A Disdain for War
Debunking the Myth of Aggression as Solution
The widely held belief that human beings are inherently violent and that conflict and competition are integral to our nature has permeated cultural narratives for centuries. This perception, which has been bolstered by popular figures, ideologies, and more recently Hollywood movies, often says more about societal values than about our actual evolutionary history.
Modern interdisciplinary research across anthropology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology doesn’t just challenge this narrative, revealing that the concept of prehistoric humans as violent and aggressive is not just a fiction designed to differentiate between the civilized and uncivilized, it also thoroughly debunks it.
The Historical Context of the Myth
The myth of aggressive prehistoric man can be traced back to a time when social Darwinism was gaining traction. This dogma misappropriated Charles Darwin's theories of evolution, distorting them to promote notions of competitive rivalry and feuding as inherent human traits. The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ was actually coined by Herbert Spencer, a eugenicist who used it to justify social hierarchies and the impossibility of economic equality. This interpretation of Darwinian theory was profoundly influential, supporting capitalist agendas that prioritized individual success over communal well-being.
Roughly contemporary with Darwin, whose research was conducted in the warm waters and islands of the South Pacific, an amateur naturalist was researching the same topic in the frozen tundra of Siberia. Peter Kropotkin's work fundamentally contested the Darwinian view that competition and ‘survival of the fittest’ were the primary drivers of evolution. Kropotkin noted the importance of cooperation among individuals within species, arguing that mutual aid was crucial for survival. He put forward numerous examples from nature, proving that many animals engage in cooperation, like hunting in packs and sharing resources, to enhance their chances of surviving in the harsh conditions.
Kropotkin critiqued the misapplication of Darwinian concepts to justify social Darwinism and individualism, proposing that the fittest includes those who thrive through cooperation rather than mere aggression. His anthropological insights demonstrated that human societies, particularly among hunter-gatherers, relied on social bonds and common resources for continued existence. By highlighting the role of environmental factors and the necessity of cooperation in evolutionary success, Kropotkin offered a more comprehensive understanding of both human and animal behaviour, advocating for a society rooted in mutual aid rather than competition.
Kropotkin's work was overshadowed by Darwin's for several reasons. First, Darwin's theory of evolution, particularly the concept of natural selection, found favour with biologists and aligned with the prevailing commercial ideologies like mercantilism which emphasised competition. Kropotkin's focus on cooperation defied this dominant narrative, making it less palatable to mainstream capitalists. Additionally, Darwin's ideas were misused to justify inequality, further entrenching the competitive model. No doubt Kropotkin's political views as an anarchist also limited his appeal, as his advocacy for social change contrasted sharply with conservative interpretations of Darwinian thought. In similar vein, while Darwin's work was widely disseminated, Kropotkin's ideas were often confined to anarchist and socialist circles, resulting in limited appeal. Overall, Kropotkin's emphasis on mutual aid struggled to gain traction in a landscape dominated by competition-focused interpretations of human evolution.
The impact of the Darwinian myth has been far-reaching; it justified various oppressive social structures, including racism, class, schooling, indoctrination and colonialism. By framing human history as a struggle for dominance, proponents of social Darwinism have perpetuated a narrative that equates civilization and progress with the need for competition and aggression, conveniently disregarding the cooperative aspects of human nature and distorting our understanding of early human societies.
Evidence Against the Violence Narrative
Recent archaeological research offers compelling evidence that collective violence did not characterize human societies until the advent of agriculture and sedentary living, around 10,000 years ago. Prior to this transition, humans lived as mobile foragers - a lifestyle inherently reliant on collaboration and reciprocal support. For 97% of our history, humans thrived within small, egalitarian bands where sharing resources was absolutely critical for survival.
Studies of hunter-gatherer societies reveal that their social dynamics rarely supported conflict and power hierarchies; instead, they fostered communal cooperation. Individuals who attempted to dictate or hoard resources were often marginalized or restrained by the group. Social norms were fundamentally different from modern Western societies, where competition and hierarchical dynamics are much more evident.
