(2002): Myths are dangerous, and we are
better off without them. Myth, due to its very nature, is not grounded in
reality, so is susceptible to manipulation. Once we accept a myth as truth
without any consideration of its reality, how do we question its implications
or manipulation on objective grounds?
My purpose here is to clarify some of
the most prevalent myths the general public have about human history.
Since the beginning of time, humans have
been unable to live in ecological balance. No matter where we happen to live on
Earth, we eventually outstrip the environment. This has always led to
competition as a means of survival, and warfare has been the inevitable
consequence of our ecological demographic propensities. And while realizing
this the question that came up is whether humans are genetically programmed to
be this way. Or do we have the ability to change the fundamental
human-environmental relationship that not only has been with us for millions of
years but in many ways has made us who we are today.
In fact though our history has been far
less peaceful and pleasant than most of us are comfortable hearing about, our
past does not doom our future. This may come as cold comfort to a world filled
with warfare and plagued by ecological disasters, but I believe that a careful
reading of human history our real and very long history-shows that the
opportunity for positive change is there.
As I pointed out a few months ago a
lingering desire to sanitize and ignore warfare still exists. Naturally as
shown further down this website, the public absorbs this scholarly bias, and
the myth of a peaceful past continues.
In tackling these issues, trying to
begin at the beginning is not so easy. Humans have not always been human; we
have a prehuman past as well. Even fully modern humans-that is, people who were
every bit as intelligent as and behaviorally complex as people today-lived and
functioned in many different ways. Humans have not always lived in societies
that were organized the same way. While anthropologists have constructed a
number of schemes to deal with these differences, the most useful is a
four-type taxonomy: forager bands, tribal farmers, chiefdoms, and states.
Forager bands and tribal farmers are roughly egalitarian societies, in contrast
to chiefdoms and states, which have important status differences incorporated
into them and are much more socially complex.
The ability to react and to alter their
environmental constraints-to change the carrying capacity, is one of the
important ways humans are different from most animals. With other animals, when
the numbers of a particular species go up, their predators' numbers increase
also. As predators kill more of the overpopulated species, the animal
population stops rising. Humans have not had significant predators for a
million years or more. We do have another kind of predator: other humans. And
this is where warfare enters the equation.
Much of noncomplex society human warfare
is similar to chimpanzee attacks. Massacres among humans at that social level
are, in fact, rare occurrences.
In the late 1800s, the people of the
Hopi town of Oralbi got into a serious dispute, in large
part instigated by the behavior of the U.S. government, and the community split
into two factions. There was a great deal of tension, people were extremely
upset, and it was decided that one faction would have to leave the village
permanently. Deciding which group should go and which should stay was a
terrible dilemma. Leaving their mother village is probably one of the hardest
things a Hopi would ever willingly do, because the ancestral home of each
lineage and clan has strong religious and emotional ties.
If there was a time of violence among
the community of Hopi’s that in modern history where some of the most peaceful
tribes in the America’s, this was certainly it. The decision was made-not as
the result of a bloody brawl but by a tug-of-war.
However this peaceful resolution to a
very contentious situation occurred relatively recently, not in ancient times.
Many of the scenes in the prehistoric Hopi murals at Awatovi
for example, depict weapons, warriors, and the resultant dead. The same Hopi
who explains the word Hopi means peace also tells of violent episodes in the
past when entire villages were destroyed. According to their vivid oral
traditions, many generations ago massacres and raids were launched on the
neighboring Navajo-and even on the Hopis now close friends, the Zuni. In fact,
Hopi oral history recounts how the Hopi town of Awatovi
was destroyed in the winter of 1700.
This raises thn
for example the question of why the Hopi changed from a society With warfare to
one so peaceful. The transformation occurred in an impacted environment. From
the mid-1800s on, the United States Army enforced peace in the Southwest. From
that time, the Hopi were not allowed to, nor did they need to, engage in
intense warfare to survive. By the late 1800s, this was the case over all of
North America.
Other especially intriguing examples- of
peaceful societies have been identified from various parts of the world. Like
Diogenes looked for an honest man, and it has been questioned whether some
types of social organizations or certain kinds of resource bases lead to
peacefulness.
But despite the effort that has been
devoted to the search, the number of what can be considered classic cases of
peaceful societies is quite small, including the Copper Eskimo, the closely
related Ingalik Eskimo, the Gebusi
of lowland New Guinea, the African !Kung Bushmen, the Mbuti Pygmies of Central
Africa, the Semang of peninsular Malaysia, the South
American Sirione of
An interesting group of peaceful
societies that became that way only because the traditional human-resource
balance had abruptly changed is found in the Plateau region of North America.
The anthropological literature considers this area-centered on present-day
eastern Washington and Oregon, and parts of Idaho and British Columbia-to be a
good example of a region without warfare in the past. Scholars have
considerable detail about the history and prehistory of societies in the
Plateau and in particular several adjacent groups that occupied the Southern
Columbia River-Frazer Plateau. There are accounts dating to the early 1800s and
careful, detailed ethnographies of the related but politically independent
groups the Sanpoil, Okanogan, Wenatchee, and Chelan. These accounts describe
people without war or enemies, with ample food, living a life marred only by
the coming of the European settlers: "The Sanpoil, at the geographic
center of the Plateau, emphasize no other value in life more than pacifism....
Warfare is virtually unknown to them and has been since Amazonia, the Yahgan of
Tierra del Fuego, the Warrau (Warao) of the Orinoco
Delta of eastern Venezuela, and the Aborigines who lived along the west coast
of Tasmania.
Actually, some of these same
"peaceful" societies have extremely high homicide rates. Among the
Copper Eskimo and the New Guinea Gebusi, for example,
a third of all adult deaths were from homicide. This might be explained by the
fact that among small societies almost everyone is a relative, albeit a distant
one. Naturally, this raises some perplexing questions: Who IS a member of the
group and who is an outsider~. Which killing is considered a homicide and which
killing is an act of warfare?
Such questions and answers become
somewhat fuzzy. So some of this so-called peacefulness is more dependent on the
definition of homicide and warfare than on reality. In fact, some of these
societies did have warfare, but it has usually been considered to be minor and
insignificant.
At one level, the particular examples of
peaceful societies on this list and their subtleties are irrelevant.
Anthropologists have studied more than a thousand societies throughout the
world. Even if every one of this handful of groups was actually peaceful, the
numbers would not be very encouraging. However, the reasons these groups might
be considered peaceful can reveal a great deal about why societies in general
are-and are not-peaceful.
The Siriono
are a good example of a social group whose numbers were so decimated by the
time they were studied in 1940 that they were living well below the carrying
capacity of their Amazon environment. They were so peaceful, anthropologists
noted, that when threatened, the Siriono moved away
from their enemies. Yet this extraordinary coping mechanism must be examined
more closely. First, a group has to have a lot of land at its disposal to be
able to isolate itself in this way. Evidence shows that many people in the
Amazon were decimated initially in the 1600s and 1700s by European disease, and
then again in the 1900s by intertribal warfare when some groups in the area
obtained shotguns while others could not. The fact that the Siriono
group studied by anthropologist Allan Homberg numbered only a few hundred
people in 1940 points to such a situation: Their own reduced numbers were at
that pointing in a depopulated area, free of most human competitors, because
all the neighboring social groups' populations had also been depleted. The Siriono existed well below the carrying capacity, and I
would expect to see little conflict in their recent past, which is exactly what
was found by the anthropologists.
An interesting group of peaceful
societies that became that way only because the traditional human-resource
balance had abruptly changed is found in the Plateau region of North America.
The anthropological literature considers this area-centered on present-day
eastern Washington and Oregon, and parts of Idaho and British Columbia-to be a
good example of a region without warfare in the past. Scholars have
considerable detail about the history and prehistory of societies in the
Plateau and in particular several adjacent groups that occupied the Southern
Columbia River-Frazer Plateau. There are accounts dating to the early 1800s and
careful, detailed ethnographies of the related but politically independent
groups the Sanpoil, Okanogan, Wenatchee, and Chelan. These accounts describe
people without war or enemies, with ample food, living a life marred only by
the coming of the European settlers: "The Sanpoil, at the geographic
center of the Plateau, emphasize no other value in life more than pacifism....
Warfare is virtually unknown to them and has been since ong
before the accounts of the I800s were written. The new tools and means of
obtaining food eventually reached the declining Plateau people, effectively
increasing their productivity and the land's carrying capacity.
When all the evidence is examined, it
shows an initial prehistoric pattern of warfare extending from the Pacific
coast to the interior desert, incorporating the vast Plateau region. When the
population in the Plateau declined in the early historic period, and carrying
capacity increased due to the introduction of horses and metal, warfare
declined. This occurred so early on that by the time ethnographic accounts of
the Plateau people were recorded in the I 800s, there was little if any memory
of the true aboriginal situation.
The sequence of events on the Plateau
illustrates how the lack of evidence for warfare in the ethnographic record is
not necessarily an indicator that intergroup conflict was insignificant in the
past. More important, it I s easy to see how a region that had experienced
considerable warfare in the past could quickly turn peaceful. The area's
inhabitants, like the Hopi, would perceive themselves as having
"always" been peaceful. Among the Plateau people, once the survival
needs of warfare had disappeared, there was no inherent desire to kill
outsiders, and no religious beliefs or social institutions existed that caused
them to be perpetually warlike. Warfare was necessary for survival early on,
but when conflict was no longer needed for survival, it ended.
More evidence that conflict can end
among people who have had a long history of intense warfare comes from social
groups that have had peace imposed on them by an outside force. In New Guinea,
for example, the transition from intense endemic warfare to enforced peace was
extremely rapid. The young boy in the 1960 anthropological documentary film
Dead Birds lived in the highlands where warfare was deadly and a daily way of
life.
In fact his young playmate was killed in
an ambush while the film was being made. As a grown man today, he is probably
living in the same region but driving a four-wheel-drive Toyota and raising
coffee for the world market.
Right after peace was forced on them by
colonial governments in the 1960s, the New Guinean people were very happy.
Ethnographic studies showed how much they had been terrified by their
conflict-riddled way of life and hated the constant, endemic war that had
surrounded them. With new technology, new crops, and the like, the carrying
capacity was raised, the need for war was eliminated in most places, and the
people of New Guinea were able to be peaceful. The groups' previous need to
kill for revenge and to appease the ancestors was quickly replaced by the
recognized overwhelming benefits of peace.
But maybe these "peaceful"
societies did not get that way because of new social organizations, new social
rules, or new ideas about the goodness or value of peace, or even because of
newly devised abilities to live in ecological balance. In all known cases in
which ecological balance was rapidly attained, this balance came about from
external factors, not from the society's developing mechanisms to adjust the
balance.
Changes in population have all been due
to declines from disease or deadly exploitation by outsiders. Changes in
carrying capacity have been the result of new foods, tools, or technology
brought in by another soclety. Even changes in
climate have altered carrying capacity. Changes in social behaviors worked out
by the societies themselves never seem to be the reasons for the transition to
peacefulness.
Many people intuitively assume that some
societies are warlike, some individuals like war, and humans or some humans may
be predisposed to warfare, and that it is these and not survival needs that are
the real motivations behind most human warfare. If this were true, then most of
what I have said is irrelevant. If warfare is not caused by competition over
scarce resources, then whether or not humans have always been confronted by
such scarcity, they would have had warfare anyway. I believe the evidence
refutes such ideas. First, if warfare was automatic, conflict would not stop so
quickly when factors of population and ecology change. When social complexity
increased, warfare would not change in nature. Second, ingrained social
behaviors that promote warfare are better seen as the consequences of warfare,
not its ultimate cause.
Examining some other possible reasons
for warfare helps to clarify the cause-and-effect connection. When social
groups have been studied by anthropologists or described in historical
accounts, resource competition is rarely the reason given for much warfare-either
today or in the recent past. A classic common explanation for warfare is that
in forager and farmer social groups, the conflict involved men fighting over
women. Closer inspection reveals that this type of warfare actually has a food
basis as well. When food is in short supply, as it has been for most of human
history, female infanticide is common and usually soon results in a shortage of
adult women. Men fight for access to women, raiding and capturing them from an
adjacent group being common among foragers and farmers. Fighting over women is
easily seen as a consequence of an overall food shortage, when the shortage of
food translates into a shortage of women. Though such fighting might appear to
be a consequence of males inherently fighting over females, such fighting is
related to how plentiful women are. In reality the fighting for women is a
consequence of food shortages, for it is then that there are shortages of
women.
Other explanations as to why social
groups fight often involve revenge, hatred, and the need for men to gain status
from warfare. Most people accept these as the common reasons for intergroup
conflict-they are reasons often cited by anthropologists, historians, and even
reporters. I believe that these explanations are actually societies' responses
to needing a will and ability to fight, and should be seen in a larger context,
namely, as the consequence of warfare. When warfare becomes endemic, societies
that reward and encourage good fighters are more likely to survive than those
that do not have some sort of reward mechanism in place. Revenge, hatred of the
enemy, rewarding good fighters with prestige or women, and other such behaviors
can become institutionalized. The better they are institutionalized, the more
effective the society's war potential becomes, along with the group's survival.
Social institutions cannot be turned off in an instantthat's
the whole point of social institutions in the first place. Even if they could
be dropped quickly, it would be dangerous to do so. just because people have
ample food today does not mean they will tomorrow. Whether it's a foraging band
or state, dismantling the group's warfare capability because no one happens to
be hungry at the moment is obviously a dangerous long-term approach.
