It's said that “Man is the only animal that makes war.”i Don't believe it. We're not alone in that respect.ii
War is inevitable. It's what evolution has given us.
War and aggression are common in animals, and for the same reasons as in man: territory, power, sustenance, resources,iii sex, self-protection (including – and especially – the protection of offspring). We may not like those reasons. We may view them as immoral, but that's the hand we've been dealt.
An animal stakes out his territory and attacks another that impinges on it. Split-off groups and neighbors are enemies. Male animals fight for dominance of a group and for the sexual favors of the females. Females defend themselves and their offspring, even at great risk. Animals kill for food, and sometimes just to kill. When a cat drags in a dead, but uneaten squirrel or bird, it's demonstrating a killing for killing's sake,iv though it is merely acting on instinct. Perhaps that's not war, but it informs human actions.
People need “space. That's our claim on territory. We cannot tolerate others who are “in our face,” whether that attack is reflected in their physical presence or by their words. “Freedom of speech”v wasn't instituted simply because it was a “Good Thing.” It was a result of the need to keep others from reacting legally or physically to what someone thought, but they disliked.vi The verbal expression of opinions, however unpopular, was to be protected. Conscientious objection, on the other hand, – turning the other cheek – and the belief that if you use methods that are more extreme than you might want you become like your enemy, have a noble sound but they result in disaster. Your enemy doesn't concern himself with such ideas. He wants to kill you. “An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind” suggests that after our enemy blinds us in one eye we should turn our heads so he can blind us in the other. Then only we will be blind, but he will see. Isn't that much better?
People didn't invent war but they did invent
- Guilt. We try to satisfy ourselves that we are fighting a “Just War,” even though we're just fighting a war – usually for some other benefit. We consider the enemy to be worthy of death by attributing to him some evil. Too often, this is in the form of a general – and usually unformed and uninformed, prejudice – such as a hatred of all immigrants, of gypsies or foreigners; or it may be well formed. For example, Jews are racially inferior – they are sub-human and killing them is no more to be condemned than stepping on an ant. With that as a background there is no need to feel guilt.
- Sacrifice of others. When aggressors hide among non-combatants for their own protection they risk injury to those others. They consider that to be justified to satisfy their aims even if those are not the aims of those among whom they hide. When they do so in order to win public opinion through the injury or death of those others they are employing a tool not used by any “lower” animal. Evolution may condition an animal to give up his life for the group, but not to select others to do it for him.
Even if we recognize and deal with mankind's two inventions, there will be many who will still be ruled by the instincts they have inherited, and they will continue to make war. It's “in their blood” and they feel no guilt about it. If they have to invent justifications or adopt existing prejudices, so be it. They follow ancestral patterns and there is no need to seek alternative methods for attaining their goals.
There's a special kind of aggression for members of a group that has split off from yours, and there is antagonism toward you that is felt by those who leave your midst. It may not develop initially but it does develop. There is hatred of a “turncoat.” The justification for the change of allegiance doesn't matter. It is irrelevant if the cause was money or philosophy, or even the malfeasance of leaders of your group. There is contempt, for example, for dissidents, even if the reasons for their unhappiness make sense. Too often the result is their further oppression. So there are revolutions, and the ruthless response to them.
On the other side of the dispute, as is obvious, there is a hatred by those who have changed positions for those who have not done so. It's a form of self-justification. Sometimes it's rational, but that's not really the basis for the animosity. The fiercest anti-smokers (or anti-anything else) are those who were once smokers (or supporters of something else). They tend to be intolerant of those who have not renounced the habit, and they are hypersensitive to second-hand smoke. And it's been noted often that those who adopt a new religion are often more observant than most of those born into it.
And there are those who need to be destroyed because they have what you want, whether it is land, resources, or power. Why should they have what you lack?
Depressing. It's likely there will always be war. There's not much to be done about it because we're human. We'll always have a reason to hate or fear someone else – or they, us. So when others speak of peace – when they try to convince us that there is a more rational approach to whatever the problem is that they face – it is evidence that they're living in a dream world, a non-existent Utopia.vii Rationality has nothing to do with the issue. And, morals aside, there's only one basic rule of war.
It's better to win than to lose.
Next episode: “You Get What You Pay For” – Perhaps it's the piper.
Go back to August 7, 2011. This one is out of place.
i Mark Twain: “Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War.” I don't think he meant it to be humorous, but it certainly isn't factual.
ii Or, if you prefer, “disrespect.”
iii Nowadays that's oil.
iv Another commonplace is that man is the only animal that kills for sport.
v As noble as that sounds.
vi However dangerous, stupid, or ill-founded their beliefs were, they are entitled to them as long as they are not dangerous to others. The ACLU makes a point of protecting the views of those who may support (selected) causes inimical to most others.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.