War & Human Nature: Crash Course World History 204

Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course World History, and today we’re going to respond to your many requests and talk about a controversial subject: War. So here at Crash Course we’re really not that into the history of war, partly because we feel it’s been discussed well elsewhere and partly because we haven’t really figured out a way to tackle it. Mr. Green! Mr. Green! Nonononono, that’s all history is: It’s a series of wars. Well, me-from-the-past, I can certainly see why you would think that, because that’s how many history classes are organized. But, in fact, I don’t think that history is primarily about war. But, I mean, humans find all kinds of ways to die, like, you could teach a whole Crash Course World History on smallpox. In fact, we kind of did that last week. Ultimately, I find cooperation and trade more interesting than the violent and destructive aspects of world history because I think they probably, ultimately, matter more. But I do have to admit that war is a pretty big deal in world history. So we better spend some time talking about it, at least in the abstract. [Intro] So today we’re gonna focus on the question of why people fight. And, more specifically, why human beings go to war. Like, to put it in another way, we’re going to look at whether making war is part of “human nature”. This gets into some nit-picky “How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?” questions about nature, but we’re just gonna put those aside for now. So are human being hard-wired to fight and kill each other? Well that’s a question that philosophers have been asking for a long time. Like, Nietzsche summed it up this way: “I am by nature war-like. To attack is among my instincts.” But he was Nietzsche. He had a number of instincts that I’m pretty sure were not universal. Anyway, that attitude might explain why Nietzsche is so popular among the group most likely to go to war: Young men. Now among slightly less scary philosophers, the question of humans’ war-like nature is often described as a debate between Hobbes, who saw humans as war-like and violent, and Rousseau, who thought that humanity was naturally peaceful until civilization came along. And we’ve heard echoes of this debate throughout our study of world history. Like, were we better off as foragers, when we had way more time for scoodlypooping? Stupid civilization, always ruining everything. Let’s go to the thought bubble. So was Hobbes right that life in the so-called “state of nature” was nasty, brutish and short, or was Rousseau right that it was amazing? Well, without a time machine which would settle a lot of vexing historical questions and would also allow me to go back and fix my terrible, terrible mistakes at the eighth grade cotillion, our best guide to what people were like in the “state of nature” comes from anthropology. Making guesses about the very distant past based on observations of modern hunter-gatherers is extremely problematic, but it’s the best we have to go on. Well, that and archaeology. So, what do anthropologists tell us? Well, it doesn’t look so good for Rousseau. Many anthropologists suggest that in pre-civilization social orders, things were pretty violent. In Australia, for example, killing and fighting was among the main causes of mortality, and archaeology has revealed evidence of warfare going back thousands of years. Now, some of these anthropological conclusions are controversial, but when combined with cave paintings and fossils of humans who pretty obviously were killed by other humans, it seems clear that we’ve been killing each other for what historians like to call “a long-ass-time”. So Hobbes seems to be right that life in the “state of nature” was probably violent and brief. But was it war? Again, anthropologists can give us some guidance here. Some studies have reported relatively large-scale group confrontations similar to battles, but these tend to be largely symbolic, and they often don’t result in much killing. Most of the actual violence that hunter-gatherers commit against each other takes place during raids, in which one group sneaks up upon another and attacks. So in the end there may be like a very violent middle path between the individual killings and like, Cain v. Abel, and the modern wars that we see today. But why are we seemingly so hard-wired toward violence? Well, it might be evolution. Thanks, thought bubble. So, I wanna be really clear about something. We may have aggression “in our genes”, but you can’t kill people! And also, you don’t have to. Many of us – most of us, in fact – make it all the way through life without killing a single person. So I think it’s going too far to say that our genes have, like, made us into stone-cold killers, but it is possible that aggression is an innate trait in humans. And under the right conditions, maybe it finds its expression in violence and war. Now, we should all be very skeptical about applying evolutionary biology to cultural characteristics like warlike behavior, because Darwin’s ideas have been misused to explain all sorts of unpleasant things. Especially in nineteenth-century concepts about race. You know, if you’re in a structurally privileged position in the social order, it’s easy enough to be like, “Huh, I wonder how I got here. Probably natural selection.” When in fact, you know, slavery was not a function of biology; it was a function of oppression. And another reason we should be aware is that we often refer to cultures “evolving” very quickly like often in a generation, but biological evolution takes a lot longer. That said, there are a few ways that evolutionary imperatives could contribute to a warlike human nature. We’ll start with the idea that it is a biological imperative to pass on genetic traits to successive generations. Because our close relatives and kin contain the most genetic material in common, we naturally want to protect them and ensure the continued survival of our genes. So we might be expected