This blog will not deny the reality that violent acts may happen but rather focuses on the conditions fueling the emergence of mass aggression instead. Some authors, under the influence of moral relativism, might write hundreds of pages about the topic but the premise of human sovereignty demonstrates the obvious: war essentially became an invention when sedentary lifestyles took over and that monetary value began to control (human and non-human) resources, all of which made societies more complex.
Some of you may recall one of our best videos Life VS The Patriarchy last year and available on BitChute.
If you read The Scientific American article, there is a snippet briefly explaining that controlling the lineage was helpful to determine the pecking order regulated by the first top-down models. But since our society is still based on such a premise, the author does not delve further into this matter. This attitude is pervasive though, especially among people supporting social ranks being the direct result of managed affluence.
It has not changed over the millennia. Today we've another name for such a strategy-control and the latter is referred to as organized currency wars and crises.
As much as war is immoral, the notion of affluence is deeply connected to the latter mainly because the wealthier one is the more interested in power and the protection of the lineage. These aspects are embedded in monetary value. If we look back at history, we have first to wonder why war still is offered as a solution while weaponry becomes more sophisticated over the years.
Anybody agreeing with war today -- regardless of its justification -- is suffering from serious cognitive dissonance, however. Mass consent for war is always induced by deceptions.
Interestingly enough, studies on violence among chimpanzees living in the wilderness have been linked to increasing human interference with their habitat. An induced response to human disturbance, in other words, explains the SF column. Darwinism is a very flawed stance and can no longer be justified today. The animal kingdom is so much more cooperation-driven than we think among non-carnivorous. Carnivores generally attack unsuspicious, weak, and old prey.
Though seeing it this way is falsely validating the impossibility to eradicate mass violence between humans. It is deep programming and to fix the latter we have to address our relationship with the material world because they're only two options offered by the system: either one belongs to the affluent class or tries to escape a rat race. The attempt to flee is a paradox in itself as it too perpetuates the framework one seeks to stay away from.
So where do we move from there since we have to consume more and more to generate profit? How to undo the harm caused by 10,000 years of programming and superstition? Money represents the circulating information, Alan Watts points out, it has no value in itself. We agree, it is a pure abstraction!
We'll have to reevaluate the notion of value morphing every human being into a "resource" because this is causing systemic hypocrisy masking the real stakes. We are in big trouble, no doubt about that.
And the choice lies between a job to make money to have the right to eat and a roof while being slaves to technology... or having a vocation that drives individual happiness and the joy of sharing to ensure world harmony and the peaceful use of technology.
War Is Not Part of Human Nature (2018)
A close look at archaeological and other evidence suggests that collective killing resulted from cultural conditions that arose within the past 12,000 years. Scholars split into two camps that might be labeled hawks and doves. Many archaeologists venture that war emerged in some areas during the Mesolithic period, which began after the last Ice Age ended around 9700 B.C., when European hunter-gatherers settled and developed more complex societies. But there really is no simple answer. War appeared at different times in different places. For half a century archaeologists have agreed that the multiple violent deaths at Jebel Sahaba along the Nile in northern Sudan occurred even earlier, around 12,000 B.C. There severe competition among settled hunter-gatherer groups in an area with once rich but declining food sources may have led to conflict.
The preconditions that make war more likely include a shift to a more sedentary existence, a growing regional population, a concentration of valuable resources such as livestock, increasing social complexity and hierarchy, trade in high-value goods, and the establishment of group boundaries and collective identities.
Later, centuries after agriculture began, Neolithic Europe—to take one example—demonstrated that when people have more to fight over, their societies start to organize themselves in a manner that makes them more prepared to go ahead and embrace war.
Margaret Mead's 1940 article: “Warfare Is Only an Invention—Not a Biological Necessity.”
Margaret Mead's war theory kicks butt of neo-Darwinian and Malthusian models (2010)