Kind by nature: Have faith in humanity
Radical thinker Rutger Bregman paints a new, more beautiful portrait of humanity.
23 November, 2020
Photo by Neil Thomas on Unsplash
Optimism is what runs the world, and cynicism only serves as an excuse for the lazy.
<p> Evil is not inherent to our nature. We have achieved so much because we are friendly and decent. The radical thinker Rutger Bregman paints a new, more beautiful portrait of humanity.</p><p>Try standing in front of the mirror and remember the worst things ever done – by you personally, and by <em>Homo sapiens</em> as a whole. And smile, because history shows that we are doing much better than you think. This subversive idea belongs to a Dutch historian, writer and TED lecturer. In his new book, <em>Humankind:</em> <em>A</em> <em>Hopeful</em> <em>History</em>, he finds out whether the conviction that humans are selfish, hostile and destructive by nature is actually true. And if we turn out to be intrinsically good after all, what would it change?</p><p>Rutger Bregman already shook up the minds of politicians, businesspeople and the general public several years ago in his book <em>Utopia for Realists And How We Can Get There</em>, in which he argued that a better world could be built straight away. Bregman's critics consider him a naïve fantast, but many CEOs and national leaders are seriously considering introducing his revolutionary postulates, such as much shorter workdays and universal basic income. In his new book, Bregman goes even further, proposing that we turn the world upside down. More precisely, he wants to put straight the image of humankind as created by philosophy, science and the media. And to change our behaviour for the better.</p><p>The author has created a daring, fresh story, filled with fascinating examples, analyses and discoveries, and constructed it as if it were an investigation. The accused was <em>Homo sapiens</em>, a species with alleged murderous tendencies since the dawn of time, seeing his own viciousness reflected in everything and everyone around. Bregman revised the evidence in question and tore the lining of this negative story, reaching deep into the discoveries of archaeologists, historians and biologists. He bursts through the philosophy of Hobbes, who had a defining influence on the image of humans, perceived as warmongering species who must be controlled by a powerful, Leviathan-like government at all times. Bregman uncovers swindles ensconced in the most famous psychological theses of the 20th century, laying bare the manipulations of such celebrities as Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram, whose famous experiments are considered the final evidence that a Nazi and sadist is lurking in every one of us. Yet years later, those claims turned out to be a sham.</p><p><br/></p>
<p>Bregman crushes the myths built by bestselling authors such as Nobel Prize laureate William Golding, best known for his novel <em>Lord of the Flies</em>, and by big media like <em>The New York Times</em>. He boldly debates the most popular authors of recent years: <a href="https://przekroj.pl/en/society/the-gospel-according-to-pinker-tomasz-stawiszynski" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Steven Pinker,</a> Yuval Noah Harari and Malcolm Gladwell. With the energy of a young and fearless researcher, he dug through all the critical files, finding new evidence in old cases. The turn of perspective is so surprising that <em>Humankind</em> keeps the reader on their toes. Whatever you think about humans, Bregman will derail your viewpoint. And there's probably nothing as baffling as how much we struggle with accepting the idea that we are better than we thought we were. The thought that most of us are intrinsically good turns out to be a challenge, as if the bar has suddenly gone higher. Such a positive image makes us want to try harder.</p><p>Bregman uses the phenomenon we call the Pygmalion effect, meaning that we become what others see in us. Those rats that researchers assumed to be intelligent did better with the tasks they encountered. Children with supportive parents and teachers do better at school and in life. And people who see good in themselves, start to cultivate it. Bergman believes cynicism to be an avoidance strategy.</p><blockquote>The belief that people are vicious and that the world is going to the dogs justifies passivity. Optimism, however, has an opposite effect – it requires us to strive for kindness, trust, and generosity in an active way.<br></blockquote><p>The common belief that crisis awakens the most primitive instincts in people is not reflected in the facts, writes Bregman. He calls it the greatest misunderstanding in history. "No, no, you go first…", "Please, you go ahead, I'll follow you," said the people leaving the towers of the World Trade Center, when their offices were ablaze and the building was starting to melt. There was no panic; almost everyone remained polite. This was confirmed by recordings and testimonies from the survivors.</p>
