Not a total surprise if you've been keeping an eye on recent writings about evolution and humanity; particularly relating to neoteny (eg human societies are far less violent that chimpansees' and we manage to live at far higher densities with far less trouble) So go and read this New Scientist article: Winning the ultimate battle: How humans could end war: "rather than being a product of our genes, it looks as if warfare emerged in response to a changing lifestyle. Even then it was far from inevitable, as the variability in warmongering between cultures and across time attests. The Embers have found links between rates of warfare and environmental factors, notably droughts, floods and other natural disasters that impact upon resources and provoke fears of famine."
Much of the evidence seems to indicate war is a cultural construct rather than genetically programmed. The UN idea of building a culture of peace is well-founded. However, that doesn't mean that peace doesn't need working at. The thing is, are we prepared to invesst as much in what makes for peace as we have been in what tends to war?
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
No comments:
Post a Comment