Why mankind fights. If people know that war is bad, why are people fighting? Why people are fighting

11.12.2019

Why do all the animals fight with each other only people? Is it because we are so smart? Or, on the contrary, we became so smart because they were aggressive? Or some animals can also destroy themselves for themselves? Let's try to peacefully understand.

Tata Oleynik

The whole history of man is the history of wars. Along the way, of course, the wheel and washing of hands was still invented, but any historical history textbook will inevitably drown in the abundance of torn horseradish, bloody swords and breakthroughs of the Magino line.

Even the greatest literary works of antiquity are mostly inspirational narratives about how Achill is thrown out the tendons from hector, Shiva gives pinki asuras, a wonderful amp of the House of Tyra, and Kukhulin, breaking his friend to his friend to Ferdiad, speaks about this very good, felt words. About the Bible and there is nothing to say: there is a continuous beating of babies from the first page to the last.

Given that the biologically, the man - cannibal and a dropner, other behavior from him, probably to wait naive. Nevertheless, over the years of evolution, this predator gained such an altruism and such abilities to empathy, compassion and mercy, which if you look at humanity from any alpha centaution, then, probably, it would be possible to expect that the Homo Palaiolith would be sapiens Aside aside his ancient stone ax and love and goodness will be filled. No, well, in fact, how can you cry over a fading flower, and then go to produce guts with your neighbors?

Where did this interesting schizophrenia come from? Why is a person for so long formed as an animal warming and what happens on this front now? Very curious answers to these questions give the latest research of anthropologists and sociopsychists.

For the entire foreseeable story there was not a minute on the planet, when there would be no war somewhere, and until the 20th century, about 7-10 percent of the population of the Earth died as a result of hostilities (in the 20th century, the abruptly increased population has fallen into this percentage, despite Several wars of global scale). It must be said that mankind did not come up with a single extensive ideological system, which would definitely say that war is something bad: all religions somehow supported the holy right of one group of people to cut other groups of people, if, of course, very I want to. Separate pacifists were always perceived by the majority of Malachol, poorly understanding the importance of historical moments.

At the same time, the murder is actually - taking a person's life - almost always considered a crime. With one reservation: the killer acted one or in a small group. As soon as the group became big, then any murder committed by it was called war, execution, revolution or the suppression of the rebellion, received a complete moral indulgence.

And this moment - a person has the right to kill if he is in the group, but does not have if he is alone, "explains a lot about the nature of war and man. True, he did not pay attention to him for a very long time.

There are dozens of theories explaining the phenomenon of war: Freud explained her aggression and a burden for death, Malthus - the fight against overpopulation, Hegel - the laws of the dialectical development of society, Lenin - class struggle. IN last years There was a lot of wonderful theories: passionateness, age-related imbalance (than younger population in society, the more willing it fights), economic and rationalistic theories. And they all wonderfully show, in what conditions people are sweepy, but they do not answer the main question: why do they do it at all? That is, it is clear that the winners get some benefits, but in general the war is almost always destroyed for all sides and is extremely unprofitable for the absolute majority of its participants. It's nice, of course, to get a jug on free, two mats and a young slave - but did it cost that risk without a head? Pay attention to that completely and next people are fighting at all without a chance of any reward. It is enough to study the history of military conflicts between the primitive tribes of Papuans of New Guinea, where every tribe is in the permanent state of cruel war with all the others, where any stranger is perceived at the same time as a killer and victim and where death from natural causes for men (and for many women) is an event exceptional. People just live in that they destroy each other. Caring for feeding, housing, the offspring there is secondary, in the first place is constant vigilance, the fear of the enemy and hatred of the neighbors.

In general, if people were spent as much effort as spending on war and in search of compromises, they would undoubtedly managed to solve all world issues, shedding one-only liquid - ink.

Biologists and ethologists, who tried their proposals to make their own proposals, usually tightly exhibited the door. Okay, they spoke to them, you can still blacken something about sex, psyche or there, about genetics, but the war to biology has nothing to do. Beasts are not fighting. Show us a finch with a grenade launcher - then let's talk.

And the chapter was found. Well, that is, not quite a finch ...

Facts about war

90% of all computer games manufactured in the world suggest that the player will have fun killing. Games in which you need to treat, grow or build, enjoy a lot of less demand, especially among the male audience.

The shortest war in the world is the war of 1896 between the United Kingdom and Zanzibar. She lasted 38 minutes - it was as much time it took the British squadron to spread the Palace of Sultan and recruit the ruler from there. During the war, 500 people died, all - Zanzibars.

The longest war is the war between the Netherlands and the Sillysti archipelago, which lives about 2,000 people. She lasted 335 years old. The victims did not have any sacrifices. The world was signed in 1986.

Brutal manners

Animals are really not fighting. They can fight, bite, scratch, drive out from their territory and lead the marriage battles, but in terms of full-scale hostilities they have a big zero in history. Predators can hunt groups, but, having met a competitor, they will not be built in a car and bow bayonets; Separate individuals can be closed, but in general groups will try to stay away from each other. The famous "Wars of Muravyev" is also not wars in human understanding: it is just predatory raids on the anthills of another species with the ruin of these anthills. Hunting - yes. But not a battle.

The intelligence of primates is due to their aggressiveness.