Even anthropological studies of the Yanomami people in Brazil, often depicted as violent and aggressive, reveal conflicts that were largely the result of historical circumstances, such as European colonization and resource exploitation, rather than inherent traits within their culture. It seems that the violence exhibited by the Yanomami is not a reflection of their cultural identity but a consequence of external pressures from settlers who brought disease with them and weakened social cohesion. This distinction underscores the fact that behaviours observed in contemporary societies cannot provide an accurate lens through which to view prehistoric human interactions.
The Role of Cooperation in Human Evolution
Cooperation is a defining feature of human evolution. It enables us to thrive in diverse and inhospitable conditions. The ability to work together, share supplies, and forge relationships is crucial for our survival. Evolutionary biologists, including prominent figures like Frans de Waal, emphasize that all social animals, including humans, have developed various strategies to avoid conflict and promote collaboration. This stands in contrast to the hyper-competitive models that have been historically favoured, which often overlook the importance of social bonds.
Darwin, too, recognized the significance of cooperation, noting that communities characterized by social support structures tend to flourish. He stated that those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring. This aligns with the idea that evolutionary success stems from our capacity for friendliness and collaboration, rather than from any propensity for violence.
Studies in behavioural ecology support this perspective, demonstrating that cooperative behaviours can enhance individual survival and reproductive success. For example, sharing food and water within a group can lead to better outcomes for all members, reinforcing social bonds and promoting group cohesion. This cooperative strategy likely played a significant role in the success of early humans, allowing them to adapt to various environments and outcompete other hominin species.
Misinterpretations of Conflict in Human Societies
While it is undeniable that humans have always possessed the capacity for violence, the assertion that this was regularly manifested as widespread warfare among prehistoric peoples lacks empirical evidence. Data from archaeology indicates that most conflicts were localized; they didn’t escalate into large-scale wars of mass destruction that we’ve seen in recent history. Indeed, the dynamics of pre-agricultural societies typically discouraged the kind of systemic violence associated with modern warfare.
The earliest archaeological findings suggest that significant rivalry accompanied by violence, at least as defined by contemporary standards, emerged only with the rise of agrarian societies, along with increased population density, competition for resources, and the establishment of social hierarchies. As such, the notion that early humans were embroiled in continuous bloodshed is a crude and grossly inaccurate interpretation of complex social realities.
Moreover, the structures that emerged with agriculture - such as the control, defence, and ownership of territory - have been shown to correlate with increased violence. As humans began to settle, lay claims to land, and accumulate resources, the potential for conflict grew. This seems to indicate that warfare is not a fundamental aspect of human nature but rather a response to specific  conditions that arose much later in our history.
Rethinking Human Nature
The myth of violence as an inherent part of human nature serves to justify modern social structures along with deeply ingrained systems of social hierarchies and zero-sum economics that give priority to individual gain over collective well-being. The more accurate story of human evolution is not that: it’s one of mutual aid, cooperation, and social cohesion. By revisiting the evidence and appreciating the historical context of these narratives, we can move towards a more accurate depiction of our past and a hopeful vision for our future.
Acknowledging the cooperative roots of humanity challenges the dominant narrative of aggression and offers alternative paths to nurture a more compassionate and collaborative society. Understanding our true nature as a species capable of empathy, kindness and reciprocity, can reshape social structures in ways that reflect our evolutionary legacy, ultimately leading to a more peaceful coexistence, which has become an urgent pre-requisite for survival of the species.
As we reinterpret history, we need to see that the attributes best defining us are not those of aggression and competition, but rather of cooperation and community, which have enabled humanity to thrive over millennia. That simple shift in perspective can change so much about how we tolerate difference and live our lives together beneficially. It is less wasteful and more psychologically progressive. Opposition will still persist from those who make a fortune from selling arms and propagating wars. But there will be solutions even to that ugly truth.