<p>On Christmas Eve of 1914, 100,000 soldiers, mostly German and French, left the trenches to meet. They exchanged gifts and sang carols. For years to come, most of them were shooting high above their enemies' heads, so as not to wound them. The same thing happened at other wars, before and after that one. After the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, 90% of the guns were loaded and unused. The murderous instinct is a myth, Bregman insists.</p><p>Hitler's air force raided London in 1940 to break the spirit of the British. Instead, people put messages in their windows, such as: "More open than usual" or "Windows broken, booze still strong!" The English kept calm. Churchill was proud, but soon he made the same mistake, assuming he could break the Germans with air raids instead. After the bombing, Dresden responded in the same spirit as London – with acts of everyday kindness, help and optimism.</p><p>After the war and annihilation, many sought an answer to what made the German soldiers so persistent and determined. The reasons were said to be blind obedience and fanaticism. And yet, Bregman reveals data that was previously omitted and passed-over in silence: the main force keeping the soldiers going was the sense of solidarity and camaraderie. They didn't want to abandon their mates, with whom they grew up and trained. When presented in such light, those alleged beasts suddenly start looking a lot like boys from the yard. Like ourselves, even.</p>
<p>Think again, insists the Dutch historian, and see how tragedy brings out the best in people. Evil only exists in us when it masks as good and nestles in our system of beliefs as a sense of righteousness, something important to the world. And don't believe the media, he warns, because they feed on extremes. The media distort reality and teach us to believe in evil. For example, take the famous story of the New York woman named Kitty who was stabbed and died alone in front of her house in 1964, watched by her 38 indifferent neighbours, out of whom just one called the police, the rest declining to get involved. That's the version promoted by <em>The New York Times</em>, with alarming words about an "epidemic of callousness". The facts, as shown by Bregman, are very different. Most of the witnesses didn't see the attack – they just heard the noise. Half of them called the police, and Kitty died in her friend's arms. What happened to the perpetrator? He was caught soon later when he was leaving someone's apartment carrying a TV, and an alarmed neighbour stopped him. People can feel, express concern, and help others – those are the facts on which the media rarely report. There are over a dozen such spectacular deconstructions in Bregman's book, using new evidence he pulls out like trump cards, one after another.</p><p>We follow the rules of kindness and cooperation not only in times of crisis, but also in everyday life. Bregman echoes other researchers who describe the phenomenon of ordinariness as the dominant truth about the world. He refrains from promoting naïve theses, and the strength of his reasoning lies in returning to the right proportions. There is more good in the world, so much of it that we take it for granted and forget to define it. In his view, society is not founded on obedience to the government, which makes us aggressive and insensitive, but on the human trust. That's why real democracy (as opposed to the current rule of sociopath elites over the sensitive majority) is possible. More examples? In Venezuela and Brazil, budget management in many cities was passed over to the inhabitants. As a result, they saw an increase in social investments and education, while poverty and crime plummeted. In Norwegian prisons, guards and inmates spend time together, share duties and wear no uniforms. The outcomes were shorter times of imprisonment, fewer re-offenders, and a lot of savings. And so on.</p><p><em>Humankind</em> rearranges the mind like no other book published over the past few years. It should be mandatory reading in the 21st century, as it gives some balance to another milestone in the human autobiography, the bestselling <em>Sapiens</em> by Yuval Noah Harari from 2014. Bregman insists that optimism is solidly founded on facts. It is not a dream, just a new realism.</p><p><em>Translated from </em><a href="https://przekroj.pl/artykuly/recenzje/czlowiek-czlowiekowi-czlowiekiem" target="_blank"><em>the Polish</em></a><em> by Aga Zano</em></p><p>Reprinted with permission of <a target="_blank" href="https://przekroj.pl/en/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="">Przekrój</a>. Read the <a href="https://przekroj.pl/en/culture/kind-by-nature" target="_blank">original article</a>. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Are humans cruel by nature?
Historian Rutger Bregman argues that the persistent theory that most people are monsters is just wrong.
20 November, 2020
- How have humans managed to accomplish significantly more than any other species on the planet? Historian Rutger Bregman believes the quality that makes us special is that we "evolved to work together and to cooperate on a scale that no other species in the whole animal kingdom has been able to do."
- Pushing back against the millennia-old idea that humans are inherently evil beneath their civilized surface, which is known as 'veneer theory', Bregman says that it's humanity's cooperative spirit and sense of brotherhood that leads us to do cruel deeds. "Most atrocities are committed in the name of loyalty, and in the name of friendship, and in the name of helping your people," he tells Big Think. "That is what's so disturbing."
