The forever war

"Constant Battles: Why We Fight" is a 2003 book by Steven A LeBlanc. Katherine E Register is credited as co-author. The book is "politically incorrect" and probably not for the (liberal or leftist) faint of heart. It would have shocked me 15 years ago when many of my own views were similar to those the author is criticizing (see many other posts on this blog). Today, I believe that the Hobbsian-Malthusian perspective of LeBlanc is probably true. And in contrast to him, I 'm not convinced that the modern world can remedy the situation...

The thesis of the book can be summarized thus: "the noble savage" never existed. Stone Age and Native peoples have almost never lived in ecological balance with Nature, and while peaceful periods have existed, they were shorter than the periods when warfare was endemic. Population growth and over-exploitation of natural resources are the main reasons for warfare in pre-state societies. Complex societies are usually also war-prone, and only with the advent of modern high technology and organization has it become at least potentially possible to minimize armed conflict and environmental degradation. In other words, modernity is our best hope for peace and sustainability, not a "primitivist" return to a purely imaginary Golden Age.

Although the author is inspired by sociobiology, and discusses violence among chimpanzees at some length, his perspective is actually more "socio" than "biology". War and aggression are not hard-wired into our genes. In fact, most people hate war and quickly revert to peaceful relations if possible. Thus, the author believes that the Natives of New Guinea supported the rule of the colonial powers, since it brought peace. The problem is that most humans most of the time live in conditions when war makes more sense - if not to them, at least to their enemies! This restarts the cycle, again and again. Before colonialism, the Papuans in the New Guinea highlands had been isolated from the outside world (including the evil patriarchal Indo-Europeans) for about 40,000 years. Warfare was endemic. They really lived in a Hobbesian nightmare. 

The author argues in some detail that Stone Age and Native peoples do *not* have "plenty of food", "more leisure" than modern Westerners, perpetual peace or a "conservationist ethic". I have to say that some of the studies cited to prove this were *extremely* sloppy, including the classical survey of !Kung Bushmen foragers, which didn't take into consideration that the Kalahari Natives have access to cars (the cars of the anthropologists making the survey, to be exact) or steel axes, both of which make foraging easier than in the past. They also missed the salient fact that the gathered nuts must be processed at camp before becoming edible. So no, the !Kung probably didn't have shorter work days during the Paleolithic than the average modern Swedish employee... 

LeBlanc devotes several chapters to evidence for warfare among Bushmen, Hopi, Eskimoes, Aborigines and other Native groups. The fierce Yanomami make a brief guest appearence. Nor was the Stone Age particularly peaceful. The author believes there is enough evidence for murder, massacres and even cannibalism from that period. He wonders why the earliest known human settlement, the Paleolithic site at Dolne Vestonice, was a longhouse surrounded by a fence made of mammoth tusks, and placed strategically on a little hill? And why did all Stone Age people keep dogs? Dogs, for some reason, bark. Wolves don't. Why was the ability to bark selected for? Was it *only* to scare away wild animals from the settlement? That's unlikely, as animals fear fire (and learned to fear humans). Of course they were guard dogs, warning against human strangers. 

The main reason for war, at least in a pre-state society, is resource scarcity. Humans can and do increase the carrying capacity of their natural environment, but this virtually always leads to population growth, and hence to further scarcity ahead. This doesn't mean that humans are unable to understand the problem. Quite the contrary. Many cultures try to control their population growth. Infanticide, abortion and birth spacing are common methods. Others include women "marrying out" and hence joining other groups, or emigration of a portion of the group. Unfortunately, none of these methods ever work in the long run. Pre-state societies haven't got enough power to force everyone to abide by the rules. Often, neither pre-state nor state societies *want* to follow them. The more populous a polity is, the more warriors or soldiers can it mobilize. This forces the enemies to increase their populations, too, and so it continues. The author points out that war itself can be seen as a population control measure, and so can famine. Indeed, states often force part of their population to starve for this reason, as when Britain didn't care about the potato famine in Ireland.

Interestingly, the author has some problems explaining state warfare, since a strong state can control its population through famine, and therefore (ironically) should be more peaceful to its neighbors, since the resources are now in balance. He has even more trouble explaining modern wars, which he sees as almost irrational. It's almost as if the author so strongly want to believe in the salvific power of modernity that he doesn't see that modern polities too are based on super-exploitation. Besides, the observation that if one nation changes, every other nation must change in the same way or be eaten, works pretty well as an explanation for why no modern power can take a step back in order to become more peaceful and Green. Japan saved itself from imperialism by becoming imperialist, and China saved itself from globalism by becoming more globalist. 

I think the author's myopia is tied to his class position. He seems to be a pretty privileged guy. All his friends go on honeymoon to Greece, or take long hikes in the hills, with full modern outfitting, of course. His students have standard liberal values of the kind popular in the suburban middle class. No hard feelings, but I can't help thinking that our author might be a bit insulated from, say, world imperialism...

LeBlanc (and Register) hopes that the modern world of efficient state powers can be used to bring about a world of plenty for all and hence of peace. One positive sign is that the population growth in the Western world (and Japan) is close to zero. But what if the plenty of modern societies is dependent on the poverty of all the rest? Or if the plenty of all comes at a high price for the environment? 

Then, it seems, all the old crap will return with a vengeance... 

I can't say I like that perspective.