Several generations of any new situation
might go by before such social mechanisms would be gradually and fully
dismantled. Since turning off the mechanisms of warfare when they are no longer
needed takes time, warfare should continue to happen even if it is no longer
rational" for several generations. Such warfare is perceived-correctly~as
'tsenseless." Its costs to the society are high
and the benefits minimal or even nonexistent. Yet the warfare that set up the
social and cultural behaviors that cause this "senseless" fighting
need not have been senseless in the past.
Such issues have come to a head in the
Middle East. Agriculture actually began in the area that is today part of
Israel, Jordan, and Syria and the region has been farmed continuously for more than
ten thousand years. The invention of horticulture has also been accompanied by
thousands of years of competition over land that has become less and less
productive. Even today, when agriculture is less important economically than in
the past, the population in the Middle East exceeds the long-term availability
of water, and there may be an economic component to this ongoing conflict that
is not openly acknowledged. Resources have long been inadequate in the region,
and stiff are. Looking at it from a purely resource-population growth
standpoint, a long tradition of conflict in the area would be expected and for
that reason makes sense.
Yet today the level of hatred and fear
on both sides exceeds anything that can be considered rational from a resource competition
perspective. The economic value of the land being fought over is minimal
compared with the economic cost of the conflict, much less the lives lost.
Moreover, these are societies noted for their business acumen and willingness
to work hard. If peace prevailed, in today's global economy the entire Middle
East could become an economic powerhouse. The fact that the hills are
overgrazed and the land incapable of supporting the population is irrelevant. A
conflict that may have been deeply rooted in the need to compete for and hold
what land one could has now become one based on ideology, not resources. But
most of the world is emotionally very involved in the Middle East, so it
becomes hard hard to put that conflict in
perspective.
Turning back to history, there are other
cases of warfare that started out resource driven and evolved into
ideologically driven warfare.
See for example the 1857 battle between
the Yumans of the Lower Colorado River and the Maricopas, who were living some 150 miles away, not far
from present-day Phoenix. An analysis of this encounter begins with the fact
that the Mancopas and Yumans
lived too far apart to be in legitimate conflict over anything. The Yumans risked, and actually lost, a large portion of the
men of their entire community over a fight with "traditional
enemies." Oral histories and linguistic analysis show that for the
preceding hundred or two hundred years, the Yumans;
had been engaged in a process of taking over more and more of the Lower
Colorado River Valley at the expense of their neighbors.
By the early 1800s, they had become
militarily dominant in the region, and not long before they had driven the Maricopas from the valley and pushed other groups away from
prime farming areas. The Yumans had successfully competed over scarce farmland. By the 1850s, new technology
and population decline had probably eliminated the need for such territorial
expansion, just as observed for other Native American societies affected by
westward expansion.
As an aside, this example points out the
importance of no-man's-lands as a means of survival. Though the empty spaces
between politics were relatively unproductive, the separation did allow
societies to avoid being constantly in conflict. Today, such buffer zones are
almost impossible to maintain. In the Middle East or the Balkans, given the
military technology, rockets, mortars, and other long-distance weapons,
no-man's-lands would need to be far wider than the twenty miles or so typically
found for non complex societies, or the more than one
hundred miles found between the Yumans and Maricopas. Instead, modern adversaries are, at best, only a
few miles apart. On a global scale, with today's rapid transportation you can
fly across a country in less time than a tribal farmer would need to transit a
prehistoric buffer zone. Without workable buffer zones, conflict can become so
continuous that the fabric of daily life disintegrates, a situation that cannot
long continue.
The important lesson to be learned from
this episode between the Yumans and the Maricopas is that it can be understood only in historical
context. The Yumans could not have been expected to
extinguish all their long-held, highly successful social mechanisms that
encouraged and rewarded warfare just because things had recently changed. They
embarked upon what appears, in hindsight, to have been a "senseless"
military campaign. Surely, many other cases of warfare that do not seem to have
logical explanations probably took place before there was enough time for one
or the other social group or groups involved to have dismantled such internal
social institutions. Apparently "senseless" warfare can have an
underlying cause related to past disputes over scarce resources.
There is plenty of resource-competition
warfare today, especially in Africa, but other areas of the world have wars
that we presume to be driven by ideology rather than a lack of resources. Yet
many of these places have very long histories of degraded or depleted natural
resources. Ideologies that promote a "them versus us" attitude are
much more likely to take hold in regions where there has been a long history of
ecological stress and degradation. The Balkans have had agriculture longer than
any other area of Europe, and the Middle East has been farming longer than
anywhere else in the world. Chiapas, Mexico, the scene of antigovernment
conflict by the Indian population, is an area of early domestication in the
Americas. The Shining Light terrorists in Peru have been able to find
supporters in a landscape that had also been the scene of very early
agriculture.
That warfare in the past may have
ultimately been driven by a rational response to diminishing resources does not
mean that such conflict did not-and does not now-have an emotional component.
Even chimpanzees observed in the wild get very excited during an attack and
also show clear sorrow when their own are killed. Since killing and dying bring
out some of the strongest human emotions, warfare would be expected to be
emotionally charged. There is plenty of evidence that in less complex societies
emotions over warfare were tempered by reality. Accounts of war councils from
people as diverse -as those from the mountains of Montenegro to highland New
Guinea show that members of these smaller-scale societies assess their chances
of success and try to fight only when they think they will win." just
because warfare is emotional does not mean past conflict was not also rational.
In considering the wars of the last few
centuries, one might wonder if those conflicts could possibly be driven by
ecological imbalance, or be based upon a careful assessment of potential gain
versus the consequences of losing. First, many of the "modern" wars
around the world are clearly fought over resources and occur in and between the
poorest nations, not the richest. The richest nations surely have had horrific
wars too. This warfare between modern state-level societies is perhaps the most
difficult to and of the long-term natural alliances and shared interests that
actually existed around the world at the time. If not the major reasons for
these modern wars, such faulty judgments were certainly big contributors.
Assessing the social factors relating to
warfare turns out to be increasingly difficult as societies become more complex-and
as they do, serious misjudgments become more likely to arise. Since warfare
among foragers and farmers was more frequent, those social groups were actually
able to assess the overall situation almost continuously. As states began to
have less warfare and as the clashes became more intense, the information
levels declined and the consequences of judgmental error increased. As groups
grow larger and more complexly organized, it becomes progressively easier for
warfare to be considered "irrational" based on flawed Judgments at
the leadership level.
This disarticulation of the populace
from the war leadership is probably the greatest structural difference between
state war and forager, farmer, or even chiefdom war. Today, not only do a small
number of people make the decision to go to war (although in some states there
does need to be popular acceptance), but a small number of people can manage
the war in almost total isolation from reality. In the past, any chief, or
especially any tribal war leader, was an active participant in battle and
carefully judged his men for their willingness to participate. There were no
mechanisms to coerce participation. Failure to be sensitive to the limitations
of your authority was likely to get you deposed, if not killed by your own
side.
