The world peace is often deemed as unrealistic. But if the world’s citizens weren’t the sheep, stood up and show the politicians that they can and will control them, there would be peace. Let’s stop this with the famous claim “The biggest problem in politics is the stupidity of people” made by Helmut Schmidt. But let’s break it down. Why are wars?
This article sums up the historical and current reasons why there are wars in the age of highly developed AI.
Evolution of Homo sapiens and wars
The evolution of Homo sapiens is deeply connected to the history of war. From the earliest stages, humans faced competition for survival. They lived in small groups, relying on cooperation to secure food, protect themselves, and thrive. This cooperation strengthened bonds within the group. At the same time, it fostered aggression toward outsiders. Groups that worked together effectively had better chances of surviving. They also had a better chance of defeating rivals.
Humans evolved larger brains, which allowed for complex planning and problem-solving. These traits were crucial for survival. They were also crucial for conflict. Early humans used tools for hunting and gathering. These tools became weapons. They turned stones and sticks into instruments of war. Over time, conflicts between groups became more organized. These conflicts were no longer just about survival. They became a means of gaining power and control.
Tribalism
Tribalism played a key role in shaping human behavior. Humans developed strong attachments to their group. They trusted those within their group and distrusted outsiders. This behavior was a survival mechanism. Loyalty to the group increased the chances of collective survival. Those who defended their group protected not only themselves but also their families and future generations. Over time, this created a deep-seated tendency for in-group loyalty and out-group hostility.
Early wars were likely small and localized. They were about practical concerns like hunting grounds, water, and shelter. These resources were limited, and groups competed for them. As human populations grew, so did the scale of these conflicts. Groups expanded and encountered others. Competition intensified. Humans began to organize themselves more effectively for war. They formed strategies and developed hierarchies to lead battles. Leaders emerged to guide their groups in conflict. These developments shaped the early foundations of human society.
Across the globe
As Homo sapiens spread across the globe, conflicts took on new forms. They adapted to different environments and challenges. In some regions, wars were about land and resources. In others, they were about power and influence. Humans became skilled at adapting their strategies to different situations. They learned to exploit their environment and use it to their advantage in war. The ability to plan, strategize, and innovate became a defining feature of Homo sapiens.
War also shaped human culture and identity. It brought people together within groups. Shared struggles and victories created strong group identities. War stories became part of the oral traditions of early societies. They reinforced the importance of bravery, loyalty, and sacrifice. These values became central to many human cultures. At the same time, war created divisions between groups. It defined who was “us” and who was “them.”
The impact of war on human evolution cannot be ignored. It influenced not only survival but also the development of technology, organization, and culture, forced humans to innovate and adapt, pushed them to create better tools, stronger defenses, and more effective strategies. These advancements had effects far beyond the battlefield. They influenced agriculture, construction, and governance.
War is a reflection of human nature. It shows both the ability to cooperate within a group and the tendency to compete with others. It is tied to survival, progress, and identity. The evolution of Homo sapiens is a story of adaptation and innovation. It is also a story of conflict. Understanding this connection helps us see how deeply war is woven into the human experience.
Homo sapiens evolved to practice politics on the hunter-gathering group level
Wars exist because Homo sapiens evolved to navigate politics and power within small, tight-knit groups, not vast, anonymous societies like modern nations. Hunter-gatherers lived in bands of 50 to 150 people. Within these groups, politics was personal. Leaders emerged based on charisma, skill, or wisdom. Decisions came from consensus or direct negotiation. Conflicts were resolved through mediation, exile, or localized violence. Everyone knew everyone. Alliances and rivalries were immediate, tangible, and deeply rooted in survival.
This evolutionary background leaves modern humans ill-equipped for the complexities of large-scale governance. National politics involves millions of people, distant leaders, and abstract policies. Instead of direct relationships, individuals rely on symbols – flags, parties, and ideologies – to form bonds. Trust, once based on personal interaction, shifts to institutions or propaganda. Miscommunication and misunderstanding multiply across such vast scales. Power becomes impersonal, distant, and harder to hold accountable.
Wars arise because these evolved tendencies clash with modern structures. Tribal instincts drive loyalty to nations, ethnic groups, or ideologies. Threats, real or perceived, trigger defensive aggression. Leaders exploit these instincts, rallying people around fear or pride. Large-scale conflict becomes a magnified version of ancestral disputes – territory, resources, status – but with weapons capable of devastating millions.
Modern politics still operates like a tribal system on a massive scale. Leaders act as chiefs, rallying followers through emotional appeals rather than rational policies. Alliances mimic ancestral kin groups, while enemies are dehumanized as threats to survival. This mismatch between evolution and modernity fosters division, competition, and ultimately, war. Humans navigate a world designed for direct, small-scale politics, but now face the consequences of applying those instincts to global conflicts.
