Why are humans the only animals that fight each other? Is it because we are so smart? Or, conversely, did we become so smart because we were aggressive? Or can some animals also exterminate their own kind if they are in the mood? Let's try to settle things peacefully.
The whole history of man is the history of wars. Along the way, of course, the wheel and handwashing were still being invented, but anyone who opens a history book will inevitably drown in an abundance of soapy horse grits, bloody swords and breakthroughs of the Maginot line.
Even the greatest literary works of antiquity are mostly inspired stories about how Achilles rips the sinews out of Hector, Shiva kicks the asuras, the beautiful Usivaka destroys the house of Taira, and Cuchulain, after breaking the back of his friend Ferdiad, says a few kind, heartfelt words about this words. There is nothing to say about the Bible: there is a continuous beating of babies from the first page to the last.
Given that biologically a person is a cannibal and a scavenger, it would probably be naive to expect any other behavior from him. Nevertheless, over the years of evolution, this predator has gained such altruism and such abilities for empathy, compassion and mercy that if you look at humanity from some Alpha Centauri, then, probably, one would expect that by the Paleolithic homo would be like sapiens put aside his ancient stone ax and be filled with love and goodness. No, really, how can you cry over a fading flower, and then go gut your neighbors?
Where does this interesting schizophrenia come from? Why has it taken so long for man to form as a warring animal, and what is happening on this front now? Very interesting answers to these questions are given by the latest studies of anthropologists and sociopsychologists.
| war facts 90% of all computer games released in the world assume that the player will enjoy killing. Games in which you need to heal, grow or build are much less in demand, especially among the male audience. The shortest war in the world is the 1896 war between Great Britain and Zanzibar. It lasted 38 minutes - that's how long it took the British squadron to smash the Sultan's palace and smoke out the ruler from there. During the war, 500 people died, all Zanzibaris. The longest war is between the Netherlands and the Scilly Archipelago, which has a population of around 2,000. It lasted 335 years. There were no casualties on either side. Peace was signed in 1986. |
At the same time, the actual murder - the taking of a person's life - was almost always considered a crime. With one caveat: the killer acted alone or in a small group. As soon as the group became large, then any murder committed by it, whether it was called war, execution, revolution or suppression of a riot, received full moral indulgence.
And this moment - a person has the right to kill if he is in a group, but not if he is alone - explains a lot about the nature of war and man. True, for a very long time they did not pay attention to him.
There are dozens of theories explaining the phenomenon of war: Freud explained it by aggression and craving for death, Malthus - by the struggle against overpopulation, Hegel - by the laws of the dialectical development of society, Lenin - by the class struggle. In recent years, a lot of remarkable theories have appeared: passionarity, age imbalance (the younger the population in a society, the more willingly it fights), economic and rationalistic theories. And all of them wonderfully show under what conditions people are more willing to fight, but do not answer the main question: why do they do it at all? That is, it is clear that the winners receive some benefits, but in general, a war is almost always ruinous for all parties and extremely disadvantageous for the vast majority of its participants. It's nice, of course, to get a jug, two mats and a youthful slave for free - but was it worth the risk of being left without a head? Pay attention that quite often people are at war with no chance of any reward at all. It is enough to study the history of military conflicts between the primitive tribes of the Papuans of New Guinea, where each tribe is in a permanent state of brutal war with everyone else, where any stranger is perceived as both a killer and a victim, and where death from natural causes for men (and for many women) is an event. exceptional. People simply live by destroying each other. Concern for food, housing, offspring is secondary there, in the first place are constant vigilance, fear of the enemy and hatred of neighbors.
In general, if people spent as much effort as they spend on wars and on the search for compromises, they would undoubtedly be able to solve all world problems by spilling one single liquid - ink.
Biologists and ethologists, who timidly tried to bring their proposals into the discussions, were usually harshly pushed out the door. Okay, they were told, you can still blather something about sex, the psyche, or there, about genetics, but the war has nothing to do with biology. Animals don't fight. Show us a finch with a grenade launcher - then we'll talk.
And the finch was found. Well, that is not quite a finch ...
brutal manners
Animals don't really fight. They can fight, bite, scratch, kick out of their territory and fight mating battles, but in terms of full-scale hostilities, they have a big zero in their anamnesis. Predators can hunt in groups, but when they meet a rival group, they will not line up and close their bayonets; individuals may mate, but in general groups will try to stay away from each other. The famous "wars of the ants" are also not wars in the human sense: they are simply predatory raids on anthills of another species with the ruin of these anthills. Hunting - yes. But not a battle.
But for a group of one species to purposefully go to exterminate representatives of another group belonging to the same species - no, nature did not show examples of such a plan to man. For the time being. More specifically, until the mid-1970s, when the researcher Jane Goodall, who specialized in the study of chimpanzees in natural conditions, published a book indicating that chimpanzees were at war. They are fighting, without any discrepancies. Males (sometimes females) of the group gather in combat detachments and try to sneak unnoticed to the camp of another group, brutally beating and sometimes destroying the “enemies” they encounter, including the cubs.
The biologist-turned-chronicler describes such sorties in detail: “Six adult males of the Kasakela group, one juvenile male and one adult female, leaving the younger chimpanzees of the flock, headed south, and then heard the cries of chimpanzees coming from the other side, and found by surprise male Kahama - Godi. One of the males of Kasakela knocked the fleeing Godi to the ground, sat on his head and pressed his legs, and the rest beat him and bit him for ten minutes. Finally, one of the attackers threw a large stone at Godi, after which the attackers ran away. Godi was able to get up, but he was seriously injured, bleeding, his body was covered with bites. Godi died of his wounds. The following month, three Kasakela males and one female went south again and attacked a Kahama male named De, who was now weakened due to illness or previous fights. The attackers dragged De from the tree, trampled him, bit him, beat him and pulled out shreds of his skin. The female accompanying De, who was in heat, was forced by the attackers to go with them to the north. Two months later, De was seen alive, but so emaciated that his spine and pelvic bones were sticking out from under his skin; he was missing several claws, part of his toe was torn off. After that, he was not seen. In February 1975, five adult males and one juvenile male of Kasakela tracked down an old male Goliath from Kahama's pack. For eighteen minutes they beat him, beat him and kicked him, stepped on him, lifted him and threw him on his back, dragged him along the ground and twisted his legs ... "
The most interesting thing is that quite recently both of these groups were one. It split after the divergence of leaders. All members of this group were close relatives who had good feelings for each other before the “divorce”.
Goodall's book caused a huge scandal, especially in the camp of fans of the theory that real cruelty in nature is characteristic only of a person - a creature that has come off from nature.
Alas, further research by scientists confirmed the observations and even expanded them. It turned out that other apes, such as gibbons and baboons, also perform military sorties (albeit less cruel and less often leading to death). Even herbivorous gorillas and spider monkeys periodically take the warpath in order to properly pile on their neighbors.