to fight in order to protect members of our kin group. But then again, trying to protect your family from harm is somewhat different from killing other people’s families. Well, here’s where it’s helpful to remember that for the vast majority of human history, war consisted of raiding. It was about taking stuff from other people’s kin group so that your kin group could have that stuff. For 99% of human history, that’s how we fought. Not as organized states warring with each other. So let’s stop even thinking about, like, groups of humans or even individual humans and think for a second about genes. Insofar as genes want anything, they want to go on. Life wishes to continue. And for those human genes to go on, they needed humans to go on, and for that, we need two resources: Food and sex. Both of which could be quite scarce in the many millennia before we settled down into agricultural-based societies. It occurs to me they are also quite scarce in most American high schools unless you consider cheetos food. So you can easily see how the competition for these two resources could become violent. It might provide an evolutionary explanation for war. Like, skill in fighting meant more access to food in the form of better hunting grounds. It also meant more food, because you were better at fighting the food, too. And there’s a more horrifying aspect to this as well, which is that in many of these raids, women were the principal goal. They were to be acquired. Also, as we know from the Odyssey, fighting has a tendency to breed more fighting. Like, you kill my friend, it makes it more likely that I’m going to kill you. I’m not going to kill you, but seriously, don’t kill any of my friends. We see a bit of this phenomenon in a description of intertribal warfare among North American Plains Indians. “In an atmosphere charged with intertribal distrust, even an imaged slight by an outsider could lead to retaliation against other members of his tribe… It was much easier to start a war than to end one.” And as you may have noticed, that’s still true today. But okay, if war was a response to scarce resources, why do we have wars now? Resources are relatively easy to acquire. Well, that’s a complicated question, and we’re going to talk next week about how war may actually have contributed to civilization and proven socially useful by helping us create kingdoms and states. But another way to examine the question of why we fight is to examine what soldiers have said about why they fight. So here’s one such voice, although I wanna be clear that there are millions of them. Karl Marlantes was a Marine lieutenant in Vietnam who wrote about his experience in the novel “Matterhorn” and a memoir called “What It Is Like to Go to War”. That book includes a number of uncomfortable revelations about the way soldiers often think and feel about war. For one thing, Marlantes tells us that soldiers achieve a sense of transcendence through fighting, by becoming part of something bigger than themselves. Also, he says: “There is a deep savage joy in destruction, a joy that goes beyond ego enhancement.” Now, today’s soldiers rarely fight for food or mates, but they do fight for each other. And not wanting to let your comrades down, feeling loyal to the group, those are powerful motivators. More viscerally, fighting is exciting to humans. It gets the adrenaline pumping. According to Marlantes, “Combat is the crack cocaine of all excitement highs.” Neither of those things sound at all fun to me, but I guess we’re all wired differently. So what do we do with the fact that for many of us, there is joy and power in killing? How do we respond when a former pilot tells us, as he whispered to Marlantes, that he enjoyed napalming the enemy, saying: “I loved it. I lit up the entire valley.” How do we respond to Marlantes’s revelation that during Vietnam, he “ran toward the fighting with the same excitement, trembling and thrill as a lover rushing to the beloved”? Well, I think Marlantes reminds us that despite our biology, soldiers, just like the rest of us, have free will. They make choices. Marlantes also notes: “Choosing sides is the fundamental first choice that a warrior makes… The second fundamental choice of the warrior is to be willing to use violence to protect someone against intended or implied violence.” Now, for many humans over millennia, that choice hasn’t been much of a choice. You fight for your kin group. But in at least many parts of the world today, that choice is a choice. Now, it may be that these uncomfortable revelations help to explain why we might want to search for a biological or evolutionary explanation for why humans go to war. Maybe that’s preferable to the idea that humans just take pleasure in the activity of fighting and pursue it merely for its own sake. But just as there’s a danger in celebrating warfare and its transcendence, we need to be careful of explaining war merely as an outgrowth of evolutionary necessities because such explanations can lead to a fatalistic conclusion that war is inevitable. But it’s not. The cycle of violence that you see in the Odyssey gets broken all the time in human history. And yes, it is much harder to end a war than it is to start one, but it is not impossible. When we get carried away by biological explanations, we forget that while humans may not have evolved all that much in the past one thousand years, our institutions have. And that’s happened because of human choices that go far beyond the desire for food or the need to reproduce. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced here in the Chad and Stacey Emigholz Studio in Indianapolis and is made possible with the help of all of these nice people, and with your help through Subbable.com Subbable is a voluntary subscription service that allows you to support Crash Course directly, so we can keep making these educational videos free, for everyone, forever. Thanks to all of our Subbable subscribers, thanks to you for watching, and as we say in my hometown: Don’t forget to be awesome.