- The false assumption that people are evil or inherently selfish has an effect on the way we design various elements of our societies and structures. If we designed on the assumption that we are collaborative instead, we could avoid the "self-fulfilling prophecy" of selfishness.
<p class="media-headline"><br></p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="7fcd7d17677577e616c62240b19b22f0" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316418536?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41AufDjJYNL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__description">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__title" style="display: block;">Humankind: A Hopeful History</div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__by-amazon"><!-- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316418536?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">by now at amazone</a> --></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__list-price"><span class="grey">List Price: </span><span class="list-price">$17.99</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__new-price"><span class="grey">New From: </span><span class="new-price">$17.00</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__used-price"><span class="grey">Used From: </span><span class="used-price">$20.13</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
</div>
</a>
</div>
Keep reading
Show less
'Muscular bonding': The strange psychological effects of moving together
Synchronous movement seems to help us form cohesive groups by shifting our thinking from "me" to "we."
18 November, 2020
Credit: yoemll via Adobe Stock
- Muscular bonding, a term coined by the veteran and historian William McNeill, describes how individuals engaged in synchronous movement often experience feelings of euphoria and connection to the group.
- Psychologists have proposed that muscular bonding, or interpersonal entrainment, is a group-level adaptation that helped early human groups outcompete other groups.
- Muscular bonding can help people form cohesive groups, but it could come at cost.
<p>Humans have a penchant for moving together in unison. From ancient cultures dancing around campfires to modern armies marching in lockstep, synchronized movement often emerges in groups, even when there's no obvious benefit. But why?</p>
<p>In his 1995 book "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674502302/ref=as_li_qf_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=farnamstreet-20&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0674502302&linkId=9002b54bbaf082c1666a7add18217a86" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Keeping Together in Time: Dance and Drill in Human History</a>", historian and veteran William McNeill recalled the strange, euphoric feelings he experienced while participating in military drills as a young man:</p>
<p>"Marching aimlessly about on the drill field, swaggering in conformity with prescribed military postures, conscious only of keeping in step so as to make the next move correctly and in time somehow felt good."</p>
<p>McNeill noted that military drills seem utterly "useless" in the modern context. After all, soldiers no longer arrange themselves in tight columns to fire muskets at each other in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volley_fire" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">volley fire-style</a> attacks. Yet incessant drilling has remained a fundamental part of military culture. </p>
<p><br></p>
Muscular bonding and the 'hive switch'
<p>McNeill thought there was more to drilling than meets the eye, something beyond forcing soldiers into compliance and conformity. He called it "muscular bonding." The term describes how individuals engaged in synchronous movement experience feelings of euphoria and connection to the group.</p><p>This phenomenon, McNeill said, is "far older than language and critically important in human history, because the emotion it arouses constitutes an indefinitely expansible basis for social cohesion among any and every group that keeps together in time."</p><p>Since McNeill first described muscular bonding, researchers have been trying to better understand the phenomenon and how it affects group dynamics. In the book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion", the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt proposed a bold hypothesis: muscular bonding serves as a kind of "switch" that, when activated, helps individuals transcend selfishness to act in the interests of their group.</p><p>To illustrate this idea, Haidt said humans are a lot like chimpanzees (self-interested) and a bit like bees (group-interested, existing to sustain the hive). He framed muscular bonding as a "hive switch" that pushes us away from chimp-like behavior toward bee-like behaviors. This ability to "lose ourselves (temporarily and ecstatically)" would help explain why people, under the right conditions, can come together in an "all for one, one for all" mentality. It'd help explain why some soldiers sacrifice themselves in battle for the group.</p>Forming cohesive groups
<p>Over the past two decades, psychologists have conducted various experiments on muscular bonding, also called interpersonal entrainment. These studies generally involved groups of people doing physical activities (or simply imagining them) synchronously or asynchronously, and then playing economic games with each other, or rating how much they like or trust the people with whom they've entrained.</p><p>A <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/psych/1/1/article-p273.xml" target="_blank">2019 review of research on interpersonal entrainment</a> (IPE) found that people generally report higher levels of deindividualization after engaging in IPE. In other words, they view themselves more as a group member than an individual. What's more, some studies suggest that engaging in IPE can also increase performance in domains related to memory, attention and physical movement.