Monkey with a grenade
The question "why" was still in the air. The chimpanzees observed by Goodall did not suffer from starvation, they had quite extensive hunting grounds that could feed a larger number of representatives of the species. There was a feeling that they make such raids just for fun. Mocking the corpses and joyful dancing around them seemed an act of senseless and unjustified cruelty. And why do chimpanzees - so intelligent, affectionate and empathic, so touchingly cooperating with each other and concerned about the safety of their fellows - suddenly turn into distraught sadists? What mechanisms have allowed such a clearly harmful property to evolve and gain a foothold?
And then the next question arose: is it harmful? The most brutal warriors among primates are chimpanzees, they are also the most intelligent living species (except for humans, of course). So what came first - rationality or cruelty?
A number of researchers believe that the cruelty of warring primates is a consequence of their highly developed ability for reflection and compassion. Precisely because they know how to understand someone else's pain, they inflict it, experiencing aggression and excitement. And this excitement, fear and empathy become a kind of drug that cannot be obtained at all otherwise than by torturing one's own kind. The only cubs who deliberately mutilate small animals and get excited at their agony are chimpanzees (again, apart from humans). The kitten may maim the mouse, but he will not think about the feelings of the mouse - he just plays with the twitching ball. A chimpanzee cub understands perfectly well that a bird with a torn off leg is in pain - it alternately demonstrates fear, pity, and gloating, playing with its living toy.
But most evolutionary psychologists still take the opposite view. They believe that just the rationality of primates is due to their extreme aggressiveness towards their own kind.
If you put together various theories on this topic, then everything happened something like this.
The ancestors of primates lived in an area in which fierce competition for resources gradually began. For some reason, settlement outside the usual range was difficult for a long time, and the population suffered from periodic hunger strikes, after which active skirmishes began between its members for the purpose of, for example, cannibalism or simply population regulation (we can observe such patterns in some modern species, like lions, hyenas, and rats). It was then that mutations turned out to be extremely beneficial, which oriented individuals towards altruism towards “their own”, that is, the closest relatives, and towards aggression towards “strangers” - more distant relatives. Being by nature a creature not too well armed to destroy its own kind, unlike lions, hyenas and rats, the ancestor of man and monkeys could not easily kill rivals alone. But by uniting as a group, it was possible to exterminate all unnecessary cousins and second cousins.
A fairly large animal-gatherer, in need of a large amount of protein, not specialized in herbalism and not possessing powerful fangs, claws or teeth, has relied on cooperation and aggression towards strangers. For millions of years, it has been perfected in these wonderful skills. Some of his descendants learned to jump on trees and eat leaves, so that in herbivorous monkeys such sorties are rather atavism. But the meat-eating monkeys were forced to continue to train their patriotism and intransigence towards enemies, since the easiest way was to get protein from the same monkey, if, of course, watch for it with a crowd and tear off its tasty and nutritious legs (a chimpanzee, being not such as a pronounced cannibal, like a person, they also do not disdain eating parts of the bodies of the dead, especially cubs).
And yes, in group battles, it was not the strongest who won, but the smartest. Observant, cautious, with high abilities for communication, mutual understanding and mutual assistance. Those who tried to prevent any quarrels in their group (remember the important point that a lone killer is always an outcast with us, since personal aggression, especially in relation to “our own”, does not bring bonus points to the group, but takes them away).
So it was not the mind that gave rise to aggression, but, probably, on the contrary: we received our large and smart brain as a gift from our great-great-grandfather, who successfully obtained smaller brains with his help.
Such interesting news comes to us from the world of birds and animals.
Cursed forever
And what, a person is doomed to be a "killing person" for life, since such a specific specialization has turned out?
Let us imagine a father of a family who tenderly kisses his children and his wife, adjusts the knitted blanket on the baby, strokes the pussy, pats the dog behind the ear, sprinkles millet on the canary, and then takes the Berdanka and goes to shoot the bastard who has encroached on peace and tranquility in his beloved family. Are we ready to understand it? Of course ready! At least at this stage of development of society. Protecting our own, especially females and cubs, is such a priority for us over all other forms of compassion that even when we see attacks on peaceful domestic nests in the movies, our fists clench and the hair stands on end on the ridge. A person's capacity for love and compassion is truly limitless, it can only be compared with rage towards those who threaten what we love - whether it is our family, property, or the whale we are saving from slaughter.
It remains only to divide the world into “us” and “them”. For chimpanzees, "friends" are those chimpanzees he's been in contact with in the last couple of months. Or not only chimpanzees, but also, say, the same dogs or favorite plush toys - in general, what the chimpanzee recently sniffed, stroked and revered as his own.
For a person with his vast communications and over-inflated brain, everything is much more complicated. He can sincerely hate his neighbor in a communal apartment and passionately love his president, although he smells his neighbor every day, and he has never seen the president in his eyes (although the TV is trying to correct the situation). He simply grew up in the consciousness that "his people" are his best people in the world, headed by the best leader in the world, and this is not discussed. Even a fully developed and civilized person can be turned into a chimpanzee blazing with hatred in a matter of weeks if you tell him every day from special boxes confidentially how the damned Pechenegs make sausage from Christian babies, and the vicious Phoenicians plan to parachute their marines into his bathroom.
But if from the same box, or from church pulpits, or from the pages of good books, you constantly repeat that all people are brothers, all children need protection, that you can’t offend the weak, no matter what color their gills are, and in general “ don't touch the bird, put down the dog", then the concept of "friends" may well stretch to the volume of the Galaxy and even beyond that. And all these pacifists of the past - Erasmus of Rotterdam, Victor Hugo, Francis of Assisi and Leo Tolstoy - eventually expand this Galaxy. Not for everyone, unevenly, but the process is underway.
Here is a Japanese writer of the 17th century who writes a fairy tale about a robber who robbed and killed people, and then he was caught and sentenced to death in boiling oil. The robber's little son was also thrown into the cauldron, and when the oil began to be poured, the robber, escaping from the heat, stood on the child with his feet, and "the audience laughed at him." Seventeenth century, enlightened writer. But today, even in ISIS, we are unlikely to recruit spectators who would be able to laugh at such a spectacle ...
Because a person, fortunately, is changing - changing rapidly and for the better. The sight of the torn bodies of enemies is less and less pleasing to the public, if you do not take completely atavistic individuals. The more secure we feel, the more good-heartedness we are ready to pour out on the heads of our near and far. The more we are told from every iron that violence is unacceptable, the more we tend to agree with it.
And vice versa: where, having taken away the levers of information, monkeys come to power, very soon almost the entire society will be covered with wild wool. Especially that part of society whose education, due to its smallness and stuntedness, will not be able to act as a reliable shield that protects against fear and hatred of “strangers”. Fortunately, information in the modern world knows no boundaries, and every year it becomes more and more difficult for the totalitarian rulers of this planet to truly charge their people with fear and hatred, if in fact nothing threatens this people.
So with chimpanzees, in general, you can begin to say goodbye - until the worst of times. And then who knows how evolution went on there on Alpha Centauri.