But so that the group of one species purposefully went to exterminate representatives of another group belonging to the same mind - no, the samples of such a plan did not show the nature of such a plan. For the time being. Or rather, until the mid-1970s, when the research researcher Jane Goodoll, specializing in the study of chimpanzees in natural conditions, released a book that testifies that chimpanzees are fighting. It is fighting, without any discrepancies. The males (sometimes females) groups are collected in combat units and try to imperceptibly get to the parking lot of another group, passing severely beating, and sometimes destroying the "enemies" who meet them, "including the young.

The biologist, temporarily turning into the chronicler, describes in detail such harshs: "Six adult males of the Casaquel group, one teenage male and one adult female, leaving the younger chimpanzees of the flock, headed for the south, and then heard chimpanzees, who came from the other side and found The rupture of the male Kahama - GoGi. One of Kalasael's males fell by the running god to the ground, sat down on his head and pressed his legs, and the rest had been beat him for ten minutes and bitch. Finally, one of the attackers threw a large stone in Goji, after which the attackers ran away. Godi was able to rise, but he was seriously injured, bleeding, his body covered bites. GoGi died of wounds. The next month, three Samtsa Casaquel and one female again went to the south and attacked Kakham's male, who at that time weakened due to illness or preceding the fight. The attackers graded de from the tree, trampled him, busali, beat and pulled out shreds of the skins. The accompanying de female, who had a flow, the attackers forced to go along with them to the north. Two months later, de seen alive, but exhausted so much that the spine and the bones of the pelvis were sticking out from under the skins; He had no somewhat claws, part of the finger on the leg was torn off. After that, he was not seen. In February 1975, five adult males and one-teen-teen-teen Casauchela were tracking down by the old male of Goliath from Kakhama's flock. For eighteen minutes, they beat him, pounded and kicks, fell on him, raised and threw, taped them on the ground and twisted his legs ... "

The most interesting thing is that quite recently these groups were alone. It was divided after the discrepancy of the leaders. All members of this group were close relatives who have tested to "divorce" good feelings to each other.

The Goodwall book caused a huge scandal, especially in the camp of the theory fans that the real cruelty in nature is only peculiar to a person - the essence, from nature a broken.

Alas, further studies of scientists confirmed observations and even expanded them. It turned out that military frauds (though, less cruel and less often lead to deaths) and other monkeys, such as gibbons and bavians. Even the herbal gorillas and spider monkeys occasionally get up on the track of the war, so that you should switch to neighbors.

The question "why" still continued to turn in the air. Observed Hudoll Chimpanzee did not suffer from non-university, they had quite extensive hunting grounds capable of feeding and more Representatives of the species. There was a feeling that they commit such raids just from pleasure. Mustling over corpses and joyful dancing around them seemed act of meaningless and unjustified cruelty. And why chimpanzees are such smart, attaching and empathic, so touchingly cooperating with each other and careless about the safety of their neighbors - suddenly turn into distraught sadists? What mechanisms allowed to evolve and consolidate such an obviously harmful property for the type?

And then the following question arose: is it harmful? The most cruel warriors among primates are chimpanzees, they are the most reasonable of the currently living species (except for people, of course). So what appeared earlier - rationality or cruelty?

In group battles they won not the strongest, but the smartest

A number of researchers believe that the cruelty of warring primates is a consequence of their highly developed ability to think and compassion. It is because they know how to understand someone else's pain, they cause it, experiencing aggression and excitement. And this excitement, fear and empathy become a kind of drug, which is absolutely impossible to get otherwise, as soon as the torment yourself like that. The only cubs that consciously cripple small animals and come to the excitement, looking at their agony, is shimpsteen (again if you distract from a person). The kitten can extend the mouse, but he will not think about the feelings of the mouse - he just plays a twitching ball. Chimpanzee perfectly understands that the bird with a torn-shoned leg hurts, - it demonstrates alternately and fear and pity, and gloating, playing his live toy *.

* - Note Phuchochoerus "A pounding: « So, perhaps, let's lead. I used to be not better opinion About any monkeys, but after such a disclosure of cards, I, right, I begin to feel uncomfortable in your society »

But most of the evolutionary psychologists still adhere to the opposite point of view. They believe that the intelligence of primates is due to their extraordinary aggressiveness in relation to itself like.

If you collect together various theories On this topic, then everything happened about it.

The ancestors of primates lived in the area in which the brutal competition for resources gradually began. The resettlement outside the usual range for some reason was difficult for a long time, and the population suffered from periodic hunger strikes, after which there were active clashes between its members with the aim of, for example, cannibalism or simply regulation of the number (such pictures we can observe some modern species, for example, Lviv, Gien and rats). Then they turned out to be extremely profitable mutations, which focused on the altruism in relation to "their own", that is, the most close relatives, and to aggression to "foreign" - more distant relatives. Being from nature the creature, not too well armed for the destruction of themselves like, unlike Lviv, Gien and rats, the ancestor of man and monkeys could not easily kill rivals alone. But united by a group, it was possible to exterminate all the extra cousins \u200b\u200band second-hand units.

A rather large animal-collector, in need of a large amount of protein, not specialized in a herbal and not possessing powerful fangs, claws or teeth, made a bet on cooperation and aggression to strangers. Millions of years it was improved in these wonderful skills. Some of his descendants learned to ride on the trees and eat with the leaves, so that the vegetative monkeys have such bars are, rather atavism. But the monkeys-Myathers were forced to continue to train their patriotism and intransigence to enemies, as it was easiest to get a protein from the same monkey, unless, of course, podkraulil her crowd and tear the tasty and nutritious legs (chimpanzees, being not so A pronounced cannibal, as a person, also do not discern the eating parts of the bodies of the killed, primarily a young).

