Why Men Love War (1984)(public.wsu.edu)
public.wsu.edu
Why Men Love War (1984)
http://public.wsu.edu/~hughesc/why_men_love_war.htm
16 comments
"It's a topic I often wonder about: now there is less war than ever, but also more depression and despair, even among those with peaceful, affluent lives."
It's an interesting point of view, but here's some food for thought... perhaps there's plenty of despair because there's more to be concerned about than just war and poverty.
Seriously, there's absolutely tons of things messed up about the world we live in, and it can feel overwhelming, which leads to paralysis... people feel powerless to find a better way as individuals. Feeling separated from communities in their immediate vicinity doesn't help either. At least with war, which is truly messed up too, there's an us vs. them, a clearer sense of purpose. In our current world the answers are less clear.
If you'd prefer I mention something concrete that's messed up, I'd almost not know where to begin. For the sake of simplicity in choosing, this was my most recent discovery... it makes me sad that this exists... http://www.thebigroundtable.com/stories/damage/
It's an interesting point of view, but here's some food for thought... perhaps there's plenty of despair because there's more to be concerned about than just war and poverty.
Seriously, there's absolutely tons of things messed up about the world we live in, and it can feel overwhelming, which leads to paralysis... people feel powerless to find a better way as individuals. Feeling separated from communities in their immediate vicinity doesn't help either. At least with war, which is truly messed up too, there's an us vs. them, a clearer sense of purpose. In our current world the answers are less clear.
If you'd prefer I mention something concrete that's messed up, I'd almost not know where to begin. For the sake of simplicity in choosing, this was my most recent discovery... it makes me sad that this exists... http://www.thebigroundtable.com/stories/damage/
Um... wow, that was an amazingly well written piece. Thank you for sharing.
It's a tragedy, a beautifully written tragedy. I found it on this subreddit, perhaps you'll find other engaging stories there... http://www.reddit.com/r/FoodForThought
Holy shit that one was good. Extremely well written.
"that allow us to deprive ourselves of all experiences of true intensity or meaning"
It seems that people have a largely irrational, intense fear of something. Public speaking, heights, spiders - whatever your fear is if you embrace it you can still (safely) find that incredibly intense experience you are talking about. For me it was skydiving. I get sweaty palms even thinking about heights, going up in a plane with an open door was terrifying! Leaving it was incredible. If you're afraid of spiders, pick up a big one, public speaking? Join toastmasters. You don't need war to experience the thrill of death.
It seems that people have a largely irrational, intense fear of something. Public speaking, heights, spiders - whatever your fear is if you embrace it you can still (safely) find that incredibly intense experience you are talking about. For me it was skydiving. I get sweaty palms even thinking about heights, going up in a plane with an open door was terrifying! Leaving it was incredible. If you're afraid of spiders, pick up a big one, public speaking? Join toastmasters. You don't need war to experience the thrill of death.
We may discover that the act of passionate conquering makes men feel that much more closer to "God". The "Immigrant Song" exemplifies the hellish glory of war, to me personally.
"And now you better stop, and rebuild all of your ruins. For peace and trust can win the day, despite all of your losing" [Know now, our conquered subjects, that we are your virtuous overlords, so let peace be with you hereafter. We will install our heaven here, for you and with you. Now, come with us.]
"And now you better stop, and rebuild all of your ruins. For peace and trust can win the day, despite all of your losing" [Know now, our conquered subjects, that we are your virtuous overlords, so let peace be with you hereafter. We will install our heaven here, for you and with you. Now, come with us.]
> [O]ur deepest fear is no longer death of the body, but death of the soul.
Can we be sure that this is something new? In both Western and Eastern culture, you can go back thousands of years and follow the sentiment right through to now, century after century: warriors (and to a great extent, aristocrats) have always put honor (which I will include under matters of "soul") before mere physical life. If anything, life began to make more of a difference only now, when we are actually able to do something about meaningfully preserving it.
Can we be sure that this is something new? In both Western and Eastern culture, you can go back thousands of years and follow the sentiment right through to now, century after century: warriors (and to a great extent, aristocrats) have always put honor (which I will include under matters of "soul") before mere physical life. If anything, life began to make more of a difference only now, when we are actually able to do something about meaningfully preserving it.
[deleted]
Welcome to the human condition. What you see as a problem is really the cornerstone of who we are.
Throughout human history there have always been those who believed in utopias. For a long time those utopias were religious -- people imagined either a humanity living in God's grace or an afterlife in heaven. Then, utopias became about removing injustice; communism is a notable example. Now you see, especially here on HN, people believing in technological utopias, where we don't have to work, a benevolent AI makes the best decisions for us, and extend our life indefinitely or at least spend eternity in a silicon afterlife as non-corporeal rational beings. Whenever I hear someone explaining how to achieve utopia, I ask them to do the following thought experiment: imagine their perfect utopia and all those who live in it and all those born into it, and ask themselves this -- will those people really be happy? A very crude approximation of what people are -- but one that's better than many others -- is this: once they've ensured their survival, people are happy when they get what they want, and what they want is what they cannot get.
Throughout human history there have always been those who believed in utopias. For a long time those utopias were religious -- people imagined either a humanity living in God's grace or an afterlife in heaven. Then, utopias became about removing injustice; communism is a notable example. Now you see, especially here on HN, people believing in technological utopias, where we don't have to work, a benevolent AI makes the best decisions for us, and extend our life indefinitely or at least spend eternity in a silicon afterlife as non-corporeal rational beings. Whenever I hear someone explaining how to achieve utopia, I ask them to do the following thought experiment: imagine their perfect utopia and all those who live in it and all those born into it, and ask themselves this -- will those people really be happy? A very crude approximation of what people are -- but one that's better than many others -- is this: once they've ensured their survival, people are happy when they get what they want, and what they want is what they cannot get.