The whole history of mankind is riddled with conflicts. Wars have been going on since time immemorial. In fact, war is an inextricable part of human history, because every day on earth somewhere people fought, are fighting, and will certainly fight. There have been few days without war in the history of the earth.
It's already the 21st century. The cruel ones are already in the past and it seems that progress should have stopped wars, but apparently a person cannot live without them. There are more than a dozen conflicts in the world today, from which thousands of people die. So why do people fight?
Causes of the war
As a rule, the true causes of war are always hidden. Only the reason is important.
The main reason for the emergence of all wars is the desire of certain political forces to use armed struggle in order to achieve various domestic and foreign political goals.
- material;
- human;
— information and others.
It is they who are pushing certain forces to wage war.
War from the point of view of psychology
From the point of view of psychology, a certain aggression is inherent in a person by nature. It is fueled by projection and sublimation, when a person translates his discontent into hatred and prejudice towards other ideologies, nations, religions, etc. According to this theory, the state forms and maintains a certain order in the local society, while at the same time it can create a basis for aggression in the form of war.
If war is an integral part of human nature, as many psychological theories claim, then it will not be completely eliminated.
Why do people fight? Hypotheses
1. Warrior = male
Some evolutionary psychologists claim that belligerent and strong men were more likely than others to have access to resources and women. It was for the sake of mating that alliances were formed, raids were planned and the like. Militant coalitions formed the basis for the creation of the state.
2. Revenge on predators
To survive, the ancient man had to hunt. To do this, he created weapons and improved them. Over time, animals have been replaced by people, because it is easier to select prey than to hunt it long and hard.
That is why war is not an example of innate but learned behavior.
3. overpopulation
War, according to the idea of Thomas Malthus, is the result of population growth with limited access to resources. This idea is still popular today.
4. Young enthusiasm
It is believed that the emergence of cruelty, including war, is a consequence of the growing proportion of young people who are deprived of the opportunity to express themselves in a peaceful field. However, if it is not possible to redirect their energy outward, then they are able to fight among themselves and can harm the entire society.
5. herd feeling
In a society in times of crisis, the instinct of self-preservation is activated. People discard all rationality. Dissent is suppressed. The main value is the cohesion of the ranks. For many people with an immature psyche, this is an opportunity to resolve the problem of their identity.
6. primitive aggression
Aggression is an instinct that promotes survival. A person in the process of development has developed new strategies for survival: aggression in special cases is allowed in relation to an already designated enemy. We advise you to read
7. Reversible social adaptation
Margaret Mead, an anthropologist, suggested that war is not a consequence of our aggressive nature. Perhaps this is only a social adaptation and it can be voluntarily abandoned. For this, there is no need to carry out transformations in order for people to become better. You need to start with yourself.
In July 2005, the National Geographic TV channel showed viewers a new project - a multi-part documentary about the ability of a person to kill a person.
Much of this project turned out to be a real discovery for society. The facts given by the authors of the film are really shocking, and the results of scientific research on this issue make us take a different look at the man himself and at the war. This radically changes our ideas, which seemed to be well-established and unshakable.
Why is a normal person, even drafted into the army and fighting for his homeland, still not willing to kill? Science has found biological explanations for this.
MURDER DENIAL
The texture of the film is shocking, and at first it is even difficult to believe in it. In 1947, the American General Marshall organized a survey of World War II veterans from COMBAT infantry units in order to determine the behavior of a soldier and an officer in actual combat. The results were unexpected. Only less than 25% of the soldiers and officers of the combat infantry units of the US Army fired at the enemy during the battle. And only 2% deliberately aimed at the enemy.
A similar picture was in the Air Force: more than 50% of enemy aircraft shot down by American pilots accounted for 1% of pilots.
It turned out that in those types of battles where the enemy is perceived as a person and a person (these are infantry battles, aviation duels of fighters, etc.), the army is ineffective, and almost all the damage inflicted on the enemy is created by only 2% of the personnel, and 98% unable to kill.
A completely different picture is where the military does not see the enemy in person. The effectiveness of tanks and artillery here is an order of magnitude higher, and the maximum efficiency of bomber aircraft. It was she who during the Second World War caused the maximum damage to the enemy’s manpower (about 70% of all military and civilian losses of the enemy).
As for face-to-face infantry combat, their effectiveness is the lowest among other military branches. The reason is that soldiers can't kill.
Since this is a major issue of the effectiveness of the military, the Pentagon has included a group of military psychologists in the research. Amazing things have come to light.
It turned out that 25% of soldiers and officers urinate or defecate out of fear before each battle. In the US Army, this was generally the norm. As an example, National Geographic cites the memoirs of a World War II veteran. A veteran soldier says that before the first battle in Germany he wet himself, but his commander pointed to himself, also wet, and said that this is a normal phenomenon before each battle: “As soon as I wet myself, the fear disappears, and I can control myself.”
Polls have shown that this is a mass phenomenon in the army, and even in the war with Iraq, about 25% of US soldiers and officers also peed or defecated out of fear before each battle.
Emptying the intestines and bladder before the fear of death is a normal animal instinct inherited by man from animals: with an empty intestine and bladder, it is easier to escape and run away. But psychologists could not immediately explain something else.
Approximately 25% of soldiers and officers experienced temporary paralysis of either the hand or the index finger. Moreover, if he is left-handed and must shoot with his left hand, then the paralysis touched his left hand. That is, exactly that hand and that finger that are needed for shooting. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, the archives of the Reich showed that the same attack also pursued German soldiers. On the eastern front there was a constant epidemic of "frostbite" on the hand or finger, which had to be fired. Also about 25% of the composition.
As it turned out, the reasons lie deep in the psychology of a person who was forcibly sent to war. In these searches, the researchers first found that 95% of all violent crimes are committed by men, and only 5% by women. Which once again confirmed the well-known truth that women are generally not suitable for being sent by the State to the war to kill other people.
Research has also shown that humans are not aggressive creatures at all. For example, chimpanzees show monstrous aggressiveness in their behavior towards their relatives, which is evolutionarily absent in humans, since, according to scientists, aggressive individuals of the human race inevitably died in the course of human history, and only those inclined to compromise survived.
An analysis of dog behavior has shown that INSTINCT forbids dogs from killing their own kind. They have clear biological limits to such behavior, putting a dog into a state of stupor if it starts inflicting life-threatening injuries on another dog. It turned out that a normal person in such situations becomes like dogs. Pentagon scientists, studying the stress of a soldier during a battle, found that the soldier completely “turns off the forebrain”, which is responsible for conscious behavior, and turns on the parts of the brain that control the body and consciousness with the help of animal instincts. This is precisely what explains the paralysis of the hands and fingers of soldiers - an instinctive ban on killing their own kind.
That is, these are not at all mental or social factors, not pacifism, or vice versa, fascism of human ideas. When it comes to killing one's own kind, biological mechanisms of resistance are activated, which the human mind is not able to control at all.
