Opinion
Lab
Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
AGREEDISAGREE
Male
Female
Non-binary
4 comments
For
Julianne5y ago
**I think it's definitely possible, we just need to keep working on growing ever-larger social groups, maybe even a global polity.**
- Dr. Mike Martin, a Visiting War Studies Fellow at King’s College London, talks about [why we fight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs4JcvoCF1s). Morals and ideologies actually limit warfare, he thinks. A deeply shared sense of identity in the form of a large global group would probably do much the same.
- Ultimately, Martin sees the trends of ever-decreasing violence and ever-increasing group size as correlated.
- A large enough group could rid us entirely of warfare.
··
Turi5y ago
Karen Stenner, an expert on Authoritarianism, did some experiments to work out how she could get authoritarians (obsessed with their in-group, terrified of 'others') to be more tolerant, and expand their idea of the in-group. [The threat of alien invasion](https://twitter.com/karen_stenner/status/1261500653584519168?s=20) - a bigger, nastier other to protect against - is what works best!
··
Commentary
eleanorburleigh4y ago
**Is it biologically ingrained within us to engage in war?**
I don't think that inherent human aggression is to blame for war. In modern times where violence and killing are largely condemned, people need to be conscripted into fighting - suggesting that it's not an innate instinct. Wars between nation-states are [usually motivated] (https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/The-Main-Reasons-For-War#:~:text=Answer%3A%20There%20are%20many%20potential,or%20a%20perceived%20potential%20aggressor.) by political, religious, economic or ideological reasons. It was most likely the result of developing civilisations - where societies gained the abilities and motivations to enter into warfare.
As [this article] (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-is-not-part-of-human-nature/) (which is a really interesting read) says: "War is fostered by culturally specific systems of knowledge and values that generate powerful meanings of 'us versus them'. These social constructs have no primate analogies."
So when we think about living in a post-war world, we aren't battling against our instinctive natures - rather we are battling against the ways our collective identities & social structures [have developed] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/finding-new-home/201908/the-psychology-us-vs-them). It is, then, theoretically possible for a world without war to exist in the future. As has already been commented here, maybe one of the most viable ways of this happening would be that some opposing force might bring the whole of humanity together. This could even be the humanity-wide threat of [global warming] (https://www.un.org/en/un75/climate-crisis-race-we-can-win) or something similar.
··
Turi4y ago
Lovely point here, and I'd not thought of it this way.
Two great thinkers who describe how deeply contorted the basic human psyche must be before it can engage in mass war are, paradoxically, experts on de-humanisation.
See our interviews with Philosopher [David Livingstone Smith](https://www.parlia.com/article/on-inhumanity-david-livingstone-smith) and Social Neuroscientist [Lasana Harris](https://www.parlia.com/article/neuroscience-dehumanisation-with-lasana-harris).
··
Sign up or log in to post a comment.
Are we missing an argument?
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!