I believe that early Homo Sapiens formed groups of extended families living an essentially nomadic life where they picked the low-hanging fruit, learned to hunt other mammals and fish, and developed unspoken rules for how to get along as they roamed. If our species is a million years old, this is how they subsisted for probably 900,000 to 950,000 years. Population was kept in check by natural predators, natural disasters, and competition for scarcities.
At some point, though, we learned to grow things, and herd things, and rather than roaming, we settled in areas where we planted and herded. There were natural roles that males and females had based on practical necessities – speed, strength, pregnancy, nurture – and there was a natural tendency for these extended families to grow larger, less closely related to one another, more prone to fiercer competition for scarcities. Again, at some point, the now larger groups had to learn to coexist and additional rules had to be proposed and accepted to prevent internal dissention and violence.
With husbandry and agriculture reducing the individual survival effort, these extended families became tribes, and tribes became towns, and towns became cities, and cities became nations. Along the way, people who felt no familial connection to their neighbors had to find other things to become ties that bound. Nationalism, particularly where geographies were largely inhabited by people who essentially looked alike and had similar customs, took root. Now, instead of tribe competing with tribe, we ended up with nation competing with nation.
The logic of a global rather than national grouping never really took hold. Logically, we can accept that if properly managed, a global government could create a more equitable environment for humans, but it would mean disposing of our prejudices against people who don’t look like us, or have similar customs to us. Even after devastating wars in the 19th and 20th centuries, humans seem more inclined to discriminate and hate than to find common ground and help one another.
To me, the ultimate insanity is war. All the rules of civility go out the window and we seek to kill as many of our enemies as we can, as quickly as we can. We keep killing each other until one side decides it has had enough. In World War Two, Europe and England were both heavily bombed; and Japan had two fission bombs dropped on it. After “peace” was concluded, essentially the only two places that still had significant industrial capacity were the USA and Canada. Interestingly, during the post-war period and for perhaps two decades more, US and Canadian workers had the best compensation, fringe benefits and living standards in their histories. But once Japan and Europe got back on their feet, with the help of US largess, the US found itself in serious competition, particularly with Japan and West Germany. But like the proverbial frog in a beaker where the water is slowly heated to a boil, the American amphibian failed to take note of the increased heat until well near boiling.
Arguably, American and Canadian workers never had it so good as they did, say, from 1946 to 1966. And, again, arguably, it was the war that made all that possible. But, I’m sure when looked at in the light of day, few would argue that it was worth the carnage of that war.
What I have always found ludicrous is the idea of the Geneva Convention where countries agreed on rules for war. To me, war is the gross abrogation of rules. To gin up a document specifying how to treat your enemy in war is the height of hypocrisy. Interestingly, since World War Two, no large war (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) has ended with an unconditional surrender. Korean War is still in play and what exists is an armistice. Vietnam and Iraq ended with temporary cessations of hostilities and regime change. Yet, the death and destruction was horrendous. To what end?
I guess that war is nature’s way of establishing balance. We see it with an island where deer herds and wolf packs exist with no or little human intervention. If the herds get too big, the female wolves have larger litters, and the packs grow. Once the enlarged wolf pack has winnowed the herds, the female wolves have smaller litters. It just happens. So, maybe war is nature’s way of winnowing our herd when it gets too large. If that’s true, given our relentlessly growing global population, then perhaps Covid 19, and climate change, and Donald Trump is nature’s way of seeking balance.