As one example, National Geographic cites Himmler's trip to our newly captured Minsk, where the Nazis of Germany and Belarus massacred Jews. When, in front of Himmler, the ideologist and organizer of the extermination of Jews, a Minsk Jew was shot, the head of the SS began to vomit, began to faint. It is one thing to write orders for the murder of "abstract" millions of people far away in the office, and another thing to see the death of a very specific one person sentenced to death by this order.
The largest American psychologists Sveng and Marchand, who worked on the order of the Pentagon, found out something amazing. The results of their study were shocking: if a combat unit is continuously fighting for 60 days, then 98% of the personnel go crazy.
Who are the remaining 2%, who in the course of combat clashes are the main fighting force of the unit, its heroes? Psychologists clearly and convincingly show that these 2% are psychopaths. These 2% had serious mental problems even before being drafted into the army.
The answer of scientists to the Pentagon was this: the effectiveness of the actions of the armed forces of close combat contact is achieved only by the presence of psychopaths, and therefore the intelligence or shock breakthrough units must be formed only from psychopaths.
However, in these 2% there is also a small part of people who are not classified as psychopaths, but can be classified as "leaders". These are people who usually go to the police or similar bodies after military service. They do not demonstrate aggressiveness, but their difference from normal people is the same as that of psychopaths: they can easily kill a person - and not experience any feelings from this.
MURDER
The essence of American human studies is that biology itself, instincts themselves forbid a person to kill a person. And it was, in fact, known for a long time. For example, in the Commonwealth in the 17th century, similar studies were carried out. A regiment of soldiers at the shooting range hit 500 targets during the test. And then, in a battle a few days later, all the shooting of this regiment hit only three enemy soldiers. This fact is also cited by National Geographic.
Humans cannot biologically kill humans. And psychopaths, who make up 2% in war, but are 100% of the entire striking force of the army in close battles, as US psychologists report, are equally murderers in civilian life and, as a rule, are in prison. A psychopath is a psychopath: in war, where he is a hero, in civilian life, where his place is in prison.
Against this background, any war itself is presented in a completely different light: where 2% of the psychopaths of the Fatherland are at war with the same 2% of the enemy’s psychopaths, while destroying a lot of people who do not want to kill a person. And 2% of psychopaths are charged with a war of politics for the sake of retaining their personal power in the country. Ideology does not play any role here, since even Himmler vomited from the execution of one Minsk Jew, although he was "ideologically savvy." War is made by 2% of psychopaths, who do not care at all for what to kill someone. The main thing for them is the signal of the political leadership to reprisal. This is where the soul of a psychopath finds its happiness, its finest hour.
Veterans of the United States of World War II and Vietnam, Iraq, and Russian veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya all agree in one opinion: if at least one such psychopath turned out to be in a platoon or company, then the unit survived. If it was not there, the unit perished. Such a psychopath almost always solved the combat mission of the entire unit. For example, one of the veterans of the American landing in France said that a single soldier decided the entire success of the battle: while everyone was hiding in a shelter on the coast, he climbed to the Nazi pillbox, fired a machine gun horn into its embrasure, and then threw grenades at him, killing him there. everyone. Then he ran to the second pillbox, where, fearing death, he - ONE! - surrendered all thirty German soldiers of the pillbox. Then he took the third pillbox alone ...
The veteran recalls: “In appearance, this is a normal person, and in communication he seems quite normal, but those who lived closely with him, including me, know that he is a mentally ill person, a complete psycho.”
LOOKING FOR PSYCHOPATHS
The Pentagon made two main conclusions. Firstly, it is necessary to build combat operations in such a way that the soldier does not see the face of the enemy he is killing. For this, it is necessary to develop remote warfare technologies as much as possible and to focus on bombing and shelling. And secondly, those units that inevitably come into direct close combat contact with the enemy must be formed from psychopaths.
As part of this program, "recommendations" for the selection of contractors appeared. Psychopaths have become the most desirable. Moreover, the search for people for contract service has ceased to be passive (selecting from those who applied), but has become active: the Pentagon began to purposefully look for psychopaths in US society, in all its strata, including the very bottom, offering them military service. It was the implementation of the scientific approach: the army needs psychopaths. Namely, in units of close combat contact, which in the USA today are formed only from psychopaths.
The USA is a big country, and its population is twice the population of the same Russia. And there are incredibly many psychopaths to serve in the army in 20 years of the “scientific approach”. This, probably, is the origin of the victories of the US Army in the current wars. Not a single army in the world today can withstand the US army, not only because of technology, but primarily due to the fact that the United States was the first in the world to understand the science of murder and form shock units only from psychopaths. Today, one professional soldier in the US Army is worth hundreds of soldiers in other armies, because he was found and selected as a psychopath.
As a result, the armies of other countries still suffer from the same disease - in close combat, only about 2% are able to actually fight, and 98% cannot kill. And only the United States here has significantly changed the effectiveness of the contact combat of its troops, bringing it from 2% in World War II to 60-70% today. Only through the active recruitment of psychopaths.
But all this makes us look at any war itself as a manifestation of psychopathy. Moreover, only psychopaths can successfully fight. In a normal society, we treat psychopaths. Isn't it time for us to heal from the war itself, if, according to the research of scientists, a person does not want to fight, cannot fight, is not intended by Nature or God to fight. A person should not fight. This is the norm. And everything else is psychopathy, a disease.
Why do people fight.
(Fragments of the book "The Transformation of War" by Martin Van Creveld)
The will to fight.
236. War primarily consists in the fact that representatives of one community ruthlessly destroy representatives of another, and killing is (or should be) a rational way to achieve some reasonably formulated goal.
War, by definition, is a kind of social activity based on a certain kind of organization.
Therefore, the idea that it is a way of promoting or protecting any interests (political, legal, religious) can be applied to society as a whole.
Whatever the regime of government, the persons who enter the governing bodies, make managerial decisions, are ordinary people of flesh and blood.
There is nothing more absurd than to believe that it is precisely because people have power that they act like automata or calculating machines, devoid of passions.
237. There are decision-making centers, and there is a place of battle.
Approaching the place of battle, a person begins to be exposed to those feelings and sensations that are far from his interests. The sense organs are tense, sharpened, concentrated to such an extent that there comes a moment of immunity to anything else. My head becomes empty. Both the past and the future disappear; at the moment the projectile explodes, such concepts as "because" and "for the fact that" simply do not exist, while the body and mind strive for complete concentration, without which a person cannot survive in these circumstances.
To put it bluntly, a fight can never be based on interest, because the dead have no interest.
A person may well give his life for God, king, country, family, or even for all at once. However, to claim that he did this because he had some kind of posthumous “interest”, consisting at least in the survival of those closest and dearest to him, would be a distortion of the meaning of this term and turning it into his own caricature.
From this point of view, war is the clearest proof that a person is not guided by personal selfish interests; in a sense, war is the most altruistic of all human activities, which is akin to the sacrament and merges with it.
Exactly absence "interest" on the part of those who scorn death and die bravely, explains the fact that society often gives them the greatest honors, and even sometimes includes them in the pantheon and honors them as gods, just as it happened with ancient Greek and Norse heroes.