Dichotomy us/them
The dichotomy of “us versus them” is central to the nature of war. It reflects a deeply ingrained human tendency to categorize others as belonging either to our group or to an opposing one. This instinct likely evolved as a survival mechanism. Early humans depended on cooperation within their group to survive. At the same time, they had to compete with other groups for resources, territory, and security.
The “us” group fosters trust, loyalty, and unity. Members of the group share resources, protect one another, and work together to achieve common goals. This bond strengthens the group’s survival chances. It creates a sense of belonging and identity. The “them” group, on the other hand, is viewed as a threat. They are competitors for the same limited resources. They may also be seen as dangerous or unpredictable, heightening distrust.
In war, this division becomes sharper. The “us” group is seen as righteous and deserving. The “them” group is seen as the enemy, often dehumanized to justify conflict. This dehumanization makes it easier to rationalize violence. Soldiers and societies may see killing not as murder but as a necessary act of defense or justice. Propaganda often reinforces these ideas, painting the enemy as evil or inferior.
Why are wars? Simplicity versus complex conflicts
The dichotomy also simplifies complex conflicts. It frames wars as battles between good and evil, right and wrong. This black-and-white view can unite people within a group. It gives them a clear purpose and motivates them to fight. However, it also obscures the complexities of war. It overlooks shared humanity and the possibility of peaceful resolution.
Historically, this dichotomy has fueled many conflicts. In tribal societies, the division often revolved around kinship and territory. In larger societies, it expanded to include religion, ethnicity, and ideology. The Crusades, for example, framed Christians and Muslims as opposing forces. World War II relied heavily on portraying the Axis and Allied powers as distinct moral opposites. In modern times, the “us versus them” narrative persists in national, ethnic, and ideological wars.
This dichotomy is powerful but dangerous. It strengthens unity within groups but deepens divisions between them, blinds people to common interests and shared goals. It perpetuates cycles of violence by entrenching the idea of perpetual enemies. Overcoming this dichotomy requires recognizing the humanity of the “other.” It demands efforts to build bridges, foster understanding, and address the root causes of conflict.
The “us versus them” mindset is deeply rooted in human psychology. It has shaped wars throughout history and continues to do so today. Understanding it is essential for breaking the cycles of division and violence that have defined so much of human history.
Old good xenophobia as a part of wars
Nationalism often uses xenophobia as a tool to ignite and justify wars. Nationalism thrives on the belief in the superiority of one’s nation, culture, or identity. It emphasizes loyalty to the nation above all else. To sustain this unity, it frequently creates an “other” – an external group or enemy that is portrayed as a threat to national values, security, or existence. Xenophobia, or the fear and hatred of foreigners or outsiders, is central to this process.
Xenophobia simplifies complex geopolitical or economic tensions. Leaders exploit it to rally support for war. They frame conflicts as battles to protect the nation from dangerous outsiders. This tactic unites people by stoking fear and anger. It distracts them from internal problems, such as economic inequality, corruption, or political instability.
Propaganda
Propaganda plays a crucial role. It portrays the “enemy” as inferior, barbaric, or inherently threatening. It dehumanizes them, making violence against them seem not only acceptable but necessary. Historical grievances, cultural differences, and stereotypes are amplified to fuel hostility. This creates an emotional, rather than rational, basis for war.
Economic competition often feeds this narrative. When resources are scarce or economic challenges arise, outsiders are blamed. They are accused of taking jobs, draining resources, or undermining the nation’s prosperity. This rhetoric shifts focus away from internal policy failures and places the blame on external forces. Xenophobia becomes a rallying cry for protecting national wealth and sovereignty.
Nationalism also ties war to identity. It suggests that the survival of the nation is tied to defeating the enemy. Leaders claim that war is not only a defense of territory but also of cultural values, traditions, and the nation’s future. This makes dissent difficult. Those who question the war are labeled unpatriotic or traitorous.
Nationalism
History provides many examples of this dynamic. In World War I, nationalism and xenophobia fueled animosities between European powers, each convinced of its own superiority. In World War II, Nazi Germany used extreme nationalism and xenophobia to justify its wars of expansion and genocide. More recently, xenophobic rhetoric has been used to justify interventions, border conflicts, and even civil wars.
This strategy is effective but dangerous. It creates deep divisions and long-lasting hatred. Wars built on xenophobia often spiral out of control, causing immense suffering. They leave scars not only on the battlefield but also in the relationships between nations and communities.
Nationalism and xenophobia together create a powerful force. They simplify complex issues and manipulate emotions to justify violence. Understanding how they are used to start wars is essential for preventing future conflicts. It requires vigilance, critical thinking, and efforts to promote understanding and cooperation over fear and division.
Why are wars: Social hierarchies, military ranks
Military hierarchies play a central role in enabling and sustaining wars. They establish a clear system of command and obedience, ensuring that soldiers act in unison. Orders flow from the top down, and soldiers are trained to follow them without question. This system creates discipline, which is essential for maintaining control in chaotic situations like battle. Even when strategies are controversial or destructive, the rank structure minimizes dissent. Soldiers carry out commands not because they agree with them, but because the system demands it. This obedience ensures that wars can be conducted on a large scale and with precision.
Submissive-dominant relationships
Military ranks are deeply rooted in the evolutionary dynamics of dominance and submission. These relationships have been critical for group survival throughout human history. In early human societies, dominant individuals often emerged as leaders, taking control during conflicts or crises. Submissive individuals followed, trusting the leader’s strength, decisiveness, or ability to protect the group. This dynamic ensured cohesion and efficiency, as it minimized internal conflict and allowed groups to act collectively against external threats. In the military, these instincts are formalized into ranks, where dominance is expressed through authority and submission through obedience. Soldiers are conditioned to follow orders without hesitation, mirroring the evolutionary advantage of trusting a leader during critical moments. This hierarchy leverages a natural human tendency to defer to authority in high-stakes situations, ensuring order, discipline, and the execution of complex strategies, all of which are essential for success in warfare.
At the top of the hierarchy, a small group of leaders holds the power to make critical decisions about the direction of a war. These leaders often act based on political, ideological, or strategic goals. Their decisions can be influenced by nationalism, resource competition, or the desire for territorial expansion. The centralized nature of the hierarchy concentrates this power, leaving little room for those lower in the ranks to question or challenge these choices. Even when there is dissatisfaction or opposition among soldiers or junior officers, the structure of the hierarchy ensures that their voices are rarely heard. This concentration of authority allows wars to escalate or continue even when many within the system may oppose them.
Killing machines and hierarchies
The organization provided by hierarchies also makes wars more effective and, by extension, more likely to escalate. Each rank within the hierarchy has specific duties and responsibilities. Commanders at higher levels focus on planning and strategy, while mid-level officers translate those plans into actionable orders. Soldiers on the ground execute these tasks with precision. This division of labor ensures that armies function as cohesive units, capable of carrying out complex operations. Communication flows efficiently through the ranks, allowing for quick responses to changing conditions on the battlefield. This level of coordination makes military forces more capable of achieving their objectives, which can encourage leaders to pursue prolonged or larger-scale conflicts.
In addition to discipline and coordination, hierarchies create an environment where war becomes self-sustaining. Soldiers at lower ranks often develop strong bonds with their comrades, fostering loyalty and a sense of duty to their unit. These relationships can drive individuals to fight harder, even when the broader goals of the war are unclear or disagreeable to them. The rank structure also rewards obedience and success in combat. Promotions, honors, and increased responsibilities incentivize individuals to perform within the system, further reinforcing the effectiveness of the hierarchy.
Lowered responisibility
The hierarchical system also distances responsibility for actions taken during war. Decisions made at the top are carried out by those lower in the ranks, creating a separation between decision-makers and those who execute their orders. This diffusion of responsibility allows leaders to make aggressive or controversial choices with less accountability. Soldiers, in turn, may feel less personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions, as they are simply following orders. This dynamic can perpetuate cycles of violence and make it more difficult to end wars once they begin.
Hierarchies are essential to the modern conduct of war. They provide the structure needed to mobilize, train, and deploy large numbers of people in organized conflict. Without them, wars would lack the coordination and discipline necessary for sustained campaigns. However, this same structure makes wars more destructive and harder to resolve. By concentrating power, enforcing obedience, and incentivizing participation, hierarchies ensure that wars can escalate and endure. They are not just tools for organizing armies but mechanisms that fuel the very existence of war itself.
Shadow eminences as warmongers: History
Shadow eminences have shaped wars throughout history. They act behind the scenes, unseen but decisive. Their influence drives leaders, nations, and armies into conflict. They rarely take the blame, but they always reap the rewards.
In prehistory, shamans guided tribal raids. They claimed divine visions or spiritual insight. Leaders followed their advice, believing it was fate or destiny. The power was indirect but absolute.
In ancient civilizations, shadow figures thrived in courts. Advisors and viziers shaped wars through whispers. In Rome, women like Livia Drusilla pushed emperors toward conquest or assassination. They avoided public roles but controlled outcomes.
The Church dominated Europe in the Middle Ages. Popes called for crusades while knights fought and died. Secretive groups like the Knights Templar financed campaigns. They held the purse strings and used their influence to steer conflicts.
Renaissance Italy saw shadow eminences in banking families. The Medicis financed wars while maintaining a façade of neutrality. Espionage and secret alliances decided battles before they began. Richelieu’s France used advisors to fuel the Thirty Years’ War, weakening enemies while consolidating power.
Industrialization shifted shadow power to financiers. Banking families like the Rothschilds lent money to warring nations. Their influence determined who could fight and for how long. Corporations started to profit from war. They supplied weapons and controlled resources.
The World Wars brought new players. Industrial giants dictated strategy through logistics and arms. In the Cold War, shadow eminences became intelligence agencies. The CIA and KGB waged secret wars. They toppled governments and destabilized regions under the guise of ideology.
Shadow eminences as warmongers now
The West is created by interconnected banks (exchange of shares, assets, have secret deals) owned by the super-rich families and with clintelism based on religon sometimes. This is something evidence-based.
POTUS as the most powerful man only on paper, and the banks, super-rich families, and corporations along with multinational lobbyists control the politicians.
When you are rich economically, you are strong politically. So when allies conquered the Nazi-dominated Europe, they just stole everything they could have.
Germany is controlled by France, the UK, and the USA, and Japan is completely controlled by the USA (note that particular background groups hold different economies).
So this whole system make international clientelist system wiht pushs and pulls while all the actors want more power and money.
And since there are possibilities of wars, they want to wage wars to be more powerful.
War and the stupidity of people
A German chancellor Helmut Schmidt famously proclaimed: “The biggest problem in politics is the stupidity of people.”
In 2024, if every single citizen of countries involved in the complex Russo-Ukranian war stood up and said just “no”, no war (if we exclude military dictatorship where every single soldier is loyal to the machine) would be possible.
Just a hint what politicians would do without having to obey their puppet masters:
Policies without puppet masters would reshape governance. Healthcare could shift to universal systems, prioritizing access over profit. Pharmaceutical companies would lose their grip. Costs would drop, and preventative care could take center stage.
The end of bipartisanship would open new political paths. Fresh ideas and unconventional alliances could emerge. Leaders could work for solutions, not party loyalty. Decisions would reflect broader consensus, not narrow agendas.
Education, environment, law
Environmental policies could become aggressive. Renewable energy would see massive investments. Fossil fuel subsidies would vanish. Conservation efforts would grow. Climate goals could become achievable without corporate obstruction.
Education would transform. Schools would receive equitable funding. Student debt could disappear. Programs would focus on critical thinking and practical skills, free from private-sector influence.
Labor laws could strengthen. Wages might rise as corporate lobbying declines. Unions could grow without interference. Workplaces could prioritize safety and fairness.
Technology regulation could improve. Data privacy might become a priority. Big Tech could face accountability for monopolistic practices. Policies would balance innovation with ethical responsibility.
Housing could become a right, not a privilege. Rent control and affordable housing initiatives might gain traction. Real estate speculation could face stricter limits.
Foreign aid could shift to genuine humanitarian efforts. Military aid might decline. Trade policies would balance economic growth with fairness. Exploitative practices could see significant reductions.
Every policy area could focus on long-term benefits. Short-term gains for elites would lose their sway. Decisions would reflect collective needs, not the demands of puppet masters.
Conclusion: Why are wars?
The root of many problems lies in humanity’s persistent tribalism – this “us versus them” mentality. If we could overcome it, so much conflict could be avoided.
However, tribalism is deeply embedded in Homo sapiens’ evolutionary nature. It manifests in countless ways: local industries competing for dominance, national companies protecting their markets, sports teams cultivating rivalries, cultural institutions preserving traditions, regional identities shaping pride, symbolic affiliations reinforcing belonging, and loyalties forming around favored groups.
Xenophobia compounds this problem. The fear or hatred of what is different is another deeply ingrained trait, an evolutionary byproduct of a survival instinct that no longer serves its purpose in a globalized world. Adding to this, human societies are structured around hierarchies, with military organization being a particularly enduring and potent example of this dynamic.
The modern world adds another layer of complexity. While Homo sapiens evolved to navigate politics within small hunter-gatherer groups, we now live in sprawling societies where power is concentrated in the hands of a few. The super-rich -hidden puppet masters – often manipulate systems to maintain control, leaving the majority feeling powerless. This mismatch between our evolutionary predispositions and the realities of contemporary governance helps explain the persistence of war and exploitation.
As I often say, people need to recognize and dismantle the systems of control that perpetuate inequality. Citizens must reject political clientelism and demand transparency and accountability. To break free from being passive followers – “sheep,” as some call it – we must redefine ourselves as active, informed citizens who engage critically with the systems shaping our world. Only then can we move toward a society that values collaboration over division and justice over control.
Leave a Reply