Over and above elementary shifts, like strengthening social safety nets, removing disparities that breed resentment or fear, using education and the media to cultivate a culture of empathy, and encouraging communities to use conflict resolution and critical thinking methods when they engage, there are radical actions that can be taken to address the violence and hostilities prevalent in contemporary society, while illustrating the value of cooperation and helping to reshape our perceptions of human nature. So how do we cut through the banal rhetoric of competition in order to drive genuine 2nd-order change? Given that there is no single solution, what’s our business plan for peace?
To effectively address inherent violence and the various hostilities permeating contemporary society, we must venture beyond our more familiar, tolerable, though inadequate tactics. At a time when the world seems to be suffering from a kind of collective madness, traditional approaches - like the classic top-down approach to community engagement or standard educational reforms - fail to resonate in a world demanding radical transformation. We need to challenge the status quo. But how?
1.    Most people want peace in their lives, but do not have the agency to create that given the powerfully imperious operations of the state. Imagine a society where decentralized governance thrives, granting local communities the autonomy to craft their own decision-making frameworks, relatively free from the constraints of monolithic state structures. This model would empower residents to engage in direct democracy, allowing every voice to contribute to the collective narrative, thus cultivating a deep sense of ownership and responsibility.
2.    In this new paradigm, we would also revolutionize our approach to justice through transformative models prioritizing healing over punishment. Community accountability boards would emerge as grassroots entities focused on restoring relationships rather than meting out retribution. By fostering dialogue, these boards would transform how communities address harm, emphasizing reconciliation, rehabilitation and support.
3.    Equally radical would be the commitment to wealth redistribution through initiatives like mutual societies, community land trusts and cooperative ownership. These frameworks would enable local communities to manage and share resources collectively, directly confronting the economic disparities that so often fuel violence and unrest.
4.    We must not shy away from the power of disruptive activism. This is how the British were persuaded to leave India after all. Acts of peaceful civil disobedience serve as powerful catalysts for revolution, drawing attention to ingrained injustices and compelling authorities to respond. Such actions assert the community's refusal to remain passive in the face of oppression.
5.    In the realm of education, we can break free from antiquated models of indoctrination, often posing as socially-aware instruction, by prioritizing experiential learning that advances social and emotional well-being. Decentralizing curricula to reflect local cultures and needs will promote a generation of critical thinkers who value collaboration and peace over conformity and competition.
6.    Art has been a form of acceptable activism through the ages – a way for us to oppose violent stories and project messages of peace and solidarity. Using art as a medium for activism can be viewed as a legitimate act of defiance and an artistic act in itself. By disrupting the sanctity of a renowned artwork, public attention is drawn to urgent issues, thus re-contextualizing the work of art, and transforming it from a mere symbol of beauty into a canvas for activism.
Historically speaking art - as opposed to culture - has served as a vital tool for social commentary and change, and acts of defiance align with that rich tradition. By symbolically rejecting complacency, like the recent throwing of a can of soup at a famous painting, underscores the urgency of the message that the preservation of art must not overshadow the pressing crises threatening our world. In the end, these bold actions remind us that art is not only about aesthetic appreciation but also about engaging with the most distressing issues of our time.
7.    To prevent violence from escalating, we can establish a sovereign PeaceQuest alliance with the legal authority to send crisis intervention teams trained in de-escalation techniques to trouble spots and put in place whatever is needed to halt the violence. The ideal vehicle for such a role would be the armies of countries who are trained to wait for an opportunity to fight each other. Soldiers are highly skilled, but their expertise is hardly ever used for good. Proactive peace teams would collaborate in small coalitions, intervening before conflicts intensified, providing mediation and ensuring a culture of support and safety in high-tension areas.
This of course has massive implications for dismantling the war industry that enables each nation to fight each other whenever tempers fray. PeaceQuest units could also engage in ecological restoration projects, not only to address environmental degradation but also strengthen community bonds. By uniting residents in shared initiatives, a sense of purpose that transcends individual grievances could be generated, fostering further collaboration.