Thus, the motives that induce people to sacrifice their lives in no way coincide with the goals of the community for which it fights, and sometimes even a particular fighter has no idea about the goals of the community.
It is absurd for a person to die for his own interests, but to die for someone else's is even more absurd.
War does not start when some kill others; it begins when those who kill picture themselves being killed.
Those who carry out the first, but not the second, are called not warriors, but thugs, murderers, executioners. Taking the lives of people who do not or cannot resist does not count as war, and those who are responsible for it can hardly expect the respect that is given to warriors.
The names of the executioners remain secret.
War is not just a situation where one person or group of people kills others, even if the killing is organized to achieve some goal and is considered legal.
War begins when the infliction of mortal wounds becomes mutual, an activity known as fighting.
In any war, the willingness to suffer and die, along with the willingness to kill, is the only essential factor.
All strategic thought of the late 20th century is based on the idea that war is an instrument of politics, that war is killing for the sake of a certain strategy and goal. However, this cannot explain what exactly motivates people to risk their lives. Since in any war the reasons that motivate troops to fight are the decisive factor, it's time to say goodbye to strategy and look into the human soul.
Goals and means.
241 The essence of war lies in the battle. Everything else is either prelude or results.
Bloodshed for war (Clausewitz) is the same as money and calculation for business.
As rare as battles are in practice, they alone give meaning to everything else.
There is no reward more valuable than life, and there is no punishment more terrible than death.
The slogan of the Roman gladiators.
"Those who look death in the face have entered a realm where mortals no longer have power over them and where they no longer obey anything but their own will."
Only those who live in war to the fullest can inspire soldiers by their example, exciting them, inspiring them, enrapturing them.
War is a pleasure, the greatest pleasure - this can be seen from the history of games.
The battle itself was often considered not just a spectacle, but the greatest of all spectacles.
Danger is more than just a description of the environment in which a war is fought; from the point of view of war participants and spectators, danger is one of the most attractive aspects of war.
To overcome danger, such qualities as courage, pride, devotion and determination are needed.
In this way, danger can make people transcend themselves, tempt them to become something more than they really are. Conversely, determination, devotion, pride, and courage make sense and only manifest themselves in the face of danger.
In short, danger is what turns the wheel of war.
As in any sport, the stronger the danger, the greater the challenge it throws to a person and the more glory it brings to overcome it.
Danger – even “surrogate” or imaginary – explains the popularity of many pastimes, from rollercoasters to dangerous but pointless antics like cliff jumping, many of which are listed in the Guinness Book.
Sports that require concentration of effort, such as skiing, surfing, rafting on mountain rivers with rapids, mountaineering, etc., owe their attractiveness to the same factors; it is no coincidence that in mountaineering there are so many terms borrowed from military vocabulary.
What distinguishes war from other activities and makes it unique is that it is the most dangerous of them all; against its background, all the others pale, and not one of them can make up an adequate replacement for it.
Wherever we look, we will see that the opposition we meet is only a pitiful imitation of what happens in war.
247 Human contests that fall short of war are known as games.
248 All games owe their existence to the fact that they have rules, and in fact they are determined by these rules.
Whatever the game is, the function of the rules is it is to limit the choice of equipment that is allowed to be used, the set of human qualities that can be used in a duel, and, most importantly, the amount of violence allowed.
All such restrictions are artificial and therefore, in a certain sense, absurd.
The stability of war lies precisely in the fact that it has always been and still remains the only creative activity in which an unlimited return of all human abilities is allowed and required, directed against an opponent who is potentially as strong as the person himself.
This explains why, throughout human history, war has often been seen as the final test of a person's worth, or, in the language of earlier times, the judgment of God.
Confronting danger brings so much great joy and delight thanks for nothing a similar feeling of freedom that is associated with it.
As Tolstoy notes about Prince Andrei, describing him on the eve of the battle of Austerlitz, he who has no future is free from worries; therefore, the very horrors of battle are capable of causing emotional excitement, excitement, and even dizziness.
248 Combat requires extreme concentration from participants. Since feelings focus on what is happening "here and now", during a fight a person can pull away from them. Thus, it is given to the warrior to approach the border separating life and death, or even to stop it. Of all human activities, there is only one comparable to war, namely the sexual act; and this is already evident from the fact that the same words are often used to describe these two activities.
However, the excitement experienced in war during combat is probably even stronger than sexual. In war, both the best and the worst human qualities are manifested in their entirety.
Since the time of Homer, there has been an idea that only those who risk their lives willingly, even with joy, can be themselves, a living person, to the end.
Of course, other factors, including rewards and coercion, operate simultaneously with the will to fight; but since we are talking about a person's encounter with death, they are all irrelevant.
The greatest pleasure, as well as the strongest pain, would be unbearable if they lasted forever.
Moreover, such opposite sensations as pain and pleasure are actually interconnected; one cannot exist from the other, and if they are sufficiently expressed and intense, they can turn one into the other.
The bubbling, spiraling, strained breathing, the pulsation of the blood, preceding the strongest excitement, are inseparable from it, as well as the heavy breathing and leaden fatigue that follow it.
The intrusion of the world of cause and effect into the realm of pure enjoyment is not a unique feature of war. Neither boxing. Neither football nor any of the most spectacular and exciting sports can keep up the tension indefinitely, and one of the reasons why they have tight time limits is to keep the emotions of the spectators alive.
The essence of the game is that while it lasts, reality is relegated to the background, "cancelled", disappears.
The enjoyment of battle and sexual intercourse lies precisely in the fact that they allow both participants (and observers) to forget to lose their sense of reality, albeit not completely and not for long.
Since the one who fights risks everything, then what he fights for must be more valuable to him than his own blood.
249 Even Machiavelli, the great priest of "interest," did not think that he could induce his compatriots to fight for the liberation of Italy by pointing out to them the benefits that each of them could derive from this enterprise.
Therefore, his "Sovereign" is completed with a fiery appeal in ancient valor: "God, country, nation, race, class, justice, honor. Freedom, equality, fraternity are 250
Even more surprisingly, this formula works in reverse as well.
The more blood shed in the name of a myth, the more sacred this myth. The more sacred it is, the less we tend to view it in rational, instrumental terms. Human desire gives bloodshed a great and even sacred meaning so irresistibly that the mind becomes almost powerless.
250 Inscriptions on the monuments of German soldiers killed during the Second World War: - When there is no cause worth fighting for, it must be invented.
What people fight for does not necessarily have any real value.
On the contrary, objects that are otherwise completely useless can acquire the highest value only because their appearance is connected with the war, thus recalling. about the dangers encountered, experienced and overcome.
(Trophies, heads of the dead, etc.)
Genghis Khan. When asked what is the most pleasant thing in life, he replied: - to hug the wives and daughters of a defeated enemy to his chest - while he, of course, did not mean that he lacked women for bed comforts.
The most famous and attractive places in the world are places associated with wars, battles and events in which blood was shed.
The same thought processes that lead to the elevation of the aims of war also tend to embellish the means of war.
