3.On War: Why do men fight?

I sat and I pondered. I also talked and debated a bit with Uncle Chua and this is what I have gotten thus far. I understand fighting as the physical action of violence of one human against another human. Before I develop on how individual conflict escalates into banded conflict, we first have to consider what is man's propensity to fight which will be the content of this post. (take note that I am pursuing the question in the context of pre-modernity, pre-civilisation and maybe even pre-history.)

There are two types of propensities to fight: one innate and one forced. Let's explore the forced propensity to fight first. Ecology dictates that all environments are limited and a lack of resources (either real or perceived- and in this aspect, ideology can come into play and effectively alter and manipulate perceptions to its advantage. More will be discussed about ideology's role in mankind's escalation from individual conflict to banded conflict) threatens the individual's survival. This is heightened due to competition as posed by other individuals over scarce resources. At first, competition takes the form of a struggle till the point when the individual lacks any other means to achieve his acquisition of the resources which are vital to his survival, he then subsequently resorts to violent means and engages in fighting. (more on the seemingly flawed modern rational-economic lens used to account for the forced propensity to fight later)The individual who is forced to fight due to ecology fights till he reaches a safe zone whereby he can sufficiently provide for himself. Thus it is an action with limits.

Next, I shall move onto the natural propensity to fight. The origins of such a mental make-up is not easily understood. Sure, science tells us that the seat of aggression is located in our lower brain and that such impulses are subject to control from our higher brain. However, we cannot explain the inexplicable natural propensity for violence that some individuals display. Neither would religious explanations such as original sin suffice. Thus I shall just leave it as a real possibility that some individuals have a higher natural propensity for violence. Such individuals would soon develop a worldview that "might makes right" in an environmental with no policing repercussions. As long as such individuals could successfully fend off reprisals and successfully acquire what he set out to fight for, "might makes right" would make sense. Then as Uncle Chua has greatly input, Greed would factor into the issue and this would move the individual to further pursue violence as a means to an end. Such individuals may fight for the pure fun of it and like the ancient horse people of the steppe. Rational CBA may also factor into their decided action to fight since parasitism benefits them greater than rape and pillage on a long term scale. Hence such parties would be involved in raiding.

Let me digress for a bit and explain about how the seemingly flawed modern rational-economic lens used to account for the forced propensity to fight actually still holds true. Survival is still the ultimate motivation. In fact, Keagan's argument of the Aztecs who fought to capture human sacrificial tokens to their Gods. They were of an abundant society and had no immediate threat to survival. But yet, I argue that they were motivated by survival. Why? This is because the Aztecs were fighting in order to gain human sacrificial tokens which would then appease their Gods, if not their world would cease to be. Survival? Yes. Even if you argue that the priests and noble class did not in fact buy entirely into the idea that the Gods would cease the mechanics of the universe unless they were fed, the motivation of fighting would still be survival. The ruling Aztecs would have to set into motion fighting in order to keep alive their way of living and worldview which in turn validates their political survival.

Whatever the type of propensity to fight, the intermediate goals of fighting can converge and blur. These goals are to gain (this includes any gains from basic stealing to routing and even to the non-material dimension such as the political effects of war-mongering), to reclaim, to settle disputes, to defend and sometimes for the pure thrill and exhilaration of it(where the individual is pre-disposed to violence). Sometimes an individual is forced to fight to steal in order to survive. Sometimes a bloodthirsty individual is forced to fight to defend himself from a reprisal. As stated above, the intermediate goals of fighting can converge and blur.

But the ultimate end in fighting differs from the forced individual to the greedy/blood-lust individual. The forced individual would only fight a limited fight. This means that the act of fighting would only be carried out if it serves as a means to an end. Whereas the blood-lust individual is capable of fighting an unlimited fight. He could be fighting just for the fun of it (fighting as a means and end in itself).