Every passing week, headlines announce a new war, a new massacre, a new riot. We mourn. We protest. We rebuild. And then we do it again. This paper poses a question that scientists, philosophers, and spiritual leaders have approached cautiously for centuries: are the dominant patterns of human violence — war, refugee rejection, resource hoarding, arms races, and mob violence — best understood as scaled expressions of evolved animal behaviors that civilization has not yet learned to override? Through seven lines of interdisciplinary inquiry spanning behavioral biology, political history, refugee studies, conflict data, and literary analysis, this paper argues that the answer is substantially yes — and that recognizing this is not cause for despair but for directed action. The paper does not claim that animal-behavior analogies are the only or complete explanation for any specific conflict; it claims they constitute a neglected common substrate beneath the ideological, political, and economic explanations that dominate mainstream analysis. The paper concludes with evidence that human societies have, in specific historical instances, successfully overridden these instincts through deliberate institutional design — and argues that understanding the instinct is the prerequisite for transcending it.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
N. Sharma
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
N. Sharma (Sun,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d49fa9b33cc4c35a2280e6 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19426327
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: