Are humans inherently violent?
Discuss about the Argumentative Essay: People and Globalization.
Every now and then, world leaders issue nuclear annihilation threats throughout the Pacific Ocean. Conflicts are all over the globe and some of the evident warzones include Afghanistan, Syria, and the numerous conflicts occurring as a result of drugs. Moreover, terrorism has become the order of the day in most parts of the world. For the better part of human history, there have been wars, perpetuated violence, and murder. Real peace has been witnessed for a very short period. Some of the notable causes of war include beliefs, land, and resources. Looking at the human history, violence and aggression can be termed as something that is natural. Therefore, someone would be pardoned for holding the opinion that humans are doomed to endless conflicts as this is just how humanity is; an inborn violent species driven by primitive desires. Still, the years before the 1970s saw some researchers submit that intra-specific killing and organized conflicts was not natural to humanity (McCaughey, 2012). Instead, the researchers proposed that wars were just a mere coincidence of tool making and aggression. It is, however, true to say that the people who still possess this viewpoint in the modern era, are ignorant of recent research regarding human behavior. For centuries, the debate on whether humans are naturally violent or not has taken the attention of scholars and it seems that the debate is not ending anytime soon. The undisputed fact still stands though, that intra-species conflict is a phenomenon occurring inherently in multiple social animals including the chimpanzees which are regarded as the closest relative to humans (Walker & Bailey, 2013). This can perhaps explain the reason behind the widespread wars in countries like Syria and Afghanistan and unending terrorism activities in multiple regions across the world.
In the years before 1970, there was a common perception suggesting that animals are non-malevolent creatures. Essentially, when predators killed their prey, it was solely for survival. The highest ranking males in a certain region constantly engaged in battles for dominance, but the purpose of these fights was not to kill. Instead, the loser just lost his hierarchal status. Sometimes, creatures engaged in inter-species for killing motives, for instance, the cobra and mongoose. However, no records show intra-species killings (Heverin & Zach, 2012). Such type of violence (intentional intra-specific conflicts) was common in humanity. Two different sources, namely Konrad Lorenz and Margaret Mead, are regarded as the architects of the theory indicating that only humans were predisposed to violence. To start with Mead’s perspective, a celebrated anthropologist, a war was engineered by humans. On the same note, Lorenz, an animal behavior researcher, studied aggression in animals between 1950 and1960 (McCullough, Pedersen, Schroder, Tabak & Carver, 2013). In fact, he won the coveted Nobel Prize as a result of impressive studies around animal aggression. Despite the fact that he noted a series of animal aggression, there was no evidence of malicious intra-species conflicts or killings and he, therefore, concluded that such killings were only evident in humans. According to Lorenz’s theory, human conflicts and killings materialized as a result of the coincidental creation of the right weapons and tools (Boehm, 2011). The theory further notes that the aggression in the human species was propagated by evolution.
Past studies and opinions
Even in the modern setting, some schools of thought maintain that conflict is not an inherent predisposition. David Grossman, in his 1998 article about Christian Living, wrote that humans are “Trained to Kill”. In brief, Grossman submits that the midbrain has an outstanding resistance to killing its own type; the resistance is powerful and installed by God (Sosis, 2011). Each species, apart from a few, has a strong resistance to engage in intra-specific battles due to mating or territorial matters. When buffalos or other animals with horns engage in fights, they do so in harmless design. However, when they battle other species, their prime aim is to kill. Likewise, Piranhas will involve its fangs when fighting with other species, but when they fight among themselves, they will use their tails (Westra & Rees, 2012). On the same note, rattlesnakes will bite other animals, but not even a single moment when they will bite each other. Grossman presents the aforementioned facts to prove his case that conflicts are not natural in the human species. He further presents an interesting opinion purporting that the military applies some sort of brainwashing methods during their training to drive soldiers to kill their own kind. According to him, humans are extremely nonviolent and killings among humans only occur by training or accident (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 2017). The article seemingly debunked research conducted on chimpanzees (or what people commonly refer to as humans’ closest relatives) indicating that humans are inherently violent. Some animal behaviorists, including Richard Wrangham, Sarah Hrdy, and Jane Goodall have conducted research to give more evidence on this issue.
Jane Goodall was the first researcher to present evidence on intra-specific killing. In her work, she studied the chimpanzees and made a series of significant discoveries about the chimpanzee. A good number of Goodall’s discoveries increased the relationship between animals and humans. Goodall noted that, just like humans, chimpanzees created simple tools for fighting purposes. Before this discovery, it was assumed that such behaviors were only synonymous with the human population. At Gombe National Park, where Goodall conducted her study, a particular chimpanzee social group lived within a specific territory. This was the community she termed as Kasakela. Between 1971 and 1973, there was a growing need for resources in the community named Kasakela (Steel, 2011). At that moment, Goodall and her researchers observed that a grouping of three females, seven males, and offsprings alienate themselves from the larger community and headed to the south region of the territory. The two groups detached by 1973 and they no longer had any contact. This was the time when the researchers decided to name the southern group Kahama community. The following months saw the two communities constantly patrol their newly found borders. The onset of 1974 saw the enmity between the two communities rise a notch higher. The males in the Kasakela group, for instance, conducted several organized “raids.”
