War, Peace and the State of Nature

[Amara]

Realist international theorists say the state of nature is a state of war, or at least, the preparedness for it. Human nature is inherently bad, competitive and distrustful. There exists no peace... what we might deem 'peace' is simply the time between wars. It is through a process of socialisation that we overcome these conflictual tendencies and subdue war. The anarchic system renders behaviour between states competitive and survival the ultimate goal.

Liberal international theorists on the other hand take the state of nature as naturally being peaceful. Human nature is essentially good and altruistic. Therefore war results not out of our natural tendency to engage in it, but rather as the inability to effectively overcome anarchic conditions. War is not inevitable - cooperation, diplomacy and dialogue between nations lessen the effects of anarchy and can prevent any possibility of war.

In the middle ground are the Constructivist theorists... neither state of being is natural - a condition of war or peace is determined having regard to the situation at hand. We construct either condition. The interests and goals of a state are not fixed - they are changeable.

Most people aren't aware of constructivism, although realism and liberalism have been discussed and studied for a long time. Each have their merits. Realism has had the most lasting and observable impact on international relations and the discipline of international relations theory on account of its ability to better explain the behaviour of states than any other...yet it is not without criticism either (notably as the theory works retrospectively and cannot predict state behaviour, rather it merely reflects upon it after the fact). In addition, it is questionable that liberalism has ever actually been practiced, we have institutions such as the United Nations and those of the past such as the League of Nations - neither of which reached their potential or have been (or were not able) to implement the liberal principles upon which they were based.


So having regard to these theories, what is the state of nature: one of war or one of peace? Is it that neither exist naturally - are they simply a result of our goals and pursuits at any given time, one which we chose, one which we construct?


I think like a liberal, but is this really a result of socialisation which makes me overcome the natural state of conflict and act in good ways? Is it the system that makes one behave good or bad or in-built mechanisms in human nature?

 

[radkin]

Nature is definatly peacefull in my opinion, we on the other hand are very destructive and selfish, but then again we are a part of nature so do we drag the rest of nature down to our level?
I don't think we'll ever see an end to wars between nations and religions definatly not in our lifetime anyway.
What I would love to see the most in my lifetime are humans helping other humans in need because it's the right thing to do, not because of pressure from voters or popstars or in the pursute of money or recognition just because it is right.

 

[Amara]

What I would love to see the most in my lifetime are humans helping other humans in need because it's the right thing to do, not because of pressure from voters or popstars or in the pursute of money or recognition just because it is right.

Definately, I would like to see that too... but we'd be labelled 'idealists.'

 

[AnarchistFunk]

nature natural's state is peace

war is created by greed which is created by capitilism which is created by weak minded easily corrupted people

 

[Amara]

nature natural's state is peace

war is created by greed which is created by capitilism which is created by weak minded easily corrupted people

Something tells me you can't blame capitalism for war.... Greed - perhaps. But why fight defensive wars then?

 

[AnarchistFunk]

Something tells me you can't blame capitalism for war.... Greed - perhaps. But why fight defensive wars then?

the majority of ours are for resources, and those resources bring the "winner" money once they have control of those resources

wars for diamonds, wars for gold, wars for water, wars for oil, wars for popeys, etc

whats a defensive war? war is war

and you can blame capitilism for everything

 

[CoolWaterz]

Nature is definatly peacefull in my opinion, we on the other hand are very destructive and selfish, but then again we are a part of nature so do we drag the rest of nature down to our level?

cliche'd answer...whats so peaceful about nature...in every other animal hierarchy its survival of the fittest or death

 

[Amara]

the majority of ours are for resources, and those resources bring the "winner" money once they have control of those resources

wars for diamonds, wars for gold, wars for water, wars for oil, wars for popeys, etc

whats a defensive war? war is war

and you can blame capitilism for everything

That is greed though. Greed is a human characteristic. Capitalism is the system, one which some manipulate in order to fulfill their greedy ambitions. People cause war, not an economic organisational principle.

Umm defensive war... take North Korea's decision to bare nuclear arms.... preparedness for war, yet their economic system has long opposed capitalism. It has a history of conflict.... can't blame capitalism, must be something more. Perhaps it is the goal of survival, not greed that motivates war (as the realists say anyway). Perhaps status even, if we refer to the Cold War.

Capitalism is a convenient scapegoat, but the causes of war run much deeper. (Anyway very tired, probably not making sense!! Time for bed).

 

[AnarchistFunk]

That is greed though. Greed is a human characteristic. Capitalism is the system, one which some manipulate in order to fulfill their greedy ambitions. People cause war, not an economic organisational principle.

Umm defensive war... take North Korea's decision to bare nuclear arms.... preparedness for war, yet their economic system has long opposed capitalism. It has a history of conflict.... can't blame capitalism, must be something more. Perhaps it is the goal of survival, not greed that motivates war (as the realists say anyway). Perhaps status even, if we refer to the Cold War.

Capitalism is a convenient scapegoat, but the causes of war run much deeper. (Anyway very tired, probably not making sense!! Time for bed).

you can find motives behind capitilism in the cold war too

people cause war yes, the piece of money doesnt wake up and say i wanna start a war, but the greed and power behind that person causes the war and what fuels that? the capitilistic system the person is surrounded by

 

[Glockmatic]

nature is constantly at war. From trees reaching over other trees for sunlight to animals fighting for food and territory. Standing in a forest may give the illusion that nature is at peace, but if you think about it everything living thing there is fighting for survival.

 

[Duke]

nature is constantly at war. From trees reaching over other trees for sunlight to animals fighting for food and territory. Standing in a forest may give the illusion that nature is at peace, but if you think about it everything living thing there is fighting for survival.

But many wars humans have fought are certainly not for survival but had other goals.

I wouldn't say nature is in a state of war all the time. You don't see armies of lions going to war against the Confederate States of the Zebra, do you? Yes, the lion eats the Zebra, from time to time, but is this war? It's not war as we know it.

Nature isn't peaceful either. When said lion eats said zebra, there's still a conflict, a battle. Survival.

Definately, I would like to see that too... but we'd be labelled 'idealists.'

Every human should be an idealist by nature. Personally i feel we should always strive for the best. Don't settle for less.

I'm spitting sick of people who label you a dreamer when you sketch an ideal scenario. It's not dreaming, it's a goal we should set for ourselves.

 

[Valeoz]

you can find motives behind capitilism in the cold war too

people cause war yes, the piece of money doesnt wake up and say i wanna start a war, but the greed and power behind that person causes the war and what fuels that? the capitilistic system the person is surrounded by

You completely missed what she said. Greed is a human characteristic. A capitalistic society barely means anything to wars. Capitalism is just an economic system that gets taken advantage of by our greedy characteristic.

How were wars started before capitalism? Capitalism is what... somewhere around 200-300 years old?

 

[Amara]

I'm spitting sick of people who label you a dreamer when you sketch an ideal scenario. It's not dreaming, it's a goal we should set for ourselves.

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with envisaging a better world, I'm tired of being dragged down or laughed at because I believe in peace and justice as achievable objectives...

nature is constantly at war. From trees reaching over other trees for sunlight to animals fighting for food and territory. Standing in a forest may give the illusion that nature is at peace, but if you think about it everything living thing there is fighting for survival.

Although if you think about it, is it natural that we have to fight for resources... or is it situations escalate out of hand so that what should naturally exist in balance and harmony is directed in competitiveness, war-like behaviour. The uniterrupted food chain is harmonious, it is only when one species dominates another that the balance is upset and the real fight for survival beings as an hegemony forms (much like current international politics)... So in that sense, is it that we are peaceful up and only until our existence is challenged by another as we stand to lose something by their presence - it is then we are forced into war, albeit natural instincts are peace driven, circumstances generate other forms of behaviour.

 

[Amara]

I was thinking about this some more and on a less theoretical note than the thread was initially started, I had this idea... surely if the state of nature was one of war, we as a society would be more inclined to cannibalism. Lol, it's a silly thing to say, but think about it... we fight over every precious resource, life is competitive and anarchic... we seek to dominate but wouldnt the ultimate form of domination in such a world be consuming our adversaries.

There must be some inclination for peace or at least the bonds of kinship and formation of society that prevent that kind of behaviour. Then again, even in more primitive environments, animals dont reduce themselves to eating one another. Well I'm sure some do... but for the most part even when food is scarce, most animals, us included have an aversion to eating one of their own. So that for me puts a new spin on the natural state of war vs. peace. Is it social order and the generation of mutual respect or instinct to survive as a species that prevents cannibalism?

 

[Rukas]

I was thinking about this some more and on a less theoretical note than the thread was initially started, I had this idea... surely if the state of nature was one of war, we as a society would be more inclined to cannibalism. Lol, it's a silly thing to say, but think about it... we fight over every precious resource, life is competitive and anarchic... we seek to dominate but wouldnt the ultimate form of domination in such a world be consuming our adversaries.

There must be some inclination for peace or at least the bonds of kinship and formation of society that prevent that kind of behaviour. Then again, even in more primitive environments, animals dont reduce themselves to eating one another. Well I'm sure some do... but for the most part even when food is scarce, most animals, us included have an aversion to eating one of their own. So that for me puts a new spin on the natural state of war vs. peace. Is it social order and the generation of mutual respect or instinct to survive as a species that prevents cannibalism?

I believe there was evidence found a couple years ago that suggested our ancient ancestors may have been cannibals, and a lot of human cultures have practiced the act. Also, chimpanzees (our closest relative) have a high rate of cannibalism, eating other chimpanzees as well as other primates.

However I do see what you're saying, and I also wonder whether or not this is more to do with social conditioning rather than nature? In addition, does the same apply to animals? Will for instance, a dog not eat another dog because of some sort of canine social conditioning or because of nature? Even animals have societies through their relationships with others of the same species, so I assume this must lead to social conditioning too?

Does anyone know, are pack animals less likely to practice cannibalism than loner animals?

Whatever the reason for why we dont eat our own kind, the benefits do largely tie in with nature, in that, if we did eat one another it would spread disease. It makes sense not to eat humans to prevent diseases. Although now I wonder, is this a cause or effect? If we did eat human meat, would be develop antibodies and immunity to human disease?

Hmm ok this is off topic as is so Ill stop

 

[S O F I]

because I believe in peace and justice as achievable objectives...

Achievable? Really? Has anything happened in the last 1000 years that would suggest such things?

 

[Rukas]

Achievable? Really? Has anything happened in the last 1000 years that would suggest such things?

The fact that we are still here and live in a somewhat civil society. If it was so unachievable as your reply suggests you believe, we would all have run wild and killed each other years ago.

 

[Rukas]

I read several people say that the natural state of nature is peace, I can not agree.

Nothing about nature is peaceful, nature is always moving, destroying and rebuilding.

The earths ectonic plates are always under pressure, they always move, cause earth quakes, change the face of the world, destroy coasts and rebuild them.

Even creation stemmed from a big bang if you believe that, and the universe is forever expanding. Stars crash in on themselves and give birth to new stars and black holes.

Nothing in nature is at peace.

Nature is not in a state of peace, nature is in a state of perpetual change.

Amara and I actually discussed peace or the concept or living in peace yesturday. I really think we can explain the big picture by looking at the small picture, breaking it down. If you look at atoms they have similar behavior to solar systems. Equations withing equations. But thats another thread. What I mean to say is, the human species is like sex.

Men always want sex, no matter what we say, its genetic, we need sex. The only time we dont want sex, is right after we've had it. The human species is the same, we want war. Not war, but we want to take over and expand. The only time we are at peace as a whole is after war, but soon enough we want it again.

Look at the late 1940's, WW2 was supposed to be the war that ended all wars. Everyone said they didnt want any war, but soon, people forgot, and went back to their old ways. Change.

The nature of nature and hummanity is one of change, not peace.

 

[PuffnScruff]

Achievable? Really? Has anything happened in the last 1000 years that would suggest such things?

really, has anything in the past 5000 years suggested that peace is achievable in man kind?

but it could happen

i dont know how i feel about saying capitalism is a part of war. i didnt know capitalism was around in 3000b.c.

 

[S O F I]

The fact that we are still here and live in a somewhat civil society. If it was so unachievable as your reply suggests you believe, we would all have run wild and killed each other years ago.

I was asking Amara whether she truly believes in her statement, and wanted to see what led her to it.


Now, Ruk, Are you saying that because we haven't run wild and killed each other years ago, we can achieve world peace and global justice? That's a bit over the top. There's middle ground.


Deep in my heart, I do believe that people are generally good, but I don't believe that we will ever achieve peace and justice. Our human characteristics prevent us from doing so.