Peace, Violence, and Human Nature

[Chiron Jackal]

source - Star Trek's Utopia: Yes We Can! (http://www.livescience.com/space/090507-star-trek-utopia.html)

Tricorders and transporters are cool, but the most radical invention on "Star Trek" may have been its vision of a peaceful humanity.

Sure, humans are always getting into fights on the show's original and spin-off series, but generally with other, less "enlightened" alien species. Earth in the "Star Trek" universe is an egalitarian, utopian planet that has long ago shrugged off the habit of war.

People in Star Trek's vision of the 23rd century use their time and talents to explore the universe, create art and probe the mysteries of science.

Sounds nice, huh?

While some have dismissed this aspect of the show as its most fanciful element, psychologists and political scientists say it might not be so unrealistic.

"I do think humans might someday reach more peaceful coexistence if we don't destroy the planet first, though I doubt it will be utopia," said Dennis Fox, emeritus professor of legal studies and psychology at the University of Illinois at Springfield. "If utopia does come, it won't be because human nature changes, or because some governmental authority or alien race forces it upon us, but because we manage to create new social structures more conducive to satisfying human needs and values."

Is violence human nature?

Human nature is compatible with a peaceful existence, Fox and other psychologists say.

An international group of 20 scientists convened in Seville, Spain, in 1986 by the Spanish National Commission for UNESCO came to the same conclusion.

"Just as 'wars begin in the minds of men,' peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace," the group wrote in its Seville Statement on Violence.

Not everyone agrees, though. Some scientists say aggression is a fundamental human trait built into us by thousands of years of evolution.

A 2008 study published in the journal Psychopharmacology found that when mice display aggression, their brains are rewarded with dopamine, a pleasure-inducing neurotransmitter. The findings are thought to extend to humans.

"We learned from these experiments that an individual will intentionally seek out an aggressive encounter solely because they experience a rewarding sensation from it," said study leader Craig Kennedy, professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee.

Maybe both peace and violence are part of human nature, some say.

"Humans are wired with great potentials for altruism, caring and compassion but also for destructive competition and for killing," said Marc Pilisuk, a psychologist at Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center in San Francisco.

What's our problem?

Besides human nature, the main hurdle to peace is bad government, some scientists say.

"A better world, if it comes into being, depends not so much on technological fixes as on breaking down centers of power so that we can all play a significant role in deciding matters that affect our daily lives," Fox told SPACE.com.

Pilisuk agrees.

"If there is a common enemy around which humanity can unite, it is the institutions that protect privilege for an elite network with extraordinary power and minimal accountability," Pilisuk wrote in an e-mail. "At present, hopes for peace look most promising in the decentralized myriad of creative local actions of people wanting leaders to respond to their true needs."

Taking this idea a step further, Richard Koenigsberg, a former professor of psychology at Queens College in New York City, argues that it's not governments, but the idea of countries at all that creates war.

"Warfare is linked to the human attachment to 'nations.' As long as people believe that countries are the most significant thing in the world and that 'nations have the right to kill,' then warfare will persist," he said.

Perhaps if humans come to see ourselves as residents of a single planet, rather than citizens of individual nations with specific interests, war will be unnecessary.

"War is not part of human nature," Koenigsberg told SPACE.com. "It is intimately linked to our psychic attachment to countries."

Already peace on Earth?

Hope for a nonviolent society might not have to wait until the 23rd century. Peace on Earth already exists in some places.

"Although our own society has a good deal of violence, there are societies which are pretty nonviolent — no wars and very few murders and rapes — and they are not fighting aliens," said psychologist Joseph de Rivera, director of the Peace Studies Program at Clark University in Massachusetts.

The Web site Peacefulsocieties.org lists current and past nonviolent societies. Examples include the Batek people of Malaysia, the Himalayan Buddhist Ladakhi people, The Mbuti rainforest-dwellers of Central Africa, and even the American Amish.

These communities have found ways to resolve conflicts without war, so maybe the rest of us can, too.

"I'm hopeful for two reasons," de Rivera said. "1.) Most people don't like to be dominated by the powerful. 2.) Although we don't have aliens to fight against we do have nasty viruses and global warming that we have to unify to deal with."

There's nothing like a really big problem to bring people together.


-------------------------------

So, do you think we're really hard-wired for violence? We can see the problems of the world all around us, but where do you think they actually come from? Is it the product of a faulty government? Is it our idea of nations and that we're Us and you're You?

Jonathan Frakes says that Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, once said that in the future "there will be no hunger and there will be no greed," and that Gene genuinely believed this.