Also, front-rank fighting leaders
existed in many ancient states. Alexander the Great fought at the head of his
army and as a consequence had men who were willing to follow him, literally, to
what appeared to be, at the time, the ends of the earth. Even in the American
Civil War, generals were at the front and often got killed or wounded in
battle. These leaders understood the attitudes of their men, -and when they
made tactical mistakes in battle they died like their men. Over time, war has
become much pore complex. By the time of the First
World War, generals stayed far behind the front and ignored reality, while tens
of thousands were killed because of poor leadership. This probably culminated
with Stalin and his senior generals and their ruthless and almost total
disregard for casualties. This aspect of modern state warfare is hard to
comprehend, and it is not a characteristic of most human warfare. In the past,
not only did you try hard not to be killed, but you also tried hard not to have
anyone on your side killed. The warriors fighting next to you were your
relatives and neighbors. Past warfare was not impersonal; it did not appear
irrational. It was necessary for survival.
Among foragers and tribal farmers,
everyone in a group has access to the same information about the group's
strength-and that of the enemy~ and this information is assessed collectively.
Certainly, errors in these assessments are made, as the Yumans'
disastrous attack on the Mancopas shows, but most of
the time the frequency of contentious encounters ensures that information about
one's enemies and the group's own capabilities was reasonably accurate. And
leaders were frequently tested; bad leaders were soon eliminated. In most
forager and tribal societies, if the men did not have confidence in the leader,
they simply did not participate. Poor leaders were quickly relegated back to
the ranks. This changes with statelevel warfare.
Contrast tribal warfare with formerly
Saddam Hussein, the master of miscalculation. Saddam had no ability to assess
U.S. and world response to his invasion of Kuwait. There was no consensus
building among his army: A handful of men made a phenomenally bad assessment.
Invading Kuwait was his second mistake. Saddam had not been weeded out for his
earlier, equally disastrous invasion of Iran. No foragers or tribal farmers
would have let their leaders behave that way. This disengagement of the
decision making from the people who actually do the fighting is what makes
modern warfare so terrifying. At the same time that the proportional number of
deaths and frequency of clashes have diminished, the ability to act
"rationally" has also declined.
The societies that compete are now so
complex that it is almost impossible to predict their political reactions to
acts of aggression. Political uncertainty, coupled with an inability of the
leadership to grasp the technical changes that swirl around us at a faster
pace, makes this all even more unpredictable. For example, if Adolf Hitler had
waited to wage war until after 1939 and been able to grasp the revolution in
physics, the rest of the world might have faced the Nazis with atomic bombs.
Now, it is true that both Hitler and Saddam Hussein were and are not sane in
some fundamental way, but that only emphasizes the point that the selective
process for military leadership has become badly distorted by the nature of
modern societies.
Sometimes the failure to comprehend the
opposition's political will and new technology works against modern
adversaries. Although Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda may have been a small group
of fanatics for whom personal survival held little meaning, that was not true
for the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
The willingness of that Islamic
fundamentalist regime to aid and abet bin Laden was a phenomenal
miscalculation. "We defeated the Russians, we don't need to fear the
United States," was probably the Taliban’s mantra of the day, but they
were very wrong. The U.S. led allies had a political will the Taliban never
anticipated-plus new, sophisticated war technology, and its use was
devastatingly effective. The leaders of the Taliban were using the warmaking tactics of tribal farmers and chiefdoms without
the traditionally rational and careful decision making accompanied by knowledge
of their enemies or the potential consequences of their own acts. Based on
these few, sketchy examples of "modern" warfare, one might say that
we humans have not lost an inherent peacefulness, but rather have lost, to a
considerable degree, a societal-based ability to assess warfare rationally.
Miscalculation is certainly an important
component of modern war and why we perceive it to be so irrational, but we are
also faced with a hybrid world, a world those of us living in industrial states
do not fully understand. Though the current world order appears to be a
collection of nationstates, it is not. All parts of
the globe have been put into one nation-state or another, but this is a recent
and artificial construct in many places. Millions of people are still living in
chiefdoms and even tribes, and there is much modern warfare that does make
sense when examined from the context of tribes and chiefdoms. These social
groups may not look like the chiefdoms or tribes of old, yet they still
function much like them. In the past, chiefdoms were organized around strong
leaders whose important role was defense against other chiefdoms, and that is
what we find today.
Most of the chiefs are referred to as
"warlords" in the media, which misses the point. These social units
invariably translate into segments of society that have little allegiance to a
central government. Instead, these segments focus around a regional or ethnic
group that has existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Such societies
within societies are led by a group of hierarchically structured,
"chiefs," the top chief being the "warlord".
The warlords do not just conduct
war-that is simply the role an outsider sees. They are "the
government": In their regions, they settle land disputes, organize public
works, and collect taxes or tribute. In Afghanistan, for example, there were
media reports that food packets dropped by American airplanes to feed the
"starving peasants" were not consumed by the finders but gathered up
and turned in to their local warlords. In Somalia, the warlords essentially
taxed the distribution of humanitarian relief food in their territories.
Everything-all transactions and exchanges-is very personal; there are no
bureaucrats. Usually relatives help carry out the orders of the chiefs
(warlords). In such "nation-states" the central government usually
controls only the large cities and leaves these warlords alone. Lacking any
kind of strong central authority out in the hinterlands, these local chiefs
embedded in weakly organized nation-states- Afghanistan, Somalia, or China a
hundred years ago-are warlords by necessity. All chiefs compete, they always
have, and there is no reason we should expect this to change.
So warlords are really chiefdoni-level social organizations embedded in quasi
states. Almost always the state was set up by outside powers and is not a fully
functional state. The result is a hybrid mess, because such states contain some
aspects of more complex social organizations, including bureaucrats and courts
of law-but these institutions don't always apply to all parts of the quasi
state. The chiefs can ignore the laws and restrict the reach of the
bureaucrats. It's no wonder that chiefdoms, and even some tribally organized
peoples, that have been arbitrarily lumped into nation-states do not work very
well. The buffer zones are removed between competing groups by setting up
national governments that presumably provide security, which encourages the
buffer zones to become occupied. Sometimes this works and a viable state
emerges: India is a state formed from a series of independent polities.
Sometimes it almost works: Indonesia is a recently formed state where there are
strong separatist movements and regional conflicts, East Timor being the
best-known example. For the most part Indonesia is a coherent nation-state.
Sometimes, these arbitrary nation-states do not work at all: Yugoslavia and
Rwanda had preexisting polities that were incapable of forming viable states.
In Yugoslavia, the original political units were strong enough that more
realistic states could be structured, resulting in its disintegration and
reconstitution into Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, Serbia, and
probably Kosovo and Montenegro. Over time, one can predict that the
incorporation of these new states into the European economic sphere will change
the centuries of conflict over resources into peaceful interactions in spite of
the long-held animosities.
It is not surprising that imposed
nation-states work best when the chiefdoms were very complex and when there
were already some state functions in place, as in India. In places like Africa,
where the organizations were tribal or not very complex chiefdoms, the
nation-state has often been unable to provide the security necessary to occupy
the buffer zones. When warfare breaks out, it can be severe, as seen in much of
Central Africa.