And yes, in group battles they won not the strongest, but the smartest. Observation, careful, with high abilities for communication, mutual understanding and mutual execution. Those who tried to prevent any welcome in their group (remember that an important point that a single killer is always expensive, as personal aggression, especially in relation to "its own", does not bring bonus glasses to the group, but take them away).

So the mind did not give rise to aggression, but probably, on the contrary: we received our big and clever brain as a gift from the great-grandfather, who with his help successfully mined the brains smaller.

These are such interesting news come to us from the world of birds and animals.

Cursed forever

And what, a person is doing and doomed to be "killing man" for life, since this species specialization turned out?

Let's imagine the father of the family who gently kisses children and his wife, corrects a knitted blanket on the baby, strokes the pussy, Treplet behind the ears of a dog, takes away the Canary, and then takes the Berdanka and goes to shoot in the bastard, who bit on the world and peace in his beloved family. Are we ready to understand it? Of course ready! At least at this stage of the development of society. The defense of his, especially females and the cubs, we have in such a priority in front of all other forms of compassion, that even when we see the attacks on peaceful home nests in the movie, we compress fists and wool stands on the ridge. The ability of a person to love and compassion is truly limitless, only a rage in relation to the threatening thing that we love is, is whether it is a family, property or saving by us from Keat's slaughter.

It remains only to divide the world on "their" and "strangers." For the chimpanzee "Own" is those chimpanzees with which he contacted the last couple of months. Or not only chimpanzees, but also, let's say, the same dogs or favorite plush toys - in general, the fact that chimpanzees recently sniffed, announced and read his.

In a person with its extensive communications and the super-accessed brain, everything is much more difficult. He can sincerely hate a neighbor on a communal service and to love his president hot, although he sniffs his neighbor daily, and the president never saw his eyes (although the TV is trying to correct the situation). He just grew in consciousness that "his" is his best people in the world headed by the very best in the world, and this is not discussed. Even a completely developed and civilized person can be turned into flaw in the flaming hatred of chimpanzees, if every day of special boxes confidencely telling him how the damned Pechers make a sausage from Christian babies, and the vicious finiques are planning to land their marine infantry in his bathroom.

But if from the same box, or from church departments, or from pages good books constantly repeat that all people are brothers, all children need to protect that it is impossible to offend the weak, whatever color they have gills, and in general "do not touch the bird, put a dog", then the concept of "their own" may well stretch to volumes Galaxies and even moreover. And all these pacifists of the past - Erasms Rotterdam, Vikratic Hugo, Francisi Assisi and Lions Tolstoy - ultimately expand this galaxy. Not for everyone, unevenly, but the process goes.

Here is the Japanese writer of the XVII century writes a fairy tale about the robber, which robbed and killed people, and then caught him and sentenced to execution in boiling oil. The little son of the robber was thrown into the boiler, and when the oil began to pour, the robber, fleeing from the heat, rose to the child with his feet, and "the audience laughed at him." Seventeenth century, enlightened writer. But today, even in Igil, we are unlikely to give the audience, who would have managed to laugh at such a spectacle ...

Because a person, fortunately, changes - changing rapidly and for the better. The kind of confused bodies of enemies is less happy about the public, if not to take completely atavistic individuals. The safer we feel, the more kindness we are ready to pour our neighbors and distant heads. The more we are told from each iron that violence is unacceptable, the more we tend to agree with this.

Conversely: where, by taking the levers of information, monkeys come to power, very soon almost the whole society will cover wild wool. Particularly part of society, whose education is not able to act as a reliable shield that protects against fear and hatred to the "alien". Fortunately, information in modern world It does not know the borders, and every year the totalitarian rulers of this planet is increasingly difficult to truly charge their people with fear and hatred, if nothing threatens with this people.

So with chimpanzees, in general, it is possible to say goodbye to the worst times. And whoever knows how there on the Alfer Centauri evolution went.

Photo: Everett Collection / East News; Getty Images; Rex Features / fotodom.ru; Shutterstock.

Military historians rarely pay a lot of place to discuss the causes of wars. But this topic, in addition to history, is also studied by other humanitarian disciplines. The debate on the origin of war and the world for several past hundreds of years unfolded mainly around a single issue. It looks like this: Is war to the result of the person inherent in the human nature of the predatoryness instinct or a consequence of the principles learned during the education process?

Social Darwinism and his criticism

The basic views on both options are taking place to the concepts of philosophers of the new time - Englishman T. Gobbs and Frenchman J. Zh. Rousseau. In accordance with the concept of Hobbes, the war is the result of a natural aggressiveness inherent in a person, which is overcome as a result of the conclusion of a public contract. According to the ideas of Rousseau, a person in nature is kind, war and aggression are a late invention and arise only with the advent of modern civilization. These ideas retained their significance in the second half of the XIX century.

The modern stage of these debates began in 1859. With the publication of the work of Darwin "The origin of species by natural selection". In it, life on Earth was presented as a competitive process in which the most adapted individuals survived. The concept of Social Darwinism, which was widespread at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries, considered war as a continuation of natural competition, which we observe lively.

The chimpanzee group patrols the territory

Critics of this direction noted that the war is a collective process in which individual groups and communion act against each other, while in nature this process goes at the level of individual individuals. And the most cruel competition unfolded among the nearest neighbors who occupied one ecological niche, ate one food and claimed the same females. So the similarity here could be purely external.