</p><p>Together, the research suggests that muscular bonding helps individuals form cohesive and effective groups. It's easy to see how this would be an advantageous group-level adaptation in human evolution: The tribe who's better able to move together toward shared goals is likely to outcompete less coherent tribes. Then, individuals in the successful group passed down genetic traits, making future generations more likely to engage in the same kinds of cohesive behaviors. (That's one idea, at least.)</p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3390f8276b91a82b4f7824f7a30373ba"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CueyX_LtHeo?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>But muscular bonding can have a dark side, too. The authors of the 2019 review noted:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Losing oneself in the crowd can lead to behaviors that are not part of an individual's ethical codes and moral values (e.g., aggressive acts toward members of other groups). This stems from the fact that acting for the benefit of one's group typically means acting against the interests of competitive groups."</p><p>Group-level risks aside, it's worth considering how modern, urbanized society might be missing out on the ancient benefits of muscular bonding, especially in a time when surveys show that <a href="https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/why-is-anxiety-so-common" target="_self">depression, anxiety</a>, and <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/01/23/798676465/most-americans-are-lonely-and-our-workplace-culture-may-not-be-helping" target="_blank">loneliness</a> are rising.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"It is and always has been a powerful force at work among humankind whether for good or ill," McNeill wrote. "Our future, like our past, depends on how we utilize these modes of coordinating common effort for agreed purposes."</p>
<p class=""><br></p>
Keep reading
Show less
War in the time of Neanderthals: How our species battled for supremacy for over 100,000 years
To war is human – and Neanderthals were very like us.
05 November, 2020
Charles R Knight/Wikimedia
Around 600,000 years ago, humanity split in two. One group stayed in Africa, evolving into us.
<p> The other struck out overland, into Asia, then Europe, becoming <em>Homo neanderthalensis</em> – the Neanderthals. They weren't our ancestors, but a sister species, evolving in parallel.</p><p>Neanderthals fascinate us because of what they tell us about ourselves – who we were, and who we might have become. It's tempting to see them in idyllic terms, living peacefully with nature and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kindred-Neanderthal-Life-Love-Death/dp/147293749X/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=neanderthal&qid=1603538197&sr=8-2" target="_blank">each other</a>, like Adam and Eve in the Garden. If so, maybe humanity's ills – especially our territoriality, violence, wars – aren't innate, but modern inventions.</p><p>Biology and paleontology paint a darker picture. Far from peaceful, Neanderthals were likely skilled fighters and dangerous warriors, rivalled only by modern humans.</p>
<h2>Top predators</h2><p>Predatory land mammals are territorial, especially pack-hunters. Like <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/269/5228/1260/tab-pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">lions</a>, wolves and <em>Homo sapiens</em>, Neanderthals were cooperative big-game hunters. These predators, sitting atop the food chain, have few predators of their own, so overpopulation drives <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/269/5228/1260/tab-pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">conflict</a> over <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-016-0994-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hunting</a> grounds. Neanderthals faced the same problem; if other species didn't control their numbers, conflict would have.</p><p>This territoriality has deep roots in humans. Territorial conflicts are also <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210004598" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">intense in our closest relatives</a>, <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.120046" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">chimpanzees</a>. Male chimps routinely gang up to attack and kill males from rival bands, <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.120046" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a behaviour strikingly like human warfare</a>. This implies that cooperative aggression evolved in the common ancestor of chimps and ourselves, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/105/9/3226" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">7 million years</a> ago. If so, Neanderthals will have inherited these same tendencies towards cooperative aggression.</p><h2>All too human</h2><p>Warfare is an intrinsic part of being human. War isn't a modern invention, but an <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-other-humans-the-first-victims-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction-126638" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ancient, fundamental</a> part of our humanity. <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q8MHKQrFeEEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=war+before+civilization&ots=jeXNGI0igA&sig=CFY1fZ2R-OaHCor4DlS8eG7HA-A#v=onepage&q=war%20before%20civilization&f=false" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Historically, all peoples</a> warred. Our oldest writings are filled with war stories. <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Constant-Battles-Why-We-Fight-ebook/dp/B00DTDFOFG" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Archaeology</a> reveals ancient fortresses and <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/lost-in-combat-a-scrap-metal-find-from-the-bronze-age-battlefield-site-at-tollense/9984BB85B2126C139E5ACA5111236307/core-reader" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">battles</a>, and sites of prehistoric massacres going back millennia.