The Sudden Decline of WarsteemCreated with Sketch.

in #history8 years ago (edited)

Or how a perennially compulsive human obsession has become so passé

This will be a hopefully provocative and specific rumination on the topic. Would love some debate in the comments!

Violent conflict has been a key mechanism in the process of evolution by natural selection. Right from the simplest of organisms to the grand battles of wildebeests, violence between individuals often decides who survives and who dies without an offspring. Ultimately, this shapes the evolution of the species and the ecosystem in general.

Interspecies violence is usually limited to either hunting or territory. Sure, some species are cannibalistic, but intraspecies violence is largely about mating and territory. Some species - such as birds of paradise - have pretty graceful competitions to decide which male gets the mate. But for a majority of species it is indeed victors of violent conflict that pass on there genes.


A gentler alternative to War. Source.

More "intelligent" species - mostly mammals - form societies where individuals work together. Many of these societies are triggered by violence, with a dominant male being selected. Going further up the "intelligence" ladder - mostly primates - peaceful societies are formed, where both males and females hunt and defend their territory together. Of course, even with primates, there are competing societies fighting for the same territory, and this is the prelude to human warfare.

For humans, war is much more than just a conflict to gain territory, hunt for food, gather resources and secure a safe future for offspring. Homo sapiens have been stuck in a pretty exotic place on the evolutionary ladder. We are just about smart enough to create our tools, be aware of our existence, but not smart enough to reject our base impulses and instincts.

At the very core, humans have pretty much the same instincts as our mammalian - or indeed, reptilian - cousins. Our common primary goal is to compete for the best mate. Where things get muddled is how we interpret these impulses. Enter, the ego.

We don't just fight wars to secure enough territory for survival - we want more of it. We want to be the best. We want to defeat everyone else, conquer the entire world, and be the last man (clan) standing. That is what it means to be human.

And so, it begins - human warfare.

It doesn't just begin, it advances. Thanks to the process of evolution by natural selection, violent behaviour develops over the ages - of course, only the most violent victors get to pass on their genes, while pacifists die alone. As humans develop more advanced tools, so more deadly become the violence.

The only hope is our intelligence and compassion develops faster than lethality of our creations. That is precisely what is happening, and that is why violence has dropped off the cliff in the past century.

Site 117 and prehistoric warfare

It's safe to speculate that intergroup violence has been around since the beginning of homo sapiens a couple of hundred thousand years ago. Indeed, it was probably around since the beginning of the Stone Age 3 million years ago. The tools used for hunting would be just as effective for warfare - something homo erectus individuals must have perfected.


Source: British Museum

Site 117 represents the earliest known battle scene. Over 60 skeletons were dated back over 13,000 years - with men, women and children involved.

But this post is not about the history of war. It's about the sudden decline of it.

The Mongols

Humankind has seen it's fair share of violence, but The Mongols will always remain the crowning achievement. For a century, they destroyed much of Asia and Europe, resulting in an astonishing 40-60 million deaths. That's nearly 15% of the world's population at the time. Heck, they managed to conquer Moscow - which the likes of Charles XII, Napoleon and Hitler failed so miserably at!


First seen on Crash Course

Imagine the entire population of the North America and Western Europe being annihilated entirely - that's about the scale of destruction Genghis Khan's descendants exercised.

Not to mention, an immediate consequence of the Mongol conquests was the Black Death, which killed off up to half of Europe's entire population. The Mongols left the world in ruin, and it'd take a Fallout-style nuclear apocalypse to outgun the Mongols.

Post-Mongols to World War II

After a brief couple of centuries' peace while the world recovered from Mongolocalypse, the Thirty Years' War erupted in Europe in the 17th century. Since then, for the rest of the millennium, war and peace became a part of human existence. Each century, there would be at least one major war, interspersed with periods of peace and minor conflicts. Despite advancements in technology, wars never reached the heights of the Mongols - diplomacy was advancing at the same pace.


Source: OurWorldinData.org (visit for further sources)

For all its treasures, the industrial revolution played a large part in 'democratising' warfare. After the Napoleonic Wars, the 19th century was a time of relative peace. However, many smaller conflicts took places, including several independence movements.