Another aspect of modern conflict is the
fact that the basic perceptions of what's valuable and worth fighting over have
changed over time. As land recedes as the critical resource and economic
interaction becomes vital, conflict will not provide the needed resources-it
will diminish them, because much of the present "economic resource"
is political stability, rule of law, social infrastructure, and the like. War
harms all these. In some parts of the world where poverty is greater and the
previous social organization was much less statelike,
what is valuable has not changed and the critical resource remains productive
land. We should expect warfare in such areas to continue as it has for
millennia.
When the industrial world gets tangled
up in these quasi nation-states, trouble usually follows. Outsiders tend to
want the flimsy central government to take control of the hinterlands, but it
cannot, and the rural, more traditional societies are not able to be organized
into the state. Control over the hinterlands in such cases has been successful
only in places like Pacific Islands, where colonial administrators have let the
chiefdoms continue to function. This is how Samoa worked when I was living
there, and it was working well. There was no state government in the sense we
think of it. The hwhest-ranked chief was the prime
minister, and the "bureaucracy" was the lesser chiefs. New names,
traditional system, but it worked fine. In nearby Fiji, the traditional social
structure did not remain intact, and the recent political instability is the
consequence.
If we look at today's "hot
spots," whether Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, or even parts of the
Balkans, we find chiefdoms, and in some cases even tribal farmers, scooped up
into a state but not really part of it. In such regions, traditional, often
long-running conflicts already exist, and these disputes are exacerbated by
outside influences, often in the form of money and weapons flowing to one
chiefdom to the detriment of another, which upsets the old balances of power
that have existed for centuries. Any good chief will take advantage of such a
situation; that is his job. We doiA think it is a
nice job-killing your enemies if you can-but if your enemies will kill you as
soon as they get the chance, it is rational behavior for the chiefs and their
followers. This does not mean that the members of these societies like these
situations. They no more like war than the Yanomama
do-or we do, for that matter. Yet under the circumstances, when the central
government is weak, the safest thing for them to do is to be part of a strong
chiefdom. People will fully participate in a true state only when they become
convinced it is safe.
Also, remember that tribal and chiefdom
societies are not geared for rapid change. When international politics and
economics-often oil and drug money~suddenly show up,
traditions get out of whack and chaos begins. If the causes of the warfare
between the traditional societies still exist, then the ensuing
"modern" chaos is an opportunity to begin conflict again.
What can the industrialized states do in
these situations? Not much, I'M afraid. Getting rid of the underlying
causes-poverty, distrust, and longterm animosity-is a
slow process at best. It is probably realistic to accept the social systems for
what they are-and that does not mean they are nice or fair-and try and maintain
the traditional balances and leadership structure while trying to keep one side
from getting an advantage.
This simplified analysis of quasi
nation-states does not imply that all third world states are tribes and
chiefdoms embedded in weak central governments. Many areas of the world,
including China, India, Mexico, and Peru, have had social systems that were
states for a very long time. Though these countries may have internal
conflicts, they are of the kind many states have had, in which the marginalized
peasants are dose to starving and react with riots or attempts to take
resources from other peasants. The conflicts do not arise from local warlords,
chiefdom-level leaders, competing with each other. Though true wars between
states do happen today, and certainly are a real threat, much of today's
violence is actually conflict between warlords, or is a case of peasants
fighting peasants in regions where the states cannot control the conflict.
These encounters are often described in terms of religious or ideological
differences. Those social differences need not be the cause of the warfare, but
can be the consequence of centuries of conflict that have polarized the people
who define themselves by religion or religious ideology.
Yet ideology is certainly a component of
warfare, and in many ways ideological warfare is even harder for us to
understand, much less reconcile as rational, than war that results from
miscalculation or that derives from social systems that are foreign to modern
industrial societies. Ideological warfare is pervasive, and most warfare,
regardless of the antagonists, has involved some component of ideological
difference. When ideology becomes so intense and dominant, we often fear that
nothing can ever restrain or eliminate such feelings and consequent behavior.
The beliefs under dispute, whether
-religious or other attitudes, can be so strong that resources, rationality,
and even long-term survival seem to become irrelevant. There is no question of
the force such beliefs can hAve on all sides
involved. The question here is whether such passionate reactions evolve from
external circumstances or from some deep-seated needs within all of us. These
incredibly angry ideologies could have developed as a means to cope with real
problems of survival, or they could have developed because humans have become
programmed to want to hate and kill.
Considering the length of time humans
have been warring and the intensity of this conflict again and again, one has
to consider the possibility that humans might be genetically predisposed to
warfare. If warfare has been part of the human condition for more than a
million years (or six million years, depending on the start date), we just
might be selected for behaviors that make us warlike. Six million years of
intergroup conflict might result in a human genetic predisposition for love of
war. This is a classic "nature versus nurture" problem: How much of
our behavior is learned and how much has a genetic basis? Just as an increased
understanding of the pastand of our closest ape
relatives-can help in grappling with this issue, so does the accelerating
unraveling of the human genome sequence. Ultimately, the combination of these
lines of evidence will make short work of this question. Since science is not
there yet, I will go out on a limb to address it.
But I suspect that there must have been
selection among humans for aggressive behavior during the last million years or
so. A genetic selection for making war or for killing people, or a genetic selection
for more generalized aggressive behavior. This is the argument that
primatologist Richard Wrangharn has made for
chimpanzees.
The behavior is the killing of males
from other chimp groups, but this chimp "warfare" is carried out by
clear and calculated thinking, not by instinct.
So maybe we can assume that males have
been selected for aggressive behavior-but genetic selection does not work that
way. The issue is not nearly this simple. Genes for aggression might not an be
male-specific; both human sexes may have been somewhat selected for aggressive
behavior. Such selection would be for many different genes, some perhaps
male-specific and some not. In this case males might have been selected for
aggression more than females.
Humans have been selected for many
different things, and we have instinctive behaviors that may or may not be
useful or appropriate in today's world. On the biological side, for example,
males have blood chemistry that differs from that of females. Males seem to be
adapted to great spurts of excited effort, adrenaline-like behavior, while
female blood chemistry is adapted to much more efficient use of energy and more
conservation of iron. Since women of childbearing age lose some iron regularly
during menstruation, this seems logical.
After all, men do not get into fights
with cave bears anymore, or engage in hand-to-hand combat too often. Maybe a
blood chemistry adapted to moments of great physical effort is, in large part,
why men have more heart attacks than women. This does not mean that men are
doomed by their heritage. By taking aspirin each day, a man can mitigate most
of the blood chemistry differences between the sexes. Once understood, the
maladaptive blood chemistry can be dealt with by behavior and chemistry.
Understanding the differences in blood between men and women and finding a way
to deal with them is better than pretending that such differences do not exist.