The only true human utopia is one where we feel most connected to each other and the world we live in, which sounds simple in principal but harder in practice. All the other utopias are just attempts to replace this longing with something easier to achieve.
Don't just mark me down, respond to the points, if you disagree say why.
Nah, that's not how it's done these days.
It seems downvotes on HN are used as the equivalent of a child sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "NOT LISTENING!".
Oh, and don't be surprised if you find a bunch of your older, unrelated comments downvoted as well. Apparently it's a form of punishment. Or something.
It seems downvotes on HN are used as the equivalent of a child sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "NOT LISTENING!".
Oh, and don't be surprised if you find a bunch of your older, unrelated comments downvoted as well. Apparently it's a form of punishment. Or something.
What points? Your text isn't really enough to pin down what you specifically meant.
>A very crude approximation of what people are -- but one that's better than many others -- is this: once they've ensured their survival, people are happy when they get what they want, and what they want is what they cannot get.
Counterpoints:
* Why should an unsatisifability instilled in us by evolution be reckoned as more ethically valuable than our actual well-being?
* What evidence shows the unsatisfiability is even there? Long-term studies have showed that many people live contented lives for what appear to be understandable psychological reasons.
* Provided it is, why could you not find or produce genuinely engaging challenges that don't boil down to "avoid being murdered by the other monkeys"?
This line of thought loses most of its coherency and thoroughness after managing what starts out sounding like an argument that simply solving one human problem will not immediately bring about utopia and thus does not justify mass violence (motte), but ends up proving much too much by claiming, in the end, that human happiness is categorically impossible and therefore all projects to improve life must inevitably fail (bailey) and result in horrifying mass murder (reductio ad Hitlerum).
(Terminology hints: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much)
Counterpoints:
* Why should an unsatisifability instilled in us by evolution be reckoned as more ethically valuable than our actual well-being?
* What evidence shows the unsatisfiability is even there? Long-term studies have showed that many people live contented lives for what appear to be understandable psychological reasons.
* Provided it is, why could you not find or produce genuinely engaging challenges that don't boil down to "avoid being murdered by the other monkeys"?
This line of thought loses most of its coherency and thoroughness after managing what starts out sounding like an argument that simply solving one human problem will not immediately bring about utopia and thus does not justify mass violence (motte), but ends up proving much too much by claiming, in the end, that human happiness is categorically impossible and therefore all projects to improve life must inevitably fail (bailey) and result in horrifying mass murder (reductio ad Hitlerum).
(Terminology hints: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bric... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much)
I think you've taken my cynical description as some mathematical claim which it isn't.
> Why should an unsatisifability instilled in us by evolution be reckoned as more ethically valuable than our actual well-being?
It shouldn't, but it still means that people might do potentially bad things even if everyone's physical well being is ensured, because contentment trumps ethics. I'm not saying it's right jus that it is.
> What evidence shows the unsatisfiability is even there?
The only specific study that I remember off-the-cuff is the one mentioned here [1] (search for "Mike Norton"), but, of course, I think this "unsatisfiabilty" is what brought us here to begin with. Without it, we'd still all be hunters-gatherers. Some of it probably has to do something with social comparison[2]
EDIT: This is a published study: http://jeffreypfeffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DeVoeMo... (overview here: http://www.upworthy.com/why-do-rich-people-seem-to-always-ne...)
> Long-term studies have showed that many people live contented lives for what appear to be understandable psychological reasons.
The problem with that is that much of that contentment appears to stem from the fact that others have less [2],[3]
> Provided it is, why could you not find or produce genuinely engaging challenges
Perhaps. But it is also possible that we have destructive urges that require satisfaction. Freud spends half of his Civilization and its Discontents exploring the "death urge". It isn't science -- far from it -- but it's pretty compelling.
> argument that simply solving one human problem will not immediately bring about utopia ...
I wasn't discussing a specific utopia (even though I personally dream of both a communist utopia and an anarchist utopia), but my thought experiment is meant to doubt that any kind of utopia is possible for a significant period of time. Imagine not how to get there, but what there looks like, and then, think for a while on whether people will really be happy for long in your utopia. That is not to say that we shouldn't strive to build our utopia -- in fact, the impossibility of achieving it is what ensures we'll always have something to do.
> claiming ... that human happiness is categorically impossible
Again, my "approximation" wasn't a well specified law of nature. People are happy with their achievements for a while -- until they're not. In fact, most people are happy some of the time, and some people are happy most the time, but I don't think all people can be happy all -- or even most -- of the time. It's quite possible that people's happiness depends on others' misery. I don't think happiness is impossible; I think utopia is.
[1]: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120092/billionaires-book-...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_theory
[3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/your-money/02shortcuts.htm...
> Why should an unsatisifability instilled in us by evolution be reckoned as more ethically valuable than our actual well-being?
It shouldn't, but it still means that people might do potentially bad things even if everyone's physical well being is ensured, because contentment trumps ethics. I'm not saying it's right jus that it is.
> What evidence shows the unsatisfiability is even there?
The only specific study that I remember off-the-cuff is the one mentioned here [1] (search for "Mike Norton"), but, of course, I think this "unsatisfiabilty" is what brought us here to begin with. Without it, we'd still all be hunters-gatherers. Some of it probably has to do something with social comparison[2]
EDIT: This is a published study: http://jeffreypfeffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DeVoeMo... (overview here: http://www.upworthy.com/why-do-rich-people-seem-to-always-ne...)
> Long-term studies have showed that many people live contented lives for what appear to be understandable psychological reasons.
