Ok I was sat there last night thinking and it occured to me that as a species we thrive on conflict let me explain. So if you go back hundreds of years the Romans, Vikings & Persians all sought to conquer the world. So you come a little closer to modern times and you have the World Wars. Also the conflcts between certain countries at the moment. Now its not just wars that led me to this but we have discriminated against colour, religion, sex, Sexuality and anything else that meant we could persucute an individual group of people. Does anyone else feel that we as a species thrive on any type of conflict?
No. I think all of the above were not caused by a love of conflict, but a desire for power. The wars, both ancient and modern, you mention are obvious examples of this, and need no explanation. As for modern discrimination, though, it's a little harder to see. Those in power benefit from them in two ways: they can make themselves an enemy to rally the people to their (reelection) cause, and they can set groups against each other, dividing populations that would otherwise turn on a corrupt government. In many of those cases you mention, yes, there are aggressors, but there are also peaceful people who don't want the conflict they're forced into. That's inconsistent with the idea that the species thrives on conflict.
For all the technological advancements we've seen, evolution hasn't caught up. Hence why we can still disagree on such arbitrary, tribal terms as ethnicity and country. I don't think it's so much that we thrive on conflict itself, but we do thrive on power, and many of us are more than willing to enter conflict to defend the power we have, even if there's no rational basis for it. In a sense, if you're winning there's often a tendency to the status quo in the absence of a conscious effort at conciliation. And as long as we have different visions of the world and where it should be going we will be disputing power as a means to implement our ideas. That's at least on a collective species scale, on a personal scale I believe there are many people who aim to avoid conflict. Obviously this rule doesn't hold firm for everyone, but in general we only thrive on conflict when our interests are (perceived to be) threatened and other options aren't as satisfactory or no longer exist.
If you read what you have put it goes hand in hand with what I have said the thirst for some power or dominance causes these conflicts. Yes there is always going to be the peacefull that get swept up in situations that want no part in it but for some reason there is always something going on that means there are wars. Im not just on about the wars with weapons but the wars with words are just as damaging. ---------- Post added 1st Aug 2014 at 04:57 AM ---------- If you read what you have put it goes hand in hand with what I have said the thirst for some power or dominance causes these conflicts. Yes there is always going to be the peacefull that get swept up in situations that want no part in it but for some reason there is always something going on that means there are wars. Im not just on about the wars with weapons but the wars with words are just as damaging.
I'm not certain about the answer to this question, but, it seems to me we have an insatiable appetite for hatred and intolerance that often leads to conflict.
I think we're taught to believe that violence is natural. I'm ordered from a young age to do what they say and become what they consider to be a good person. Go against the flow and you are attacked with shame, guilt, and punishment. Sometimes it's hard to know where the brainwashing ends and I begin. For example, I find it difficult to shake the belief that almost everyone would be able to kill. Also, I see a lot of violence glorified. People in power can keep on top of it all with tons of money and let people like me argue over morality. It's a confusion tactic and it diverts my attention.
Many people avoid conflict at almost any cost. Others are willing to engage in conflict pragmatically. There are a handful who have no consequence analysis skills, or know they can cruelly benefit from conflict, and will push for conflict whenever they can. As far as I can tell, the majority of people belong in the first two (crudely generalised) categories. I would just ask that you look around you. Do you see the majority of people clamouring for potentially disastrous conflict? No, you see a handful of loud, violent people egging on the undecided. That doesn't seem like a natural state for all humans. Humans have engaged in violence for a long time, but that doesn't mean that the majority have wanted that violence to exist. It's relatively rare to have someone who'll resort to violence before words. Conflict (in the sense of incompatible differences) is bound to exist in some form. Not as in wars or extreme political divides. I don't see those as inherent to humanity, though they definitely have defined our world so far. Whether conflict is unhealthy or not depends on whether or not you let it escalate beyond civil and fair agreement. The great thing about humans is that we're able to resolve issues using intelligent discussion and emotional understanding. It's healthy to disagree, sometimes strongly, but you can deal with it in inappropriate ways. There's a fine line between shirking away from displeasing people when necessary, and being overpowering and in your attempt to impose your will and try to become superior. There are cases of justified conflict. Fighting against a horrible situation imposed on you is not unfair conflict. There are times when the rule of civility has to be dropped in response to oppression. I'd say some level of conflict is natural. But trying to enforce or maintain dominance is neither necessary nor healthy.
Yeah, the thirst for power causes the conflict. I don't see how that can be interpreted as the species thriving on conflict; it's only beneficial to a very small minority, and the conflict is just a means to an end.
