### You are viewing a page indexed by search engine. All comments on the topic are put together without order and may be confusing to read. To see organized discussion, please visit the real page at above link. ###Humans have fought wars for thousands of years. Is it part of a human nature to wage wars and kill other humans, or is it some kind of pathology?
Persons have been killing other persons for thousands of years, and therefore it could be considered a common behavior.
But immidiatly I have noticed that only a small portion of persons have killed. Majority of persons did not kill. Therefore I conclude that killing a is not a common behavior but a pathology that exists for millenia.
Wait! It is too soon to make any conclusions. For example, genius is also not common, and yet, it is not considered a pathology. Maybe I need to approach this problem from some other angle. Humans rarely if ever spontaneously go to wars, but are instead forced, drafted, conditioned with prison, thought how to fight, convinced by propaganda that they fight for good causes, etc. and all that is initiated by government, by few people and not all or most humans. They send soldiers to wars for selfish reasons. If wars were human nature, all these actions would not be necessary because people would gladly take arms and go to wars.[1] From a biological perspective, cells are xenophobic - they reject everything they don't consider as "part of" the body. Their specific molecular composition causes this disagreement - yet on an atomic level, they are the same. It is possible that human rejection then, is due to the lack of civility as well as conflicting opinions. This is analogous to the description of cellular/molecular interactions. On a fundamental level, our bodies merely interact according to physics.
Maybe all behavior can be reduced to physics, and even one step further -- to mathematics, but that does not seem realistic.
When systems get more complex, they also gain qualitatively new -- qualities! Physics is on the lowest level, than there is chemistry, than biology, than again sociology, and finally psychology. Or is it psychology and then sociology?
People act differently when alone, and when in masses. How can this be explained on the physics/atomic level?
Mathematics, indeed, becomes too unrealistic, as it can generalize concepts into infinite or infinitesimal levels. Physics, as a "root", so to speak, is the only valid contestant in terms of applicable mathematical reality.
Sociology is in fact a misnomer, with 'socio' being Latin and 'ology' being Greek lol.
If one wishes to obtain a more realistic view of life, I suggest they research every discipline they can think of - as they all relate in one way or another. i have heared from a friend of mine mankind will grow faster if they make war it is also easier(you know the easy way mostly leads to evil things)
but peace takes a lot time and hard work and it takes longer that mankind will grow from it but when it grows i am sure it will grow hard(hard way leads to enlightment some say :P )
its not the human way but it is thought us to do that way but what should it be if it were thought us different? Usama bin Laden is dead, but with his death a new and great leader will rise from the ashes who can carry our cause far into the future. Already, the elders have gathered, those who are too old to continue the fight long enough, to choice the successor to take us well into the next decade and beyond. The West will celebrate the Great One's death and think that the end is near, but it is still only the beginning and the fight will continue until all of them have fallen. Death to the west. War has become redundant. We need it to thin the weak from the gene pool. but now we've been in a "war" for almost ten years and have lost ~500 troops. That's fucking PATHETIC.
-seriously-
Wars are vital to the healthy continuation of the human race, and now The leaders are too weak to see that.
Just Stating The Obvious.
Part of the Many,
Anonymous Regarding the above does a misnomer really ever exist? For a word's meaning comes not from its constituent parts but rather is definiton? Or hence from 'misnomer' being defined does it forewith exist...