Do you think we can ever reach such an idealistic state?

[Klark]

While I share Gene's idea (because I myself am a Trekkie) it's not possible to ignore the fact that we are hard wired for violence. But we are also hard wired for peace.

Humans are pack animals. We need the security of a peaceful village in which to belong. Without that seedling of peace, we would be nothing but creatures of violence.

People say that crime has risen, but I have to wonder if someone did the math on world population numbers vs. numbers of crime what the outcome would be. Also, there are many peace keepers in the world, although some of those peace keepers joined the forces for sheer thrill of violence and others fight for peace. Once again, it's two sides of the same coin.

We have hackers (obviously) and we have people who create software for free because they believe a person has a right to have tools available to them. Peace is a matter of balance in a persons mind.

[Chiron Jackal]

Do you ever think we'll have enough individuals who want balance that we can build a society that wants balance?

[Klark]

Nearly every society already wants balance. That's why there are police or laws and rules to follow. The trouble is each society clashes with another on what they believe is the balance, they clash on religion and sometimes even over skin color.

The trick will be getting the societies to step back and see that who you worship, what your skin color is and what is considered taboo doesn't matter as much as peace.

There are few warriors, soldiers, generals, kings and presidents in history who will not say they wage war for peace. But therein lies the problem.

It's like trying to start a fire with water. Peace begets peace. War begets war. Even when we achieve a peaceful planet where humans work together toward one common goal, let's say that's education, there will be someone who will want to fight against all of it.

I've often thought that it would be interesting if all of a sudden, money didn't matter. If we were told that what we do will help someone else and it comes full circle to help us, well, it would be very interesting.

For instance, you wouldn't have to pay rent, you'd simply move in. In return, you would go to work and be a plumber, a journalist, a dishwasher, a cook or whatever your job was. You'd no longer get paid and no one would have to pay you. Making sure that your job was done would be the only way to show that you've done anything.

Take away the money, and for years it would be really, really bad as people with crappy jobs didn't want to do them anymore. On the bright side, in a few years, people would realize they could do what they love because getting educated in that area wouldn't cost a dime.

It's all very interesting to sit and think about.

[Chiron Jackal]

Nearly every society already wants balance. That's why there are police or laws and rules to follow. The trouble is each society clashes with another on what they believe is the balance, they clash on religion and sometimes even over skin color.
It's arguable that groups like gangs don't want balance, but I agree with the overall premise of your statement; that we want balance but for one reason or another cannot actually manifest balance, primarily due to a lack of understanding.

I sometimes wonder if we can really overcome problems like that. One of my favorite Buddhist authors, Brad Warner, says that anger is one of the biggest problems in non-attachment is anger. People like to feel angry one one level or another.

I worry that not enough people will be able to give up such feelings towards one another or that it will only happen after some sort of global catastrophe.

[Klark]

Ah, it's true. We do like to feel angry. But if that anger is directed at something other than ourselves, we find the peace we've longed for.

Look at 9/11. The world united with us in mourning and the world's anger was directed at terrorism. Though that anger faded with time and memories, for a while, we were a peaceful world.

As a species, our emotions are very much like a child. We give in to them and allow them to control us. If our collective world's anger is not directed at one thing, we use it to fight amongst ourselves. We want control yet we are not yet capable of mentally and emotionally handling that control. Perhaps when we learn to control our emotions better, we'll achieve the peace we want.

And if I'm not mistaken, that's why the Vulcans lived peaceful lives and the Romulans lived like warriors. Same race, only difference was a part of them made strides in emotion control and others allowed themselves to feel.

[Chiron Jackal]

Ah, it's true. We do like to feel angry. But if that anger is directed at something other than ourselves, we find the peace we've longed for.

Look at 9/11. The world united with us in mourning and the world's anger was directed at terrorism. Though that anger faded with time and memories, for a while, we were a peaceful world.
That may work for you and I and even a good number of other people. However, standing in amazing contrast are people like my mother who make it their life's work to hold bitter grudges until death. Brad Warner says one of the reasons we like to be angry is because it lets us feel right. For example, if I'm mad at you for cutting me off on the freeway (a common source of anger in this part of California) it's not just because you're a shitty driver, it's because I am a good driver and your foolish behavior almost made me crash in spite of my own fantastic driving.

Part of letting go of anger in that case is deciding that you're not worse a driver than I am. Few people want to let go of that feeling of superiority and no one wants to admit to sucking.

