The complex effects as war as a mechanism of natural selection

Sounds like an interesting read and a not implausible argument. My uninformed guess is that evolution doesn't give a damn about civilizations or individuals, only the species. Thus far the cocktail of genetic tendencies towards creativity, intelligence, aggression and stupidity have been acting overall to drive the population on a strongly upward trend. Not even the most violent conflicts in history have ever been of any real threat to the species, the Cold War being an interestingly non-violent (in that all-out war never happened) and recent exception.

There's no guarantee that this will continue, yet little selection pressure driving us towards non-violence. Even war is not much of a discriminator : casualties are too few to have a genetic effect, and don't discriminate that strongly between the violent and non-violent anyway. I would also be inclined to factor in a large element of sheer random chance in who wins and loses, such that the victors are not necessarily all that more rational (let alone nicer) than the losers. That said, the seemingly paradoxical mix of traits found in most great conquerors is interesting.

I also wonder how much war has ever driven theoretical advancements rather then technological manifestations of peaceful discoveries. It's possible that war provides the stable, prosperous situations needed for seemingly indulgent moments of reflection that later prove monumentous, but isn't directly responsible : civilization achieved by other means ought to be equally successful. And at least a few warmongering civilizations (the Aztecs, the Mongols) don't seem to have achieved any important breakthroughs whatsoever. My inclination would be that war can drive technological advancement but only because of an existing culture of free-thinking exploration, not because war itself drives this or is necessary for it. I suspect it's more analogous to war and exploration having a common cause, rather than the one being necessary for the other. I remain relentlessly optimistic that we don't have to choose between peace and prosperity, though achieving both is certainly not easy.


Originally shared by Event Horizon

Benjamin Ginsberg is a libertarian political scientist with whom I share little in common, but this book (marketing blurb below) raises some interesting points.

Although war is terrible and brutal, history shows that it has been a great driver of human progress. So argues political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg in this incisive, well-researched study of the benefits to civilization derived from armed conflict. Ginsberg makes a convincing case that war selects for and promotes certain features of societies that are generally held to represent progress. These include rationality, technological and economic development, and liberal forms of government.

Contrary to common perceptions that war is the height of irrationality, Ginsberg persuasively demonstrates that in fact it is the ultimate test of rationality. He points out that those societies best able to assess threats from enemies rationally and objectively are usually the survivors of warfare. History also clearly reveals the technological benefits that result from war—ranging from the sundial to nuclear power. And in regard to economics, preparation for war often spurs on economic development; by the same token, nations with economic clout in peacetime usually have a huge advantage in times of war. Finally, war and the threat of war have encouraged governments to become more congenial to the needs and wants of their citizens because of the increasing reliance of governments on their citizens’ full cooperation in times of war.

However deplorable the realities of war are, the many fascinating examples and astute analysis in this thought-provoking book will make readers reconsider the unmistakable connection between war and progress.

There are actually two things going on here. First, an acknowledgement of the role that conflict and the irredeemable extremes of international political turbulence have played in the progress of culture, science and technology is a mature recognition of warts-and-all history as a naked fact; regardless that history itself possesses a history and the control of retrospective narratives is also the production of future possibilities. This all does not reflect particularly politely upon human nature; the extent to which competition and conflict has shaped us psychologically, biologically, socially and culturally may predispose us to aggression as a survival strategy. This is of course not the only viable survival strategy as cooperation and collaboration have also proven eminently useful. The primary question is of the extent to which we may not have arrived where we currently technologically are (as relatively quickly as we have) were it not for war and conflict driving us forwards in serial assertions of brutally competitive individual and collective behaviour. It does not escape me in the irony that it is in profoundly cooperative and organised manners that we have adapted to the challenge of vigorously and explosively disassembling our rivals; that it takes collaboration to further refine the goal of aggressive competition.

There is much to be said in this domain but before you gather up your liberal (or other) pitchforks and torches, ready for conflict (!): I am a progressive humanist systems analyst and philosopher. The second thing going on here is that as precisely such a notional "progressive", I might not have stumbled across this book were it not by pure chance through a podcast I sometimes listen to in which the author was interviewed. The point may be that intelligent analyses may not always gel with that world you (or I) would rather exist within but this should not necessarily form grounds for outright dismissal of those ideas. I have shared this in the hope that it might inspire creative dialogue and reflective analysis. I could probably write books-worth of material here on this topic but that would defeat my central purpose: I am seeking to (at the very least) expand the horizons of my own information bubble and conceptual vocabulary in useful, intelligent and reflective ways.

Now, is anyone else interested in a creative engagement with this topic ? Your answer to that question may reveal a lot about both the topic under analysis and your relationship to it. I had a recent conversation and disagreement with someone on this very topic which caused me to pause and reflect upon my own positions on the long-game of history and the influence, value and consequences of conflict.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/242843/the-worth-of-war-by-benjamin-ginsberg/9781616149505