Are humans like Ants?

Everybody knows that war is always going to lead to death and most likely destruction. But are we the only species that have “wars.” According to some emerging research ants have a tendency to go to war against other colonies in their area. If you actually think about it for a second, it does make sense.

Some species attack and take over neighboring colonies. Others are fewer expansionists but just as aggressive; they invade colonies to steal eggs or larvae, which they either eat or raise as workers/slaves. (Ant)

Not only do humans share their aggressiveness with ants, but social patterns as well. Ants have a well organized social structure that allows them build their ant colonies and function as they do. Humans also have a social “norms” that they follow. Most humans will generally follow the crowd. Solomon Asch did some a very interesting experiment to determine how likely someone was to conform to a group.

Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up for a psychology experiment, and on a specified date you and seven others whom you think are also subjects arrive and are seated at a table in a small room. You don't know it at the time, but the others are actually associates of the experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted. You're the only real subject. The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate concerns people's visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains onevertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length.

The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with different cards. On some occasions the other "subjects" unanimously choose the wrong line. It is clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same answer.


What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion, or would you "stick to your guns" and trust your own eyes? (Solomon)

Though most people would say they would trust their own eyes, Solomon Asch’s experiment proved otherwise.

To Asch's surprise, 37 of the 50 subjects conformed to the majority at least once, and 14 of them conformed on more than 6 of the 12 trials. When faced with a unanimous wrong answer by the other group members, the mean subject conformed on 4 of the 12 trials. Asch was disturbed by these results: "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct."(Solomon)

After looking at such a simple experiment to see how important it is for humans to conform to the majority, leads us back to the ants. In the ant’s social structure not conforming to the rest of the populous means death. In our society, not following social norms (thing that the normal populous does and considers normal) means being looked at as strange or weird.

For the most average adult, their day goes day-in and day-out doing pretty much the same thing over and over again. For some its wake up, eat breakfast, go to work, eat lunch, go back to work, leave work, come home, eat dinner, relax and go to bed to wake up the next day and do the same thing. Ants lives are continuously the same thing. Each has their own specific job that they must carry out. Workers work, queens have babies, warriors defend, and gatherers gather.

Can humans who are the dominant species on earth really share such basic patterns in social networking and aggressiveness with ants? Ants are such a simple and small animal to compare humans to. But humans are aggressive; anyone can see that by looking at our history. Not only do both species share aggressiveness but humans share their ability and need to conform as well. Though you can easily pick these two species apart in other ways, like their ability to hold eight times their own weight, but one cannot ignore the similarities that humans do share with ants.

Works Cited:

“Ant” Wikipedia 6 December 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Cooperation_and_competition

“Solomon Asch Experiment (1958): A study of conformity” Age-of-the-sage.org http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html

Propaganda and War

During war propaganda is used to promote and even to protest war. It is used to sway the general populous to their side. “The “good guys” and the “bad guys” can often both be guilty of misleading their people with distortions, exaggerations, subjectivity, inaccuracy and even fabrications, in order to receive support and a sense of legitimacy.” (Shah) But even knowing all these distortions one cannot help but think of the appealing nature that the media uses to portray their side of the conflict. This propaganda can be seen in just about every war this world has seen, from the Cold War to World War II, and even the current war in Iraq.

“The first casualty when war comes is Truth.” These words spoken by U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson in 1917 couldn’t be more right. (qtd. In Shah) Every day an American turns the television on they are bombarded with all sorts of propaganda. Take the past presidential election for instance. Everybody knows that each candidate won’t be able to fulfil all the promises they make during the campaign, but each American likes to think they will be able to. Promises regarding the current War on Terrorism and the Iraqi War that can’t be solved overnight that will take years to complete. “Probably every conflict is fought on at least two grounds: the battlefield and the minds of the people via propaganda.” (Shah)

Common ways of using propaganda are using selective stories, partial facts, reinforcing reasons and motivations, and demonizing the other side. The point of all these varying ways is because each person will be sway more one way after seeing a particular message, ad, or article. Some people may base a decision on partial facts given by the media, and other people may sway at the media demonizing the other side. The Prime Minister of Britain during World War II once said that, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” (qtd. In Shah)

When National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was interviewed on Monday
[Oct. 15th 2001] on the Arab-language channel Al-Jazzeera, she explained that
she did not want American Networks to air Osama bin Laden tapes because they
were “propaganda.”

