Is war, in some sense, natural?
Here’s an example of a recent book (reviewed by the Washington Post) that makes the argument that it is:
And here’s the book at Amazon:
And, of course, there is always Desmond Morris’s “The Naked Ape.” It is probably the first post-World War II book of the “human war and aggression is natural” genre.
And here’s a historian’s perspective on the earliest debates on the issue (prior to WWI):
I find something distinctly fishy in the “war is natural” argument that I can’t quite put my finger on. I notice, for example, in the Washington Post review of “Sex and War”, the following observation:
“Sex and War” is an important effort to raise our species’ consciousness of its ugliest behaviors. Yet there are problems with its argument. The authors know that bonobos, as near to us genetically as chimps, have no such aggressive pattern, but they don’t explain why they focused on chimps instead.
If humans are as near, genetically, to bonobos as we are to chimps, then how are we to decide whether it is more “natural” to act like peaceful hippie bonobos or aggressive chimps?