@ All.

I dont think thats necessarily true. To us, agressive competition (War) is a fairly new thing. Its a direct consequence of our evolution of intelligence. In other words, modern apes dont make war because they havent made that leap of intelligence that we have. They simply dont understand its use, so they dont do it.

Essentially the reason we are alive today boils down to Evolution itself and the effect its had on our intelligence. To adopt and think of new ways to survive and reproduce. It is not purely down to competition because all living things compete. Plants compete for light and animals compete for mates. As a consequence of our intelligence, we have taken this Natural Competition to the extreme. Yet it has not implied our dominance because Intelligence is the prerequisite of competition. Therefore it is our intelligence that has allowed us to dominate, not our extensive use of competition.

some would say that our competition allowed the evolution of intelligence. I doubt you can definitively say which is the cause and which is the solution.

Chicken and egg argument. And Derf what do you mean by recent? Recent as in first in at least 5 mill years or recent as in first species to come up with the idea?

@ Satis: The evolution of intelligence is the prerequisite of development of excessive competiton because in the early stages of our species, we did not make war. Our greatest breakthroughs of intelligence were mainly a result of technological discovery. Then, war was concieved as man became intelligent enough to understand the concept.

@ Myrddin: Recent as in: Take the full chronological spectrum of our species. Draw a line where you can say there was the first obvious case of excessive competition, and you will probably see that the line is drawn far closer to today, rather than the beginning.

double post.

Derf...I disagree. Competition exists everywhere. War is just a continuation of competition. You're drawing a line between 'regular' competition and warfare that I don't believe exists. When two ant communities come into contact, they fight one another until one is completely wiped out. Millions and millions of ants fight to the death. Is this not war? It's alot more brutal than man's war...we don't fight each other until genocide.

Besides, who's to say we didn't have war in the early stages of our development? What's the definition of war? I guarantee there was competition, competition that probabyl devolved into people bashing each other with clubs over food. There's the frozen carcass they found in the alps several years ago of an ancient man that had been wounded in a fight with another person....hrmmmm...lemme find that...

yes, Otzi the caveman, found in the alps, 5300 years old, found with an arrowhead embedded in him. So, we were probably waging war 5300 years ago.

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/2468905.stm

I'm afraid we do.

Firstly, let me further clarify the distinction between competition and war, which you dont seem to agree with: Natural competition, is based predominantly on survival and reproduction. The two pillars of existence. All living beings are relatively prepared to compete for survival and reproduction, as instinct. War is different to Natural Competition because its purpose is neither survival or reproductive. It is political, hatred and sometimes idiocy. Therefore, we happen to be the only species in the planet that wage War. That is the distinction. War is a perversion of competition originating from intelligence, and as a result is not a fundamental requirement of human life. In the future, it is inevitable that we realise this and there will be no more War.

Secondly, 5300 years ago is very, very recent.

well, I can't say if war existed 50,000 years ago, or 5,000,000, because we lack any evidence. However, violence existed over 5,000 years ago, so it probably existed for alot longer than that.

Anyway...war is still about survival and reproduction. Besides, that's a bit of an arbitrary definition. Bleh...I suddenly lost my will to argue. Anyway, I disagree. I believe war is just another form of competition, taken to extremes, but not radically different than what happens in nature. I also think war is necessary for the healthy and continued growth of humanity as a whole.

No need to argue. I simply dont see how you justify War as based on survival and reproduction. That, and how you seem to assume that War has always existed.

When does a fight become a war? I'm quite sure there have been groups of people fighting each other for as long as there have been groups of people. However because in prehistoric times the density of population wasn't very high, war wasn't that common.

Exactly Arathorn! Youre on the right track. There is no need to distinguish a fight from a war because i am talking about War. And as i said, war is distinct because it is justified by largescale politics, hatred or stupidity. Early man was not capable of politics, hatred or stupidity as modern man today, so it simply didnt exist.

OK this is something which I learned from an expert in warfare so I do know what I am talking about. Humans (as in the species homo) started about 5mill (estimated by anthropologists through K/Ar dating). Warfare can be distinguished back into the Mesolithic where there were massacres in Germany. Archaeological interpretation of warfare is a fight that includes over 25 people (not sure if that's side or otherwise). In the Mesolithic (way before Ozti at least 5000 years) there was evidence for warfare as there were signs of violence (bone evidence) which showed the decapitation of a whole village of women, children and old people whilst the men where probably either away hunting or already had been slain. Earlier on there are some vague indications in the Paleolithic that there may have been warfare due to cave paintings. Early man had the same brain capacity so therefore could think in the same ways. Since he was a hunter-gatherer he would also need larger territories than we have so it would be likely that there would be warfare. So don't accuse our ancestors of lack of intelligence.

The hunter-gatherer wars you describe are no different to the ant wars that Satis mentioned. They are based on the survival of the community and therefore classify as Natural Competition.

The distinction i am trying to make lies between these naturally justified conflicts and the perversion of modern war. Modern war is not justified by suvival and reproduction, but instead by politics, hatred and stupidity. Sorry for the repetition.

I think you're drawing distinctions where no distinctions exist.

How can you conclusively say that the wars that happened 50,000 years ago were for "survival". Does the decapitation of women and children signify a need for survival? Who's to say they weren't decapitated because they had dark hair instead of blonde hair, or because they worshipped a different god?

You're basically saying that mankind is more barbaric now than they used to be. I disagree.

50000 years ago is still relatively recent.

What im saying is: It is certain that War hasnt always existed. So where did it begin? It began when the first communities of humans formed, and consequently, the community mentality was formed (thanks to the ability of human intelligence). Within the community mentality, was born the idea of War.

Therefore, the human has equal justification for waging war today as he once did for the first time. It serves the same purpose and is essentially unjustified in necessity.