</p><p>To war is human – and Neanderthals were very like us. We're remarkably similar in our skull and skeletal anatomy, and share <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">99.7% of our DNA</a>. Behaviourally, Neanderthals were astonishingly like us. They <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/108/13/5209/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">made fire</a>, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/new-neanderthal-remains-associated-with-the-flower-burial-at-shanidar-cave/E7E94F650FF5488680829048FA72E32A" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">buried their dead</a>, fashioned <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/1023" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">jewellery from seashells</a> and <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/107/47/20234" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">animal teeth</a>, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/111/37/13301" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">made artwork</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature18291" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">stone shrines</a>. If Neanderthals shared so many of our creative instincts, they probably shared many of our destructive instincts, too.</p>
<h2>Violent lives</h2><p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365321/original/file-20201024-18-as0zok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><img alt="Collection of prehistoric javelins." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365321/original/file-20201024-18-as0zok.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip"></a></p><p>Neanderthal javelins, 300,000 years ago, Schöningen, Germany. (Prof. Dr. Thomas Terberger)</p><p>The archaeological record confirms Neanderthal lives were anything but peaceful.</p><p><em>Neanderthalensis</em> were skilled <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16034" target="_blank">big game hunters</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248415002080" target="_blank">using spears</a> to take <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/1099-1212%28200009/10%2910%3A5%3C379%3A%3AAID-OA558%3E3.0.CO%3B2-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">down deer, ibex, elk, bison, even rhinos and mammoths</a>. It defies belief to think they would have hesitated to use these weapons if their families and lands were threatened. Archaeology suggests such conflicts were commonplace.<br></p><p>Prehistoric warfare leaves telltale signs. A club to the head is an efficient way to kill – clubs are fast, powerful, precise weapons – so prehistoric <em>Homo sapiens</em> <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0696-8/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">frequently show trauma</a> to the skull. <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6444" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">So</a> too <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305440395900136" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">do</a> <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0696-8/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Neanderthals</a>.</p><p><img alt="Damaged Neanderthal skull." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365322/original/file-20201024-23-1q6bpvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip"></p><p>The Saint-Césaire Neanderthal skull suffered a blow that split the skull. 36,000 years ago, France. (Smithsonian Institution)</p><p>Another sign of warfare is the parry fracture, a break to the lower arm caused by warding off blows. Neanderthals also show <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305440395900136" target="_blank">a lot of broken arms</a>. At least one Neanderthal, from Shanidar Cave in Iraq, was <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004724840900092X" target="_blank">impaled by a spear</a> to the chest. Trauma was <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0696-8/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">especially common in young Neanderthal males</a>, as were deaths. Some injuries could have been sustained in hunting, but the patterns match those predicted for a people engaged in intertribal warfare- small-scale but intense, prolonged conflict, wars dominated by guerrilla-style raids and ambushes, with rarer battles.</p>
<h2>The Neanderthal resistance</h2><p>War leaves a subtler mark in the form of territorial boundaries. The best evidence that Neanderthals not only fought but excelled at war, is that they met us and weren't immediately overrun. Instead, for around 100,000 years, Neanderthals resisted <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-other-humans-the-first-victims-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction-126638" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">modern human expansion</a>.</p><p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365323/original/file-20201024-23-10ckr5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><img alt="Map of Eurasia and Africa showing territories of different human ancestors and relatives." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/365323/original/file-20201024-23-10ckr5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip"></a></p><p>The out-of-Africa offensive. (Nicholas R. Longrich)</p><p>Why else would we take so long <a href="https://theconversation.com/genetic-studies-reveal-diversity-of-early-human-populations-and-pin-down-when-we-left-africa-65745" target="_blank">to leave Africa</a>? Not because the environment was hostile but because Neanderthals were already thriving in Europe and Asia.</p><p>It's exceedingly unlikely that modern humans met the Neanderthals and decided to just live and let live. If nothing else, population growth inevitably forces humans to acquire more land, to ensure sufficient territory to hunt and forage food for their children. But an aggressive military strategy is also good evolutionary strategy.</p><p><img alt="Painting of Napoleon Bonaparte on horseback." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364007/original/file-20201016-21-sodxh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip"></p><p><em>Homo sapiens</em> has a history of aggressive military expansion.</p><p>Instead, for thousands of years, we must have tested their fighters, and for thousands of years, we kept losing. In weapons, tactics, strategy, we were fairly evenly matched.</p><p>Neanderthals probably had tactical and strategic advantages. They'd occupied the Middle East for millennia, doubtless gaining intimate knowledge of the terrain, the seasons, how to live off the native plants and animals. In battle, their massive, muscular builds must have made them devastating fighters in close-quarters combat. <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2013.0168" target="_blank">Their huge eyes</a> likely gave Neanderthals superior low-light vision, letting them manoeuvre in the dark for ambushes and dawn raids.</p>
