Nature vs. Nurture The debate over which human behaviors are biologically or

instinctually determined as opposed to being socially or culturally conditioned (112).

-There is much debate when it comes to the argument if an individual is predetermined to crime based on their biology or in the environment that they grew up in. This “nature vs. nurture” argument is relevant when it comes to finding out if humans are prone to war.

-“The question of why human beings systematically prepare for and carry out the large-scale slaughter of members of their own species is perhaps the central question for anyone interested in our fate on this planet” (111).

-War does not come naturally to people. It is like sex; it must be taught. Sometimes an individual must be coerced into getting into a war (112). “It is more like slavery and wearing black to funerals, learned social practices that can change, than it is sex, which is a biological drive” (112).

The Curse of Intelligence: Weapons

Humans are more like rabbits than wolves. -An individual would have a harder time killing

someone up close, rather than using something like a bomb at a greater distance by just pressing a button.

-Other reasons humans fight are over ideas. Conceptual thought-“Our creativity and intelligence are at the same time humankinds greatest blessing and curse” (118).

-As Tiger and Fox explain- Humans are animals that primarily live by ideas, and secondary by instincts. There are times when we [humans] overreact when our basic ideas, those that decide our identities, both individual and collective are threatened (117).

Culture, Social Learning, & War

When it comes to human nature, war is always happening, although, there is also much peace as well.

-While the majority of the world has never fought in a war, or killed anyone, and they probably never will. Many of these nations are at peace.

The Reluctance to Kill Although the military would like to control soldier’s

ability to kill on the battlefield, the military is not always able to do so.

-The inability to kill another person in battle is of course after an individual goes through basic training, with constant drilling, indoctrination, social pressure, and the threat of discipline.

-There is a certain type of phenomenon called nonfires-which are soldiers who refuse to fire their weapons in battle (or deliberately try to avoid killing enemy soldiers).

-As General Marshall stated, “the average and healthy individual… has such an inner and usually unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from the responsibility” (120).

War is Violence, Not “Aggression”

“War represents one of the least aggressive forms of man’s behavior.” –Ashley Montagu (121)

-Not every act of violence is motivated by aggression (121). If a bank robber shoots and kills a bank teller because she did not give him the money, the teller was killed because she did not hand over the money to the robber, not because the robber committed the violent act because he was aggressive (121).

-To break down the causes of war can most likely be explained by Instrumental Violence, which is violence used in pursuit of some identifiable objective (121).

-“War is the organized, planned use of violence by political units in pursuit of political, economic, or social objectives” (121). The people who make the decision to go into war in the first place, rarely ever take part in it, rather they send soldiers to fight, and as a result, engage in violence. In turn, the soldier’s behavior is not totally directed at the enemy, but they are put in a place where they have to defend their lives (121).

-As French Biologist Jean Rotund said, “In war, man is much more like a sheep than a wolf. War is servility… but not aggressiveness” (121).

Social Learning & Conditioning

In war, the enemy is casually put into two groups, dehumanization and pseudo-specification. Dehumanization is the portrayal and/or perception of other people as less than human. Pseudo-specification is viewing other humans as if they were not members of one’s own species. Wartime propaganda depicting the enemy as animals or insects facilitates this process. Those who see war as a culturally and socially learned phenomenon often cite this tendency (124).

-Dehumanization is an almost necessary component of war because, “as a rule human beings do not kill other human beings. Before we enter into warfare or genocide, we must first ‘dehumanize’ those we mean to eliminate” (124).

-If war is an invention it can be “uninvented,” if it is learned, it can be unlearned” –Margaret Mead (124).

Conclusion -War and hate are not natural in humans, they are taught.

While soldiers are indoctrinated with intense basic training, and constantly hearing hate towards the enemy, the individual soldier probably feels no hate to that individual person, just what they are taught in their military career.

-Soldiers are indoctrinated that their enemy is less than human in order to make it easier for that solder to kill the enemy, and in turn soldiers become aggressive with the training that they receive through constant repetition.

-War is often viewed as a cultural and social practice, instead of war being shaped by human nature or instincts (127). War is raged by politicians and people in power, who never see the result of what they have waged on the frontlines, and will often just keep sending more soldiers to fight, who at times, resist to kill their enemy in the battlefield, instead of causing more death.

“The pursuit of peace and progress cannot end in a few years in either victory or defeat.The pursuit of peace and progress, with

its trials and its errors, its successes and its setbacks, can never be relaxed and never abandoned.” -Dag Hammarskjold

Works Cited Shimko, K. L. (2013). International Relations Perspectives, Controversies &

Readings. (4th ed.). Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt.He has been given a large brain by

mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.” –Albert Einstein