The problem with that is that much of that contentment appears to stem from the fact that others have less [2],[3]
> Provided it is, why could you not find or produce genuinely engaging challenges
Perhaps. But it is also possible that we have destructive urges that require satisfaction. Freud spends half of his Civilization and its Discontents exploring the "death urge". It isn't science -- far from it -- but it's pretty compelling.
> argument that simply solving one human problem will not immediately bring about utopia ...
I wasn't discussing a specific utopia (even though I personally dream of both a communist utopia and an anarchist utopia), but my thought experiment is meant to doubt that any kind of utopia is possible for a significant period of time. Imagine not how to get there, but what there looks like, and then, think for a while on whether people will really be happy for long in your utopia. That is not to say that we shouldn't strive to build our utopia -- in fact, the impossibility of achieving it is what ensures we'll always have something to do.
> claiming ... that human happiness is categorically impossible
Again, my "approximation" wasn't a well specified law of nature. People are happy with their achievements for a while -- until they're not. In fact, most people are happy some of the time, and some people are happy most the time, but I don't think all people can be happy all -- or even most -- of the time. It's quite possible that people's happiness depends on others' misery. I don't think happiness is impossible; I think utopia is.
[1]: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120092/billionaires-book-...
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_theory
[3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/your-money/02shortcuts.htm...
First thought: oh shut up, you can kvetch about the meaninglessness of your vain, well-designed life after we've abolished poverty and death.
Second thought: the correlation between "not having ever really lived" and nonviolence is a false one. The actual issue is "capitalist realism": the increasing cultural hegemony of indoctrinating people to believe that the well-sterilized path of being someone else's worker bee is desirable in the first place (almost nobody in human history has ever actually desired it), and that it has always been this way (the vast majority of human history happened before Reagan and Thatcher, actually), and that there is no alternative except for primitive and nihilistic violence (then what happened throughout all of human history?).
Third thought: the correlation between our current lifestyles and depression may well be a causal connection for purely physiological reasons that have nothing to do with any purported meaninglessness of a nonviolent life.
Second thought: the correlation between "not having ever really lived" and nonviolence is a false one. The actual issue is "capitalist realism": the increasing cultural hegemony of indoctrinating people to believe that the well-sterilized path of being someone else's worker bee is desirable in the first place (almost nobody in human history has ever actually desired it), and that it has always been this way (the vast majority of human history happened before Reagan and Thatcher, actually), and that there is no alternative except for primitive and nihilistic violence (then what happened throughout all of human history?).
Third thought: the correlation between our current lifestyles and depression may well be a causal connection for purely physiological reasons that have nothing to do with any purported meaninglessness of a nonviolent life.
[deleted](2)
Evolutionary phycologist Malcolm Potts explains this phenomenon as an evolutionary adaptation developed in some species of primates. In particular, we share this behavior, "the war instinct" with our close relative chimpanzee. The behavior is the following: identify your "ingroup", the social group where you live, and then attack an "outgroup", a competing social group. This is an evolutionary-beneficial behavior because it allows a group to gain additional resources: land and females. According to this theory human predisposition for war is innate rather than cultural.
If you are interesting in learning more about this theory, here's the book:
Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World by Malcolm Potts ISBN 978-1935251705
If you are interesting in learning more about this theory, here's the book:
Sex and War: How Biology Explains Warfare and Terrorism and Offers a Path to a Safer World by Malcolm Potts ISBN 978-1935251705
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trial
The real problem isn't a hypothetical 'war instinct' in all humans, it's the leaders who take advantage of animal logic for personal gain.
(Sometimes very short-lived personal gain. But still.)
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trial
The real problem isn't a hypothetical 'war instinct' in all humans, it's the leaders who take advantage of animal logic for personal gain.
(Sometimes very short-lived personal gain. But still.)
An interesting addition / counterpoint to this theory is presented in Frans De Waal's [1] books.
"In 2011, De Waal and his co-workers were the first to report that chimpanzees given a free choice between helping only themselves or helping themselves plus a partner, prefer the latter."
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal
"In 2011, De Waal and his co-workers were the first to report that chimpanzees given a free choice between helping only themselves or helping themselves plus a partner, prefer the latter."
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal
That's what "in-group" means. Whe. Plenty turns to Famine, behavior changes.
The main thing I liked about war was getting to work with powerful tools and get immediate feedback on your actions. The US does a pretty good job of insulating the military from this in peacetime -- bureaucracy, extremely restrictive rules of engagement, etc. -- but as a contractor in a war zone, as well as for soldiers involved in actual combat operations (5% of those deployed?) it was pretty amazing.
It's pretty much the same high as working at a startup vs. a big company.
It's pretty much the same high as working at a startup vs. a big company.
The problem with the military is that it has unlimited downside. You're literally giving up your freedom. I don't really think western armies experience the realities of war either, at least not to the extent of their opponents.
I think pretty much anything you can do in the military you can do better in civilian life, you just have to be a bit creative. You rarely hear about it though, because no one is trying to recruit people for it. Here's kind of one example though: http://www.theamphour.com/220-an-interview-with-shaun-meehan...
I think pretty much anything you can do in the military you can do better in civilian life, you just have to be a bit creative. You rarely hear about it though, because no one is trying to recruit people for it. Here's kind of one example though: http://www.theamphour.com/220-an-interview-with-shaun-meehan...
Bootstrapping a defense business with ~zero background in defense was tbh one of the most amazing possible things to do in 2003-2005. I probably should have bailed in 2005 or so and go back to startups, but I was still convinced the 2001 recession was there.
I do find the idea that showing up counts for a lot, quite romantic (in a good way). Even in the more dubious cases like Viktor Bout [0]. But for the most case it's not an area where I'd personally want to "show up" in. I'd much rather we semi-privatized disaster relief than war.