The same approach holds true for
potential genetic aggressive behavior. All humans, especially males, must learn
to deal with genetic predispositions that may derive, in part, from millennia
of warfare or other causes. For example, humans are probably genetically
conditioned to be uncomfortable around strangers, who in the past were very
likely enemies and would probably try to kill us, but we learn to deal with
this behavior. We are probably genetically conditioned to be afraid of snakes,
an important predator of primates, yet there are lots of snake lovers among us.
And many of us (especially males) are certainly genetically predisposed to want
sex. Yet the overwhelming majority of us are able to deal with this instinct in
a socially acceptable manner.
In addition, there appears to have been
selection for many other human traits that seem to "cancel out" or blunt
overly aggressive behavior. Concern for children or those less fortunate, for
example, is quite strong in humans. Hearing a baby crying upsets us. In fact,
crying itself has been selected for. Chimpanzees dorA
cry. Crying and a response to it are intertwined in our genetic makeup. Other
uniquely human behaviors are sharing and altruism. Sharing of food-bringing
edibles back to the band, especially males bringing meat-was a critical human
trait and another that separates us from chimpanzees.
There must have been as much genetic
selection for sharing, and the ability to cooperate it implies, as there was
for aggression. Altruistic behavior in general can be seen as a strong human
trait. Impulsively jumping into a body of water to save another-even a total
stranger-is a strong human response. Think of firefighters who rush into
burning buildings every day. This powerful urge to help or save others must be
as inherently human as aggressive behavior. Aggressive human t~ndencies are often mitigated by other human tendencies.
In any given situation there is no
reason to believe that aggressive behavior will be the only response elicited.
Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that a learned response cannot
override such a possible genetically induced behavioral response. A scantily
clad young woman entering a room does not trigger a response from all nearby
males to tear off their clothes (or hers). It may cross their minds, but they
stay dressed in most instances. Similarly, an undesirable action by a neighbor
usually doesn't cause us to rush next door and set his house afire, or commit
murder, although such thoughts might dominate more rational solutions when a
loud party continues at two A.M. I see no reason to believe that selection for
aggressive behavior has made modern humans unable to function in nonaggressive
ways. The very fact that warfare was so patterned in the past strongly argues
against this. If humans were innately programmed to fight all the time, we
would fight all the time. But humans do not do this. When there is no reason to
fight, we are capable of ending the conflict. Repeatedly in the past, when
populations declined or new tools and technologies made acquiring food easier,
scholars see a decline in or cessation of warfare.
There were "peaceful Pueblo
people" in A.D. 1900 living right where archaeologists find evidence of
warfare dating to 1300. The Hopi really do perceive themselves as inherently
peaceful people. I do not believe they are any more inherently peaceful than any
others on Earth, but they certainly are peaceful. The Vikings were once the
scourge of Europe, but not today. Those same Polynesian Islands that were sites
of so much warfare in the past are now tranquil tourist spots. Kung are so
peaceful today that the anthropologists who studied them forty years ago were
unable to see that their past was hardly peaceful. If warfare was genetically
built into humans and not outweighed by other inherent huniqn
tendencies, none of this could be true.
Intergroup conflict-warfare-is far more
likely to be controlled than individual acts of aggression. It is one thing to
get angry and pick a fight, to melt down in a case of "road rage," or
to lash out at a spouse, but it is quite another to start a war. Wars are group
activities. The uncontrolled aggression of one or a few individuals will not
result in warfare-maybe a barroom brawl, but not war. The larger group must
sanction aggression in the case of war." Warfare, of all human aggressive
behavior, is probably the least likely to be driven by genetically induced
behaviors unmodified or uncontrolled by cultural behaviors. Chimpanzee males
are aggressive on an unregulated basis in their own groups. Undoubtedly some of
this behavior involves unplanned knee-jerk aggressive reactions to random
events. Chimp warfare, on the other hand, is carefully calculated. Aggressive
groups retreat when the odds are not overwhelmingly in their favor. No
"hothead" rushes forth and attacks when the odds of success are poor.
Among chimps, as well as humans, warfare is the least impetuous aggressive
behavior, one act that is most moderated by group decision making and cold,
hard calculation of the risks involved.
Among humans, animosities can linger for
a long time, and it may indeed take generations for true peace to come to the
Balkans or the Middle East or large portions of Africa. Just because humans
cannot make peace does not mean they have genes that preclude being peaceful. A
his tion of the world's people go to bed hungry, and
many starve. As long as resource scarcities continue in many parts of the
world, I expect conflict based on competition over resources to continue, even
if it is sometimes disguised as ideological. This does not doom us to a future
of war any more than our past dooms us to a future of heart attacks.
A careful reading of the past shows that
humans are not programmed for war. Perhaps even more surprising, the real
history of warfare shows that it has declined over time, further evidence that
warfare is not an inherently human behavior. As societies have become more and
more complex, a decline in the proportion of the population involved in war,
along with a concomitant increase in professional soldiers, can be observed.
Among foragers and farmers, all adult males were expected to participate in
warfare not every man in every fight, but at some point in their lives all men
would have been participants. As social complexity increased, specialists were
trained for warfare and conflict became their full-time occupation, while far
less of the population was directly involved.
There has been a decline in actual war
deaths, on a per capita basis, as societies become complexly organized. In 1294
B.C., Ramses 11 was able to field twenty thousand men at the battle of Kadesh
in present-day Syria. With a population in the multimillions, this army
represented only 2 percent of the able-bodied men of Egypt, and armies did not
increase in size until the last two centuries. Only a small portion of the men
in states ever were in battle. 16 Warfare in complex societies has increasingly
had less of an impact on the population as a whole and has become less of a
daily fact of life.
This has been true for people living in
states for some time. While many societies engaged in psychological warfare in
the past, it is more likely to work with states. Tribes may have hung up enemy
skulls to unnerve their competitors, but states do it on massive scales. The
early states of Mexico, Peru, and the Middle East all
created public imagery of victorious armies and enemies being killed,
sacrificed, and dismembered. The skull racks of the Aztecs, the largest holding
one-hundred thousand human heads, were the culmination of a long tradition of
psychological warfare.
It sometimes works well in states
because so much of the population is buffered from war. Terror loses its impact
when it is commonplace. For example, if you fight with the neighboring groups
constantly and know that you kill about as many of them as they do of you, the
act of placing a skull on a post is likely to generate little fear on either
side. However, in a society where there have been no battles on the home soil
for six generations, the destruction of a structure like the World Trade Center
can bring forth feelings of vulnerability that reach far beyond the probability
of any individual within that society being killed by a terrorist.
Today's threat of terrorism, and
especially suicide bombings, has the potential of reverting us-at least
psychologically, to what life was like in less complex societies. People living
in those times and social groupings did worry every day about themselves and
their loved ones being killed in attacks, often in ambush. For many of us
living today, this type of fear has returned, and the potential for such
psychological warfare can be far-reaching.