As a species, our emotions are very much like a child. We give in to them and allow them to control us. If our collective world's anger is not directed at one thing, we use it to fight amongst ourselves. We want control yet we are not yet capable of mentally and emotionally handling that control. Perhaps when we learn to control our emotions better, we'll achieve the peace we want.
That I can certainly see, presuming we can convince people to control said emotions. That's something I've been doing work with in my own study of Buddhism. I'm still aware of emotions like anger or sadness and the like, but it's like they're sequestered away from the part of me that feels, so I'm just watching them from a detached point. Besides being helpful it's also just plain cool to experience. :p

And if I'm not mistaken, that's why the Vulcans lived peaceful lives and the Romulans lived like warriors. Same race, only difference was a part of them made strides in emotion control and others allowed themselves to feel.
Correct! They were originally a savage race engaged in technologically advanced tribal warfare until Surak preached emotional control, logic, and pacifism. Those destined to become the Romulans left Vulcan, and while they seem to have embraced much of Vulcan's logic, they're still an overly emotional people. They're kind of scary to watch - It's hard to find a race in Star Trek as paranoid as them.

Because of that I've always found the Vulcan/Romulan relationship to be especially compelling and really rather eerie in how it relates to human civilization.

[WhiteHowlerGalliard]

I'm a person deeply tied to emotions, perhaps because, for a time, I was denied outlet.

But just because I feel, and feel very strongly, does not mean that I'm going to pursue acts of violence.

In that, of itself, makes me believe that humans can exercise enough physical restraint, despite their emotions, to work towards a more peaceful world.

And who knows? We may end up being Vulcans and Romulans in the end. We won't know until we, as a whole species, actually try.

[Klark]

And who knows? We may end up being Vulcans and Romulans in the end. We won't know until we, as a whole species, actually try.

In many ways, we already are. Amish do not partake in acts of violence, while their "English" cousins (that would be us) do. They live a completely different style of life than we do. In many ways, that makes them the Vulcans while we are the Romulans.

[McKitty]

To be quite fair to the survival instinct, humanity as a whole will never develop into a purely peaceful utopian society. Most likely the outlet for violence will turn outwards towards anyone not part of said utopian society, or against alien races, should we meet them.

[Chriz]

Until we become telepathic and literally share consciousness, we'll always be violent.

[Vendetta]

Nearly every society already wants balance. That's why there are police or laws and rules to follow. The trouble is each society clashes with another on what they believe is the balance, they clash on religion and sometimes even over skin color.
I don't society wants "balance" per se, so much as we DON'T want anarchy, which would result from not having laws and social rules.

I think the big problem is talking about society as a whole is acting as if it has some sort of wants or desires or even a personality. Individuals have those things but I don't think society as a whole does. There is just too much diversity to generalize like that.

[Klark]

Judging from what I've seen in the global arena as well as in some other threads on this site, as long as religion exists, there can never be peace.

[Chiron Jackal]

Until we become telepathic and literally share consciousness, we'll always be violent.

Judging from what I've seen in the global arena as well as in some other threads on this site, as long as religion exists, there can never be peace.

This does not bode well for us, and it's kind of cramping my attempts to be optimistic.

While I tend to agree with what Chriz is saying, doesn't Klark's post about peaceful groups like the Amish lend to the idea that we could at least be a whole lot less violent?

As for religion, I don't think religion makes it a total impossibility, just a whole hell of a lot harder.

For example, you can't really say that Buddhists are running around beating up non-Buddhists.

[Klark]

I suppose I should've been more precise in what I was saying. Let me try this:

As long as a religion born of violence or sustained by violence exists, there will never be peace.

[blueeyes]

From my limited experience, it's a matter less of balance or fighting anarchy. Those are great for news headlines or fun slogans. Very few of those I've met like the laws that apply to them, though; people build their own rules of what is and isn't acceptable behavior, and very seldom resist moving those rules because of a helpful sign or a jumble of legalese.

It's more about controlling others. Those other people have different rules, often ones so different on such fundamental levels that conversation is impossible and coexisting is tough at best. It's not just, or primarily, the stuff of anarchy; most people develop rules against murder or what they're willing to steal, but things like they're just the start. It's about having people do what you believe is the best, regardless of what they want.

Take sexuality. Even if we agree on most things that you'd see on the street, my view on no disparities of power at least seemed noteworthy to Chriz, if not plain irrational. I know there are a lot of places where LV246 and I do not see eye-to-eye on the matter, and I don't even have the right words to talk through the matter. While I can't say for certain, I doubt LV246 and Chriz hold identical stances, either. I expect we have different lengths we'd go to uphold those rules in others, but there are points where we can not stand by.