[0] That documentary with all the home footage is pretty cool, so is "bulletproof salesman".
[0] That documentary with all the home footage is pretty cool, so is "bulletproof salesman".
The article "Is There Anything Good About Men?" by Roy Baumeister [1] takes some interesting angles on the reasons and motivations for men choosing war, and generalizes why the worlds most powerful people, as well as the overwhelming majority of most prison populations, are men.
In some ways, the reasons look to clearly stem from culture and society's influence, as discussed in the Baumeister article.
On the other hand, there is definitely a some element of the innate [2] "us vs. them" at play, allowed to run unbridled in the suspenseful environment of war. I imagine this would result in an experience not easily replicated in the real world.
No where else offers this:
1. You might get to kill "bad people"
2. You won't get in trouble for it
3. You don't have time to think or process it. It just happens, split second, you die or they die, you panic, resort to your training, you live. Instead of being punished, you are a hero.
4. You might die. Hearing a bullet whiz by your head and surviving, followed by the subsequent huge adrenaline rush.
5. If you don't die, you see yourself as an invincible super hero that gets to save the world.
There are ways to replicate a lot of this, like joining a street gang or getting involved in organized crime, but instead of becoming a hero, you get 20-to-life. Not quite the same risk-reward.
Something about it seems very juvenile, in the sense of getting to do "bad things" with very little risk of negative consequence, and there's some element of "playing super hero" here. It makes me think of going off to college and partying your ass off for a semester, with unlimited access to alcohol and sex, fully funded by the parents, with very little negative consequence. I'm sure many people do look back on that with fond memories. To some people, war is probably like that, on steroids.
[1] http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/babies-help-unlock-the-origins-o...
In some ways, the reasons look to clearly stem from culture and society's influence, as discussed in the Baumeister article.
On the other hand, there is definitely a some element of the innate [2] "us vs. them" at play, allowed to run unbridled in the suspenseful environment of war. I imagine this would result in an experience not easily replicated in the real world.
No where else offers this:
1. You might get to kill "bad people"
2. You won't get in trouble for it
3. You don't have time to think or process it. It just happens, split second, you die or they die, you panic, resort to your training, you live. Instead of being punished, you are a hero.
4. You might die. Hearing a bullet whiz by your head and surviving, followed by the subsequent huge adrenaline rush.
5. If you don't die, you see yourself as an invincible super hero that gets to save the world.
There are ways to replicate a lot of this, like joining a street gang or getting involved in organized crime, but instead of becoming a hero, you get 20-to-life. Not quite the same risk-reward.
Something about it seems very juvenile, in the sense of getting to do "bad things" with very little risk of negative consequence, and there's some element of "playing super hero" here. It makes me think of going off to college and partying your ass off for a semester, with unlimited access to alcohol and sex, fully funded by the parents, with very little negative consequence. I'm sure many people do look back on that with fond memories. To some people, war is probably like that, on steroids.
[1] http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/babies-help-unlock-the-origins-o...
I started reading that Baumeister article to complain about the current political climate. Even though it turns out I'm sympathetic to his views there were a few interesting angles, as you put it. One that had never occurred to me:
> The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women? It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%....Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
> The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women? It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%....Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
That may be because most men never get any offspring. It's evolutionarily convenient to only have the genetically best men get women pregnant. A common theory is that the reason we have marriage/monogamy is that the men who get left out of sex don't much like this arrangement and would prefer equal allocation of women.
I might as well argue that women started polygamy so more of them could be with the top males. If you lack all of the things it might take to attract female partners (health, money, power, social status, charisma, intelligence, humor, etc.) to the extent that you're getting left out of sex, you don't have the clout to design and implement new institutions.
There's kinda this thing about numbers, though. 50% of all men is a lot of guys dissatisfied with the status quo. And you don't have to implement new institutions within the existing power structure, you just have to get a group of fellow guys together, run off with some kidnapped girls few will miss and start your own society. Then you invent a religion to justify it, and voila, soon your tribe has reason to go and pillage, burn, rape and convert.
Sounds like the plot from Revenge Of The Nerds. Very unlikely because of the same problem as before: the ability to attract females correlates with the skills needed to start a successful new tribe that can compete with the old.
The only way I see to save the argument is to say that the "losers" who left, or were more likely pushed out, stumbled upon some favorable ecology, maybe they stumbled into modern day Europe. But then you're back to geographical determinism and so many things changed in society as agriculture developed that singling out male envy as the cause of monogamy requires more evidence than I think you have.
The only way I see to save the argument is to say that the "losers" who left, or were more likely pushed out, stumbled upon some favorable ecology, maybe they stumbled into modern day Europe. But then you're back to geographical determinism and so many things changed in society as agriculture developed that singling out male envy as the cause of monogamy requires more evidence than I think you have.
Ironic this kind of equality is destroyed as modern society in dismantles traditional marriages in the name of equality.
For a book that develops a similar thesis, see Chris Hedges' "War is a force that gives us meaning." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Force_That_Gives_Us_Me...
I think this whole concept is one reason why people become "doomsday preppers". They choose to view the world in a way that has struggle, meaning, where decisions have consequences. Since they cant live out that frontier existence of 100 years ago, they try to create that world for themselves now.
And that's a hedge, like prepping for afterlife!
If doomsday doesn't come, then all choices are equally successful. But if doomsday comes...
If doomsday doesn't come, then all choices are equally successful. But if doomsday comes...
My impression is many foolish people like the idea of war in prospect -- they like war movies [1] -- but hate it when confronted with its horrible reality.
* First, anyone who applies the slightest intellectual effort will see war is a catastrophe, though occasionally better than its alternative.