Over time, as social groupings became
more and more complex, there has been a shift from constant battles to more
infrequent major clashes. Intergroup conflict evolved from the multiple
battles, raids, and massacres that were more than annual events for foragers
and farmers, to the great militaristic encounters that last several years once
a generation-or even once in a lifetime-of modern nation-states. The dashes of
the complex societies are horrific and long remembered, but the constant
battles of the past were every bit as feared by those who participated in them.
The impact of the more frequent, constant warfare on the people involved-both
demographically and on their daily lives-was far greater.
This evolution of conflict becomes clear
when today's warfare IS placed in perspective. It is estimated that one
thousand people are killed daily in localized conflicts around the globe.
Whether in the Balkans, Central Africa, Timor, or Sri Lanka, there is still a
good deal of conflict in the mod-ern world. With more than six billion people
on the planet, a third of a mil-lion deaths per year (1,000 a day for 365
days)-as horrible as that is-is much less than the number of fatalities that
occurred on a per capita basis in a highland New Guinea village forty years
ago. As observed ethnographically in New Guinea, typically 25 percent of the
men died from warfare in farmer and forager societies. If all six billion
people on Earth today were involved in warfare like that experienced by most egalitarian
farmers in the past, the fatality rate would be more than eight thousand deaths
per day, or more than eight times what actually occurs.4
With this in mind, let's examine the
myths of a peaceful past and of humans living in ecological balance and
contrast them with a careful assessment of reality that turns the more
traditional view on its head. These myths assume that for long periods of time
the earliest humans were simple foragers who lived in harmony with nature, had
few wants, and were able to control their populations. When agriculture was
developed, populations grew, but these farmers managed to remain inherent
environmentalists and continued to avoid stressing the environment. Then
finally, but not until the rise of complex societies, we humans lost our
ability to live in ecological balance. At that point, the appealing story of
millions of years of peaceful coexistence with nature turns ugly, and violent,
environmentally threatened societies-in particular Western European
society-command a starring role. As Western society spread or affected much of
the planet, the myth continues, warfare and environinental
degradation spread like an infectious disease, engulfing most of the
world-except where vestigial remains of this peaceful, ecologically balanced
existence survived among such groups as the !Kung, Australian Aborigines,
Eskimos, Siriono, and the like. In other words, noble
Cro-Magnon humans were replaced by warlike, modern imperialists.
Reality paints a different picture, one
with many opportunities for peace and ecological harmony, but it is a portrait
of opportunities lost. Looking back through history, several radical changes in
human societies occurred, and each change provided, in theory, an opportunity
to improve the population-ecological balance and usher in a new era of peace.
Each time one of these dramatic changes took place, peace and ecological
balance remained elusive.
The first of these transformations was becoming
human. As protohumans became fully human beings and gained superior
intelligence, language, and cultural norms, these initial human foragers were
hardly peaceful. Greater intelligence did not result in greater peacefulness.
Although some ecologically benign behaviors did develop, they were never
effective enough to regulate population growth and to establish a peaceful,
stable system. Except in the harshest environments, forager populations grew,
reached the carrying-capacity limit, and then competed for resources. For more
than a million years, humans lived in a precarious balance between population
growth and the limitations and variability of the environment. Periodic
population increases. that could not be sustained by an ever-changing resource base
led to chronic starvation, infanticide, and warfare. These early people
modified the environment by such means as fire and were no more
"environmentalists" than their short-term goals dictated. Since their
numbers were, by necessity, low, and their technology limited, 'the impact of
the first foragers was relatively minor.
Beginning around ten thousand to twelve
thousand years ago, people began to farm in the Middle East, China, and later
in Africa and Central and South America. This new situation might have resulted
in a peaceful world. Farmers were able to get far more food from an acre of
land than had ever before been possible, and there was the potential for plenty
for all-but the balance was not maintained. Farmers could reproduce at rates
far beyond those of foragers, and they spread quickly over much of Earth. In
spite of its potential, farming itself solved no problems. The benefits of
every new plant domesticated, every new animal tamed, and every new technology
invented were quickly consumed by the growing number of people such advances
could additionally support. Horticulture and domestic animals caused
environmental degradation that went way beyond the effects of just the higher
population numbers. More people translated into more degradation. In any given
region, in spite of efforts to control growth or to develop new foods and
technologies, the population soon grew to stress the resources once again.
Malnutrition, if not starvation, and even more intense and chronic warfare were
common among the early farmers.
Once again, a major social
transformation occurred. Complex societies developed. The leadership in these
societies had the mechanisms and potential ability to control population growth
and to force people to be more ecologically sensitive. Along with more complex
societies came more complex technologies. The chiefdoms and early states had
developed enough technology to harm the world's environment at levels and rates
not seen before. The result was even more degradation of the environment.
Although some efforts were made to control population growth, such mechanisms
were always far from fully successful, and resource stress was as common as
ever.
In chiefdoms especially, the elite were
constantly competin, resulting in 9 chronic warfare.
When the large bureaucratic organizations-statesdeveloped,
the average person could be forced to starve, because the centralized
government might not allow the lower classes to fight for survival. As
societies became more complex, the level of human suffering did not diminish.
In fact, the average person in a preindustrial state was malnourished, had a
short life span, practiced infanticide, suffered from the highly communicable
diseases that went-along with living in urban areas, and engaged in feuds and
peasant revolts-and sometimes got caught up in wars that killed millions of
people. Despite the fact that the number of people killed in state-level
warfare actually declined, the diet and healX of the
state's overall population also declined.
In spite of several dramatic changes in
human social systems that might have led to very different human-ecological
balances over the course of time, no such enduring balance was ever found. But
the story is yet to be completed. One more dramatic change in the human social
order took place, one that, again, provided the opportunity for ecological
balance and peace. We live in this period today, and seeing it in its long-term
perspective is especially important.
With the rise of complex societies, the
increasing pace of new technological developments began to change the nature of
human-ecological relationships. These changes ultimately produced a unique
human condition. At first, these new technologies made things worse. Technology
enabled humans to despoil the environment much more intensely than farmers and
foragers ever could. Specialists developed new knowledge and technologies. At
first, the positive impact of these trends was slow and probably outweighed the
negatives. Then the world changed again. The Industrial Revolution altered the
rate of technological change in a dramatic way. Beginning around 1800, change
began to accelerate at a pace humans had never experienced, and this quickening
had two particularly important impacts on population growth and ecological
balance. The Industrial Revolution dramatically slowed growth rates and
increased the world's carrying capacity.
Great suffering accompanied the
Industrial Revolution as it changed societies rapidly and dramatically. It
increased our ability to degrade the environment in unprecedented ways. At the
same time, it laid the foundation for breaking the relationship between
population growth and carrying capacity stress, because industrialization
enabled us to increase the world's carrying capacity immensely. SIX thousand
years ago, a Neolithic farmer was lucky to achieve yields of eight bushels of
wheat per acre. In Kansas today, farmers get almost eighty bushels per acre.
