Post No. 39: China and the U.S.: Part One: Are Humans Naturally Violent?

Post No. 39: China and the U.S.: Part One

Are Humans Naturally Violent?

The issue of China and its massive economic and military strength has been in the news, often with alarm at perceived Chinese threats to the U.S.  Many politicians on the right and the left believe that their bellicose comments towards China are justified. They feel a military clash with China is only a matter of time.  This post and the next one will examine this issue.

I decided to begin these posts by investigating whether humans are violent by nature and therefore a war with China is inevitable.  The impetus for this was a New York Times article I read by Kurt Gray, a social psychologist.  He described how archeologists jumped to the wrong conclusions about early pre-humans based on a 1924 discovery of the bones of a child etched with grooves.  They incorrectly assumed that this was evidence that humans were violent and evolved as ruthless hunters.  Subsequent archeologists piled on this theory and it took root in popular culture.  But in the 1990s the archeologist Lee Berger and others found that the 1924 findings were incorrect.  The bones that were found were much more likely the site of an Eagles’ nest, the scratching on the bones caused by an Eagles’ beak, not violent, prehistoric humans.

Kurt Gray cited several instances in our culture that have absorbed this concept of humans being naturally violent, and suggests that it can even color our daily life in how we view one another, including a “predatory” assumption of the other side in politics.  The novel “Lord of the Flies” and the violent apes in the movie “2001: A Space Odyssey” are two examples he gave.

Yet this concept existed well before any discoveries by archeologists.  For example, in 1850 Alfred Lord Tennyson described nature as “red in tooth and claw”.  In 1651 Thomas Hobbes described humans in the natural state as “nasty” and “brutish”.  As described in martinsblogs.com Post No. 34, this might be one of reasons Hobbes advocated for a strong monarchy or dictatorship over a democracy.  A dictator is needed because of peoples’ inherent nature to quarrel and become violent.  On the other hand, although John Locke recognized that in the state of nature “there are many things wanting”, he posited that people could peacefully agree to a “compact” that defines how they are to be governed.  Perhaps we should be thankful that Locke, who was arguably the main influence on the thinking of our founding fathers, had a slightly more optimistic view of human nature.    

My takeaway from all of this is that it is not a certainty that  humans are “naturally” violent and that war among Great Powers, such as between China and the United States, is only a matter of time.  In martinsblogs.com Posts Numbers 13 to 15 on Great Power Relations, I suggested there are two main factors leading to wars between Great Powers: Fear and Nationalism.  I believe both these factors can be managed in a positive way by wise leaders.  We have the opportunity as a world to change how we habitually view our adversaries and competitors.  China’s emergence as a Great Power can, in concert with the United States, dampen the “anarchic” state of affairs among Great Powers. This won’t happen unless we have wise leaders, with support from their citizens, who can imagine a new way forward.  This topic will be explored in more detail in the next post.

APPENDIX:

For extra readings on whether humans are naturally violent, see below for Grok AI’s response.  Here is the question I asked:

“Give a list of references and opinions with a brief description on this topic: are human beings naturally violent or naturally peaceful”

And here is AI’s answer:

“Here's a concise overview of references and opinions on whether humans are naturally violent or peaceful:

### References:

1. Steven Pinker - "The Better Angels of Our Nature":

   - Opinion: Pinker argues that humans have become less violent over time, suggesting an inherent capacity for peace. He attributes this to various societal developments like commerce, education, and governance.

   - Description: Through extensive data analysis, Pinker shows a decline in violence from prehistoric times to the present, supporting the idea that peace is a natural human state that can be cultivated.

2. Robert Ardrey - "African Genesis":

   - Opinion: Ardrey proposed the "Killer Ape" theory, suggesting that violence is an intrinsic part of human nature, derived from our evolutionary ancestors.

   - Description: His work popularized the notion of an inherent aggressive instinct in humans, although much of his theory has been criticized for oversimplifying human evolution.

3. Frans de Waal - "The Bonobo and the Atheist":

   - Opinion: De Waal highlights empathy and cooperation as natural behaviors, using bonobos as a comparison to humans, suggesting peacefulness might be as natural as aggression.

   - Description: His research indicates that social animals, including humans, have a natural inclination towards peace, cooperation, and reconciliation.

4. Richard Wrangham - "Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence":

   - Opinion: Wrangham argues that male violence in human society has deep evolutionary roots, observed also in chimpanzees.

   - Description: He posits that male coalitionary violence, including warfare, could be seen as an adaptation, suggesting natural violence in human behavior.

5. Douglas Fry - "Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace":

   - Opinion: Fry challenges the idea of an inherently warlike human nature by examining societies with no warfare and lower levels of violence.

   - Description: His studies suggest that peace is not only possible but can be the norm in certain human societies, indicating cultural influence on violence.

### Opinions:

- Psychological Perspective: Some psychologists argue for a dual nature where humans have both peaceful and aggressive tendencies, which are expressed based on environmental and social cues.

- Anthropological View: There's debate on whether hunter-gatherer societies, which some see as reflective of human nature before civilization, were peaceful or violent.

- Biological Perspective: Biological determinists might argue from genetics or evolutionary biology that aggression has survival benefits, hence it's part of our nature.

- Cultural Relativism: This view suggests that human behavior, including violence or peacefulness, is largely shaped by culture, not innate nature, indicating flexibility in human behavior.

- Philosophical Angles: Philosophers like Hobbes (viewing humans as naturally in a state of war) vs. Rousseau (seeing a natural state of peace) offer contrasting views on human nature.

In summary, the debate is far from settled, with compelling arguments on both sides. The interaction between biology, culture, and environment seems to play a significant role in determining human behavior towards violence or peace.”