Comments 100

  • God I miss you John Green.

  • Woah this series got dark.

  • I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that 90% of history is war.

  • I thought you would say scofalypooping instead of sex

  • This was the most Snowflake explanation I’ve ever heard.

  • Wowsers! This is truly brilliant and insightful – and thoroughly researched. I found it eye-opening!

    When I studied history in college it was still in the "Great Man – War Drives History Eurocentric" phase. "Lying propaganda is almost certainly the answer necessary to the pitch where men kill and women give their men and boys to be killed…" Major General Smedley D. Butler. And yes, that is his real name.

  • Nice political sticker on your pc

  • eat omhyfryfyggfhtfuuh

  • Actually, there is no such as war in human beings. But if you hear about the two Prophet Adam's sons, it will pass through generations until Day of Judgement.

  • This nerd guy explaining about war is like me explaining about the third trimester and what to expect.

  • Who saw that the other guy by hobbs looks like messi

  • There’s no glory in peacetime.

  • well..humans are actually evolved animals,as long as there is struggle for basic needs,there will be war(fight)…and larger part of this fight can be cleverly avoided by talking skillfully…for modern wars ,they happen because of greediness of a particular head of state and to get support from their supporters.

  • Smarm

  • I like that futurama time machine

  • lot of words but not much said

  • It's worth noting that Nietzsche never went to war. He did, however, conduct fierce intilectual war against the ideas of his time. It's possible that that is what he meant, though we can't be sure.

  • The Catholic Church explains precisely how to wage just war: you can't get married until you have completed a mission on Holy Orders and return to your homeland for Holy Matrimony. This ensures only just wars are waged of conscience and that one will accelerate the conflict as peaceably and rapidly as possible. Everyone was happier under this system…literally every single soul.

  • You made a statement that surprised me….."slavery was about oppression." Oppression-The state of being subject to unjust treatment or control. Definitely not what slavery was about. Oppression is* utilized to enforce slavery. Slavery is plain an simple about one thing and that's labor!
    I used is instead of was because unfortunately, this is not something humanity has surpassed. There are currently more people enslaved then ever b4.

  • I love you, John. But you argument is not borne out by the evidence you present. As the marine LT noted, the dirty secret is that war is our highest calling. We love it. And we love it because it is literally in our DNA. And why is it in our DNA? Because for 100,000 years the best killers passed on their genes, making ever better killers. As the Judge said: “the ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner”

  • John green looks like my history teacher

  • 0:50 not to show hitler I like it!

  • In my country.. there was phenomenone called " tawuran". Where people just fight each other without reason.. they fight just for fun.. having a great adrenaline pump.. this make me thing that human naturaly born not only for peaceful time but also for war time.

  • mmmm futurama reference (time machine)

  • Humans are power hungry so someone will always want something from someone else and sometimes it’s easiest to just take it by force …always have to be prepared

  • Chad and Stacey studios………

  • Please make a podcast

  • Petition for crash course podcast

  • John Green talking to Nietzsche: You're experiences are not universal

  • Now i know why battle royale is so popular

  • War is the consequence of scarcity.