The Industrial Revolution also caused
the world's population to become more urban. Well over 90 percent of the U.S.
population lives in a nonfarm situation. The cost-benefit of having children
changed, as it did for earlier cities. Very large farm families have been
replaced by a typical urban family with one or two children. The difference now
is that in industrialized states, almost everyone lives in a city, so the
number of children desired has declined measurably. It is staggering to
discover that 160,000 people a day move to an urban environment around the
world." This, of course, has created its own problems, especially the rise
of megacities such as Sao Paulo (18 million), Mexico City (18 million-plus),
and Karachi and New Delhi (12 million each). Though the low birth rate found in
urban environments is a pattern that has existed since the time of the earliest
cities, as a greater and greater portion of the world's population lives in
cities, the impact of low urban birth rates is ever more pronounced. Technology
and science have provided effective birth control so that the desire for fewer
children can actually be met. In combination, these changes are resulting in
some societies around the world, including much of Europe, reaching stable
population levels. Already, about 2S percent of the world's population on a
country-by-country basis is either stable or slightly declinin
, and the rates 1 9 of most of the high-growth areas like China, India, and
South America are also declining. Such a transformation in demography has
affected hundreds of millions of people. Though many more hundreds of millions
have remained unaffected.
Today, just about two hundred years
after the start of the Industrial Revolution, modern states have incredibly
severe ecological problems, yet at the same time the greatest awareness and
technological ability humans have ever had to amend or soften their impact on
the world's environment exist. In spite of the pronounced impact industrialized
states make on the environment, their technology and slow growth rates enable
them to live well below the carrying capacity~ The decline in warfare among
those countries with stable or declining growth rates is incredibly strong.
This is especially promising for the future and provides additional
confirmation of the relationship between resource stress and warfare. Remove
the one, and the other soon disappears.
The great irony is that we humans have
not lost our ability to live healthily and peacefully within a pristine
environment as a result of advancing industrialization. On the contrary, we
never had any such ability. The Industrial Revolution is not another major sea
change that denied us our ancestors' capabilities to live properly and
prosperously in a warfare-free environment. Modern humans car;t
be denied an ecological balance nobody on Earth has ever enjoyed, nor be denied
a peaceful way of life that has never existed. As difficult as the adjustment
to the Industrial Revolution was-and continues to be for many of the world's
societies-it did not cause an increase in warfare.
This transformation has not been as
complete as the agricultural revolution that preceded it. We live in a world
where the impact of the Industrial Revolution is spotty. Highly urban,
low-growth regions, like Europe, have low levels of warfare and little
malnutrition. Yet other parts of the world South and Southeast Asia, much of
Africa-are rural, high-growth regions and have great food shortages and
internal strife not often considered warfare, which kill millions directly or
indirectly. In addition, environmental degradation continues unabated everywhere.
There is no guarantee that the current
low growth and resource abundance among the industrialized, or urbanized,
states will continue over the long term. just because the situation seems
stabilized does not mean that a long-term balance has been developed. Remember
Europe in the I I 00s, when for a couple of hundred
years resources were plentiful due to the good climate-but then the Little Ice
Age hit. As the world becomes more connected, the continued population growth
of the underdeveloped countries may well result in even more accelerated
migration to the industrialized countries, leading to significant population
increases again. The use rate of resources among the industrialized states does
not appear to be sustainable for the world as a whole. If everyone on Earth
used energy, seafood, trees, and a long list of other resources at the rate
Americans do, resources would be depleted far faster than they could
regenerate.
The Industrial Revolution has presented
modern humans with an opportunity to live healthily and peacefully within a
pristine environment-an opportunity we do not recognize for what it is. Humans
can now actually monitor how we are affecting the environment and do something
about it. The detection of the depletion of the ozone layer and the abandonment
of production and use of fluorocarbons, its cause, is a milestone in our
understanding of the complex ecology of the planet and a willingness to correct
past behaviors. We are succeeding in monitoring and controlling overfishing in
some places in the world while we continue to deplete the ocean in others.
Modern humans are far from being able to stop degrading the planet, but we have
shown we can sometimes succeed. In the past, humans did not succeed in this
regard. Their failures simply resulted in less dramatic impacts.
The problems of the modern world are
certainly bigger, but so are our capabilities. And these problems get solved
only by big efforts. The war on cancer is a big effort and should pay off in
our lifetimes. There is no comparable big effort to eliminate the underlying
causes of warfare in most of the world-certainly nothing on the scale the
problem demands. This is not an appeal for more foreign aid, or more lecturing
from the haves to the have-nots about what to do. It is an appeal to accepting
the true nature of the human condition and the real nature of the problem. With
this realization, some new ideas will be taken seriously by the leadership of
the developed world. We are on the right trajectory for world peace. We are
moving in the right direction, but this process will not produce instant
success any more than the war on cancer has.
The inability to evolve a worldwide
ecological balance would not reflect a breach from the "noble
savages" of the past. We have never had that heritage, or the
opportunities we have today. For the first time in history, technology and
science enable us to understand Earth's ecology and our impact on it, to
control population growth, and to increase the carrying capacity in ways never
before imagined. The opportunity for humans to live in longterm
balance with nature is within our grasp if we do it right. It is a chance to
break a million-year-old cycle of conflict and crisis.
Taking the long view of human history
points to our controlling warfare Just as medical science has made great
strides to conquer heart disease. Everything in the past points to the
reduction of warfare. In spite of the wars of the last century, in spite of the
numerous wars taking place today, many characterized as civil wars, and the
many victims of these wars, we are still making progress. Twenty-five percent
of all the men alive today will not die from warfare, as men did for most of
human history. Entire societies will not be swept away as they frequently were
in the past. From a centurieslong perspective, we are
making great improvement. A greater proportion of the world is at peace today
than any time in the past.
Undoubtedly, humankind has a long way to
go toward bringing peace on Earth and living in ecological balance. There are
more people today who understand the impact the human race is having on the
world's environments, and are prepared to take the steps needed to achieve
ecological balance, than has ever been the case in the past. To think we have
lost our "roots" or are somehow out of touch with our ancient
ancestors-and have lost the ability to live in peace and in ecological
balance-is a myth and a dangerous one. The myth implies that if we can just
relearn how to think about nature and remember our ancient abilities to be one
with the natural environment, warfare will stop and ecological balance will be
regained.
Maybe for the first time in history, we
have a real ability to provide adequate resources for everyone living on the
planet. If we have reached a point at which we can live within Earth's carrying
capacity, we can eliminate warfare in the same way we can eliminate infectious
disease: not perfectly, not immediately, but slowly and surely.
The intentional character and symbolic
significance of burials prior to 30,000 years ago, especially those of
Neanderthals, remain the subject of intense debate. But there is enough
evidence to believe that both anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals began
burying their dead 100,000 years ago -- and probably before.
Engraved ochre from
Blombos Cave. |
Archaeologists
discovered shell beads at Blombos Cave, 300
kilometers east of Cape Town, South Africa, on the coast of the Indian Ocean.
The beads were found in a layer of artifacts dating back 75,000 years. |
|
For updates
click homepage here