* If I remember my history, for both the American Civil War and WWI, people were excited by their beginnings. People picnicked beside the first Civil War battles. Needless to say, they soon learned of their mistakes. Similarly many Americans were excited for the second Iraq war. (And those examples hardly are unusual.)
* Civilians and soldiers who die, are maimed, are raped, are tortured, who see those things happen to family members, or lose their homes, jobs, assets, or see their nations and communities reduced to chaos and poverty, -- they do not love war.
* Those who kill and see others kill usually do not love war. What we compel soldiers to do is horrible, killing is unnatural and damaging to the killer too. We've made others into torturers [2] -- what if you were made to torture or kill someone? War costs many survivors their souls and peace of mind. Read any history of any war's aftermath, including our recent conflicts: Those who return often are not the same. PTSD is widespread, and note the very high number of suicides currently among our soldiers, despite the recent conflicts being among the safest, lowest-intensity wars in American history.
* Those who have experienced prior wars came out of them seeking to end war for ever, for example after WWI (the League of Nations) and WWII (the United Nations and the predecessors to the European Union). Some today mock these people as idealistic, but these were the people who led us to victory in existential wars -- they knew far more of war's reality than we ever will.
The glorification of war, military, and soldiers is highly irresponsible and dangerous. We consign soldiers, affected civilians, and whole nations to nightmarish horrors, and then glorify it so we don't have to think about what we have done. [3]
[1] http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/01/if-only-america-care...
[2] Not just CIA prisons and Abu Ghraib, but of others too; for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/politics/24abuse.html
[3] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-trag...
* First, anyone who applies the slightest intellectual effort will see war is a catastrophe, though occasionally better than its alternative.
* If I remember my history, for both the American Civil War and WWI, people were excited by their beginnings. People picnicked beside the first Civil War battles. Needless to say, they soon learned of their mistakes. Similarly many Americans were excited for the second Iraq war. (And those examples hardly are unusual.)
* Civilians and soldiers who die, are maimed, are raped, are tortured, who see those things happen to family members, or lose their homes, jobs, assets, or see their nations and communities reduced to chaos and poverty, -- they do not love war.
* Those who kill and see others kill usually do not love war. What we compel soldiers to do is horrible, killing is unnatural and damaging to the killer too. We've made others into torturers [2] -- what if you were made to torture or kill someone? War costs many survivors their souls and peace of mind. Read any history of any war's aftermath, including our recent conflicts: Those who return often are not the same. PTSD is widespread, and note the very high number of suicides currently among our soldiers, despite the recent conflicts being among the safest, lowest-intensity wars in American history.
* Those who have experienced prior wars came out of them seeking to end war for ever, for example after WWI (the League of Nations) and WWII (the United Nations and the predecessors to the European Union). Some today mock these people as idealistic, but these were the people who led us to victory in existential wars -- they knew far more of war's reality than we ever will.
The glorification of war, military, and soldiers is highly irresponsible and dangerous. We consign soldiers, affected civilians, and whole nations to nightmarish horrors, and then glorify it so we don't have to think about what we have done. [3]
[1] http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/01/if-only-america-care...
[2] Not just CIA prisons and Abu Ghraib, but of others too; for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/politics/24abuse.html
[3] http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-trag...
Abu gran was done voluntary for no good reason, in opposition to the desires of the home office. Aka it happened because the perpetrators enjoyed it.
> Abu gran was done voluntary for no good reason, in opposition to the desires of the home office. Aka it happened because the perpetrators enjoyed it.
Thanks for offering that. It doesn't match what I've read. My impression is that government and military leadership encouraged such practices as a method of interrogation, legitimized it in the troops' eyes by authorizing and publicly advocating for torture and denial of prisoner's rights, and did not enforce rules against it.
Thanks for offering that. It doesn't match what I've read. My impression is that government and military leadership encouraged such practices as a method of interrogation, legitimized it in the troops' eyes by authorizing and publicly advocating for torture and denial of prisoner's rights, and did not enforce rules against it.
Biologically man's closest relatives are chimps and bonobos. Chimps are violent. Bonobos love sex. According to the article war is the perfect combination of the those two aspects. Seems to check out.
"But life without death has no meaning"
Who came up with this moronic idea?
Who came up with this moronic idea?
What about women? Mother's in Nazi Germany sent their sons off to war with proud smiles on their faces.
The article is written from an American perspective: War is something happening far from home and the participants are men in the military, which (if they survive) may return to peace and safety after service have ended.
The perspective is very different when war is happening in your own country, where victims are not just trained military personnel. Neither men nor women love the war that destroy your home and livelihood and kills your parents or children.
The perspective is very different when war is happening in your own country, where victims are not just trained military personnel. Neither men nor women love the war that destroy your home and livelihood and kills your parents or children.
I don't think that's really the same thing. The essay is talking specifically about the experience of war; the experience of being engaged in battle. Which isn't something a mother sending her son off to war would experience. (She's definitely taking a risk and engaging in an emotional experience, just of a different kind.)
There are women who have experienced battle first hand, of course, but since until very recently combat was effectively a male-only experience there aren't a lot of stories from their perspective. (Yet.)
There are women who have experienced battle first hand, of course, but since until very recently combat was effectively a male-only experience there aren't a lot of stories from their perspective. (Yet.)
>What about women?
I wonder the same, and more specifically, about women who have been in war.
I wonder the same, and more specifically, about women who have been in war.
Oh yes, there is not enough about it. Maybe women have note been part of the military for long enough, or maybe its because they censor themselves more than men, and would never admit to enjoy fighting. I only remember that in Vietnam, the strong advice was given to kill the female enemies first, for they would fight much more furiously and with less fear than the men.