  • A war with Mexico is in order….drive them all south into Guatemala….build the wall there where it only needs to be 200 miles long.

  • Rss, money, woman

  • John is virtue signaling. He wants to be on the side of the angles and all the peace lovers out there. To paraphrase John, "Why do some soldiers like war, they have free will. Different folks different strokes. I would never like war". But com'on, we all know John like to consume violence from movies, games, books etc.

  • On another episode of whitewash!

  • "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." -Anonymous

  • "To ask why we fight is to ask why the leaves fall, it's in their nature."
    – The Mist of Pandaria

  • A few months ago I watched a documentary that explained that syphilis was not a disease we got from the native Americans, but an ancient European skin disease that we gave to them.
    The researches explained that the disease originated around the Mediterranean and was transmitted through skin contact and it affected mostly children like windpox.
    Centuries later it mutated probably because people in colder climates wear clothes that cover their skin more and also because people moved away from rural areas into large port cities.
    More research needs to be done, but if this turns out to be 100% true, we owe the native Americans a huge apology and restore in honor (again).

  • "if u r in a privileged position…" i think i better leave this place

  • He said "chad and stacy" in wut context?

  • I just saw war as:
    “The time when people decided that taking matters to the extreme necessary, despite anything.”
    “Every man for himself, and whatever reasons he fights for.”

  • Can you do one video on Lebanon. Hizbollah is about to start a war. The government does not care to be stronger than Hezbollah. Christians are arming themselves against Muslims. Sunnis are arming themselves against Shias. And they're inundated by Syrian refugees.

  • The suppression of warlike attitudes are like the suppression of sexuality and are, therefore, bound to fail.

  • War > the need and urge for Humans to trim the Population, it’s a natural action based on mainly 1.Religion,
    2. A despot Leader want to control Countries beyond its own boundaries. 3. Historic obscure claims that the land was theirs 500 years ago. Look at human History, covered in wars , slaughter, genocide, and many pathetic reasons of wanting to kill each other. A whole industry has developed called the Industrial War Complex, it’s sole purpose to build better and bigger weapons to kill people more efficiently. Nuclear Weapons, has the capability of killing the whole Planet in 24 hrs. It’s built into Humans, explain wars other than above.

  • I'll give you a great reason to think about this one: "*as long as Humanity exists there's always going to be conflict/battles/wars, as a human race we are a very destructive race and whatever we touch we destroy.*"

  • Wars a good thang

  • Most of us go through life without killing someone ????…. well, I guess you don’t have to when you can get elected representatives to write legislature to kill others for you. It certainly is a much cleaner way to go about it.

  • Even if i say that i'm against wars and killing people i understand that if someone hurts my family or loved people i will kill them .

  • evil of human in disguise – war war war biggest hypocrite

  • Those who doesnt understand history, are doomed to repeat it!

  • I'm an evulotionary biologist so I see EVERYTHING through that lens, naturally, war as well.

    I'd have liked a comparison to our closest living ancestors and a meditation on violence itself.

    I know chimps go to war with other chimp groups. Bonobos AFAIK are much less confrontational. As it so happens chimps are also more violent inside their social groups than chimps.

    I think fundamentally anger and aggression helps you feel you've been treated fairly. And of course we all feel our own survival is fair. Which explains the rush of joy at fights. Same reason an orgasm feels good: it helps our survival to like doing things that help us survive.

    I often see leaders at least up to the medieval kings very similar to a leader of a group of chimps. The groups success relies on the ability of their leader to defend or even expand their territory (which is a mammal way of doing things anyway). And like with any social group if the leader's ineptness causes the group to suffer there's ways to mitigate the leader's incompetence or do away with them altogether.

    I firmly disagree with us having free will. We do however have competing motivations. If we'd only bash each others heads in at every minor slight our species wouldn't be very fit for survival after all, so the aggression always needs to be tempered with social bonding and mechanisms to reduce aggression. Which is how everything from smiles to diplomacy work.

    Our lives have also changed drastically and under predetermined will we will make different choices in different circumstances. Western people don't starve, we aren't struck down so much by mysterious deadly diseases. In fact even me who's chronically ill and currently unable to work live a life that is downright luxurious compared to even the highest people in the social order a few hundred years ago. There's still wars for resources but now it's also about cultural dominance. Which might be is a uniquely human reason for warfare. I wish the crows and the dolphins were a little more forthcoming there. I know they pick on outsiders just as much (like ANY social species, who knows maybe (some) bees are racist).

    I think fighting and wars ARE in our genes. But so are compassion, making up after the fight and cooperation. Hunting is in our genes too and yet modern humans found ways to channel the hunt into so many other things. A hunt for information, a ball game, paint ball, stuff like that. It can be the same for war. After all nobody is going to claim WWE is a proper war.

  • In credits, you forgot to add the globe!

  • The idea that nomadic hunter-gatherer bands conducted organized raids to abduct women seems implausible. These are people who had no permanent settlements or fortifications, and who had to forage every day for food. Any captured women would obviously have had to join in the food-gathering activities. What's to stop the "prisoners" from just walking off and going back to their own band?

  • If competition is necessary let's deal with it through athletics/sports/martial arts/ boxing. Olympic games were a phenomenal way to bring countries together in the spirit of competition without having to use guns, nukes, weapons of mass destruction. Lets head that direction.

  • Humans are the most violent & aggressive creatures on earth, a lot more violent than animals.

  • For the first time in history America turned war into a business(WARMONGERING), killing children for profit.

  • So that’s why natural man is enemy of god..it cause man to love war…

  • War war war!!!

  • Mr. Marlantes' (probably spelling that wrong) a count reminds me of Hindu mythology around destruction gods taking joy in fighting and killing, and the idea that there's a warrior class whose great pleasure is a just war.

  • I came here because I wanted to provide a student with extra material in addition to a short article in the Economist that concerned, along with other factors like poverty and stagnation, the effect of climate change on upheaval and war, and expected to see more of that. The perspective you provide is related to internal rather than external factors. Anyway, thank you very much for a most entertaining video

  • 1.Honest(Jin) 2.Good(Soen) 3.Beautiful(Mee). These are the 3 titles of Miss Korea 1st 2nd 3rd place of their Miss Korea in this order. This is what they think about ranking of human quality because this is their nature seeing quality of human nature. I don't think other countries have such standard like Koreans does when it comes to seeing value of human quality. I think this is right.

  • War. War never changes.

    The end of the world occurred pretty much as we had predicted. Too many humans, not enough space or resources to go around. The details are trivial and pointless, the reasons, as always, purely human ones.

  • War was just on a smaller scale back then nothing has changed much it just got a lot larger in scale

  • Awwh poor little cartoon john.

  • Interesting that you used The Odyssey as your Homeric example rather than The Iliad. Thanks for making! I enjoyed watching.

  • Ur starting the history of war at about 3000bc by looks of it
    Humans were around for wayyyyy longer and were prob more peaceful

  • Know why theres war?
    Same reason u wont go and pick up the homeless and bring him into your house
    Theyre the other and we need to protect ourselves

  • men fight for the same reason other male animals fight……for the ability to reproduce.

  • 1:50 when he said hobs i thought the other guys name would be shaw

  • This dude reminds me of my grade 11 social teacher on SO many levels!

  • watching this because I'm writting a story and need a better uderstanding for war. I can't just have an evil character wanting start war for nothing

  • 3:23 …that assassination was so uncannily Assassin's Creed I had to put my pasta down to check. Alexios, is that you?

  • Stop thanking the damned thought bubble! Its a damned animation, it does not think, it does not have emotions. I mean really just move on to the next sentence. Is the guy who makes the thought bubble animations over there having some sort of self esteem issue?

  • Honestly, I wish I had the power to spectate history over nearly anything… I’d love to see how Stone Age warfare truly went down, and how organized it was compared to the romans or something. Honestly, it’d be brutal as hell tho ???

  • War, war never changes.

  • Evolution is mystery

  • Western slavery is not about biology? Well IQ tests beg to differ.

  • Does/did the "state of nature" really exist?

  • Ummmm…. I get that you're trying to explain things quickly, but this is very misleading. For example Hobbes used his hate of the "natural" to found his contractarianism – further justified by altruism. To understand Hobbes, it would obviously help a lot to understand Locke. Anyone with half a brain cell understands that the "natural" way of life is nonsense, and so the "rebuttal" of Rousseau is unfounded and highly misleading (not that his ideas were sound). Despite this I liked the concrete commentary on war which made up most of the video.

  • Slavery IS not was, ( because it is still happening), a product of Economics, not some cruelty of WHITE people.

  • How about just being honest. So tired of people's hidden agendas. Tell the TRUTH, humans are greedy, selfish, and cowardly.

  • So we’ve been killing each other for an exceedingly long time this is nothing new the question I think that should be discussed is the Y is it really because of tribal rivalries is it really because of human racism or was the human race put up to this

  • World War 2 Happened, Because of PsychoPath Madman Hitler!

    His Tyrannical Oppression and Wickedness was Nearly Going to Take Over The World.

  • to some how stop this , humans invented sports; and specialy for ruling ones couse there are more easly to start one hunting on first and mostly , animals – it's covering most basic elements of ''blood lust' ; and if you look closely on what place we live in (planet with oxigen which alowed us to live and killing us at the same time) this behavior is kind fundamental – basicly every thing on this planet if it could , would kill you – smaler you are more 'dangerusly' you exist to others (the complex of … being a spoiled brat)

  • Deires and mind manipulation.

  • WAR.

  • collectivism is a human DNA practice as a social being.. ONLY elites in human societies are able to unite collectives to kill for 'food' and other necessities created artificially by the elites

  • VIKINGS raided due to crop failures..

  • 21 ST CENTURY WARS are by elites

  • Cormac McCarthy gives voice to his thoughts on war and human nature rather masterfully through the character of Judge Holden in the book Blood Meridian. To me it's one of the truest expressions of the reality of mankind.

    "The judge cracked with the back of an axe the shinbone on an antelope and the hot marrow dripped smoking on the stones. They watched him. The subject was war.

    The good book says that he that lives by the sword shall perish by the sword, said the black.

    The judge smiled, his face shining with grease.

    What right man would have it any other way? he said.

    The good book does indeed count war an evil, said Irving. Yet there’s many a bloody tale of war inside it.

    It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.

    He turned to Brown, from whom he’d heard some whispered slur or demurrer. Ah Davy, he said. It’s your own trade we honor here. Why not rather take a small bow. Let each acknowledge each.

    My trade?


    What is my trade?

    War. War is your trade. Is it not?

    And it aint yours?

    Mine too. Very much so.

    What about all them notebooks and bones and stuff?

    All other trades are contained in that of war.

    Is that why war endures?

    No. It endures because young men love it and old men love it in them. Those that fought, those that did not.

    That’s your notion.

    The judge smiled. Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all.

    Suppose two men at cards with nothing to wager save their lives. Who has not heard such a tale? A turn of the card. The whole universe for such a player has labored clanking to this moment which will tell if he is to die at that man’s hand or that man at his. What more certain validation of a man’s worth could there be? This enhancement of the game to its ultimate state admits no argument concerning the notion of fate. The selection of one man over another is a preference absolute and irrevocable and it is a dull man indeed who could reckon so profound a decision without agency or significance either one. In such games as have for their stake the annihilation of the defeated the decisions are quite clear. This man holding this particular arrangement of cards in his hand is thereby removed from existence. This is the nature of war, whose stake is at once the game and the authority and the justification. Seen so, war is the truest form of divination. It is the testing of one’s will and the will of another within that larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god. Brown studied the judge.

    You’re crazy Holden. Crazy at last.

    The judge smiled."

  • Death over suffering

  • Humanity sucks

  • To sum it uo
    Hiw words
    I am to attack as nature is my instinct
    To easy explain in my eyes
    An instinct / fight or flight response is based on counter effect of a threat response.

    Darhma states that if a stone is not thrown in the pond there will be no ripple affect.