Throughout human history weapons and equipment were the subject of tender care, and even worship, and all only because they were related to armed conflicts.
One of the manifestations of this phenomenon was the custom of naming cannons, spears, etc.
In "The Song of Roland" swords:
"Durandal" (strong, indestructible)
"Joyez" (joyful, restless)
"Precios" (valuable, wondrous)
They were surrounded by such reverence as if they were living beings. The weapon was not just a utilitarian device, but a symbol of power.
It was decorated and often was an expensive work of art. (swords. Guns, knives,)
Power, high cost, scarcity and the symbolic meaning of weapons act together, and so on. repeatedly reinforce each other's significance, creating a kind of vicious circle.
252 The same applies and to clothes. Lush decorations, masks, tattoos, feathers, decorations, chain mail, etc. - were the subject of pride, intimidation and desire to own it.
Armor, uniform in war.
253 Plato: - "battle is just the moment when a man should be smartly dressed."
Symbols in the war. Each army has a set of items specially crafted to serve as symbols and considered far more precious than even spilled blood.
Banners, flags - necessary to maintain the military spirit. Sometimes they have religious significance.
Napoleon personally handed the eagle to each regiment.
The Nazi army believed that the flags were "consecrated" by Hitler and the blood of fallen comrades. Whatever myths they are associated with, it is believed that the significance of these symbols originates from the highest values of a particular society.
Another important fact is that their importance invariably increases as the warriors carry them into battle, then fight for them, and finally, as they shed blood.
The concept of "honor", "glory", "banner" is merged into one for a fighter.
When rewards lose their meaning, and punishment ceases to be a deterrent, only the concept of honor retains its power over people and induces them to march under the muzzles of cannons aimed at them.
This is the only thing that a person can take with him to the grave, even if, as is often the case, he does not have his own separate grave.
All these and other objects used in military ceremonies and having the corresponding symbolism carry a deep paradox.
All of them, without exception, are "real" and "unreal" at the same time.
The flag is just a piece of colored matter.
The eagle is a gilded piece of bronze.
The goat is an animal.
You have to believe in them, and for that you need a certain enthusiasm of faith, a boyish faith.
On the other hand, those who have such faith in symbols will remain boys.
War has always been the work of the young.
What is true of all kinds of rituals is true of brotherhood, equality, freedom, honor, justice, class, race, people, country, God.
In a sense, the shedding of blood for these ideals is, after all, a fantasy-driven activity, not unlike the play of a child who pretends to be a train. War has the unique ability to debunk deep-rooted myths, shake the deepest beliefs, and render meaningless even the most impressive rituals.
Only if they are experienced as something great and wonderful, in other words, as an end in itself, can these ideal objects inspire people to make sacrifices.
In a word, war is a grand theater. The theater replaces life, becomes it; life, in turn, becomes a theater.
256 That's what war is. To risk life, perform heroic deeds, and face danger bravely.
As the commander of the Israeli tank forces in. After the Six Day War: - "We looked death in the face, and she lowered her eyes"
No army can serve as an instrument for achieving or defending political or other goals if it is not ready and willing to do just that.
War can inspire people to fight only because and only to the extent that it is the only activity capable of nullifying the distinction between ends and means. The highest degree of seriousness lies in the game.
Strength and weakness.
Danger is the raison d'être of war, confrontation is a necessary condition.
The unimpeded extermination of people is not considered a battle, but a premeditated murder or, when it occurs legally, an execution. The absence of resistance makes the existence of a military strategy impossible.
257 According to Clausewitz, uncertainty- is an feature war. But it's not. Uncertainty is not just an environment in which the war takes place and which helps to influence the actions of the enemy; first of all it a necessary condition for the existence of an armed conflict.
When the outcome of the struggle is known in advance, the battle usually stops, as one side surrenders, and the other becomes uninterested.
The victors, if they could control their feelings and did not lose their heads with rage or a thirst for revenge, usually accepted surrender.
Whatever unpleasant events followed—and what happened later was often even more unpleasant than the war itself—all this was no longer considered part of the battle, but, as the Romans would say, reckoning.
Such retribution could be more or less necessary or justified, more or less in accordance with accepted military customs.
And those who participate in or benefit from this retribution are not considered deserving of any special honors, quite the contrary.
With complete information, the war no longer makes sense.
In real historical circumstances, the main factor influencing the problem of uncertainty was not the presence of complete information about the enemy or the lack of reliable defense, but the relationship between strength and weakness.
When one belligerent is much stronger than the other, waging war can become difficult, even by the very definition. The strong against the weak is not war.
The very existence of armed conflict, war, implies. That the belligerents should be more or less equal in strength.
It is no coincidence that the word bellum is believed to have come from due -lum "struggle of two"
Where there is no such equality, war eventually becomes impossible.
A war waged by a weak side against a strong one is very risky.
On the contrary, a war waged by a strong side against a weak one is problematic for the same reason. Over time, as a result of hostilities, the two sides begin to resemble each other until the moment when the opposites approach, converge and change places.
Weakness becomes strength and strength becomes weakness.
The main reason behind this phenomenon is that war seems to be the most imitative activity known to man.
The whole secret of victory lies in trying to understand the enemy in order to outwit him. This initiates the process of mutual learning of the parties.
Even when the fight is already underway, each side in the process adjusts its tactics, the means used and, most importantly, strengthens its morale in order to become equal to the enemy.
Sooner or later there comes a moment when both sides become indistinguishable from each other.
A small and weak force facing a large and strong enemy requires a very strong morale to make up for its shortcomings in other respects. However, since survival in such a situation is already a great feat in itself, this morale will be strengthened with every victory, no matter how small.
On the contrary, powerful military forces fighting a weak enemy for more or less prolonged periods of time are almost certain to experience a drop in morale, for nothing is as fruitless as an endless string of victories to be repeated again and again.
Fighting a weak opponent humiliates the one who leads it, and thus, deprives the very goal of this struggle of grounds.
The one who yields to a weak opponent loses. Whoever defeats him also loses.
There can be neither profit nor honor in such an undertaking.
Another important aspect of why over time the strong and weak sides become like each other and even change places lies in the fact that the two sides are in a different position from a moral point of view.
There is no border that cannot be crossed in case of extreme need. It follows that those who are weak can go to any lengths, resort to the most insidious methods and commit any cruelty, without losing political support and, more importantly, without compromising their own moral principles.
On the contrary, almost everything that a strong person does (or does not do) is in some sense unnecessary, superfluous, and therefore cruel.
For the strong, the only way out will be to win a quick victory in order to avoid the worst consequences of their own cruelty; a single act of merciless cruelty may end up being more merciful than prolonged restraint.
Horrible ending is better than endless horror, and in addition such tactics are much more effective.
Troops that do not believe in the rightness of their cause will eventually refuse to fight.
Since fighting the weak is already vile, over time the consequences of such a war will certainly put the strong side in an unbearable position.
Constantly subjected to provocations, they are guilty if they act, and also guilty if they are inactive.