<h2><em>Sapiens</em> victorious</h2><p>Finally, the stalemate broke, and the tide shifted. We don't know why. It's possible the invention of superior ranged weapons – <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/indications-of-bow-and-stonetipped-arrow-use-64-000-years-ago-in-kwazulunatal-south-africa/89AF638BE5E64CEAC63363EFDD4D5E8F" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">bows</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030544030500230X" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">spear-throwers</a>, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/329436a0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">throwing clubs</a> – let lightly-built <em>Homo sapiens</em> harass the stocky Neanderthals from a distance using hit-and-run tactics. Or perhaps <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16034" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">better hunting and gathering techniques</a> let <em>sapiens</em> feed bigger tribes, creating numerical superiority in battle.</p><p><img alt="US army soldier stands guard at damanged street corner." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/364012/original/file-20201016-13-jevkl6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip"></p><p>US Army, Iraq War, Ramadi. <em>Homo sapiens</em> is extremely skilled at war.</p><p>Even after primitive <em>Homo sapiens</em> broke out of Africa <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1376-z" target="_blank">200,000 years ago</a>, it took over 150,000 years to conquer Neanderthal lands. In <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/338756a0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Israel</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1376-z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Greece</a>, archaic <em>Homo sapiens</em> took ground only to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1376-z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fall back</a> against <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/330159a0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Neanderthal counteroffensives</a>, before a final offensive by modern <em>Homo sapiens</em>, starting <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/453" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">125,000 years ago</a>, eliminated them.</p><p>This wasn't a blitzkrieg, as one would expect if Neanderthals were either pacifists or inferior warriors, but a long war of attrition. Ultimately, we won. But this wasn't because they were less inclined to fight. In the end, we likely just became better at war than they were.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148205/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation"></p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicholas-r-longrich-209117" target="_blank">Nicholas R. Longrich</a>, Senior Lecturer in Evolutionary Biology and Paleontology, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-bath-1325" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">University of Bath</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/war-in-the-time-of-neanderthals-how-our-species-battled-for-supremacy-for-over-100-000-years-148205" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Are humans wired for conflict? Lord of the Flies vs. Charles Darwin
We make school kids read "Lord of the Flies"—but it's only half the story.
03 November, 2020
- The iconic novel "Lord of the Flies" paints a picture of human beings as naturally selfish and prone to conflict, but that is not the most accurate depiction of humanity, argues historian Rutger Bregman.
- Bregman shares a true story from his research about a group of Tongan students who survived on an island together for 15 months in 1965, not through brutal alliances, but by working together and forming a functional community.
- Darwin's observation of domestication syndrome is apparent in humans, argues Bregman; our evolution into friendlier animals can be seen in our biological features and responses. Evolutionarily speaking, being "soft" is actually very smart, and we evolved to cooperate with one another for mutual gain.
<p class="media-headline"><br></p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="7fcd7d17677577e616c62240b19b22f0" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316418536?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41AufDjJYNL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__description">
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__title" style="display: block;">Humankind: A Hopeful History</div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__by-amazon"><!-- <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316418536?tag=bigthink00-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">by now at amazone</a> --></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__list-price"><span class="grey">List Price: </span><span class="list-price">$15.99</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__new-price"><span class="grey">New From: </span><span class="new-price">$15.99</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
<div class="amazon-assets-widget__used-price"><span class="grey">Used From: </span><span class="used-price">$15.99</span> <span class="grey">in Stock</span></div>
</div>
</a>
</div>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
