The Danish Peace Academy

Eliminating the Causes of War

John Avery, H.C. Ørsted Institute, University of Copenhagen

The Institution of War and Human Nature

Humans are unique among living organisms on earth in having two modes of evolution - genetic and cultural. During the last ten millenia, cultural evolution has changed our way of life so rapidly that genetic evolution, which proceeds very slowly, has not been able to keep up. Therefore humans nature is not necessarily appropriate for the way of life which cultural evolution has given to us. Fortunately, humans are able to substitute learned behavior for instincts to an extent which is unparalleled by any other species. Ethical education is able to overwrite those parts of human nature which are inappropriate for civilized life.

It is interesting that many of the greatest ethical innovators and teachers in history lived at approximately the same time: For example, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, Lao-tzu, and Confucius all were approximate contemporaries of each other. All of them lived at the time when humans were making a transition from a life as tribal hunter-gatherers or herdsmen to a more settled, agricultural way of life, with large permanent settlements, cities and nations. The transition from tribalism to life in larger groups required a new ethic. Similarly, in our own time, the transition from nationalism to globalism will require a new ethic.

One aspect of human nature which is certainly inappropriate and dangerous in our own time is related to intergroup conflicts: This is what might be called the “communal defense mechanism”. In the 1930’s, J.B.S. Haldane and R.S. Fisher attempted to understand on the basis of the Darwinian theory of natural selection why humans are willing to die in battle. One would think at first sight that by sacrificing themselves in battle, humans would reduce their chance of producing progeny, and hence it was difficult at first for Haldane and Fisher to understand how natural selection could have acted to produce this aspect of human nature. They solved the problem by introducing the idea of group-selection. Haldane and Fisher pointed out that our early ancestors lived in small tribes, competing for territory on the grasslands of Africa. Since marriage within the tribe was much more frequent than marriage outside it, each tribe was genetically very homogeneous. In Haldane and Fisher’s model of human evolution, the tribe as a whole was the unit upon which the forces of natural selection acted. The tribe either survived or perished; and its survival was more likely if it was composed of individuals who were extremely loyal, protective, kind and altruistic within the group, but willing to kill or be killed in defense of the tribe. If an individual sacrificed himself or herself in battle for the group, the genes for self-sacrifice were carried into the future by the surviving members of the tribe.

The communal defense mechanism seems to be part of human nature, and it can easily be understood on the basis of Haldane and Fisher’s groupselection model; but it is totally dierent from ordinary aggression of the type which appears in conflicts between individuals. In Konrad Lorenz’s much praised and much-criticized book, On Aggression, he says: “An impartial observer from another planet, looking at man as he is today - in his hand the atom bomb, the product of his intelligence - in his heart the aggression drive, inherited from his anthropoid ancestors, which the same intelligence cannot control - such an observer would not give mankind much chance of survival.” One problem with Lorenz’s statement is that the word “aggression” is used here to denote a behavior pattern associated with intergroup conflicts, but the same word is often used to denote behavior in conflicts between individuals; and the two types of emotion and behavior are fundamentally dierent. So let us remove the words “aggression drive” from Lorenz’s statement, and let us substitute “communal defense mechanism”. Can we then agree with it? Certainly it is a strong warning that space-age science and stone-age politics form a highly dangerous mixture. We must be aware of the danger; but Lorenz does not sufficiently take into account the possibility of modifying human behavior through ethical education.

The fact that the institution of war has been eliminated locally within very large regions of the world shows that it is possible to eliminate war globally. What is needed is a new global system of governance, and a new ethic, whose core will be the loyalty of each individual to humanity as a whole. In a large, multi-ethnic nation such as the United States, within which war has been eliminated locally, the group or tribe to which all owe loyalty is taken to be the whole nation; and this perception is re-enforced by education and by the mass media. The fact that wider loyalty can be produced within such a large geographic area makes it extremely probable that a similar wider loyalty can be created globally, given the support of educational systems, religions, legal systems and the mass media. All these forces must be mobilized to support a new ethic, according to which individual humans will owe their primary loyalty to humanity as a whole.

One problem with Lorenz’s statement is that the word “aggression” is used here to denote a behavior pattern associated with intergroup conflicts, but the same word is often used to denote behavior in conflicts between individuals; and the two types of emotion and behavior are fundamentally dierent. So let us remove the words “aggression drive” from Lorenz’s statement, and let us substitute “communal defense mechanism”. Can we then agree with it? Certainly it is a strong warning that space-age science and stone-age politics form a highly dangerous mixture. We must be aware of the danger; but Lorenz does not sufficiently take into account the possibility of modifying human behavior through ethical education.