Also, there was a study (sorry, I'll try to find the source) that male bonding behaviour is disturbed when there are women present, due to the implicit rivalry. I suspect thats a reason why women weren't allowed to join the military for a long time. Also I guess the heightened libido in war might lead to problems there.
I'd be very interested in how these things worked for the mixed sex armies in the Israeli wars, any links highly appreciated.
Also, there was a study (sorry, I'll try to find the source) that male bonding behaviour is disturbed when there are women present, due to the implicit rivalry. I suspect thats a reason why women weren't allowed to join the military for a long time. Also I guess the heightened libido in war might lead to problems there.
I'd be very interested in how these things worked for the mixed sex armies in the Israeli wars, any links highly appreciated.
> Oh yes, there is not enough about it. Maybe women have note been part of the military for long enough
I can't speak for most of the world, but I believe the USA only started allowing women into direct combat roles in 2013. So there's certainly not enough data here [for the USA].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#Policy_ch...
I can't speak for most of the world, but I believe the USA only started allowing women into direct combat roles in 2013. So there's certainly not enough data here [for the USA].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#Policy_ch...
> What about women? Mother's in Nazi Germany sent their sons off to war with proud smiles on their faces.
Is that true? I would have guessed that most mothers, everywhere, do not want their own sons in war.
Is that true? I would have guessed that most mothers, everywhere, do not want their own sons in war.
Yes this is historical fact. People(fathers AND mothers) will put their nation, religion, ethnicity, etc... before their own family. This preconception that motherhood transcends all these identities is why I felt compelled to respond to the title. Look at war mongering politicians in your country and see what the gender breakdown in support is. It's mostly even if it's like mine(US).
Reminds me of drone operators feeling quite the opposite about "modern" warfare.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
I was thinking it is weird that 90% computer games (non-casual ones) are about war, which in our life is around 0%. I also looked down on the military.
Now the war in the Ukraine is happening, and it's an eye-opener (even for those in neighbouring countries). Yes, war is rare nowdays, but when it's on, it trumps everything. Every card you have in your hand, war beats.
When armed and organized people come, money and business and culture bow to them.
It is really that important how games show to us.
Now the war in the Ukraine is happening, and it's an eye-opener (even for those in neighbouring countries). Yes, war is rare nowdays, but when it's on, it trumps everything. Every card you have in your hand, war beats.
When armed and organized people come, money and business and culture bow to them.
It is really that important how games show to us.
You're right to look down on the military.
Weapons are ominous tools. They are abhorred by all creatures. Anyone who follows the Way shuns them. In peaceful times, the noble ruler honors the left side. At war, he honors the right side. Weapons are ominous tools. They are not the noble ruler's tools. He only uses them when he can't avoid it. Peace and quiet are preferred. Victory should not be praised. Those who praise victory relish manslaughter. Those who relish manslaughter Cannot reach their goals in the world. At times of joy, the left side is honored. At times of grief, the right side is honored. At battle, the second in command stands to the left, And the commander in chief to the right. This means they stand as in funerals. When many people are killed They should be mourned and lamented. Those who are victorious in war Should follow the rites of funerals.
Tao De Ching - Chapter 31
Weapons are ominous tools. They are abhorred by all creatures. Anyone who follows the Way shuns them. In peaceful times, the noble ruler honors the left side. At war, he honors the right side. Weapons are ominous tools. They are not the noble ruler's tools. He only uses them when he can't avoid it. Peace and quiet are preferred. Victory should not be praised. Those who praise victory relish manslaughter. Those who relish manslaughter Cannot reach their goals in the world. At times of joy, the left side is honored. At times of grief, the right side is honored. At battle, the second in command stands to the left, And the commander in chief to the right. This means they stand as in funerals. When many people are killed They should be mourned and lamented. Those who are victorious in war Should follow the rites of funerals.
Tao De Ching - Chapter 31
menstruation envy
Its a perpetuated scam, part of psychological operations against the populous of the planet.
Whats really sought after is invulnerable no form-factor options with beyond-time communications, that are forced to do security stuff for everyone & more.
Whats really sought after is invulnerable no form-factor options with beyond-time communications, that are forced to do security stuff for everyone & more.
This is why I believe there is no religious, political, or any sort of particular war. Men (or male I think) just like to kill each other for some very strange reason. It may even biological.
EDIT:
The downvotes seem to prove my point. We just like to hurt each other. Disagree with someone downvote. Disagree with another punch them. Disagree with another, to the sabres.
Why do we do this?
If men did not have a proclivity for harm, I would not get downvotes when people disagree. They would instead correct me and put me on the right path.
EDIT:
The downvotes seem to prove my point. We just like to hurt each other. Disagree with someone downvote. Disagree with another punch them. Disagree with another, to the sabres.
Why do we do this?
If men did not have a proclivity for harm, I would not get downvotes when people disagree. They would instead correct me and put me on the right path.
First, the claim is about loving war, not loving killing, and there's a difference.
Second, what little research there is suggests (while being far from definitive) that men in fact resist killing[1].
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology#The_problem_of_non-_o...
Second, what little research there is suggests (while being far from definitive) that men in fact resist killing[1].
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology#The_problem_of_non-_o...
Really? "The chief aim of war is to subdue an enemy," by using force. You can't separate war from killing, the proof of that being when we go to war, we do not go with argumentations and documents, we go with guns and fire jets. To love war, is to either love harming others, or subduing others by harming them.
You are not getting the difference. People like the abstract concept of their enemies being defeated. What they don't like is when they are the ones that have to pull the trigger.
Cool. I see now. Thanks!
[deleted]
[deleted]
> It may even biological.
Ah yes , the most base argument to absolve oneself of responsibility.
It's a good thing you don't have that big brain and act on base instincts alone, because that argument would be pretty silly otherwise.