On the other hand, if you follow the logic of cultural anthropologists of the second half of the twentieth century., Who seen in the war only a bad habit and the result of an inappropriate system of education, it is not clear why this habit is so bad to be corrected. War is still a characteristic element modern lifeAnd this sad fact stimulates new research problems of its origin.

To date, the main results in this area brought the development of an etological approach. According to him, various samples of human activity, including aggression, are considered as genetically determined programs. Each of these programs originated and developed at a certain stage of evolution, since it contributed to the successful resolution of such a variety of problems, as a search and distribution of food, sexual behavior, communication, or a threat response.

The feature of the etological approach in comparison with earlier areas is that here human behavior is considered not as a result of once and for all of the laid instinct, but as a kind of predisposition, which, depending on this or that situation, can be implemented or not. This approach partly allows us to explain the variability of warlike behavior that we observe in nature and in history.

Etological approach

From the point of view of Etology, the war is a coalition intraspecific aggression, which is associated with organized and often fatal conflicts between two groups of one tale. It should not be identified with neither aggression as such, which has a purely individual dimension and is universally present in the animal world, nor with predatoryness directed against representatives of another species. The war, although it is traditionally a male occupation, still shall not be identified with such activities as rivalry because of females, which by definition is individual behavior. Genuine coalition aggression is very rare in the animal world. As a special form of behavior, it developed only in two groups of animals: ants and primates.

According to Darwin's theory, natural selection encourages behavioral strategies that increase the survival of a certain set of genes, which is transmitted from one generation of descendants of the general ancestor to another. This condition imposes a natural limitation on the size of the social group, because with each new generation this set will change more and more. However, the insect managed to break this restriction and create related groups of huge sizes.

In a tropical anthill, up to 20 million insects live, while they are all native brothers and sisters. The formic colony behaves like a single organism. Ants fight with neighboring communities for the territory, food and slaves. Often their wars ends with a magnitude extermination of one of the opponents. Analogies with human behavior here are obvious. But people have a form of societies that resemble an anthill - with a numerous constant, compactly residing population, strictly organized by the territorial principle, - arose relatively late, only with the advent of the first agrarian civilizations about 5,000 years ago.

And even after that, the formation and development of civilized communities took place an extremely slow pace and was accompanied by centrifugal processes, a little reminiscent of harsh solidarity of ant. Accordingly, the expansion of our knowledge of insects, primarily about ants, is still unable to explain the origin of coalition aggression on the most early stages human development.

War at Primate

Manoid monkeys, such as gorillas and chimpanzees, are the closest relatives of a person. At the same time, for a long time, the results of their observation were practically not used to explain the origin of coalition aggression in humans. There were two reasons for this.

First, they were considered as extremely peaceful animals living in harmony with nature and with themselves. In such respects, there was simply no place for the conflict, which would be beyond the traditional rivalry of males because of females or food. Secondly, man-like monkeys considered strict vegetarians who use only greens and fruits into food, while the ancestors of people were specialized hunters for large game.

Chimpanzee eat the killed monkey - red-headed colobus

Only in the 1970s. It has been proven that chimpanzees are much more common than previously thought. It turned out that in addition to fruits, they sometimes eat birds and caught small animals, including other monkeys. It also turned out that they actively conflict with each other and, which is the most striking, carry out group boards on the territory occupied by neighboring groups.

In this activity, according to one of the researchers, something frightening is visible. Participants in raids are only male individuals, although the female chimpanzees actively take part in the hunt and intragroup conflicts. These groups of young males are nominated for the border area and patrol the perimeter of their possessions. Finding the presence of single strangers, as a rule, also males, chimpanzees begin to pursue them, demonstrating enough high level Collective interaction. He jested the victim in the corner, they pounce on it and burst into parts.

The results of these observations seemed to researchers so incredible that a whole discussion was broke out in the academic environment regarding the possibility of chimpanzee to kill themselves like. Opponents of this point of view insisted that these unprecedented forms of behavior were the result of an artificially created situation in the Gombe Stream Reserve. They argued that the feeding of chimpanzees by Bananani entailed the exacerbation of competition and the struggle for the resources between them.

However, subsequent observations were targeted in 18 communities of chimpanzees and 4 bonob communities, nevertheless confirmed the ability of chimpanzees to kill their relatives in the natural environment. It was also proved that such forms of behavior are not the result of human presence and were observed among other things where the impact of a person on the habitat of chimpanzees was minimal or not at all.

The researchers recorded 152 murders (58 directly observed, 41 defined on the remains and 53 of the prospective). It was noted that collective aggression in chimpanzees is a conscious act, in 66% of cases directed against other people. Finally, we are talking about group action, when the forces of the attackers and victims are not equal (on average, the ratio of forces 8: 1), so that the risk of killers in this case was minimal.

This study also contributed to the destruction of another myth of man-like monkeys, namely, allegedly devoid of bonobo aggressiveness. It turned out that Bonobo, as well as their larger relatives, are able to show aggression, including in its fatal forms.

Why are they fighting?

Anthropologists in the process of study allocated three factors that combine chimpanzees with the ancestors of people and who are potentially responsible for the emergence of coalition aggression in both cases. First, chimpanzees, like people, are one of the few types of primates, whose males after growing remain in their natal group, and females turn out to be forced to leave it. Accordingly, the kernel of the group of chimpanzees is formed related to each other by males, and females come from the part. Most of these primates are the situation in the opposite way.