Political and Economic Aspects

It is extremely important that research funds be used to develop renewable energy sources and to solve other urgent problems now facing humankind, rather than for developing new and more dangerous weapons systems. Despite the end of the Cold War, the world still spends roughly a trillion US dollars per year on armaments, i.e. 1012 dollars - a million million. While this is going on, approximately 40,000 children die every day from starvation and from diseases related to malnutrition. The World Health Organization lacks funds to carry through an antimalarial program on as large a scale as would be desirable; but the entire program could be financed for less than the world spends on armaments in a single day. Five hours of world arms spending is equivalent to the total cost of thee 20-year WHO program which resulted, in 1979, in the eradication of smallpox. With the diversion of funds consumed by three weeks of military expenditures, the world could create a safe water supply for all its people, thus eliminating the cause of more than half of all human illness. Diversion of funds from military expenditures could also support programs for family planning. It is vital for these programs to receive adequate financial support if ecological catastrophe and widespread famine are to be avoided throughout the 21st century.

It is often said that we are economically dependent on war-related industries, but if this is so, it is a most unhealthy dependence, analogous to alcoholism or drug addiction. From a purely economic point of view, it is clearly better to invest in education, roads, railways, reforestation, retool- ing of factories, development of disease-resistant high-yield wheat varieties, industrial research, research on utilization of solar, geothermal and wind energy, and other elements of future-oriented economic infrastructure, rather than building enormously costly warplanes and other weapons. At worst, the weapons will contribute to the destruction of civilization. At best, they will become obsolete in a few years and will be scrapped. By contrast, investment in future-oriented infrastructure can be expected to yield economic benefits over a long period of time.

It instructive to consider the examples of Germany and Japan, whose military expenditures were severely restricted after World War II. The impressive post-war development of these two nations can at least partly be attributed to the restrictions on military spending which were imposed on them by the peace treaty.

Besides swallowing vast amounts of money which could much better be used for constructive purposes, the enormous global weapons industry has some directly negative economic eects. For example, during the Cold War, both sides poured small arms and land mines into Africa. These weapons are still there, causing great suering as well as political instability. This political instability, in turn, hinders development.

The almost unimaginably large amounts of money devoted to weapons and to military activity imply that war can be regarded as an institution. We might inquire to what extent this institution influences our other social structures - science, education, our political system, and the mass media. For example, looking at the ”Discovery” television channel, one sees disproportionately many programs devoted to weapons and to war, almost as though weapons and war were being advertised. Are these programs somehow encouraged and aided by the military? It would be interesting to know; and it would also be interesting to know to what extent the campaigns of our politicians are supported by war-related industries. Science itself is not free from the stigma of accepting money from war-related sources. For example, NATO has become a patron of science. The extent to which the institution of war has infiltrated all of our institutions makes the eradication of war a dicult task; but if civilization is to survive in the long run, we must carry through this great social reform.

Ethnicity and Religion as Causes of War

Humans have a tendency to be kind and protective towards members of their own group; but if they perceive the group to be threatened by outsiders, they are willing to kill or be killed to defend it. Undoubtedly this characteristic of human nature has its roots in prehistory, when our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in small, genetically homogeneous tribes, competing for territory on the grasslands of Africa. The evolutionary success or failure of a tribe depended on the “team spirit” of its members - on their loyalty and altruism towards each other, and their willingness to use violence in defense of their community.

At the most primitive level, religions are tribal in character. They reenforce tribal cohesion, and mark tribal boundaries, making intermarriage across these boundaries difficult and infrequent. On the other hand, the most widespread religions of our own time emphasize the universal brotherhood of humankind, so one would at first expect religion to be a unifying force in the world. However, in practice, religion has often sharpened the boundaries between ethnic groups and has acted to make marriage across these boundaries more difficult than it otherwise would be. Thus, in practice, religion has often proved to be a divisive force rather than a unifying one.

In his book entitled The Biology of Peace and War, Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt introduces the concept of “pseudospeciation”. He points out that humankind is a single species in the biological sense: Marriage is fertile across all known racial boundaries. However, humans have a tendency to divide themselves into groups, sharpening the boundaries of these groups by means of cultural and religious markings which are analogous to the scars by which some African tribes mark their own members. When marriage across the boundaries of such a group becomes very infrequent, the group becomes, according to Eibl-Eibesfeldt, a pseudospecies. It is not a real species, since marriage would be fertile if it took place across the ethnic boundaries. But since strong cultural and religious barriers hinder such marriages, the group might be thought of as a pseudospecies.