Ah yes , the most base argument to absolve oneself of responsibility.
It's a good thing you don't have that big brain and act on base instincts alone, because that argument would be pretty silly otherwise.
Speaking as a male, I find the idea of killing another human utterly repellent.
If you are an American you were young and had no choice but to serve, and you are either going to defend yourself or die, it is still utterly repellent. But you do it anyway. Blame yourself or your parents or your grandparents for voting for the wrong people.
If you are a from a more peaceful nation congratulate yourself on deciding to be born there.
If you are a from a more peaceful nation congratulate yourself on deciding to be born there.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted as man's apparent propensity for war is a very curious question. Expert opinions seem quite divided on whether it has biological roots or if is a cultural artefact.
Some interesting reading on the matter:
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jun/07-is-war-inevitable-by...
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jun/02-no-war-is-not-inevit...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/09/17/n...
Some interesting reading on the matter:
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jun/07-is-war-inevitable-by...
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jun/02-no-war-is-not-inevit...
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/09/17/n...
I believe attacking the downvoters usually leads to even more downvotes.
Don't loose sleep over downvotes. It usually either means you broke a rule, or your point of view is largely unpopular. These systems of 'like', 'pluses' and 'up/downvotes' will turn us all into uninteresting sheep if we pay them too much attention.
I agree with your view point, mainly because even though it is sexist, it has managed to mint billions for the toy, movie and game industries. A good portion of the male population do have a proclivity to dominate or destroy or at least simulate those experiences.
Don't loose sleep over downvotes. It usually either means you broke a rule, or your point of view is largely unpopular. These systems of 'like', 'pluses' and 'up/downvotes' will turn us all into uninteresting sheep if we pay them too much attention.
I agree with your view point, mainly because even though it is sexist, it has managed to mint billions for the toy, movie and game industries. A good portion of the male population do have a proclivity to dominate or destroy or at least simulate those experiences.
I am not worried about the downvotes for Karma reason. But if I am honest, I TRULY from the bottom of my heart do not understand the logic behind a downvote. You know how some people just do not get physics, this is it to me.
What I do understand is, if one downvotes with anonymity/impunity because they disagree, they would 100% hurt someone physically if they could with anonymity/impunity. But this is another subject.
I do not think my point is sexist. Sexism would be to make a judgement that is both true for men and women, then slap it on only one of them.
Men are prone to violence. I mean look at all the acts of terrorism, and wars, etc... mostly it is men who are doing this. Look at the crimes such as robbery, grand theft auto, and such, I mostly see men.
What I do understand is, if one downvotes with anonymity/impunity because they disagree, they would 100% hurt someone physically if they could with anonymity/impunity. But this is another subject.
I do not think my point is sexist. Sexism would be to make a judgement that is both true for men and women, then slap it on only one of them.
Men are prone to violence. I mean look at all the acts of terrorism, and wars, etc... mostly it is men who are doing this. Look at the crimes such as robbery, grand theft auto, and such, I mostly see men.
Downvoting being equated to violence is idiotic. People downvote comments that they think are detracting from the conversation. They don't want to hurt you, they just think your contribution is irrelevant and a waste of everyone's time. They are trying to spare other readers the suffering of your comment leading them down the garden path.
Sure. Thanks!
[deleted]
That is a very sexist comment.
How is it sexist when all the evidence shows men are more involved in violent acts than women? Can you please help me understand how this is sexist?
@cubancigar
If my comment was sexist, yours seems to be as well, since you claim it is "women who are the root cause of evil."
At any rate I disagree that women cause men to be violent. As far as I know there may be many reasons to put a suicide vest on, or to drop in the middle of the desert with amos, but impressing women is not one of those. I really don't think men go to war because girls talk them into it directly or indirectly.
If my comment was sexist, yours seems to be as well, since you claim it is "women who are the root cause of evil."
At any rate I disagree that women cause men to be violent. As far as I know there may be many reasons to put a suicide vest on, or to drop in the middle of the desert with amos, but impressing women is not one of those. I really don't think men go to war because girls talk them into it directly or indirectly.
It is an evolutionary trait that will reflect in all sorts of places as the society becomes more complicated and then even more. Nobody had to worry about suicide bombers before someone thought of inventing bombs or religion or institutions to promote either one of those. And those institutions were not created with an end goal of suicide bombers, they were created with 'good' thought, ultimately to make the creator look more important and powerful. I hope you get the gist of my argument.
Regarding my comment being sexist - true. But one has to acknowledge the differences of sexes before aiming for equality.
Regarding my comment being sexist - true. But one has to acknowledge the differences of sexes before aiming for equality.
[deleted]
Men wage war physically because they are physically stronger. Women wage psychological war. Women also prefer powerful men, forcing men to 'prove' themselves, ultimately chosing alphas.
Men are more involved, but women are at the root cause of violent acts. Most men are not violent and given time, violent men will be rooted out by brainy meeks. It is women who chose to copulate with violent men than the meek ones.
It is a very bad statement to say 'why men love war', and is only an insidious way of saying the patriarchal statement that 'loving war is manly'. To be expected in 1984, but not today.
Men are more involved, but women are at the root cause of violent acts. Most men are not violent and given time, violent men will be rooted out by brainy meeks. It is women who chose to copulate with violent men than the meek ones.
It is a very bad statement to say 'why men love war', and is only an insidious way of saying the patriarchal statement that 'loving war is manly'. To be expected in 1984, but not today.
"Women also prefer powerful men"
Are you sure that's what it is? From what I've heard time and time again it's confidence which is the most attractive quality in a personality, a clear sense of who they are and what they want. You can be confident without being violent.
Are you sure that's what it is? From what I've heard time and time again it's confidence which is the most attractive quality in a personality, a clear sense of who they are and what they want. You can be confident without being violent.