Secondly, chimpanzees are moderate polygamins. They live in a rank society, in which males usually compete with each other because of females, but at the same time the struggle is not for life, but there is no death among them. Sometimes the dominants seek to restrict access to females for low-edge individuals. Sometimes chimpanzees form pairs for a long time.

Thirdly, the chimpanzee is weakly expressed by sexual dimorphism. The males approximately a quarter larger females, about the same way as in humans. Gorillas and Orangutans, unlike chimpanzees, are pronounced polygamins. These species of humans between the males conduct a brutal struggle for females, which are less than almost twice. Larger sizes and large fangs of individual males gorillas are a serious advantage in the fight against the opponent. The winner monopolizes all females in the group, hurning the loser's opponent beyond her limits. Chimpanzee does not have such intravidal polymorphism and advantages over rivals. Therefore, they, like people, are easier to cooperate with each other within their group to compete with the males of other groups, protecting against their encroachments to their territory and their females.

It is also important that man-like monkeys, and especially chimpanzees, are endowed with a rather complicated brain. He gives them the opportunity to exercise empathy, understand the meaning of the actions of other animals, attributing them certain intentions. These abilities make it possible on their part of the present collective effect in such a human sense.

Chimpanzee group kills a stranger

The most important prerequisite for the latter is the ability to adequately perceive the intentions of others, soberly assess their capabilities and plan long-term cooperation strategies. There are other types of monkeys, which, like chimpanzees, males coordinate actions with each other. However, without the corresponding brain qualities, they are not able to support such interaction throughout the long term.

Most of the fact that today is known about chimpanzees, is also relevant with respect to our common ancestors that existed about 6 million years ago. Probably, these were quite developed and smart primates who lived in a closed, sustainable community, with high possibilities for male coalition behavior.

Over the past two decades, a number of large works have been published, proving that the sense of altruism, lying on the basis of the ability of people to create sustainable coalitions, was laid in close connection with the development of steamocialism. In other words, the hatred for someone else is the revolving side of love for his own, and militancy is an inevitable friendliness satellite. In the light of the data obtained by primatologists, it can be assumed that the chimpanzee, the last overall ancestor with people lived with only 6 million years ago.

Literature

Kazankov A. A. Aggression in archaic societies / A. A. Kazankov. - M.: Institute of Africa RAS, 2002. - 208 p.
Markov A. Evolution of man. In 2 books. Book 1. Monkeys, bones and genes. M.: Corpus, 2012. 496 p.
Schnirelman V. A. At the origins of the war and the world. War and peace in the early history of mankind / V. A. Schnirelman. - M.: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS, 1994. - C. 9-176.
Dawson D. The First Armies / D. Dawson. - London, 2001. - 124p.
Wilson M. L., Wrangham, R. W. InterGroup Relass in Chimpanzees. // Annual Review Of Anthropology 2003, Vol. 32, p.363-392.
Wilson M. L. et al. Lethal Aggression in Pan Is Better Explained by Adaptive Strategies Than Human Impacts // Nature 2014, Vol.513, P.413-419.

Why people fight.

(Fragments of Martin Van Kreveld "Transformation of War")

Wola to battle.

236. The war is mainly that representatives of one community mercilessly destroy representatives of the other and the murder is (or should be a rational way to achieve any reasonably formulated goal.

War, by definition, a type of social activity based on a certain kind of organization.

Consequently, the idea that it is a way to promote or protect any interests, (political, legal, religious) can be applied to society as a whole.

Whatever the regime of the board, the persons who enter the management bodies that make management decisions are common people from flesh and blood.

There is nothing more ridiculous than to believe that it is because of the fact that people have power, they act as automata or computing machines devoid of passions.

237. There are decision centers, and there is a battlefield.

Approaching the battle of a person, begins to be subjected to those feelings and sensations that are far from his interests. The senses are intensified, exacerbated, focused to such an extent when the moment of immunity more than anything comes. In the head becomes empty. And the past, and the future disappear; At the time of breaking the projectile, such concepts as "because" and "for the fact that" simply do not exist, while the body and mind strive for a complete concentration, without which a person in these circumstances cannot survive.

Speaking directly, the battle can never lie interest, because the dead have no interest.

A person may well give life for God, king, country, family, or even for everything at once. However, say that he did it because he had a certain posthumous "interest", consisting of at least the survival of the closest and expensive people, would be a distortion of the meaning of this term and turning it into his own caricature.

From this point of view, the war is a visual proof that man is not guided by personal selfish interests; In a sense, the war is the most altruistic of all kinds of human activity, which is akin to the priesthood and merges with him.

Exactly absence "Interest" by those who despise death and bravely dies, explains the fact that society often provides them with the greatest honors, and even sometimes includes them in Pantheon and honor as gods, just as it happened with the ancient Greek and the KanDavian heroes.

Thus, the motives that encourage people to sacrifice life, in no way coincides with the community goals, for which it will fight, and sometimes even a particular fighter does not have the idea of \u200b\u200bthe community purposes.

For a person, it is absurd to die for his own interests, but to die for someone else's strangers - even absurdly.

War does not begin when some kill others; It begins when those who kill, draw themselves to be killed.

Those who carry out the first, but not the second are not called warriors, but thugs, killers, executioners. The deprivation of the life of people who do not resist or cannot resist, is not considered war, and those who are responsible for his commitment can hardly count on respect that the soldiers turn out to be.