Even so , the general trend is clear, the rate of deaths fell exponentially through the 19th century.

Something changed in the first half of the 20th century. Technology started advancing at a breakneck pace, and human intelligence failed to keep up. A century of Pax Britanica ended in deadly fashion, with World War I. That Great War ended with a temporary resolution at best. A World War II had to happen, sooner rather than later.

The Death of War - 2nd half 20th Century

World War II ended with a terrible invention - the nuclear bomb. It was a devastating conflict, one that scarred people's minds in an irreparable manner. Human compassion and diplomacy took a giant leap forward at the end of World War II.


enter image description here
Source: Our world is getting better all the time (visit for further sources)

War casualties fell off spectacularly right after World War II to levels never seen before. Around the mid 50s, things settled to a level of peace humankind had never imagined a few years prior.

Make no mistake, our innate aggression had to take hold anyway, but we diverted it to a Cold War instead of another Total World War. As a result, despite some conflict, the death tolls fell considerably.

Despite the Iraq War and War on Terror, the last decade was astonishingly peaceful. Sure, there's a slight uptick this decade with the East African and Levant conflicts, but it's still well below anything before 2000, and on its way down again.

The Future of War

The threat of World War III will always be present in our minds, as would the horrors of World War II. Hopefully that is what will keep us in check, as we continue to advance and evolve as a species, both genetically and memetically.

Today war is coming online and battles are fought in a virtual space. Looking to the future, we have one major challenge to overcome - The Singularity. Who knows how that will play out? The best we can do is to calm down on the human supremacy and embrace artificial intelligence. Valuing human effort over artificial intelligence is fundamentally no different from slavery. Today, this may seem absurd to some, just as abolishing slavery did not so long ago. We must learn from history and avoid those brutal mistakes.

Beyond the Singularity comes space colonisation and subsequent speciation, but that's a whole different can of worms...


Sources and References
The Better Angels of our Nature
Our world is getting better all the time
The evolution of lethal intergroup violence
British Museum
Atrocities: The 100 Deadliest Episodes in Human History
OurWorldinData
A Pest in the Land
PRIO
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Sort:  

You've heard of the selfish-gene theory right? It seems like it could work to explain most of the information you've mentioned. Not that they're omniscient or anything (hence the fuckups), which could explain why our genes have been so successful until now. We've definitely surpassed all other biological life.

And it looks like AI will surpass us in almost every way. So...logically, isn't the best that we could hope for, is to be augmented with the same technology (if possible)? I mean, yea, it'd still qualify as a singularity, but at least there's SOME chance of us not becoming completely obsolete or subjugated. We just might not be completely human anymore.

On a somewhat related note, it'd be kinda fun if steemit had chatroom for popular/controversial posts XD

Of course, The Selfish Gene is one of my favourite books! You'll see that I briefly mentioned memetic evolution - it's all from The Selfish Gene. I've added The Selfish Gene to the list of sources - an oversight on my part to not do so before. I should probably have discussed the selfish gene more, but I feel my approach was a simpler, less scientific and more basic version of the same.

I'm totally with you - augmentations are incoming. Speciation is an ongoing process. It's gradual, so we won't observe a new species in human lifetimes, but I'm pretty certain homo sapiens will be well on their way to evolving into new species on the Singularity comes.

Yes, haven't seen much controversial posts of late! It was definitely my intention to spark some discussion. I love what @kyriacos is doing with his latest posts - this post is about carrying on along those lines, though less about morality and politics on contemporary topics and more conjecture about the future.

o i didn't know it was a book lol. heard the concept in a youtube, and a lot of its aspects make sense.

i dunno...we might not experience this particular singularity in our lifetimes, but i think there's a chance we do hit some singularity (singularity in the general sense, not the transhumanist one.)

although, i'm a little surprised you don't think it could happen soon? i mean...even just 20-30 years is a long time for technology to develop...we just got beat in "Go" this year--that was our most complex board game! :( once they take starcraft, we might as well start kneeling and pledging our fealty to them.