If they don't respond to continuous provocation, then their morale is likely to be broken, because passive waiting is the hardest game of all.
If they strike back, the very weakness of the enemy automatically means that they have sunk into cruelty and, since most people by nature cannot be sadists for a long time, they will eventually hate themselves.
Maybe. The most important quality a strong side needs to have against a weaker opponent is self-control; and indeed, the ability not to respond to provocations while keeping one's head on one's shoulders and refraining from over-reacting into the opponent's hands is in itself the best possible evidence of good self-control.
It is necessary to voluntarily weaken and even disarm one's forces in order to meet with the enemy approximately on an equal footing, just as the sports fisherman prefers to use a fishing rod and hook, Anne rely on dynamite.
Rigid discipline and thorough combat training.
When the strong side lacks iron self-control and is forced to fight a weak opponent for a long period, the strong side is bound to break its own charters and commit crimes - some unintentionally. And some on purpose.
Forced to deceive in order to cover up her crimes, she will find the military justice system undermined, command and control deformed, and an abyss of distrust yawning at her feet.
In this situation, there are neither heroes nor criminals, but only victims: those whom the gods want to punish, they first of all deprive of sight.
The weak today becomes strong tomorrow and takes revenge on the strong.
The ratio of good and evil, questions of ethics are not only directly related to war, but are also at its very center.
The relationship between strength and weakness, and the moral dilemmas that follow, probably best explains why modern armies on both sides of the Iron Curtain have been so ineffective in low-intensity conflicts over the past decades.
Colonial butes were the lot of the oppressed and weak, this is the revenge of the peoples. Refusing to play by the rules that "civilized" countries have set up for their own convenience, they invented their own form of warfare and began exporting it.
Since the rules exist mainly in the minds, once broken, they can then be restored only with great difficulty.
(Martin Van Creveld / The Transformation of War. Translated from English - M .: Alpina Business Books, 2005)
Conflictology and conflicts
0 Report: Why do people fight?
Russia, Perm region, Perm, pos. New Lyady
MAOU "School №129"
Primary school teacher
Porokhnitskaya G.G.
Introduction
Main part
Chapter 1. What is war
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Practical part: survey of schoolchildren and analysis of the data obtained
Conclusion
Bibliography
Appendix
Introduction
I have a little sister, she is one year old. I often enjoy playing with her. She is very sweet. Mom and dad say that everyone is so cute and nice in childhood. Why do people change with age? Where does anger, aggression, hatred come from in them?... Recently, my dad and I watched the movie "300 Spartans", and I was struck by their method of raising small children. Warriors were brought up in children from childhood. What for? I asked my dad about this, and he said that the whole history of mankind is the history of wars, how many people there are, they fight so much, and the winners then rewrite history. His answer surprised me very much, and I decided to look into this difficult question - why do people fight?
Hypothesis: People fight because they lack something.
The purpose of my work: to establish the causes of wars on Earth
Tasks: find out
What is war
Why do people fight
How can wars be prevented
Why should we know about wars and remember them
Conduct a survey, analyze and draw conclusions
Chapter 1. What is war
Rivals in the art of war
Do not know peace among yourselves;
Bring tribute to the gloomy glory,
And revel in hostility!
Let the world freeze before you
Marveling at the terrible celebrations
Nobody will regret you
Nobody will disturb you.
A.S. Pushkin
War is an armed struggle between states or peoples, between classes within a state. War between people means practically the same thing as fights between animals: the forceful resolution of rivalry in which the strongest wins. True, he is not always right. War, as you know, is easy to start, difficult to end, impossible to win. (Slide 2)
The Cold War is a policy of escalating tension and hostility in relations between countries.
The war of nerves is about the mutual nervous tension of someone.
War is a conflict between political entities (states, tribes, political groups, etc.), taking place in the form of military (combat) actions between their armed forces. As a rule, war is aimed at imposing one's will on the opponent. According to Clausewitz, "war is the continuation of politics by other means." The main means of achieving the goals of war is organized armed struggle as the main and decisive means, as well as economic, diplomatic, ideological, informational and other means of struggle. In this sense, war is organized armed violence, the purpose of which is to achieve political goals. (Slide 3)
Total war is armed violence carried to its extreme limits. The main tool in the war is the army. (Wikipedia). (Slide 4)
Chapter 2
Why do people fight? What a complex and eternal question! And how many answers to it: under duress, for oil, for money, for land, for the Motherland, for faith, for an idea, because of religion, for freedom, simply out of a desire to kill - the list goes on and on. (Slide 5)
Because of religion - the crusades, the Arab-Israeli wars
for natural resources for happiness
for cheap labor people fight for power
for wealth for the motherland
(USSR against Nazi Germany)
(1941-1945)
for territories
(fascist Germany against the countries of the anti-German coalition 1939-1945)
Wars have existed for almost as long as humans have existed on Earth. Historians have calculated that in 5600 years there have been only 294 years of peace on Earth. Imagine! In the beginning, people fought to seize someone else's territory or property. (Slide 6)
The leaders of a country or tribe usually start wars as soon as they realize that someone is threatening them. Like animals, humans guard their territory, their families, and their food supplies. Civilized peoples today live in the territories that their ancestors once conquered.
Sometimes it also happened that the soldiers fought with each other, not realizing a clear account of why they were doing it. They simply obeyed the higher authorities, who, in turn, obeyed someone else. (Slide 7)
Man often imitates animals. He threatens before acting. Of course, he does not issue a war cry and does not howl, but all this successfully replaces intimidation on the radio, in newspapers or on television.
Often something else happens - the enemies do not fight, but try to intimidate each other, creating huge armies and accumulating stocks of weapons. If they go over to military operations, then this is done by the hands of small tribes and groups. They get weapons and begin to feel strong, after which they begin to fight among themselves. (Slide 8)
Difference in psychology
People paid attention to the fact that some nationalities cannot get along with others. The steppes are constantly at war with the people of the forest, the highlanders - with the inhabitants of the plains, the poor and hot southerners - with the rich and phlegmatic northerners. The difference in psychology between the highlanders and the plains is visible. Highlanders are more impulsive, less restrained, more "wild". From the point of view of a civilized person, the people of the plains are more calm and patient. (slide 9)
Only on the plain could the saying "one man is not a warrior" be born. In the mountains and one warrior: the paths are narrow, the two of you can hardly disperse. With a good combination of circumstances, some 300 Spartans in the gorge can block the path of the many thousands of Persian army. You can't get around the flanks in the mountains. And this circumstance could not but affect the mentality of the mountain peoples. The highlander is a direct and psychologically clumsy person. (Slide 10)
The difference in psychologies (as, in general, any other difference - in skin color, for example) gives rise to a "psychological potential difference", which is fraught with a breakdown. Therefore, it “sparks” between the highlanders and the plains constantly. (Slide 11)
For example: Tibetans in China, Chechens in Russia. This was very clearly manifested in the former Yugoslavia. There, 2/3 of the territory is mountains. Bosniaks and Kosovars are mostly mountain dwellers, while Serbs mostly live in the plains. (Slide 12)
Religion among the mountain and lowland residents is also different, which gives these conflicts an inter-religious connotation. (Slide 13)
In order to somehow solve the problem of highlanders and lowlanders, under Stalin, for example, a special method was used to pacify the highlanders - the forcible resettlement of highlanders to the plain. Cut off from the mountains, the highlanders became more calm, at least outwardly. (Slide 14)
To avoid wars, one must still be able to negotiate!