One can notice that the most bitter interethnic conflicts take place between groups which are competing for the same territory, especially when marriage across the ethnic and religious boundary between the groups is infrequent. For example, one can think of the bitter conflicts between the Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland, the struggle between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East, between Hindus and Muslims in South-East Asia, and so on. To the extent that religion has hindered intermarriage across the boundaries between ethnic groups, it can be blamed for these conflicts.

If the human race is to survive, it must have a new ethic, whose central theme will be that each individual owes his or her primary loyalty to humanity as a whole, rather than to a particular nation or ethnic group. Intermarriage across racial, ethnic, and national boundaries can do much to aid the process of welding all of humanity into a single family.

Relationships Between Human Rights and Peace

Modern weapons have become so destructive that, in the long run, civilization cannot survive unless we succeed in abolishing the institution of war; but if we are ever to do this, we must provide the peoples of the world with a global system of security to replace national armies. This will necessarily involve reforming and strengthening the United Nations. The fact that war has been eliminated locally within a number of large regions of the world demonstrates that it is possible to abolish war globally; and such regions can provide us with models as we work to build an eective system of global governance. Among the most successful of the political structures which have achieved local peace within large regions are federations; and examples of federations include the United States, Canada, Brazil, Germany, Switzerland and Australia. The European Federation also provides an interesting example, although it does not yet have sufficient powers to be classified as a true federation.

The federal form of government is attractive because it has shown itself to be strong enough to abolish war locally within large multi-ethnic regions of the world; but at the same time, federations allow as much as possible to be decided locally. Federations have several key powers which the present United Nations lacks - the power of taxation, the power to make laws which are binding on individuals, and a monopoly on heavy weapons within the region over which their authority extends. At the same time, the states which join together to form a federation retain a considerable degree of autonomy.

For example, the Constitution of the United States declares that “all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are retained by the several states”. The success or failure of a federation depends on how well the line is drawn between the issues which ought to be decided locally, and those which require central decisions. In most federations, basic human rights are guaranteed by the central government, and the poorest sections of the federation are given economic aid.

The question of human rights is treated ambiguously by the present United Nations Charter. On the one hand, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights seems to guarantee these rights to all the peoples of the world. On the other hand, the Charter states that national sovereignty must not be violated; and the Charter provides no mechanism for the defense of human rights. Furthermore, action by the United Nations to prevent persecution of minorities within nations can be paralyzed by a veto in the Security Council.

These ambiguities regarding human rights need to be clarified, and the possibility of effective action by the UN must be increased. Ideally, the UN ought to have the power to arrest and try individuals for gross violations of human rights. The establishment of a Permanent World Court with jurisdiction over war crimes and genocide is an important step in the right direction. As we move towards a true system of world law and world government, under which basic human rights and reasonable living conditions will be guaranteed to all the peoples of the world, existing federations can serve as valuable guides.

Resources and Environmental Degradation as Sources of Conflict

The famous book on population by T. Robert Malthus grew out of his conversations with his father, Daniel, who was an enthusiastic believer in the optimistic philosophy of the Enlightenment. Daniel Malthus believed that the application of scientific progress to agriculture and industry would inevitably lead humanity forward to a golden age. His son, Robert, was more pessimistic. He pointed out that the benefits of scientific progress would probably be eaten up by a growing population.

At his father’s urging, Robert Malthus developed his ideas into a book, the first edition of which was published anonymously in 1798. In this classic book, Malthus pointed out that under optimum conditions, every biological population, including that of humans, is capable of increasing exponentially. For humans under optimum conditions, the population can double every twenty-five years, quadruple every fifty years and increase by a factor of 8 every seventy-five years. It can grow by a factor of 16 every century, and by a factor of 256 every two centuries, and so on.

Obviously, human populations cannot increase at this rate for very long, since if they did, the earth would be completely choked with people in a very few centuries. Therefore, Malthus pointed out, various forces must be operating to hold the population in check. Malthus listed first the “positive checks” to population growth - disease, famine, and war. In addition, he listed “preventive checks” - birth control (which he called “Vice”), late marriage, and “Moral Restraint”. The positive checks raise the death rate, while the preventive checks lower fertility.

According to Malthus, a population need not outrun its food supply, provided that late marriage, birth control or moral restraint are practiced; but without these less painful checks, the population will quickly grow to the point where the grim Malthusian forces - famine, disease and war - will begin to act.

In the second edition of his Essay, published in 1803, Malthus showed in detail the mechanisms by which population is held at the level of sustenance in various cultures. He first discussed primitive hunter-gatherer societies, such as the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego, Van Diemens Land and New Holland, and those tribes of North American Indians living predominantly by hunting. In hunting societies, he pointed out, the population is inevitably very sparse: “The great extent of territory required for the support of the hunter has been repeatedly stated and acknowledged”, Malthus wrote,

“...The tribes of hunters, like beasts of prey, whom they resemble in their mode of subsistence, will consequently be thinly scattered over the surface of the earth. Like beasts of prey, they must either drive away or fly from every rival, and be engaged in perpetual contests with each other...The neighboring nations live in a perpetual state of hostility with each other. The very act of increasing in one tribe must be an act of aggression against its neighbors, as a larger range of territory will be necessary to support its increased numbers.

The contest will in this case continue, either till the equilibrium is restored by mutual losses, or till the weaker party is exterminated or driven from its country... Their object in battle is not conquest but destruction. The life of the victor depends on the death of the enemy”. Malthus concluded that among the American Indians of his time, war was the predominant check to population growth, although famine, disease and infanticide each played a part.

In later chapters on nomadic societies of the Near East and Asia, war again appears, not only as a consequence of the growth of human numbers, but also as one of the major mechanisms by which these numbers are reduced to the level of their food supply. The studies quoted by Malthus make it seem likely that the nomadic Tartar tribes of central Asia made no use of the preventive checks to population growth. In fact the Tartar tribes may have regarded growth of their own populations as useful in their wars with neighboring tribes.

In many of the societies which Malthus described, a causal link can be seen, not only between population pressure and poverty, but also between population pressure and war. As one reads his Essay, it becomes clear why both these terrible sources of human anguish saturate so much of history, and why efforts to eradicate them have so often met with failure: The only possible way to eliminate poverty and war is to reduce the pressure of population by preventive checks, since the increased food supply produced by occasional cultural advances can give only very temporary relief. Today, as the population of humans and the size of the global economy rapidly approach absolute limits set by the carrying capacity of the earth’s environment, it is important to listen to the warning voice of Malthus.

What would Malthus tell us if he were alive today? Undoubtedly he would say that we have reached a period of human history where it is vital to stabilize the world’s population if catastrophic environmental degradation and famine are to be avoided.

In Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population, population pressure appears as one of the main causes of war; and Malthus also discusses many societies in which war is one of the the principle means by which population is reduced to the level of the food supply. Thus, his Essay contains another important message for our own times: If he were alive today, Malthus would also say that there is a close link between the two most urgent tasks which history has given to the 21st century - stabilization of the global population, and abolition of the institution of war.

Misuse of Science

Science has given us great power over nature. If wisely used, this power will contribute greatly to human happiness; if wrongly used it will result in misery. Will we use the discoveries of science constructively? Or will we use science to produce more and more lethal weapons, which sooner or later, through a technical or human failure, will result in a catastrophic war? The choice between these alternatives is ours to make, and it is an ethical choice.

Thus, far from being obsolete in a technological age, wisdom and ethics are needed now, more than ever before.

Ethical considerations have traditionally been excluded from scientific discussions. This tradition perhaps has its roots in the desire of the scientific community to avoid the bitter religious controversies which divided Europe following the Reformation. Whatever the historical reason may be, it is still customary to speak of scientific problems in a dehumanized language, as though science had nothing to do with ethics and politics. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that science, ethics, and politics are so closely related that in the future they must always be seen as a single whole. The conventional training of scientists needs to be changed in order to equip them for this task.

The great power of science is derived from an enormous concentration of attention and resources on the understanding of a tiny fragment of nature; but this concentration is at the same time a distortion of values. To be effective, a scientist must believe, at least temporarily, that the problem on which he or she is working is more important than anything else in the world, which is of course untrue. Thus a scientist, while seeing a fragment of reality better than anyone else, becomes blind to the larger whole. For example, when one looks into a microscope, one sees the tiny scene on the slide in tremendous detail, but that is all one sees. The remainder of the universe is blotted out by the researcher’s concentration of attention.

The system of rewards and punishments in the training of scientists produces researchers who are highly competent when it comes to finding solutions to technical problems, but whose training has by no means encouraged them to think about the ethical or political consequences of their work. The education of a scientist often produces a person with a strong feeling of loyalty to a particular discipline, but without sufficient concern for the way in which progress in that discipline is related to the general welfare of humankind.

To remedy this lack, it would be very desirable if the education of scientists could include some discussion of ethics, as well as a review of the history of modern science and its impact on society.

The explosive growth of science-driven technology during the last two centuries has changed the world completely; and our social and political institutions have adjusted much too slowly to the change. For example, modern weapons have made nationalism obsolete and dangerous; but the world’s political system is still based on the idea of completely sovereign nation-states, each with its own army. The great problem of our times is to keep society from being shaken to pieces by the headlong progress of science - the problem of harmonizing our social and political institutions with technical change. Although all segments of society need to participate in the solution of this problem, the scientific community must play a special role.