Mark my word: powerful. Confidence comes from power. As we move from a largely physical domination to intellectual domination, the form power takes is also changing. So is the form of violence. It is not just true between men and women but in general.
A cave-man or a hunter (man) has only one meaning of powerful - physical. Today the meaning is changing, and Obama is powerful without having much body strength. Whether he is violent or not is something I will let you decide. But my point is that the anti-physical violence rhetoric one hears all day long is only a very recent phenomena and is directly related to what is considered more powerful today - war or politics.
NOTE: To people marking down my answers, what are your opinions about 'why women love cooking?' because statistically more women are found cooking than not, and 'why blacks like slavery?' because statistically more blacks were slaves than not? (HINT: Django Unchained anyone?)
A cave-man or a hunter (man) has only one meaning of powerful - physical. Today the meaning is changing, and Obama is powerful without having much body strength. Whether he is violent or not is something I will let you decide. But my point is that the anti-physical violence rhetoric one hears all day long is only a very recent phenomena and is directly related to what is considered more powerful today - war or politics.
NOTE: To people marking down my answers, what are your opinions about 'why women love cooking?' because statistically more women are found cooking than not, and 'why blacks like slavery?' because statistically more blacks were slaves than not? (HINT: Django Unchained anyone?)
The army - even the generals - aren't usually the ones that get to declare war, though, at least in this day and age.
Downvoters: Go ahead, but please do not delude yourself and think otherwise; for with every downvote you prove your propensity for violence. Feels good doesn't it to just click and see the text go lighter. You can't explain it anymore than those guys can explain the rush of holding a shot gun and contracting their finger repeatedly under the pretense of maintaining peace, or some other reason.
Here's a better reason; speech has value, some less than others, a feedback mechanism allowing the audience to make a judgement on how much value a given piece has is no more evidence for the innate psychopathy of men than a mute button on a TV remote or an install of adblocker is.
Last statement on this subject:
I will just hold it that I do not agree with all of you and see it as violent. That you do not see as such scares the living crap out of me. Your idea of mute is to downvote, not ignoring a commentator, someone else's idea is just more physical, but ideologically similar.
I will just hold it that I do not agree with all of you and see it as violent. That you do not see as such scares the living crap out of me. Your idea of mute is to downvote, not ignoring a commentator, someone else's idea is just more physical, but ideologically similar.
I think I know what you mean. Your comments remind me if an excerpt from a Situationist work, The Revolution of Everyday Life (by Raoul Vaneigem):
"an obscene hobbling rhythm. In the ebb and flow of the crowds sucked in and crushed together by the coming and going of suburban trains, and coughed out into streets, offices, factories, there is nothing but timid retreats, brutal attacks, smirking faces and scratches delivered for no apparent reason. Soured by unwanted encounters, wine turns to vinegar in the mouth. Innocent and good-natured crowds? What a laugh! Look how they bristle up, threaten on every side, clumsy and embarrassed in the enemy's territory, far, very far from themselves. Lacking knives, they learn to use their elbows and their eyes."
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5
"an obscene hobbling rhythm. In the ebb and flow of the crowds sucked in and crushed together by the coming and going of suburban trains, and coughed out into streets, offices, factories, there is nothing but timid retreats, brutal attacks, smirking faces and scratches delivered for no apparent reason. Soured by unwanted encounters, wine turns to vinegar in the mouth. Innocent and good-natured crowds? What a laugh! Look how they bristle up, threaten on every side, clumsy and embarrassed in the enemy's territory, far, very far from themselves. Lacking knives, they learn to use their elbows and their eyes."
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5
You might have a point if you apply those arguments to actual censorship rather than expressed disagreement or disinterest. Even there though, to say that censorship should be seen as violence obscures more than illuminates.
So basically, moderation of a forum of discussion is nothing other than an embodiment of bloodlust.
Downvoting isn't violence. If you feel so hurt by the loss of imaginary Internet points, you need to sit down and seriously think about what has gone so badly in your life to bring you to this point, and how you're going to fix it.
Some of you have treated me of an idiot. Some have insulted me in other ways. Some have said I am being dramatic and all.
Now you are are saying something has gone badly in my life, yet you know close to nothing of me outside this opinion that I have. Wow.
;) I forgive you all for the insults. We have a long way to go.
Edit: Besides, I think I have been around HN long enough to not worry about imaginary points. I have no idea where you got that from.
Now you are are saying something has gone badly in my life, yet you know close to nothing of me outside this opinion that I have. Wow.
;) I forgive you all for the insults. We have a long way to go.
Edit: Besides, I think I have been around HN long enough to not worry about imaginary points. I have no idea where you got that from.
You compared downvotes to physical violence, but you "have no idea" why I think you care way too much about your imaginary points? Just connect the dots.
you need to sit down and seriously think about what has gone so badly in your life to bring you to this point
Thanks. But always remember for the brief and last encounter we ever have, instead of clarifying where I was mistaken, you chose to insult me. Thanks man.
Thanks. But always remember for the brief and last encounter we ever have, instead of clarifying where I was mistaken, you chose to insult me. Thanks man.
@Mikeash. Thanks. Will do.
It's not an insult. I genuinely think that something has gone terribly wrong for you if you care this much about downvotes, and you should do something about it.
C'mon. You're just getting silly now.
I give up on this one. I just do not see eye to eye with you guys on this and it is apparent I do not have the skills to convince you that you are heading in the wrong direction. At any rate, nice chat.
It's a topic I often wonder about: now there is less war than ever, but also more depression and despair, even among those with peaceful, affluent lives. We humans have always been running from the fires behind us - what if, having outpaced them, we discover that what lies ahead is ice?