On The Reality Of Human Behaviour

[caldrail]

I'm listening to a representative panel discussing ramifications of the Ukraine situation. One guy broodily looks at the audience and says that "war is not the normal condition of human beings".

Excuse me? Has this guy ever read a history book? Does he not understand that warfare is merely the modern expression of tribal or group conflict common to mammalian social animals competing in the wild? I agree warfare is not desirable to most people, that it can be very destructive in the way we compete today, yet warfare or the threat of military action is an ongoing process. David Starkey has made clear that the reality of Human activity revolves around the ability to wield military force. This has always been true. Why the Iron Age ushered in a very violent world because of superior weaponry and reliance on resources to support such violence and the rise of the warrior society. Why the decline of Rome's ability to exercise military power was so influential in their demise. Why Stalin for instance once derided the Pope by asking how many divisions he commanded. 

Edited May 17, 2022 by caldrail

[Novosedoff]

Yeah, I wonder if there would have been any development of the human civilization without wars at all. All scientific break-throughs and technical innovations seem to be the result of them, although this is cynical to say..

I suppose it should be more wide-scale than it is for the moment though

[caldrail]

What has happened is two fold. Firstly warfare, despite its complexity, detail, expertise, and destructive potential, is heavily controlled on a global scale. Most conflicts are against movements that aren't part of the ritual politics that restrains the global community. The situation in Ukraine has received so much counter-support simply because it flew in the face of the 'queensbury rules' we like to believe matter. Ritual combat? That's no different from nature. Animals learn to face off with the minimum of harm, so do we. Except occaisionally a leader comes along who discards such restrictions believing ruthless strength is superior.

Secondly, the scale of potential destruction is now so bad via nuclear weaponry that usage is undesirable to both sides. As much as Putin is a wild card, even he doesn't follow the advice of his media pundits and prefers to threaten than actually press red buttons. At least so far anyway. The question is one of survival, much like the ritual aspect. If a leader believes he has an advantage, he might be tempted, first by taking an enormous risk, afterwards by increasing confidence that he will get away with it. But the ritual of nuclear confrontation does not yet have a scale of escalation that is meaningful in terms of what you can achieve without complete retaliation. For all their bluster, North Korea are no more likely to fire missiles than Putin's Russia. Because they don't yet know what they can get away with and the risks are so far to daunting. Mutually Assured Destruction. It worked since 1945, give or take some close calls.