The Nature and Nurture of Human Warfare: An Evolutionary Account. By Ronald F. White, PhD.

        I have written several blogs on "Just War Theory."  (https://freedomsphilosopher.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-ethics-of-war.html).  In light of the ongoing war in Ukraine, I thought it would be useful to explore the larger questions of whether human leadership and human warfare are natural behaviors passed on to subsequent generations through our genetic inheritance; or whether those behaviors are learned and therefore passed on over time via teaching and learning (culture). And, in light of those findings, I will speculate whether the quest for global peace a realistic sociopolitical goal. 

          Like all human institutions, the history of human warfare reveals varying degrees of cultural evolution, devolution, and/or stability over time. We know that warlike behavior has taken place throughout much of human history. There is evidence that groups of Hunters and Gatherers rarely (if ever) engaged in competitive warfare over resources, land, power, or ideology. There was (no doubt) plenty of food for groups of 50 wandering genetically-related humans. Similarly, there was no rational reason to engage in internal "civil wars" over leadership. Leadership was contextual: that is to say that hunter-gatherer groups simply followed the hunting advice of the the best hunters (usually men) and the gathering advice by best gatherers (usually women). Older men and women were most likely to accrue more experience and therefore were more-or-less respected by the rest of the group. Ineffective leaders were routinely replaced without violence. 

         Most scholars agree that warfare began 10,000 years ago, with the advent of the Agricultural Revolution, when humans stopped hunting and gathering and began to live together, collectively, in one geographical location, where they fenced the land and invented private land ownership, agriculture, and animal husbandry. As these stationary communities began to grow in population, more arable land, water, and food was needed. As public lands were gradually transformed into private property, many groups were left with no means to feed their populations. Out of sheer necessity, some small agricultural communities, eventually, began to raid their neighbors and confiscate their food supply. This inspired the collateral cultural evolution of offensive and defensive warfare.  Sustained leadership became associated with military specialization and successful offensive and defensive warfare. 

         The earliest weapons, no doubt, consisted of stockpiles of sticks and stones, which gradually evolved into more increasingly efficient killing technologies, from bows and arrows, to guns, aircraft, and ballistic missiles.  Co-laterally, communication technology evolved from "word of mouth" (face-to-face) to written word, and most recently, to communication via technologies such as: radios, telephones, cell phones, television, and computers. In the United States, the Vietnam War was the first widely televised war. The various evening news outlets included daily updates, and eventually, 24 hours a day via CNN and other full-time outlets. Of course, the US government provided war statistics, which invariably suggested that the US was winning. Eventually, skepticism arose among those media outlets.                                                                                                                                                                                    Would-be soldiers voluntarily enlisted in the "armed forces," lured by a reliable paycheck, and an assortment of other benefits including health insurance and college tuition. Many healthcare professionals, engineers and security experts were trained by and later employed by the military. Young men sought long-term military careers and or specialized training, especially in the Air Force. But as the Vietnam War dragged on, casualties mounted, and voluntary enlistment declined. Hence we have the revival of involuntary conscription (the draft) which alienated middle and upper class males. This led to deferments for various classes of middle/upper class of males. Conscription was eventually replaced by a lottery system, which determined who was to drafted. I drew a high number (190) and therefore I was spared the draft. But many of my university friends drew low numbers and were, immediately sent off to fight the Vietnam War.  Given the enormous expenses associated with paying soldiers and providing an assortment of military technologies (tanks, warships, bombers, bombs etc.) The Vietnam war eventually became increasingly unpopular and financially unsustainable and the US unceremoniously withdrew from South Vietnam.                                                                   

        The United States, Russia, and China still allocate a huge proportion of their national budgets to paying and training soldiers. Interestingly, the rise of the military class led to the development of larger, faster, more accurate, and more lethal technologies. This led to innovative competition between nations and the rise of the private arms industry.  Hence the so-called "arms race," evolved increasingly more effective and efficient weapons between major nations such as the United States, Russia, and China. That competition still exists today. 

        Near the end of WW II, the United States invented the ultimate weapon. The atomic bomb, which all nations pursued, in order to keep up with the United States. Today, warfare has been shaped primarily by increasingly efficient "missile technologies," especially missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. These weapons were stockpiled by nuclear nations, which transformed traditional warfare into "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). Consequently, human warfare became increasingly, impersonal, as hand-to-hand combat and personal weapons were replaced by armed missiles launched from over the horizon.  Eventually atomic weapons became a deterrent to future wars, out of fear of that "nuclear holocaust." And,  nations strategically released information, misinformation, and disinformation concerning their nuclear capacity to develop those weapons.

        In sum, warfare today has been indelibly shaped by the interwoven, fast-paced, evolution of both weapon technologies and information technologies. The development of these technologies created markets and/or the desire to hide/reveal possession of those technologies from would-be enemies and/or allies. Eventually "rogue nations," including North Korea and Iran, claimed that they possessed "The Bomb" and the requisite missile technology necessary to deliver it longer and longer distances. Possession of the The Bomb, was also used to threaten their neighbors, and/or protect themselves from the US, Russia, and/or China.                                                                                           

        Small, well-armed military forces and armed citizens could now resist/expel those would-be occupying forces. Large offensive armies evolved into occupying forces, that sought to control the flow of refugees, enforce new legalities, and even rebuild cities.This led to competition to develop increasingly portable weapon technologies and communication technologies; and an ever-growing market for those technologies; and highly profitable private corporations that manufactured, distributed, and marketed these weapons at home and abroad. Burgeoning national military budgets eventually out-paced all other budgetary concerns and the normalization of deficit spending, especially in the US.                                                                                                     

         Today, military-grade weapons are easily acquired by U.S. citizens who seek to either collect/use those weapons and/or defend themselves from equally well-armed criminals. For better or worse, the ever-burgeoning supply of military-grade weapons in the hands of American citizens led to more efficient mass murder, especially school shootings.  All of this continues to foster seemingly endless (and often pointless) political debate within/between political parties over "gun control" vs. the constitutionally protected "right to bear arms." If there are to be legally enforced limits to the "right" of gun ownership, who ought to possess that right? Limits proposed include: citizens/police, licensed owners/unlicensed owners, adults/children, rational/irrational, non-criminals/criminals, etc.?   

 

I will examine other evolutionarily-based issues in future blogs including: the evolution of police forces, the rise of women in the police/military, and that growing problem of mass shootings.