From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Subject: Re: Why do we all believe war is inevitable?
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
	<1992Apr8.191457.16827@yang.earlham.edu>
	<1992Apr10.012633.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:17:42 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.012633.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> mgreer@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

>(Allen Smith) writes:

[humans might simply be agressive deleted]

>> 	-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

Hmmm...how do you prove that?  From the very little that I know about
the human physiology there appears to be quite a lot of "flight" or
"fight" automatic reponses hard wired into the body.  The American
Psycological Association probably isn't the relevant society to be
presenting papers (or making broad generalizations) about neurological
findings...

>   2) Evidence suggests that there is no inevitable "structure" of human
>   society which demands aggression, either overt, repressed, or
>   rechanneled

Hmmmm...interesting suggestion.  Mind if I ask what evidence?

>   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

Name a sucessful culture without warfare built into it.  I suggest
that a non-violent (non-war) culture is counter-survival.  The
successful cultures all are (or were) aggressive and expansionistic.
The non-violent cultures either must adapt to a hostile neigbor by
becoming warlike or simply cease to exist.  Less violent or those less
sucessful at war HAVE ceased to exist many times.

[war is up to us deleted]

>   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.

Hmmm...the advances in WWII in many areas (like communication,
aircraft, radars, engines, atomic thorey) were enormous compared to
the 4-5 years before that...at least the application of technology was
spurred forward if not the pace of discoveries.

Perhaps those finding are accurate in peace time but I suspect the
danger of losing a war tends to spur on research and development of
new technology while fighting a determined enemy.

[stuff deleted]

>- 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 suppose a virgous society is one that survives.  For instance
neither the Cartheginian or the Roman society is very vigorous today.
Both lost their wars and the end result is history.

The US has won her share of wars...and I wouldn't quite classify
American society as a proto-facist military state.  If by some bizzare
reason you do then I suggest you try some other country and SEE what a
facist state is really like.  There are tons of examples...just drive
south long enough...or swim west.

>					 -Mike Greer
>					 mgreer@eagle.wesleyan.edu


--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:1986 alt.war:665