Who thinks war & violence is human nature & how can u prove it?

Question

i think its the most unnatural deviant thing since it is counterproductive to our survival, since we can control our environment & we are above the food chain

Answer 1

We are a animal just like any other. They fight and commit acts of violence just like us. And just like use sometimes it is not for survival it is just because.

Answer 2

Actual warfare is not evident in archeological sites because there were no large states with significant division of labor.  People were in small groups but they were extremely warlike.  Chimps are very warlike and therefore it is likely that our ancestors were as well.  Wars happen when there are resources that different groups covet.  You care about you children and tribe so you try to secure those resources but so do other groups and conflicts erupt.  Those societies that are more capable are better able to secure resources.  Native Americans were for the most part, extremely warlike.  New Guinea tribesmen are also, as are Yanomamo, etc. etc.  They are all warlike.  You would be hardpressed to find a society that isn't.  You may not like it, but you wouldn't be around if it wasn't for one of your brave ancestors fighting for limited resources from others.

Answer 3

People have been fighting forever.

Answer 4

When someone is upset are they more likely to hit someone, or to kiss someone?

Answer 5

fighting is natural..think of two little kids who arent old enough to comprehend things hurt..

one has a toy and another takes it from him, the one who had the toy to begin with will fight for his toy or even get violent..

they werent taught to fight, its just a natural instinct at that age..now later on in life..i have no explination for that

Answer 6

The archeological record shows very little actual evidence of what we would consider warfare until relatively recent times. The unfortunate, probably violent deaths of people like Otzi the Ice-Age man are more indicative of interpersonal violence. Murders, or fights between individuals that got out of hand are what seem to be happening up through the Mesolithic (like around Lepenski Vir, posssibly) into the Neolithic.

We don't really see actual warfare with groups of people fighting and killing each other until very late, like the last 10,000 years. We could always find evidence that pushes that date back, but we haven't found it yet.

Violence might be human nature. Lots of animals fight and kill each other for all sorts of reasons. Apes and monkeys kill other apes and monkeys, dogs kill other dogs, you get the idea. War is an extension of that, a meta-violence that springs from the establishment of large groups of people, like the settlements and city-states that begin to show up around 10,000 years ago. At least, you could make that argument with the available evidence.

Answer 7

People use war and violence because they are practical methods,

especially for rooting out the elements that threaten the survival and/or

functioning of the species or the people of a country; war and violence

are not used for their own sake. However, blind pacifist fanaticism IS in

the instinctive nature of many humans.

Answer 8

In the book "Why s*x Matters" are some interesting explanations and discussions about war and violence. The authors explain about the male imperative to spread his genes. He can do this best through controlling women, controlling what women need, or being attractive and helpful for women, or a bit of all three. The female imperative is generally to have enough resources to raise her offspring and to help her offspring raise their offspring. If she has those things, she may not really need men. However, men have most often controlled certain types of resources, at least since agriculture began. Religions often assert the necessity of male control, but then males have usually been the ones to control religions. Before humans had guns, violence and fighting usually paid off directly for those males who 'won'. The more wealthy men fought along side the less wealthy men. Now it's not the case. The males who gain the most from war are likely not the ones who do the fighting. Those who have to do the fighting gain much less through having participated. The authors suggest that this genetic imperative, of course, is encouraged, discouraged, or re-directed depending on socialization and culture. So it doesn't have to be inevitable. And, indeed, it may spell the end of our species if we don't learn to direct our energies more positively.