“[A] 15-minute or 20-minute tape... that sat there and did nothing but
incite hatred and, ultimately, attacks against innocent American was not a
matter of news, it was a matter of propaganda...,” (Gillin)

An award-winning investigative journalist, Phillip Knightly once pointed out that while some stories may be lies, not everything is a lie, and some of the stories could be true. (Shah) But the dilemma here? How do we know what is true and what is a lie? Even if you look up information on the other side chances are you are just looking up more propaganda. The media portrays its information through an already distorted lens.

The embedded reporters, dependent on the military for food and transportation as
well as security, have a natural and understandable tendency to protect those
who are protecting them. They are not allowed to report outside of the units and
are, in effect, captives. (Hedges)

During wartime, the public opinion is very important, because without supporters, without propaganda, war isn’t as effective. As Adolf Hitler once said about propaganda:

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even
the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it...
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see
paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched
sort of life as paradise. (qtd. in Shah)

As most can imagine and reflect on the images and messages that the media has put out to influence the populous to sway. Media is an effective way of using propaganda to make people believe that their particular cause is important. The people determine the success of a war. Even General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II once said about the general populous:

Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England,
nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the
leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter
to drag the people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack
of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country. (qtd in Shah)

Propaganda will always come hand-in-hand with war. The world cannot help that fact, but the only way we can fight the general masses is by being aware that the media is very much biased and that most of what we see is propaganda. Research is always effective in determining the truthfulness of an ideal or message, but knowing that whatever source you use is biased is a key determining factor. In this Age of Information with the vast usage of media such as television, radio, and the ever growing Internet, it’s hard to tell who’s who and what’s biased or not.


Works Citied:
Grillin, Beth. “U.S. Intensifies the War of Words” Global Issues 21, October 2001 http://www.globalissues.org/article/283/us-intensifies-the-war-of-words
Hedges, Chris. “War: Realites and Myths” Anitwar.com 11 June 2005 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hedges.php?articleid=6294
Shah, Anup. “War, Propaganda and the Media” Global Issues. 31 March 2005 http://www.globalissues.org/article/157/war-propaganda-and-the-media

War and Warfare

War no matter how major or minor is devastating. But what seems like one of the most devastating disaster of humans is something that it seems every generation must witness. Today the world is facing the War on Terrorism and the Iraqi War, but less than a decade ago is was the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s, and before that the Vietnam War that started in the 1950s and continued well into the 70s, and even before that was the Korean Wars, World War II, and World War I.




Human beings have a history of destruction. At the end of the movie Fifth Element starring Bruce Willis, the “fifth element” asks Korbon (Bruce Willis) “What’s the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?” The “fifth element” asks this after she see pictures and the devastation in the wars that we have fought. She aked this question because it was up to her to save the world from a ball of death and it brings up a good point. But in retrospect, how much death is really the result of war? In the book Peace and Conflict Studies it says that even with 20th century’s modern warfare and its enormous destruction its directly responsible for fewer than 2% of all deaths occurring in the past century. (Barash 16)


War is still horrible even if you put that statistic into the equation.One cannot ignore the indriect killing as well as cost of war. But how does modern warfare compare to pre-modern warfare? According to Peace and Conflict Studies it’s the weapons that have changed warfare over the centuries:

We can identify three major eras of weaponry: (1) the earliest period (encompassing the entire pre-industrial period), based primarily on muscle power; (2) an intermediate period (from approximately the Renaissance until the first half of the 20th century in the West and still the case in most of the rest of the world), powered by chemicals, especially gunpowder, as well as steam and internal combustion engines; and (3) the most recent period, the second half of the 20th century, dominated by the threat of nuclear weapons and other weapons of potential mass destruction (especially biochemical weapons). (Brash 20)

If you look at those three periods and just see how much technology has advanced in the last century you can understand how the idea of war is terrifying. But if we know the chance of mass destruction, will that stop us from unleashing possible obliteration ? The United States felt the fear of a nuclear assault during the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960’s. As a result of that it’s hard to rely on the hope that “each side will presume that the other will be deterred by the prospect of annihilation and, therefore, expect the other to back down, while remaining determined to stand firm.” (Barash 22)

Perhaps the most disturbing of all, the fact remains that human beings, including decision makers, are influenced by many things beyond a cool, rational calculation of their perceived best interests. Wars have been initiated for many reasons, often including mistaken judgment or faulty information. And when war takes place, the combatants make use of whatever weapons they have. Never is the history of human warfare has an effective weapon been invented and then allowed to rust without at some time being used. (Barash 23)

Even with that hope people can’t overlook the irrational minds of other people. This world has already faced two world wars, each remarkably more destructive to the last. As Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” From the trends that we see in our advances in warfare, when the world has to face World War III be prepared for massive destruction on a global scale. Its unfortunately not a question of “ff” it’s a questions of “when” that will happen.


Works Cited:




Barash, David P., Charles P. Webel, Peace and Conflict Studies. SAGE, 2008.

The Fifth Element. Dir. Luc Besson. Perf. Bruce Willis, Milia Jovovich, and Gary Oldman. Columbia Pictures, 1997.

Human Nature vs. Peace

Everybody knows the idea of peace, but when you ask someone to define their idea of peace, no two answers are the same. To that end, what is peace? Who can honestly say that peace has ever existed? Perhaps the reason peace is unattainable is because of these variations of the meaning, these constant opinion changes to just the word alone seems to make the possibility of peace unfathomable. Though many wars have been fought for the name of peace, where has it been all this time? Why does peace seem to elude human experience? So with that in mind, let’s delve into the primordial meaning of peace.


The meaning is as simple as it is complex. Science still diligently searches for the answers to human nature in order to find the fundamental differences from person to person, culture to culture. Our own need to be right stands at the top of reason for conflict. Every individual, every group, every country wants to be on the winning side of a conflict or situation, regardless of the inherent importance or magnitude. This leads to an individual’s desire to grow, to expand their circle of influence. Whether that circle of influence is the homeless person taking the neighboring homeless persons cardboard box, or one country taking another countries wheat supply. It all boils down to one person wanting to “win”.


Peace, in the end, is a very complex subject, especially when the idea moves from being a self-goal to a political goal. A recently budding branch of Peace Psychology looks into the political ideas of peace and what it should demand. In a definition given by United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, they gave their definition of peace:

There can be no genuine peace when the most elementary human rights are violated, or while situations of injustice continue to exist; conversely, human rights for all cannot take root and achieve full growth while latent or open conflicts are rife. . . Peace is incompatible with malnutrition, extreme poverty and the refusal of the rights of peoples to self-determination. Disregard for the rights of individuals and peoples, the persistence of inequitable international economic structures, interference in the internal affairs of other states, foreign occupation and apartheid are always real or potential sources of armed conflict and international crisis. The only lasting peace is a just peace based on respect for human rights (qtd. in Christie et al 10)

If you ask yourself, what kind of peace can there be is human rights are being violated? Can two people be peaceful if one suffers while the other flourishes? No. Eventually the weaker of the two will lash out and attempt to “win”. If you choose any moment in history, especially in any war, you can find at least one type of violation of human rights. During the Civil War, where were African Americans’ right to live, to have liberty and justice? During World War II, the Jews faced genocide due to their religion. Where were their human rights? Sadly, this world is not ready for peace. For all the political preening of countries and governments working together is all a façade to a power struggle between powerful people. In the end it is the individuals that lose. As Dr. Martin Luther King once said in a speech about the Vietnam War, "I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries." (King 4) Until humanity in a whole loses the selfish desire to win, then there will be no true peace.


