The next critical question is war unique to humans. This is important, because we want to establish if war is something that all living organisms, in a sense experience, or is there something uniquely human about war? We can celebrate this and talk about how humanity has given this great gift to the earth, of war, or we can say there's something about human society that produces this great evil. I'm not going to take a position one way or the other. I simply want to say to what extent is human war a very unique characteristic in our our world? Now, war is common among ant species, for example. We see the kind of behavior that we associate with war. There's a great deal of coordination. There is a clear hierarchy, there are complex maneuvers, there are strategies, watching two ant colonies or two ant populations confront each other is quite an exercise in complexity and in sophistication. Moreover we find that non-human primates use aggression as a way to establish or challenge and defend hierarchies within groups. So, we find a great deal of violence among our closest relatives. That is the non-human primates. So we find the kinds of complexity that we associate with war in ants, and we find the kind of violence we associate with war in primates. However, humans are the only species to participate in war in a non instinctual manner. That is, that we do not practice war simply because of a change in chemical signals. We do not practice war simply as a result of a personal challenge, or for personal reasons, rather we're conscious that we are practicing this somewhat abstract form of conflict that doesn't necessarily have to do with us. We are aware of it. We are the only species that plans and executes mass killing, while being aware of what we're doing. This is critical. We know what we are doing. We have a choice in war to a certain extent. We can participate or not participate. We're aware of its horror, yet we continue doing so. Now again, that elevates us to a certain extent from non-human species, or we could say that it brings us down to a level even below them. Now, the next question is war natural? Okay, is war natural or instinctual? Now we find that aggression is clearly linked to the hypothalamus. It is also linked to testosterone. So there is some basis where aggression is a chemical product in human beings. That aggression has to do with a change in physiological state, but, I want to argue that aggression is not solely a product of those internal or psychotic processes. That is that, aggression does not arise naturally or spontaneously. But it's actually a response to, for example, rivalry for possession, that is a refined aggression comes when two groups or two individuals both want the same thing. We find that aggression seems to elevate when there is an intrusion by a stranger and of course the construction of a stranger. Who is a stranger is very much of a historical and contextual process, but that aggression seems to increase whenever we feel that this person or this group that we cannot identify, comes in. And, aggression comes from, the frustration in a kind of activity. So, we have to understand aggression, in sort of the social context. When are we going to get aggression? We're going to get it when groups or when individuals confront each other. Either fighting about a particular resource, either acting out of fear for each other, or, if frustrated because someone else is seen as preventing them. We also understand that there's a great deal of influence of the environment on aggression. For example, there is a very, very strong argument between environmental depletion and warfare. That is, that as an environment becomes more challenging, as the resources available from the environment become more difficult to obtain, as there's more competition for, for, for these fewer resources, we're going to see quite a bit of warfare. We're going to see a great deal of this complex organization. We also find that exposure to television for example, or television violence I should say, not the thing itself but to televise violence, to alcohol again, or to weapons increases the probability of violence. That it's not just environmental depletion but also the kinds of stimuli that the environment produces. Whether there's psychological in the case of television programs or video games. Whether it's the availability of a resource such, as a gun. Or it's simply the chemical change brought about by taking drugs or alcohol. What we also find, though, despite this apparently natural or chemical, is that avoidance of pain is actually much stronger instinct than desire to kill. That is, if we're going to talk about some kind of balance in the instinct of human beings, we find that avoiding pain is, will often trump any kind of aggression. So, we find that most people are very fearful. Look at this soldier's eyes. Look at the look of sheer, yet controlled terror in his eyes. Now what's interesting then, is that we have a we, we might have these aggressive instincts. We might have these chemical processes, but we also have a parallel set of processes that dictates that we protect ourselves, that we try to avoid harm. Yet war requires yes the expression of this anger, the expression of this aggression, but it also has to create the kinds of social mechanisms, by which we can squash that fear. Through which we can squash, in a sense, that instinct of self preservation. I want to argue that the relationship between the physical makeup and war, is that part of the brain programmed to respond to some circumstances. That is, that we are hard wired to respond to particular environmental contexts, or particular situations, with some kind of aggression. But that this does not control every one of our actions, there is agency in war, we cannot simply ascribe war to our animal sides, but we have to take responsibility for the very humanity, if you will, of war. [BLANK_AUDIO]