    That being said a superior based hierachy prokoes conflict of those who oppose.
    The natural being of superiority is not explained.
    When you apply the concept of superiority it must say that it is a natural instinct.
    Is it though?
    Where does superiority begin?
    It can be land of australia as an indegenious person.
    Tribes would destrcut other tribes for women, land, resource as you said.
    But it cannot explain the origin of superiority

    I belive the question of this could have been explained so
    “Indegenious member, did not share women ( birthing mother) to another, this could be based on ownership, a decision made the person themselves.
    Reasoning and resulting in conflict.
    Through recycled and habitual routine of joy and power in ownership (chemically produced endorphines) as an addiction became repeated action.
    This would explain from the start of time that we have been addicted to power and ownerships, not abiding people as value but non-superior and below ourselves.

    From the beginning of time it would state (not sharing) would create conflict, why dont we share? Would answer that pride and somewhat ignorance in others needs creates devaluation of another.
    As a counter response of being devalued comes conflicting core beliefs and views.

    The origin of this would have been
    Education of a singular systamatic approach
    Sharing is caring
    Would have been broken, thus creating the first individual to go against the systematic laws.
    When an individual will find gratitude and a “high” so speak in their own actions, it creates the belief that the mistreatment of others serves as a mutual yet temporary benefit onto the person doing it / (the chemically produced high of non abiding)

    This in today society can be seen as smoking weed for example
    The point of its significance is , your not meant to do it, which follows on creating a sense of adrenaline in fear we may be caught, now that it is legalised it has somewhat lost its value in life and to others. Now being seen as used by those who frequently use it, therefore it has value to those who use it (ANOTHER THING ALTOGETHER)

    When you apply this concept it explains that education of the same beliefs and values will impact both a persons choice and action.
    Applying that ideology would mean that we began with NO BELIFS and NO VALUES thus bringing us to a TRIAL AND ERROR like world.
    What is good for people what is bad.

    Now applying christianity we bestow one education, values and beliefs.
    empowering, doesnt cause conflict onto others, appraisel and appreciateion for the origin being “god”.
    The conflict here
    It is systematically IMPOSSOBLE to applie a one way moral/religion/values etc in this day and age because we as a people have our own thoughts.
    Therefore we will “CONFLICT” always with another’s values and beliefs
    the practice of acceptance, (accept the-beliefs and values of others without compliance)
    Would imply mutual respect for one another, with respect comes trust, with trust comes unification.

    If we look at it from an trial and error perspective yes SCIENTIFICALLY we would all be on the one MORAL. ACCEPTANCE

    if we look at it from christianity
    YES we would all be on the one moral.

    Either way theoretically and by fault of equation we result in the same social behaviour, actions etc the two will just look different.

    I have faith in my god but i also have understanding in science
    I dont agree that science was the be all and end all origin of existance.
    But what i do believe is that science is a measure tool of which still has an unexplained origin
    Here to explain is a diagram

    (BIG BANG)

    See before even what science can measure back to before the big bang, christianity explains that of itself must still still have an origin
    Not an hierachy of power

    This i belived is miscommunicated which as we can agree = misinterpretation
    With hierachy becomes a LESS & MORE
    the two less and more will create conflict between the two
    Im better then you IMPLIES that SOMONE is worse then you = CONFLICT

    acceptance implies

  • You should have continued to stay away from the subject of war. Like a blind horse. I love all your other stuff though.

  • Slavery was not for the sake of oppression, it was created by greed.

  • Hope springs eternal. "War and its ravages have blighted the world; the education of woman will be a mighty step toward its abolition and ending, for she will use her whole influence against war. Woman rears the child and educates the youth to maturity. She will refuse to give her sons for sacrifice upon the field of battle…" ~ Baha'i Faith

  • thanks a lot for wearing a NIGERIAN jersey ??. May God bless you ✌?

  • I like to think of humans as a computer program and a humans top priority is survival of themselves, but other factors such as our high intelligence, and the fact we are highly social changes how we behave to war and affects our decisions

  • since you believe that we randomly came out of the big bang and more recently from monkeys, then blame it on the monkeys

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *