Human aggression

Human aggression, according to Nicholas Wade in The Faith Instinct, dates to the emergence of the first humans, the result of traits inherited from pre-human ancestors. If correct, that dating of human aggression has at least two important theological implications.

First, the early dating of human aggression contradicts any hypothesized “golden era” in a mythical garden of Eden and the associated idea that humans fell from grace. Human aggression, then like now, entailed fights to the death over mates and territory. This view coheres better with an evolutionary understanding of life and does not disturb me (cf. the Ethical Musings post, “Rethinking the fall”).

Second, overcoming human aggressiveness represents an important measure of human development. A self-centered individual is more likely to thrive than is an altruistic individual. However, societies than practice cooperation (i.e., group altruism) thrive better than societies that cooperate less. In essence, one on one, the dominant individual (strongest, smartest, etc.) will generally prevail but when the dominant individual faces a united group of inferiors, the group most frequently prevails.

As the world’s population grows unrelentingly closer to 9 billion (probably reaching that mark by 2050), the competition between tribal and national groups for scarce resources (water, food, energy sources) will invariably increase. One disturbing and potentially world changing venue for such competition currently is the Korean peninsula. North Korea has only one ally, China. North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons, and possesses a large conventional military force in addition to having a desperately poor populace and a paranoid government.

A recent New York Times column identified five different ways in which the uneasy truce on the Korean peninsula could easily lead to war: an incident at sea, shelling of the DMZ, a power struggle or coup, an internal collapse, and nuclear provocation. (David Sanger, “In the Koreas, Five Possible Ways to War,” New York Times, May 28, 2010)

For at least fifteen years, the United States and other nations have dealt with North Korean provocations by threatening sanctions, temporizing as North Korea made vacillating or conciliatory sounding noises, and then mostly settling for appeasing actions, mild sanctions, and saber rattling with respect to future incidents. President Obama has vowed to break that cycle. (Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger, “U.S. to Aid South Korea With Naval Defense Plan,” New York Times, May 30, 2010) Even as a similar approach to parenting inevitably fails, so that approach to international relations fails to move the world closer to peace.

Unfortunately, devising an alternative course of action has eluded world leaders since Harry Truman. Fighting a third war (in addition to the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan) is unattractive – especially if North Korea possesses nuclear weapons, as seems likely. Building cultural, economic, and other ties to North Korea that would make war a losing proposition for both sides becomes more difficult and unlikely each year. Past sanctions have included suspending or cutting such ties, a counterproductive strategy that by further isolating North Korea diminishes its “costs” associated with open warfare.

Perhaps the most viable strategic option depends upon the United States fully partnering with China to resolve tensions on the Korean peninsula, a politically perilous move in the U.S. and China given each nation’s atavism.

The United States taking the initiative to ship massive amounts of food and other aid to North Korea with no strings attached is also intriguing, thought probably not politically viable in the U.S. However, what might happen if the U.S. actually took such an unprecedented step toward a nation that is nominally an enemy (no peace treaty has officially ended the Korean War)? North Korea’s government by taking full credit for the aid could improve internal political and social stability while perhaps diminishing the regime’s paranoia. The cost to the United States would be trivial compared to the cost of another war. Continuing the aid even if further provocations occurred would emphasize the lack of strings attached to the aid. China might react to the move in unexpected, positive ways. Indeed, Chinese assistance in delivering the aid might prove essential. In other words, what would happen if the U.S. began acting towards others in a manner consistent with the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you), an ethical precept basic to the world’s major religions?

Conversely, the weight of world opinion continues to shift against Israel for acting toward the Palestinians in ways that violate the golden rule. (Helene Cooper and Ethan Bronner, “Israeli Raid Complicates U.S. Ties and Push for Peace ,” New York Times, May 31, 2010)

The recent attempt by a group of international activists to deliver humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip failed when Israeli naval commandos boarded the flotilla of ten plus vessels, killed at least ten people, and ended the flotilla’s immediate effort to reach Gaza. (Isabel Kershner, “At Least 10 Are Killed as Israel Halts Flotilla With Gaza Aid,” New York Times, May 31, 2010)

The more interconnected the world becomes, the more imperative that people and nations begin to act ethically in order to control human aggressiveness.