aggression inherent in the neurology of the human brain

	I'd believe this more if it were the psychiatrists, instead of the 
psychologists. Given their medical training, psychiatrists tend to know a 
bit more about neurology, etc. I'm not saying that the psychologists are 
wrong, but...

> 	2) Evidence suggests that there is no inevitable "structure" of human
> 	society which demands aggression, either overt, repressed, or
> 	rechanneled
> 	3) War is not known in all cultures.  Only those cultures with war
> 	have violent sports.  Thus, social violence is not an "outlet" for
> 	aggression, but rather part of a total cultural construct of
> 	interaction

	Uh... The only cultures which I know of (admittedly, I'm not an 
anthropologist) which don't have war are small, homogenous ones which 
don't have war because there isn't anyone to fight. Would an 
anthropologist (I assume you aren't one, since I don't know that you are) 
like to confirm/deny this statement?

> 	4) Therefore, war is not inevitable from biological, psychological, or
> 	from social-psychological standpoints.  It is, then, up to us.  We
> 	cannot blame our "nature", but rather our social norms and leaders
> 
> 	About the "positive" aspects of war:
> - There are other ways to spur on scientific and technological development.  A
> study by the Brookings Institute showed that money put into defense and
> war-fighting produced scientific and economic development less efficiently than
> direct funding: ie, NSF grants and social spending.

	Quite possibly correct. War-related research tends to have 
inherent flaws such as the secrecy requirements, etc. I wouldn't do 
war-related research myself (biowarfare). I mentioned this as a 
possibility; if this was not clear, I apologize.

> - As for the reduction of the surplus population, that is the most cruel and
> inhuman statement that I have ever heard.  People are not abstracts.  Let us
> imagine that the "surplus" people who died were you and all of your loved ones. 
> Besides, poor folks and people of color are overepresented in our Armed Forces.
> Thus, your "surplus" population would be those already oppressed and
> dominated, the mechanics of the war economy merely an appendenge of that
> structure of oppression.

	I am against the Draft; to me, any war that a country's populace 
isn't willing to fight is one that the country shouldn't be in. I also see 
it as an intolerable violation of individual liberties. Thus, those who 
should die in a war are those who have chosen to have that as a 
possibility- and have, in most cases (I except pacifist medics, etc.), 
chosen killing others in wartime as a right thing to do.
	I admit that civilian casualties often come from warfare, and I 
deplore that fact. However, looking at matters from a long-term point of 
view, the world is overpopulated and tends (see Malthus) to get more and 
more overpopulated. A reduction in that population is good, although I 
certainly would wish it through means such as contraception than through 
warfare. But, if one thinks pragmatically, any reduction is helpful.

> - I have no idea what you mean by a "vigorous" society.  Since you define it as
> one that wins in war, we must assume you mean some sort of proto-fascist
> military state.  Hardly an advancement on "weak" democracy.
> 
	I do not mean a proto-facist military state. A democracy may very 
well win wars, etc- I believe that there are many examples of this in 
world history (try the American Revolution, for instance). I am more 
thinking, however, of such cases as the Goths vs. the Western Roman 
Empire- it was falling apart and had insufficient "vigourousness" to 
resist them.
	Admittedly, often it is the worse nation that wins wars (through 
conquering nations which are weaker through being smaller, for instance). 
But other nations can ally against them and defeat them (i.e., WWII). 
There are weaknesses inherent in unjust nations- corruption, mistrust, 
greed, etc. In the long run, these generally bring them down.
	-Allen
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:1984 sci.econ:3636