Just as medical doctors have a special responsibility towards their patients, scientists have a special responsibility both towards human society and towards the natural environment. Because of the analogy between the special responsibility of doctors and that of scientists, it has been suggested that engineers and students of science should take an oath on graduation, analogous to the Hippocratic Oath. A number of forms have been suggested for this oath, but all of them emphasize the need for a profound sense of responsibility in exercising the enormous power over nature which modern science has placed in our hands.

Science has given us great power over the forces of nature. If wisely used, this power will contribute greatly to human happiness; if wrongly used, it will result in misery. In the words of the Spanish writer, Ortega y Gasset, “We live at a time when man, lord of all things, is not lord of himself”; or as Arthur Koestler has remarked, “We can control the movements of a spaceship orbiting about a distant planet, but we cannot control the situation in Northern Ireland.” Thus, far from being obsolete in a technological age, wisdom and ethics are needed now, more than ever before.

Modern biology has given us the power to create new species and to exert a drastic influence on the course of evolution; but we must use this power with great caution, and with a profound sense of responsibility. There is a possibility that human activities may cause 20% of all species to become extinct within a few decades if we do not act with restraint. The beautiful and complex living organisms on our planet are the product of more than three billion years of evolution. The delicately balanced and intricately interrelated communities of living things on earth must not be destroyed by human greed and thoughtlessness. We need a sense of evolutionary responsibility - a nonanthropocentric component in our system of ethics.

In many ways, the scientific community is very well qualified to help in the task of building a more unified world. Science is, after all, essentially international. The great expense of scientific research can best be justified when the results are freely available to the entire international community. Furthermore, the laws of nature have a universal validity which scientists from every nation can agree upon. Almost every important scientific meeting is international, and not only international, but also characterized by a spirit of close friendship and cooperation. Also, certain human values seem to grow naturally out of the results of scientific research:

Relativity theory reminds us that the laws of nature are independent of the observer. Albert Einstein, the founder of relativity, was always unwilling to accept the prejudices of a particular time or place as representing absolute truth. Both in his scientific work, and in his moral and political judgements, he freed himself from the narrow prejudices of a particular frame of reference. Respect for objective truth and freedom from personal bias thus seem natural to anyone who has worked with relativity.

Not only relativity theory, but also thermodynamics, ought to give scientists special insight. Knowledge of the second law of thermodynamics, the statistical law favoring disorder over order, ought to make scientists especially aware of the danger of our present situation. The second law of thermodynamics reminds us that life itself is always balanced on a tightrope above an abyss of disorder: Destruction is always easier than construction. It is easier to burn down a house than to build one - easier to kill a human than to raise and educate one. It might take only hours to destroy our civilization, but it has taken millions of dedicated hands millennia to build it.

Biology at the molecular level has shown us the complexity and beauty of even the most humble living organisms. Looking through the eyes of contemporary biochemistry, we can see that even the single cell of an amoeba is a structure of miraculous complexity and precision, worthy of our respect and wonder. This knowledge should lead us to a reverence for the order and beauty of all life, underlining the importance of a principle which religion has always taught. The basic biochemistry of all life on earth has been shown to be the same. Thus, the insight of St. Francis, who called birds and animals his brothers and sisters, has been confirmed by modern biology.

Modern astronomy has revealed the majestic dimensions of the universe, with its myriads of galaxies, each containing billions of stars; and humans have even voyaged out into space. The beauty and majesty of the fathomless universe, which men and women of our time have been privileged to see through the eyes of science, should make us not arrogant, but humble. We should recognize the vastness of what we do not know, and the smallness of what we know.

What kind of world do we want for the future? We want a world where war is abolished as an institution, and where the enormous resources now wasted on war are used constructively. We want a world where a stable population of moderate size lives in comfort and security, free from fear of hunger or unemployment. We want a world where peoples of all countries have equal access to resources, and an equal quality of life. We want a world with a new economic system, a system which is not designed to produce unlimited growth, but which aims instead at meeting the real needs of the human community in equilibrium with the environment. We want a world of changed values, where extravagance and waste are regarded as morally wrong; where kindness, wisdom and beauty are admired; and where the survival of other species than our own is regarded as an end in itself, not just a means to our own ends. In our reverence for the intricate beauty and majesty of nature, and our respect for the dignity and rights of other humans, we as scientists can feel united with the great religious and philosophical traditions of mankind, and with the traditional wisdom of our ancestors.

Top

fredsakademiet.dk.