Unfortunately a change of that magnitude will require an extraordinary situation to occur. It would have to be a fantastic series of revelations. Religious, political, and maybe even financial are some of the more optimistic changes that could lead to true peace. Global war of unimaginable scale, total anarchy or worse would be the yang of the ying. We care too much for ourselves than the person next to us. Humans will one day be able to obtain the peace that we all long for, but we are still very far away from that moment, we, as a species, have a lot to learn about ourselves before we can achieve such a great accomplishment.












Works Cited:

Christie, Daniel J., Barbara S. Tint, Roger V. Wagner, Deborah Winter. “Peace Psychology for a Peaceful World”. American Psychologist. Vol. 63(6), Sep 2008,. pp. 540-552. http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/seminars/Thematic%20Seminar/Cohrs_WS08-09/TS-Cochrs-WS08-09_Christie-etal-inpress.pdf



King, Martin Luther, Jr. “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” Clergy and Laity Concerned. Riverside Church, New York, New York. 4 April 1967. https://blackboard.unf.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_41020_1%26url%3D

Awareness of Death

So far this semester the images of the past keep coming up. My literature class assigned me two historic books to read regarding the horrific period that the Jewish people faced during World War II. These two books, Night by Elie Wiesel (Wiesel) and the Diary of Anne Frank (Frank), are records of a truly appalling and historical moment in time. They are testimonies of one of the most gruesome times in history. As Elie Wiesel states in the prelude to his book, “In retrospect I must congress that I do not know, or no longer know, what I wanted to achieve with my words. I only that without this testimony, my life as a writer—or my life, period—would not have become what it is: that of a witness who believes he has a moral obligation to try and prevent the enemy from enjoying one last victory by allowing his crimes to be erased from human memory.” (Wiesel p. viii)When I read this statement I realized that these accounts, or any account on history, are truly important to the world so that no one else has to suffer the horrors of such tragedies.. It also made me aware of the significance of such events. I did not face the horrors that people in Europe faced during World War II, but even as young as I am I have witnessed historic and horrible events, like September 11 and even natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

These kinds of events can open people’s eyes and make them take a step back to look at their life. This seems to be a natural occurrence when historical events come up in a person’s life. They make them realize how fragile their lives are and how in an instant it could be over. There is a theory that seems to coincide with this feeling that, and I’m sure countless others got after reading these two books. In a quote on the Terror Management theory explains human’s unique ability to be aware of our own death “the explicit awareness of death and the potential for debilitating terror engendered by this awareness is the most significant event in the evolutionary history of our species.” (Solomon) In this statement, you can assume that it is referring to human’s ability to perceive, or picture, our own death, unlike many other species. This ability that we cope with the idea of our eventual death just adds to the idea of humans as being the superior species on Earth. This theory was most intensely used in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Most people go day to day, in their own world, not even thinking that they could die at any given moment due to any number of things. I think that tragic events, such as 9/11 and the Holocaust help remind people of their own fragility and make them realize that their lives are constantly on the path to their own eventual death. When events or natural disasters occur the shield that generally protects people from such thoughts and horrific ideas lifts up and reality sets in. In that regard, I feel that people have to be aware of such events and understand that death is inevitable. Not only that but people must do everything in their power to not forget, or push aside, the events that help remind them about their lives and how fragile humans truly are to themselves as well as nature.

Cited:
Wiesel, Elie. Night. Hill and Wang, 1958
Frank, Anne. The Diary of Anne Frank.
Solomon, Sheldon, Jeff Greenburg, Tom Pyszczynski. Fear of Death and Human Destructiveness. Psychoanalytic Review Vol. 90(4), August 2003, pg 457-474. *Library Link wouldn’t allow me to access database to get the link for this article*