8.    There is an entire repertoire of upstream initiatives that can help dissuade potential combatants from fighting each other. In order to combat economic insecurity, a Universal Basic Income would serve as a safety net, alleviating poverty and providing individuals the freedom to pursue education and personal growth without the constant burden of financial instability. Supporting cultural liberation initiatives would mitigate any divisive narratives that lead to conflict, as well as strengthening social ties and growing tolerance for others. And exploring governance models that prioritize local decision-making could reduce feelings of disenfranchisement, encouraging active participation in shaping the future.
By embracing such radical strategies, perhaps not these precisely, but others with similar intentions, we might just be able to reach beyond the banal and the familiar, addressing the root causes of violence and gradually growing a culture of trust, tolerance and cooperation. It will require collective courage, strong leadership, and an unwavering commitment to reimagining our civilisation in utopian terms. But it is only through such profound efforts that we can create a more equitable and peaceful society, one that truly reflects the aspirations of its people, while avoiding the futility of war and the suffering and despair that brings in its wake.
New Paths to Peace
Excessive militarism is not the only nor the most effective strategy for addressing the world’s problems, even though many warmongering politicians often act as though it is. Most generals and veterans know the truth of the matter. While military force can sometimes give the illusion of an immediate solution to conflict, it often leads to long-term consequences that aggravate underlying issues, creating cycles of violence, and resulting in significant human ordeals.
A major drawback of militaristic approaches is their ineffectiveness in addressing the root causes of conflict. These often include economic disparities, social injustice, political oppression, and fighting over access to scarce resources. Rather than resolving disputes, military interventions often lead to further destabilization, resentment, and retaliation which, all too often, then becomes a cycle of retribution. This pattern has been evident in numerous conflicts over the past century where military solutions failed to produce lasting peace and frequently made things far worse.
In contrast, cooperation and diplomacy built on trust invariably present better options. When negotiations are conducted with respect and pragmatism, building strong, inclusive institutions that prioritize the rule of law and human rights, investing in socio-economic programs, and developing governance structures that are accountable and responsive to the needs of citizens, have all been proven to be a far more effective strategy for creating peace.
So, while aggression and militarism may appear to be immediate responses to conflicts, they are not the most effective or sustainable strategies for addressing the world’s problems. Emphasizing cooperation, diplomacy, and social investment offers a more promising path toward lasting peace and a safer, more just, and resilient world.
Incidentally, the idea that less violent nations, such as those in the BRICS+ group, may thrive more in the future is supported by several compelling factors. These nations often prioritize stability and cooperation that create a more favourable environment for shared prosperity. Stability and peace are foundational elements for economic development. Countries that experience lower levels of violence tend to enjoy greater stability, inclusivity and social cohesion. These qualities attract investment, encourage tourism, and promote trade - all central components of economic growth. In contrast, nations plagued by conflict often face disruptions that hinder their development and undermine their true potential.
A no-brainer in this context is the fact that less violent nations invest more in building their productive capacity than preparing for war. By addressing issues such as poverty, education, and healthcare, these countries create more equitable societies that benefit all citizens. Sustainable practices not only improve current living conditions for today’s citizens, but ensure natural resources are preserved for future generations, contributing to long-term stability.
Global cooperation is another key advantage for peaceful nations, just as peaceful nations are more able to benefit from global cooperation. Countries that engage in collaborative international relationships can also tackle global challenges more effectively. The BRICS+ nations are already collaborating on pressing issues like public health and economic stability. Such partnerships enhance their collective resilience in an interconnected world.
Then there is the issue of innovation. Less violent societies tend to be more adaptable, with a greater capacity for innovation and the exchange of ideas, which can drive technological advancements and creative solutions to emerging challenges.
As the global landscape continues to evolve, prioritizing peace and cooperation will become increasingly vital for success. It’s time the global north woke up to this fact.