People care about love, go into a defending rage over those harmed and unable to protect themselves, struggle against chains, press against boundaries. People define themselves partially by memories and interactions, but they make memories and interact with people by pressing the boundaries of their world.

I can imagine a world where essentials like food, drink, room, and board are so inexpensive that they'd be literally too cheap to meter. I expect humanity to lose its place as apex animal if it does not. But I pray there will still be blood.

It's not that anyone's 'hard wired' for violence. There are pacifists who once really enjoyed the feel of a good fight out there, and dozens of other sorts of dopamine addicts that can deal with withdrawal. People can break from much worse addictions.

It's that there are things worth fighting, and things worth fighting for. There always will be. If not over food and water, over glorified toys; if not over toys, over territory; if not over territory, over pride or status or lovers; if not over those, than over control of the other. Religion's often a tangent at best. Only the sustenance of life can really be a fulfilled resource. Everything else there's always more or better, and more or better means conflict. Maybe you can push some of that conflict to non-violent or less-violent means, but some percentage will slip through.

You want people to leave blood off the table, you'll need them to not care, not have defending fury, not struggle.

[Chriz]

I guess tonight's my night for agreeing with Blueeyes.

[LV426]

Humans will only be peaceful with each other when they find something/someone else to hate and fear more than they do the differences in the human race.

Nature is built around war not peace.

[Vendetta]

Humans will only be peaceful with each other when they find something/someone else to hate and fear more than they do the differences in the human race.

Nature is built around war not peace.
http://fullbodytransplant.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/watchmensquid.jpg

Also, I missed this thread when I was out of town, but man, blueeyes' post should be bolded, stickied and bronzed for an amazing amount of truth and well-reasoned thought. And while I already thanked the post itself, I think it bore mentioning.

[twulfbynight]

Humans will only be peaceful with each other when they find something/someone else to hate and fear more than they do the differences in the human race.

Nature is built around war not peace.

That is so true. I'm an animal loving type of person and I used to argue that animals were less violent than people. Then I took some time out to spend time with my pals of the wilderness, and I couldn't stop thinking, "Holy hell, animals fight all of the time." The difference is, we are a race geared toward the use of technology. With more advanced technology comes more capacity for destruction. When you think about it, it is in the nature of all beings to be violent but humans are the most dangerous due to the destructive capabilities of many of our creations.

[Necro Mortis]

This has been mentioned before but for what it’s worth, I don’t think humans will ever be totally peaceful. I’ll try to be as concise as possible but I wouldn’t begin to pretend that I can be as eloquent as Blueeyes' post, which was beautiful by the way, kudos.

Personally, I think Human nature is something primal that we will never be able to dispose of, it’s what we are. A Utopia will never be achieved until everyone is working towards the same common goal and whilst many people may share a vision there will always be those that think differently or purposely exploit others for their own gain. Even if everyone were to be given an equal amount of everything and, effectively nobody should technically want for anything, I think you would still have those who would steal or cheat in order to be superior or for that bit more comfort.

For a Utopia to work shouldn’t everyone work towards one goal? In that case, there needs to be a drastic change in humanity. I know there are a lot of people who would be quite satisfied to do nothing at all to help themselves and others, even if handed the opportunity on a plate; I’m sure you all know at least one person who would rather pretend they have a disability than go to work. And think about that on a larger scale, if some people are unwilling to go to work to help themselves, how many would be happy to work to a common goal to help others?

Even if one of human nature’s most primal urges to be violent were stifled, we’d be violent in other ways, I’m sure. If we came across another race of being we’d probably want to pull one of them apart, simply through our intense curiosity, to see what would happen in order to learn and understand. Anyway, I’m rambling now. I can’t do long posts for too long until I go off on a tangent.

A Utopia cannot exist whilst humans still exhibit primal behaviour such as emotion, and without emotion we’d cease to be human.

[Chriz]

A Utopia cannot exist whilst humans still exhibit primal behaviour such as emotion, and without emotion we’d cease to be human.

I'd venture to say that without emotion we'd cease to exist, period. A purely emotionless mind will eventually determine that the most efficient and pain-free path is to just shut down.

In order to continue to live, you need a part of yourself that can't be reasoned with -- even if it's just a nugget in the pit of your mind that wants without consideration for anything else. But that same part is also responsible for the things in yourself that you don't necessarily want to be there.

I think the ideal is to continually strive to reduce the influence of that nugget while understanding that you'll never eradicate it entirely. Or, conversely, to understand that your inability to eradicate it entirely is no reason to give up on trying to reduce it.