Wars are a consequence of the tension of the earth's crust (Slide 15)
According to the Institute of Chemical Physics, it is believed that the matter is in plate tectonics, which is influenced by processes in the sun. Magnetic anomalies occur in the mountains. These anomalies intensify before earthquakes. Magnetic vibrations affect the rate of chemical reactions in aqueous solutions, a person is 70% water, and his brain is 90%! Magnetic anomalies are most pronounced in behavioral reactions. For example, locust fertility increases. People become more aggressive, bursts of genius appear. During the years of increased magnetic activity, most works of art are born.
As a rule, it usually happens like this: first there is some kind of inter-ethnic massacre, and then the actual earthquake. After which everything immediately calms down. It was exactly the same in Karabakh, Spitak, Chechnya, Romania. (Slide 16)
It's all about the climate(Slide 17)
According to the Moscow Energy Institute, the formation of the mentality of the people is affected by climate change. For example, during the cold period, more works of art, religions, philosophies are created. This is like the rise of the spirituality of civilization.
According to the calculations of this institute, Russia will be the epicenter of global climate change, and very strong warming is predicted. In some areas (Taimyr, Yamal, Novaya Zemlya), in about 25 years, the average annual temperature will increase by 6-8 degrees.
In connection with the warming, the mentality of people may also change, the Russians will become more of the traits of southerners - hot temper, increased excitability.
Chapter 3
Mankind is tired of war, the Earth is tired of our cruel hatred! (Slide 18)
When will wars end on earth? This is very clearly written in the Bible, in the prophecy of Isaiah: “Then the wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie with the goat; and the calf, and the young lion, and the ox will be together, and the little child will lead them. And the cow will graze with the she-bear, and their cubs will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like an ox. And the baby will play over the hole of the asp, and the child will stretch out his hand to the snake's nest. They will not harm or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
Apparently, when the prophecy of Isaiah comes true, the wars on Earth will end.”
Every sane person understands how much grief war brings! People want to live in peace and harmony, they want to build houses, sow fields, raise children and be confident in the future. We are the inhabitants of a peaceful country! But if enemies attack our land, everyone will stand up to defend the Fatherland! .. (Slide 19)
In proverbs, the Russian people expressed their attitude to the war:
Take care of the beloved Earth, like a mother dear.
The hero who stands up for the Motherland.
Peace builds and war destroys.
A skilled warrior will not falter in battle.
A bad peace is better than a good quarrel.
For the edge of your native go fearlessly into battle.
We don't want someone else's land, but we won't give up our own either.
Light will conquer darkness, and the world will conquer war.
Whoever fights bravely in battle honestly defends his homeland.
Peace is the virtue of civilization, war is its crime.
“The day will come when lies will disappear from the face of the earth. There will be no violence or theft. Wars will stop, the survivors will know the value of life, and will protect it. (Slide 20)
Practical part
I developed a questionnaire in order to study the causes of quarrels in children, school age, and ways out of conflict situations. The survey involved students of grades 2b, 3a, 4a in the amount of 64 people. In the course of my research, the following was found out: (Slide 21)
* all children quarrel at least once in their lives, while 60% feel resentment,
* all respondents - 100% like to make friends,
* only 20% of quarrels end in a real fight,
* in 80% of cases, a quarrel leads to a subsequent truce, and in another 70% to friendship,
* only 10% of quarrels last more than one day,
* 50% of junior schoolchildren already have permanent enemies,
* all schoolchildren like to smile, while for no reason - 60%,
* 100% of children want to be friends, not quarrel. (Slide 22)
Conclusion: Based on the above figures, I conclude that quarrels and resentments are an integral part of the life of any person. But, having released "steam" - negative energy, we are again looking for friendship and good relations.
Questionnaire
(Choose an answer)
1. Have you quarreled with other people in your life? (yes, no)
2. What caused the quarrel? (personal insult, material possessions, don't know)
3. What did you feel at the same time? (resentment, hatred, disappointment)
4. How do your quarrels usually end? (truce, friendship, fight)
5. How long do your fights last? (a few minutes, a few days, a long time)
6. How long do you hold a grudge? (I forget at once, for several days, I always remember, I write it down)
7. How often do you use your fists? (never, sometimes, all the time)
8. Do you often decide things peacefully? (always, sometimes, never)
9. Do you often smile at others? (always, depending on mood, never)
10. Do you have enemies? (yes, no, don't know)
11. What do you like more to be friends or to quarrel? (befriend, quarrel)
Personal data analysis:
|
questions |
|||
|
1. Have you quarreled with other people in your life? Yes |
100% |
||
|
No |
|||
|
2. What caused the quarrel? Personal insult Mater. values Do not know |
|||
|
3. What did you feel about it? resentment hatred 1. Razoch disappointment |
|||
|
4. How do your fights usually end? armistice friendship 1. Draco fight |
|||
|
5. How long do your fights last? A couple of minutes a few days for a long time |
|||
|
6. How long do you hold a grudge? I forget right away a few days I always remember I write down |
|||
|
7. How often do you use your fists? never sometimes constantly |
|||
|
8. How often do you settle things amicably? always sometimes never |
|||
|
9. How often do you smile at people around you? Is always depends on mood never |
|||
|
10. Do you have enemies? Yes Not Do not know |
|||
|
11. What do you like more to be friends or to quarrel? Be friends argue |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Conclusion
The significance of my work lies in the fact that I was able to learn about what war is, to understand that the causes of wars are different.
In a discussion with classmates, various ways were found to prevent fights and quarrels, because they are also the causes of wars. (Slide 23)
The survey that I conducted showed how different people are in character, and that there is kindness in everyone. What a wonderful quality! After all, a good man will never start a war! (Slide 24)
Picking up proverbs about the war, I was once again convinced of how wise the Russian people are!
I also realized that all people need to know and remember that war is evil, and everything must be done to prevent the outbreak of wars.
I think that every person should understand that living in the world is happiness! (Slide 24)
Bibliography
1. A.S. Pushkin, collection of poems.
2. Bible.
3. Great children's encyclopedia (military secrets). Moscow 2005
4. World history, encyclopedia. Moscow 2007
5. Magazine "Spark", 1999 No. 24.
6. Internet resources
The legacy of the Atlantean civilization
What is the dream of the red stone
Dream interpretation of the royal family. The king dreamed. Old Russian dream book
What to do to increase hemoglobin during pregnancy: products, pills, general recommendations Products to increase hemoglobin in pregnant women
The concept of negativism: symptoms and features of manifestation in children and adults