Yeah, at this point it's become a theory (in the scientific sense) so it's pretty common knowledge. But it was The Selfish Gene which first proposed it as a hypothesis, much like On the Origin of Species did for natural selection.

Oh, I meant speciation - that happens gradually. As for singularity, that is happening very soon! I'm willing to bet by 2050 we are deep into it.

It should be made well known that Richard Dawkins coined the word "meme" in the Selfish Gene, and that's back in 1970s!

Yes, I'd also wager that 2040-2050 we'd be quite deep into it already, or at least some parts of society.

Here's the passage from The Selfish Gene -

The new soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. "Mimeme" comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like "gene". I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to "memory", or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with "cream".

I think speciation is already happening. Speciation mainly means incompatibilities in gametes within a species, but is a part of a bigger process as a species becomes dominant, with bigger breeding pools more old genes start to express. In humans I think it shows mainly in cognitive diversity and especially sensory functions. more spectra, longer lifespans, paranormal senses...

There is a countering idea within evolution - that is that on the surface it looks like evolving is all about who is dominant and most violent however there is also a possibility that under that current relationships are developed between species and within species that result in symbiosis, it is possible that real success as a species is the result of your ability to work symbiotically with other species take bees for example, they wander around from plant to plant (another species) to collect what they use to make honey and feed themselves and their young but this action results in spreading of pollen from one plant to another. Anyway that is my two cents.

Ultimately, success is about survival. You are absolutely right - there's a strong argument to be made that peaceful co-operation is the best way to survive. Humans have taken it further, with language, culture and technology. We now evolve not only physically through genes, but culturally through memes.

we do evolve through memes :)

It doesn't just begin, it advances. Thanks to the process of evolution by natural selection, violent behaviour develops over the ages - of course, only the most violent victors get to pass on their genes, while pacifists die alone. As humans develop more advanced tools, so more deadly become the violence.

Is that the case? Maybe pacifism survived because that trait avoided conflict (which most likely will result in death). But your ref here made it seem like that's not likely the case - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1266108/

Pacifism and social co-operation is an evolutionary advantage within clans. For intergroup violence, of course the more violent group survives.

That said, pacifism becomes an advantage much later, once diplomacy develops.

Fantastic post. I think it remains to be seen if we will survive or ultimately be consumed by our own aggression to the point of destruction. It may well be an evolutionary paradox that species that are successful enough to dominate a planet eventually destroy themselves. I hope not.

That is almost certainly going to happen, whether through war, environment or sheer shortage of resources. There's no choice there - become a space faring civilisation or face a long, painful decline on Earth.

__the last decade was astonishingly peaceful. __
You'd never know that from watching the media.
Or listening to preachers.

Indeed, the media thrives on negativity, it's what gets us all worked up. It's the most extreme case of confirmation bias.

To stop war, I think we will have to take the profits out of it...modern warfare is very profitable.

It seems to me we have grown distressingly used to war... War and the military have become a part of our environment, like pollution.

Violence is our most important product. We have been spending nearly $80 billion a year on the military, which is more than the profits of all American business, or, to make another comparison, is almost as much as the total spending of the federal, state, and local governments for health, education, old age and retirement benefits, housing, and agriculture. By Sen J. William Fulbright Pentagon Propaganda Machine (p11).

If you haven't you might want to check out the video on war that the guys from Kurzgesagt posted on Youtube I while back (they have some awesome stuff).

Ah yes, I love Kurzgesagt, and remember watching that video when it was first published.

Interesting. Assuming your data is accurate . . . as a scientist I'd want to ask myself WHY this is the case. What was different about the world in the post WW II era that hadn't been true in other eras in history. Hint: It wasn't the Internet.

Wow THIS was a very interesting article to read !

Great Info. It is always Good to know about history. Keep sharing :)

Incredibly thoughtful peace. I wish it was the end of violence, but that still continues. Small steps...

Massive steps have been taken since World War II and again, this century. End of violence is still far away, but violence and crime across the board are at historic lows generally this century.

PS: I don't know if the "peace" was deliberate or a slip, but an interesting typo anyway!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.18
JST 0.034
BTC 89093.88
ETH 3168.62
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.75