Human Nature???
I want to touch upon one of McNamera’s Lessons, Lesson #11: You can’t change human nature. In the film, McNamera paraphrases his observation about human nature thus, “You are not going to change human nature anytime soon.” This would probably be better phrased thus, “You are not going to change my mind anytime soon.” As an aside, I have to note that ascribing war to “human nature” as an inevitability is self-serving for Robert McNamera, a major architect of one of the most disastrous wars of American history and admitted war criminal.
Lesson 11 as McNamera explains it reminds me that several times in this class people have alluded to war as an aspect of human nature. The conclusion that war is an aspect of human nature derives from the observation that people have had wars – socially organized violent, murderous conflicts – throughout human history. This conclusion, that war is an aspect of human nature usually carries the implication that war is an inevitable inescapable aspect of human life. Is this right?
First we have to examine using human nature as a way of understanding war. If we say, human beings are perennially at war because we are by nature violent and warlike creatures, we have actually said nothing. We have made what philosophers call a logically empty statement. It is logically empty because the conclusion derives from the premises. It is like saying that human beings walk upright because we are by nature bipedal creatures. We have said nothing beyond the original statements that human beings are perennially at war and that human beings walk upright. Now there are interesting things to examine and explore about both war and upright posture. Characterizing them, however, as “human nature” tends to hinder deeper thought and inquiry.
As to war there is much to explore once we have freed ourselves from the concept that war is inevitable. Certainly there is no denying that human history is rife with war and that there are always wars going on somewhere on the planet. But it is also true that at any moment, most people on the planet are not involved in war and that most people in human history have not been involved in armed conflict. So one could even argue that war is an aberration. Here are some other questions that occur to me:
Lesson 11 as McNamera explains it reminds me that several times in this class people have alluded to war as an aspect of human nature. The conclusion that war is an aspect of human nature derives from the observation that people have had wars – socially organized violent, murderous conflicts – throughout human history. This conclusion, that war is an aspect of human nature usually carries the implication that war is an inevitable inescapable aspect of human life. Is this right?
First we have to examine using human nature as a way of understanding war. If we say, human beings are perennially at war because we are by nature violent and warlike creatures, we have actually said nothing. We have made what philosophers call a logically empty statement. It is logically empty because the conclusion derives from the premises. It is like saying that human beings walk upright because we are by nature bipedal creatures. We have said nothing beyond the original statements that human beings are perennially at war and that human beings walk upright. Now there are interesting things to examine and explore about both war and upright posture. Characterizing them, however, as “human nature” tends to hinder deeper thought and inquiry.
- One might ask “How did upright posture evolve and how is it connected to other human adaptations?” Or “When did upright posture evolve and what ecological circumstances did the adaptation meet?”
As to war there is much to explore once we have freed ourselves from the concept that war is inevitable. Certainly there is no denying that human history is rife with war and that there are always wars going on somewhere on the planet. But it is also true that at any moment, most people on the planet are not involved in war and that most people in human history have not been involved in armed conflict. So one could even argue that war is an aberration. Here are some other questions that occur to me:
- Is war present in all contemporary societies as directed by all contemporary cultures? If not, then one cannot say that war is a human universal.
- History is not the study of the human past. It is rather, the study of attempts to document the human past, the study of what people have written about their experiences and the occurrences they have described. Now people have been documenting their past in semi-permanent form for about 5000 years. History, then covers about 1/300th of the time ( 1.5 million years) that the human species has lived on earth. What about the other 299/300th’ of the human past? Does the experience of the last 5000 years represent the norm or an aberration?
- Aggression is an aspect of self-assertion and many animals specie have evolved mechanisms of restraining aggressive impulses even when physical combat is joined. Examining the mechanisms of restraining aggression and especially the circumstances of success and failure of those mechanisms should be useful. A key might be looking at impulse restraint in human societies as regards issues other than aggression, sexuality for example.
- The role of technology in war is probably important since technology is a unique and essential adaptation for humans. Does technology do anything to our capacity to restrain aggressive impulses? Or does it simply intensify and magnify the results of that aggression.
- Lt. Col. Grossman argues that human beings have an apparently biologically derived reluctance to kill other humans that they must overcome to participate effectively in war. Is this true? If so the implication is that war is an aberration and that war begins and proceeds by social and/or psychological coercion. What are the implications if this is the case?
- What is the connection between physical combat between individuals and organized warfare between societies?
- Nuclear technology has made warfare evolutionarily perilous. Is there any way to avert wars or hinder the deployment of nuclear weapons?