Palaley names remain secret.

War is not just a situation when one person or a group of people kills others, even if the murder is organized to achieve some goals and is considered legal.

The war begins when applying fatal wounds becomes mutual - this activity is known as a battle.

At any war, the willingness to endure suffering and die, on a par with readiness to kill, is the only significant factor.

The entire strategic thought of the late twentieth century is based on the idea that the war is a policy tool that the war is a murder for a certain strategy and goal. However, this can not explain what exactly encourages people to risk their lives. Since at any war, the reasons that prompted the troops to fight is a decisive factor, it's time to say goodbye to the strategy and look into the human soul.

Goals and means.

241 The essence of the war lies in the battle. Everything else or prelude, or results.

Bloodfly for war (Clausevitz), it is like money and the calculation for business.

No matter how rarely there were battles in practice, only they give meaning everything else.

There is no more valuable award than life, and no punishment is awful than death.

The slogan of Roman gladiators.

"Those who look at death in the person entered the kingdom, where deaths are no longer the mortals and where they no longer obey anything but their will."

Only those who live in war full life, can inspire a soldier with their example, exciting them, inspiring, leading to delight.

The war gives pleasure, the greatest pleasure is seen from the history of the games.

The battle itself was often considered not just a spectacle, but the greatest of all spectacles.

Danger is something more than just a characteristic of the situation in which war is conducted; From the point of view of war participants and viewers, the danger is among the most attractive aspects of the war.

For victory over the danger, such qualities are needed as courage, pride, dedication and determination.

Thus, the danger may force people to surpass themselves, to induce them to become something big than they are in fact. Conversely, determination, dedication, pride and courage make sense and manifest only in the face of danger.

In a word, the danger is what makes the flywheel of the war.

As in any sport, the stronger the danger - the greater the challenge she throws a person and the more fame brings her overcoming.

Danger - even "surrogate" or imaginary - explains the popularity of many entertainment, ranging from "Russian slides" and ending with dangerous, but meaningless lesions, such as jumping from the rock, many of which are listed in Guinness Book.

Sports requiring concentration of efforts, such as skiing, surfing, alloy on mountain rivers with thresholds, mountaineering, etc., are obliged to their attractiveness to the same factors; It is not by chance that there are so many terms borrowed from military vocabulary in the mountaineering.

The war is distinguished from other activities and makes a unique thing that it is the most dangerous of them; On her background, all the others are pale, and none of them can make an adequate replacement.

Wherever we left our eyes, we will see that the opposition occurring is only a pitiful similarity of what happens in war.

247 Human contests that do not reach the war are known as games.

248 All games are required by their existence that they have rules, and in fact they are determined by these rules.

Oh whatever the game was speech the rules function is In order to limit the choice of equipment, which is permissible to use, a set of human qualities that can be used in the duel, and, most importantly, the size of permissible violence.

All such restrictions are artificial, and therefore in a certain sense absurd.

The sustainability of the war is that it has always been and still remains the only creative type of activity in which the unlimited return of all human abilities, aimed against opponent, which is potentially as strong as the person himself.

This explains why throughout the history of mankind war, the war often considered the last test of what a person stands, or, in tongue in the language of the previous times, the court of God.

Confrontation of danger brings so huge joy and pleasure Thanks to nothing a similar feeling of freedomwhich is connected with it.

As Tolstoy notes about Prince Andrei, describing it on the eve of the battle under Austerlitz, the one who has no future is free from worries; Therefore, the horrors of the battle are able to cause mental excitement, excitement and even dizziness.

248 battle requires members of the maximum concentration. Because feelings focus on what is happening "here and now", during the fight a person can remove them from them. Thus, the warrior is given to approach the border that shares life and death, or even stop it. Of all the types of human activity, there is only one comparable with the war, namely sexual intercourse; And this is obvious already from the fact that the same words are often used to describe these two types of activities.

However, the excitement experienced in war during the battle is probably even stronger than sexual. In war, both the best and worst human qualities are manifested in all

Starting from the times of Homer, there was an idea that only one who risks life willingly, even with joy, to the end can be himself, a living person.

Of course, other factors, including rewards and coercion, act simultaneously with the will to the battle; But since we are talking about a meeting of a person with death, they all do not belong to business.

The greatest pleasure, as well as the strongest suffering, would be unbearable if they lasted forever.

Moreover, such opposite sensations, like pain and pleasure, are actually interrelated; One cannot exist from the other, and if they are fairly expressed intense, then one can turn into another.

Bubble, spiral, tense breathing, blood pulsation preceding the strongest excitation, inseparable from it, as well as heavy breathing and lead fatigue, followed by him.

The invasion of the world of causal relationships in the sphere of pure pleasure is not a unique property of war. Neither boxing. Neither soccer, nor other spectacular and exciting sports are capable of maintaining tension infinitely long and one of the reasons why a harsh time frame is installed for them is the desire to not give the emotions of the audience to fade.

The essence of the game is that while it lasts, reality moves to the background, "canceled" disappears.

Delighting the battle and sexual act is that they allow the participants (and observers) to forget to lose the feeling of reality, even if not completely and briefly.

Once the one who fights risks everything, it means that he is fighting, must be more valuable for him than his own blood.

249 Even Machiavelli Great Priest "Interest", did not believed that he could encourage his compatriots to fight for the liberation of Italy, pointing to them on the benefit, which each of them could leve from this enterprise.

