Warfare
- Lafyva
- Jul 25
- 4 min read
Updated: Aug 26
"While warfare remains a contentious subject, considerable evidence supports the view that warfare is a strategy by which coalitions of males cooperate to acquire and defend resources necessary for reproduction."
This strategy is not the result of a single “instinct” for war, but is instead an emergent property resulting from evolved psychological mechanisms (such as xenophobia and parochial altruism). These mechanisms are sensitive to ecological and social conditions such that the prevalence and patterns of warfare vary according to subsistence strategies, military technology, cultural institutions, and political and economic relations. When economic conditions enable intergroup relations to change from zero-sum to positive-sum games, peaceful intergroup relations can emerge.
If, as many evolutionary anthropologists suppose, the roots of warfare extend deeper than the origin of our species (ca. 300,000 years ago), warfare is likely to have shaped the evolution of human psychology, including traits such as courage, risk-taking, parochial altruism, patriarchy and xenophobia
AI Overview
In the context of evolutionary biology, intragroup conflict, or conflict within a group, is indeed linked to increased competition and is considered a natural and inevitable part of the evolutionary process for humans. This perspective suggests that humans, like all species, have evolved with a mix of cooperative and competitive tendencies, and intragroup conflict arises from the competition for resources, mates, and social status within the group.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Evolutionary Basis:
Evolutionary biology posits that traits that enhance survival and reproduction are favored by natural selection. In humans, this includes both the ability to cooperate within groups and the capacity for conflict within groups.
Competition and Conflict:
Competition for resources (like food, territory, or mates) and social status within a group can lead to conflict. This conflict can manifest in various forms, from subtle social maneuvering to overt aggression.
Natural and Inevitable:
From an evolutionary perspective, this conflict is not necessarily "bad" or abnormal. It's a natural outcome of the pressures of natural selection, where individuals compete to maximize their own fitness (survival and reproduction).
Examples:
Consider the dynamics of a hunting band. Individuals may compete for the best hunting spots, leading to some conflict. However, the group also needs to cooperate to be successful in hunting.
Beyond Humans:
This dynamic is not unique to humans. Many animal species exhibit both cooperative and competitive behaviors within their groups.
Not Always Destructive:
While conflict can be destructive, it can also be a catalyst for positive change within a group. It can lead to the development of new social structures, strategies, and norms.
Modern Implications:
Understanding the evolutionary roots of intragroup conflict can help us better understand human social dynamics, including workplace dynamics, political systems, and even international relations.
The secrecy surrounding the private military industry has shrouded it in mystery, myth, and conspiracy theory. Knee-jerk left-wing and right-wing critiques permeate the debate, politicizing and polarizing it. Much is highly sensationalized. What genuine study has occurred is narrow and limited to a few aspects of the industry: the legal status of armed civilian contractors on the battlefield; accountability issues relating to monetary fraud, waste, and abuse; and the experiences of high-profile companies such as Blackwater in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, broader questions remain. Why have strong countries such as the United States elected to employ private military forces after centuries of their prohibition? Does the privatization of war change warfare, and if so, does it affect strategic outcomes? What does the privatization of military force augur for the future of international relations? As a veteran of this industry, I continue to be haunted by these questions, which is why I wrote this book. Despite the many concerns, the private military industry has a bright future. This multibillion-dollar industry will not simply evaporate once the United States withdraws from overseas deployments such as Afghanistan. In fact, the opposite will occur: contractors will help fill the security vacuum left by US forces. The industry may also grow, become more competitive, and develop into a free market for force, where the means of war are available to anyone who can afford it. Already, private military companies of all stripes are seeking new opportunities in conflict zones in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Moreover, the marketplace will likely transform, as new private military firms emerge from countries such as Russia and China, offer greater combat power, and work for the highest bidder with scant regard for human rights. New consumers of private force are appearing worldwide, seeking security in an insecure world: oil and mining companies guarding their drill sites against militias, shipping lines defending their vessels against pirates, humanitarian organizations protecting their workers in dangerous locations, countries fighting civil wars, and guerrillas fighting back. Few would welcome an unbridled market for force in world affairs, yet it is already developing. Other fears exist, too. Private military companies will increasingly use military robotics such as armed drones that are becoming ever more available and advanced, making even small companies lethal. Companies are already engaging in cyber-warfare, offering clients offensive “hack-back” capabilities against intruders. These cyber-mercenaries are currently illegal in many countries, including the United States, yet they have a growing market among people and organizations that need to protect critical information.
McFate, Sean. The Modern Mercenary: Private Armies and What They Mean for World Order (pp. xii-xiii). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Comments