Evidence for Intra-specific conflict
The groups conducting these raids would frequently hype up, move to the border, and in other instances, they would go beyond their territories. Notably, the raids were not conducted for the purpose of getting food as such activities were conducted at a specific time of the day. The first attack, as observed by Goodall, was witnessed when a group of sex Kasakela males launched attacks on a lone Kahama male leaving him mortally wounded. The next four years saw similar attacks according to eyewitness accounts. The end result was the annihilation of the Kahama group and the only survivors were the female offsprings of the Kahama adults who are now missing. In no time Goodall’s studies were largely appreciated in the science world (Montag, Weber, Trautner, Newport, Markett, Walter, & Reuter, 2012). Similar intra-specific conflicts were now evident in other social animals including the apes. Another perfect example is the wolves that are well-known for vicious intra-specific attacks. According to statistics, approximately 50% of wolves’ deaths can be attributed to intra-specific killings and not humans as many purport (Cohen & Deng, 2012). Lions and hyenas also exhibit traits of violence among their kind. Ants as well are well-known for their frequent attacks and genocides of neighboring colonies.
Looking at yet another study that gives evidence regarding humans as naturally aggressive, Sarah Hrdy moved to India in an effort to research on how overpopulation affects the Hanuman’s langur monkeys. In doing so, Sarah hoped that she could apply her findings to the human population. In the langur community, a single male takes possession of a number of females along with their offsprings. Males without females create their distinct community composed of only males. One thing that disturbed Hrdy was continuous observations of infant murder by the outside males. An intruding male would first kill the infant langurs before setting foot in the community. According to Hrdy, this occurred as a result of two main reasons. The first reason for this was so that the females could deem the male as incompetent and not capable of protecting their offsprings. The second reason was so that the period required for the mother to mate again could shorten (Hrdy, 2018). Since Hrdy presented her evidence, other multiple observations have been made regarding infant murder among other animals. The biggest culprits of this worrying trend are the male lions. It has been noted that the mortality rate of lion infants escalates upon the arrival of a new male lion. Research shows that all the lion infants die within the first six months of a new arrival. Lions are, however, not the only culprits of this trend as other animals including the fish, wasps, bears, jacana birds, and so forth have also been linked to this tendency. In fact, the list goes on to include the humans. The Ache of Paraguay is one excellent example of a human society that kills orphans (Shiva, 2016). The people of this community argue that the reason behind why they engage in this act is because the children have no parents and hence would be a burden to the whole community.
An ancient brutal massacre presents overwhelming evidence of how conflict has developed over the years across the global society. Various groups, including the nomadic hunter-gatherers, took part in organized mass killings 1,000 decades ago (Kaldor, 2013). Such findings reemphasize the fact that humans are naturally violent. On the same note, a more recent research has uncovered that humans are six times more likely to kill their own kind as compared to other mammals. When humans first transformed into modern humans, approximately 2% of the mortality could be attributed to their own kind. Despite the fact that this seems to be a low figure compared to the meerkats that record approximately 20% of intra-specific deaths, a significant amount of mammals do not kill themselves, and if they do, it occurs very rarely. Looking at the tigers, for instance, they rarely kill each other and record an intra-specific death rate of 0.88% (Dowie, 2011). In some instances, humans have been seen to even outdo the meerkats by recording significant intra-specific death rates. Taking a look at America during the period spanning from 1200 to 1500, for instance, 25 percent of human deaths could be traced back to fellow humans. Researchers further gathered information regarding approximately four million deaths among 1000 mammals or thereabouts from 80 % of the mammalian community, as well as 600 human groupings from the era of Palaeolithic to the modern day (Crawford & Krebs, 2013). The compiled information was used to develop an evolution tree putting together different mammals’ predisposition to conflict. The researchers discovered that humans held a close relationship to mammals that were more likely to engage in intra-specific killings. Aggression, which is evident in humans and other mammals, is a highly heritable component of genetics. It is also worth noting that evidence from research suggests that human violence has been shaped by evolution. Taking this perspective, it is true to group violence as an adaptive approach, favoring the reproductive achievements of the perpetrator.
Researchers have continually asserted that lethal violence was applied by approximately 40% of the mammalian population, but the researchers further noted this to be an underestimate. Statistically, 0.3% of deaths were grouped as intra-specific deaths. However, approximately 160,000 to 200,000 years back, the same percentage on the basis of the human population was recorded as approximately 2%, which is about six times the average figure (Vigil & Coulombe, 2011). According to the Nature paper, the level of aggression in humans can be traced back to their occupation within a specific mammalian clade that is regarded as violent. Putting this slightly differently, violence and war were ancestrally present. The propensity of violence and aggression evident in humans is inherited. Looking at things from a more succinct perspective, the predisposition to violence encompasses more than just a genetic wiring to aggression. In essence, territoriality and social behavior are both behavioral features evident in the Homo sapiens family that seemingly played a role in the degree of lethal violence. The researchers further stressed that humans have the ability to control themselves despite having inherited an inclination towards aggressive tendencies. The prehistoric degree of lethal aggression has not stagnated but revolutionized according to the progression of history (Slettebak, 2012). This can be attributed mostly to the socio-political grouping of humanity. This further implies that culture has an impact on the inherited lethal aggression. The researchers went a step further and conducted their estimations for the rate of killings in the earliest Homo sapiens population. Notably, the Paleolithic age can be termed as one of the most peaceful in a human perspective and also coincides closely with the estimates presented by the researchers.