Therefore, his "sovereign" is pumped by a fiery appeal in ancient value: "God, country, nation, race, class, justice, honor. Freedom, equality, fraternity include 250

It is even more surprising, this formula works in the opposite direction.

The more blood is praised in the name of any myth, the sacred is this myth. The more he is sacred, the less we tend to consider it in rational, instrumental terms. Human desire gives the bloodshed great and even the sacred meaning is so irresistible that the mind becomes almost powerless.

250 inscriptions on monuments of German soldiers killed during World War II: - When there is no case for which it is worth a fight, it needs to be invented.

That for which people are fighting, does not necessarily have any valid value.

On the contrary, items that in a different situation are completely useless, can only be gained by the highest value because their appearance is associated with the war, reminding so. On met, experienced and overcome hazards.

(Trophies, heads of killed, etc.)

Genghis Khan.When he was asked what the most pleasant thing in life, he replied: - to press his wife and daughters of the defeated enemy - at the same time he, of course, did not mean that he had a flaw in women for bed jath.

The most famous and attractive places in the world are places associated with wars, battles and events in which blood spilled.

The same thinking processeswhich lead to an increase in the importance of the goals of the war, causes the tendency to the presets of its means of maintaining.

Throughout the history of mankind weapons and gear There were the subject of tender care, and even worship, and all just because they had a relation to armed conflict.

One of the manifestation of this phenomenon was the custom of giving names to guns, spears, etc.

In the song about Roland, Swords:

Durandal (strong, unstable)

"Zhuayes" (joyful, restless)

"Pedozing" (valuable, marvelous)

They were surrounded by such reverence as if they were alive creatures. The weapon was not just a utilitarian device, but the symbol of power.

It was decorated and often was an expensive work of art. (swords. Rouge, knives,)

Power, high cost, a few and the symbolic meaning of weapons are associated and so. Multiplely strengthen the significance of each other, creating a certain vicious circle.

252 the same applies and to clothes. Lush decorations, masks, tattoos, feathers, decoration, chain mail, and the like - were the subject of pride, intimidation and desires to them and own.

Armor, uniforms in war.

253 Plato: - "Battle is just the moment when a man should be elegantly dressed."

Symbols in war. Each army has a set of objects specifically created in order to serve as symbols, and those considered much more precious than even spilled blood.

Banners, flags are necessary to maintain the military spirit. Sometimes they have a religious value.

Napoleon personally handed the eagle to each shelf.

In the Nazi Army, it was believed that the flags were "consecrated" by Hitler and the blood of the fallen comrades. With whatever myths, it is related, it is believed that the significance of these symbols originates from the highest values \u200b\u200bof one or another society.

It is also important that their significance is always increasingly increasing as warriors carry them into battle, then they fight for them and finally, how blood shed.

The concept of "honor", "Glory", "Banner" merge for a fighter in the middle.

When the awards lose this meaning, and the punishment ceases to be a deterrent, only the concept of honor retains its power over people and encourages them to march under the mushrooms focused on them.

This is the only thing that a person can take with him to the grave, even if, as it often happens, he will not be his own grave.

All these and other items used in military ceremonies and possessing the appropriate symbolism carry a deep paradox.

All of them without exception are "real" and "unreal" at the same time.

The flag is only a piece of colorful matter.

Eagle is a gilded piece of bronze.

Goat is an animal.

They need to believe and this requires a certain enthusiasm of faith, a boyfriend faith.

On the other hand, possessing such faith in the symbols will remain boys.

War has always been a young business.

What is true for all sorts of rituals is true and in relation to fraternity, equality, freedom, honor, justice, class, race, people, country, god.

In a sense, shedding blood for these ideals, ultimately, there is an activity caused by fantasy, and it is not enough than different from the child's game, which is depicting a train. The war has a unique ability to discharge deeply rooted myths, to draft the deepest beliefs and deprive the meaning of even the most impressive rituals.

Only in the event that they are experiencing something great and wonderful, in other words, like an end in itself, these ideal items can inspire people for victims.

In short, war is a grand theater. The theater replaces life, it becomes her; Life, in turn, becomes theater.

256 War is in that. To risk a life, make heroic actions and brave to meet danger.

As the commander of Israeli tank troops in. After the six-day war: - "We watched death in the face, and she lowered her eyes"

No army can serve as a tool for achieving or protecting political or other purposes, if it is not ready and does not want this.

War can inspire people to fight only because it is only to the extent that it is the only type of activity that can reduce the differences between goals and means. The highest degree of seriousness is enclosed in the game.

Strength and weakness.

Danger It is the meaning of the existence of war, confronting - Prerequisite.

The unhindered destruction of people is considered not a battle, but an excellent murder or, in the case when it occurs on legal grounds, execution. The lack of resistance makes it impossible to exist a military strategy.

257 according to Clausevitz, uncertainty - is an characteristic feature wars. But it is not. Uncertainty is not just a medium,in which war flows and which helps to influence the actions of the enemy; First of all, it The necessary condition for the existence of an armed conflict.

When the outcome of the struggle is known in advance, the battle is usually stopped, as one side gives up, and the other becomes not interesting.

Winners, they could control their feelings and did not lose their heads from the rage or thirst for revenge, they usually took the surrender.

What kind of unpleasant events are not the investigators then - but what happened later, it was often even more unpleasant than the war itself, "all this was previously considered not part of the battle, but as if they said Romans.

