So recently, while I was doing my more-often-than-not binging of YouTube videos, I came across and watched Why Do Humans Go To War? by the channel Lindybeige. I was expecting just another one of those lectures that discuss the various factors that have led to inter-state conflict in history, such as over religion, over resources, over territory, or strategic rivalry, etcetera. All sound cliche to everyone, I suppose. But the hour-long video turned out to be a lot more insightful than I expected, diving into the complexities of human nature and our biological mechanisms to explain our propensity for conflict. As such I decided it would be a great idea to share some of the key highlights I gained from the video, which I shall also pin to this page.
Onto the topic of war. War is one of the recurring themes of the history of human civilisation. Can anyone name one country that has never experienced war, whether in its glory, vain or suffering? Some countries, like Indonesia, Italy or the United States, had their very existence born out of a war. War has been prevalent, no doubt, but it has also put tremendous cost on societies and individuals alike. Which begs the question: Is it something innate in human nature, for nations to send armies of young men to fight other armies of young men, and why do the young men (often) willingly go to fight even if it is the expense of their self-gain?
As much as this article is based on Lindybeige’s video, Lindybeige bases his video off the book Why We Fight by Michael Martin. It explores what in human biology (that directly influences human nature) makes this possible. For the purposes of this argument, of course, we have to accept the inherent assumption that human nature exists, since we are a product of Darwinian evolution and we are part of the animal kingdom.
So what do people fight for? Prima facie, we see factors like money, religion, resources, territory, inheritance, or political ideology as what breeds war. But examining human nature, it really boils down to two primary causes: status, and the desire for group membership or belonging.
Status is a concept important for everyone, especially males. Why males in particular? If we take a Darwinian view, our basic mission of existence is to breed and produce more descendants. 80% of women who ever lived contribute to today’s gene pool, compared to only 40% for men. So yes, most men failed in their basic evolutionary mission. Obviously, high-status men definitely get to breed a lot more, compared to a peasant or a factory worker. Just look at Genghis Khan, Moroccan Sultan Ismail bin Sharif, or Polish King Augustus II, who each had hundreds of children. Thus, the concept of status, which evolved from biological to more overtly political terms, is of special importance to leaders. The aim of entering a conflict, from a national leader’s perspective, is usually for the pursuit of status or the protection of existing status. In relation to war, we see that often leaders have the aim of establishing a reputation, as someone strong and to be reckoned with. Case in point would be the 1982 Falklands War which solidified Margaret Thatcher’s popularity and indeed the Tories won the 1983 general election in a landslide. What would Michael Foot have done?
Then why do groups or ordinary people go to war? Could it be for status? Probably, because such a sacrifice proves one’s loyalty in a group, making it easier to advance status as “one of us”. But if we look back at human nature, using the biological concept of fitness, which is defined by one’s ability to contribute to the gene pool of successive generations, going to war as an ordinary trooper diminishes fitness due to the high risk of death or injury, especially considering how these are young men who are likely childless. Then why don’t ordinary people evolve instincts turned against war? Far from it, there is even enthusiasm to go to war on some occasions, such as during the outbreak of the First World War. Society did not have to persuade men to sign up, sometimes it was even vice versa, like how the British Army put height restrictions for recruitment during that period to prevent too many people from joining. Then why? A possible reason is the innate human instinct to want to fit in, rather than be the odd one out. A concept of shame is attached should one refuse to sign up to do a part for the greater society. There could even be pressure by people around you to sign up, for the fact that everyone is doing the same.
Now, have you ever wondered why war is often fought by young men? Why a specific gender and age demographic? Firstly, humans are dimorphic creatures, where there are significant physical differences between males and females. Not as much as peacocks of course, but still definitely noticeable. A man is generally speaking physically stronger than a woman - in fact if you get an average man and a thousand women of the same age, only one of the thousand would be statistically stronger than the man. Meanwhile, females tend to be of the optimum size for a normal life and environment, as opposed to males who are often too big, increasing the chances of dying off young, or from diseases. This biological fact would go on to influence the notion and stereotype that a man should be the one doing the physically strenuous jobs, which of course includes war, and young men would be considered the most physically able. In addition, the nature of human society is such that a male may mate with multiple females, while some males don’t get to mate at all. Does this breed conflict? Certainly - the notorious example of China, whose current demographics are a result of the controversial one-child policy, a study revealed that increasing the male-female ratio by 0.01% in an area correlates with a 3% rise in the murder rate. Hence males have evolved to fight other males, which over time turned from a biological to a political phenomenon whether most political leaders and figures of authority are men. And if we look at the chemical processes behind a lot of this, there is testosterone, which makes one more status-driven, the chemical that “makes a man a man”, since men produce 20 times of it than women. Then why young men in particular? Of course there are many social factors that influence this, but it is worth noting that the prefrontal cortex of the brain, responsible for helping us deal with complicated problems, is not fully developed until age 25. Young men are therefore more predisposed for violence, as they have yet to develop the skills to handle certain issues where using violence seems like an easier solution.
What about the other major factor - the desire for group membership and belonging? Throughout human existence, being part of a group, whether it is a tribe, a religion, a nation, or a company, has been fundamental to survival, especially in the age of hunter-gatherers. If you find yourself cast out of a group, you have to fend for yourself alone. It is unlikely another group will accept you, since you may be perceived as untrustworthy. And if you are alone, you are unlikely to reproduce, so humans evolve instinct to desire group belonging. The chemical at play here is oxytocin, the hormone of love, friendship and group belonging. Release of oxytocin occurs when we see people we like or are comfortable with, while on the flip side, the lack of this chemical makes us distrustful of outsiders, hence breeding the “us versus them” mentality. On a personal level, you get an oxytocin boost when you see your friends, but not with strangers or suspicious characters. On a much larger scale in the real world, this can play out in the form of xenophobia, inter-country enmity, or even pre-emptive strikes against groups that are considered distrustful.
All things considered, this has been a splendid video which I would highly recommend to anyone to watch, not only those who are interested to find out more about human psychology or neurology. The question that deserves to be asked is: Is war and conflict as a recurring theme going to continue and even intensify looking ahead, or can we overcome some aspects of human nature to make the world a more rationally-minded and peaceful place? Looking at the past few decades, conflict has on a long-term projection decreased over time, as is certainly argued by Steven Pinker in his book The Better Angels Of Our Nature. If we look back at the aforementioned points, the gender gap has been narrowed in most of the developed world, war does not bring glory to a government as it did before, and it is far easier for individualism to thrive without the need for group membership. Coupled with the increased sentiment against war, it is tempting to assume that, but we cannot be too sure. Many fundamental aspects of our nature such as the pursuit of status (no longer of only males) and the “us versus them” mentality still persist and show no sign of receding. But there is another side of human nature - one of empathy, compassion and love. Let us let that side prevail.
Comments