During what is commonly termed as the “Old World,” 10% or thereabouts of human deaths could be attributed to their fellow species. During the New World, however, things changed significantly. Between the periods of 3000 to 1500 years ago, 15% of deaths were perpetrated by humans, according to studies.. Afterward, a more discouraging upsurge of 25% was noted in the wake of Christopher Columbus’ arrival in 1492. It is, however, pleasing to note that the modern world has recorded fewer death rates as a result of human aggression. The United Kingdom records the lowest level of intentional human killings with the statistic showing that only 0.0009 deaths are organized, in reference to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis & Wisner, 2014). Professor Mark Pagel, giving his opinion in the nature article, implied that the debate of whether humans are inherently aggressive is long overdue with Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher, joining the debate and maintaining that humanity has lived in unending danger and fear of death as a consequence of violence during the 17th century. Other schools of thought including Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French thinker, have humans are the products of their environment. Additional studies by Gomez and fellow researchers reveal a new perspective to unraveling human violence and its origins, submitting strong evidence to believe that humanity is more inclined to aggressive tendencies compared to the average mammal. Their findings are in line with the anthropological discoveries that show constant battles within the hunter-gatherer societies. While it remains true that humans are naturally violent, societies can develop a modification to their innate features. Homicide rates in the modern communities with a strong rejection of violence, prisons, or even a functional legal system, record significantly lower death rates of 0.01% (Sussman & Cloninger, 2011).
Conclusion
To conclude, basing our argument on the behavior of animals and evolution, humans can be said to possess an innate drive to engage in violence and war. The consequences of war include pain and massive destruction to the environment and the human species. However, the war and violence have resulted in evolutionary advancements and worthwhile lessons. As a consequence of violence being an innate human aspect, aggression tendencies have been passed from one generation to the next and led to the development of conflict in the global society. Every now and then, there are cases of mass murders in Syria and Afghanistan, not to mention the numerous terrorist activities in multiple parts of the globe.
References
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (2014). At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge.
Boehm, C. (2011). Retaliatory violence in human prehistory. The British Journal of Criminology, 51(3), 518-534.
Cohen, R., & Deng, F. M. (2012). Masses in flight: the global crisis of internal displacement. 64(1), 34-491. Brookings Institution Press.
Crawford, C., & Krebs, D. L. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications. 63(1), 33-48. Psychology Press.
Dowie, M. (2011). Conservation refugees: the hundred-year conflict between global conservation and native peoples. 63(1), 34-47. MIT press.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (2017). Love and hate: The natural history of behavior patterns. Journal of animal behavior, 89(1), 107-111 Routledge.
Heverin, T., & Zach, L. (2012). Use of microblogging for collective sense?making during violent crises: A study of three campus shootings. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 34-47.
Hrdy, S. B. (2018). Mothers and others. Journal of Biological psychology, 89(1), 107-111
Kaldor, M. (2013). New and old wars: Organised violence in a global era. 63(1), 34-47. John Wiley & Sons.
McCaughey, M. (2012). The caveman mystique: Pop-Darwinism and the debates over sex, violence, and science. (pp. 114-139) routledge.
McCullough, M. E., Pedersen, E. J., Schroder, J. M., Tabak, B. A., & Carver, C. S. (2013). Harsh childhood environmental characteristics predict exploitation and retaliation in humans. Proc. R. Soc. B, 280(1750), 20122104.
Montag, C., Weber, B., Trautner, P., Newport, B., Market, S., Walter, N. T., … & Reuter, M. (2012). Does excessive play of violent first-person-shooter-video-games dampen brain activity in response to emotional stimuli?. Biological psychology, 89(1), 107-111.
Shiva, V. (2016). The violence of the green revolution: Third world agriculture, ecology, and politics. University Press of Kentucky.
Slettebak, R. T. (2012). Don’t blame the weather! Climate-related natural disasters and civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 163-176.
Sosis, R. (2011). Why sacred lands are not indivisible: the cognitive foundations of sacralizing land. Journal of Terrorism Research, 2(1).
Steel, K. (2011). How to Make a Human: Animals and Violence in the Middle Ages. The Ohio State University Press.
Sussman, R. W., & Cloninger, C. R. (2011). Origins of altruism and cooperation. New York: Springer.
Vigil, J. M., & Coulombe, P. (2011). Biological sex and social setting affect pain intensity and observational coding of other people’s pain behaviors. Pain, 152(9), 2125-2130.
Walker, R. S., & Bailey, D. H. (2013). Body counts in lowland South American violence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(1), 29-34.
Westra, L., & Rees, W. E. (2012). When consumption does violence: can there be sustainability and environmental justice in a resource-limited world?. In Just Sustainabilities (pp. 114-139). Routledge.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