Such a payroll could be more or less necessary or justified, to a greater or less responding to the adopted military custom.

And those who participate in the implementation of this retaliation or benefit from it, are not considered worthy of any special honors, even on the contrary.

In the presence of complete information, the war no longer makes sense.

In real historical circumstances, the main factor affecting the problem of uncertainty was not complete information about the enemy or lack of reliable defense, and the relationship between force and weakness.

When one fighting side is much stronger than another, warfare can become difficult even by virtue of the determination itself. Strong against the weak is not a war.

The very existence of an armed conflict, war, implies. That the fighting parties should be more or less equal forces.

It is not by chance that the Bellum word happened from Due -Lum "Fighting Two"

Where there is no such equality, the war eventually becomes impossible.

War, which leads a weak side against a strong, very risky.

On the contrary, the war, which leads the strong side against weak, problematic for the same reason. Over time, as a result of hostilities, two parties begin to be likened to each other until the opposites come closer, converge and change in places.

Weakness turns into force, and power into weakness.

The main reason for this phenomenon is that the war, apparently, the most imitative type of activity from all famous person.

The whole secret of Victory is to try to understand the enemy, in order to overcome him. Thus, the process of mutual learning of the parties is initiated.

Even when the struggle is already coming, each of the parties in the process corrects its tactical techniques, the funds used and, which is most important, strengthens its martial spirit in order to become equal to the enemy.

Sooner or later, the moment comes when both sides are already indistinguishable from each other.

Small and weak forces, opposing a large and strong enemy, requires a very strong martial spirit to compensate for their shortcomings in other respects. However, since survival in such a situation is already in itself a big feat, this martial spirit will be strengthened with every victory, even small.

On the contrary, the powerful armed forces, fighting with a weak enemy for more or less long time, almost certainly to face the fall of the combat spirit, because nothing is so barren as an endless series of victories that you need to repeat dreams ai again.

The struggle with a weak enemy humiliates who leads it, and so on, deprives the foundations of the very purpose of this struggle.

The one who is inferior to the weak enemy is losing. The one who wins the victory over him is also losing.

In such an enterprise there can be no benefits or honor.

Another important side of the time why, over time, a strong and weak side is like to each other and even change in places, it lies in the fact that the two sides are in a different position from a moral point of view.

There is no such border that could not be emphasized in case of extreme need. From here it follows that the one who is weak can go to everyone, resort to the most insidious methods and make any cruelty, not exploring political support and, more importantly, without joining a compromise with its own moral principles.

On the contrary, almost everything that does (or does not) strong, in some sense it is unnecessary, too, and therefore brutally.

For a strong only output will be quickly winning, in order to avoid the worst consequences of their own cruelty; A single act of merciless cruelty as a result may be more merciful than long containing it.

The terrible end is better than endless horror, and in addition such tactics are much more efficient.

Forces who do not believe in the right point of their case, in the end, refuse to fight.

Since it is already easy to fight weakness, over the time of the consequences of such a war, will certainly put a strong side into an unbearable position.

Constantly subjected to provocations, they are to blame if they act, tons are also to blame if inactive.

If they do not respond to continuous provoking - then, probably, their martial spirit will be broken, because the passive expectation is the hardest game of all.

If they will apply retaliatory strikes, the enemy's weakness itself automatically means that they dropped to cruelty and, since most people by nature cannot be sadists for a long time, in the end, they will be hated themselves.

Maybe. The most important quality that needs to be posing a strong side fighting against a weaker enemy is self-control; And indeed, the ability is not to respond to provocations, while maintaining the head on the shoulders and abstaining from a too turbulent reaction that plays the opponent's hand, in itself the best possible testimony of a good self-control.

It is necessary to voluntarily weaken and even disarm your strength in order to meet with an opponent about equal, just like an athlete fisherman prefers to use a fishing rod and crochet, to rely on dynamite.

Hard discipline and thorough combat training.

When the strong side does not have an iron self-control and it is forced to fight with a weak enemy for a long period, the strong side will necessarily violate its own charters and commit crimes - some unintentionally. And some intentionally.

Forced to go on deception to hide my crimes, she will find that the system of military justice is undermined, the process of managing troops is deformed, and the abyss of distrust express himself.

In this situation, there are no heroes nor criminals, but there are only victims: those whom the gods want to punish, they are primarily deprived of vision.

Weak today becomes strong tomorrow and revenge strong.

The ratio of good and evil, the issues of ethics are not only directly related to war, but are located in its very center.

The relationship between strength and weakness and moral dilemmas, which follows them probably best explain the reason why, in the past decades, modern armies on both sides of the Iron Curtain operated so inefficiently, participating in low-intensity conflicts.

Colonial bottles were a lot of oppressed and weak, this is the revenge of peoples. Refusing to play according to the rules that have established "civilized" countries for their convenience, they invented their own form of war and began exporting it.

Since the rules exist mainly in the minds, being once disturbed, they can then be restored only with great difficulty.

(Martin Wang Kreveld / Transformation of the War. Trans. From English - M.: Alpina Business Buks, 2005)

Conflictology and conflicts

Alexey Kozlenko

The chimpanzee group patrols the territory

Social Darwinism and his criticism

On the other hand, if you follow the logic of cultural anthropologists of the second half of the twentieth century., Who seen in the war only a bad habit and the result of an inappropriate system of education, it is not clear why this habit is so bad to be corrected. The war is still a characteristic element of modern life, and this sad fact stimulates new research problems of its origin.