This document was drawn up in 1986 by scientists from various disciplines to mark the International Year of Peace. These scientists met in Spain to answer the question:
“Have biology or contemporary social sciences uncovered any biological factors that are an insurmountable, or at least serious, obstacle to world peace-building?”.
They put forward the following five proposals.
The Manifesto was issued by decision of the UNESCO General Conference at its twenty-fifth session, Paris, France, November 16, 1989.
INTRODUCTION
Believing that it is our responsibility as researchers in various disciplines to draw attention to the most dangerous and destructive activities of our species, namely violence and war, recognizing that science is a product of culture which cannot have a definitive character encompassing all human activities, expressing our gratitude for the support we have received from the Seville authorities and the Spanish representatives of UNESCO, we, the undersigned academics from all over the world and from particularly concerned disciplines, have come together and arrived at the following manifesto on violence. In this manifesto, we challenge a number of so-called biological discoveries that have been used by people, including in our respective fields, to justify violence and war. Because the use of these “discoveries” has created a climate of pessimism in our societies, we proclaim that the public and considered denunciation of such manipulations is an important contribution to the International Year of Peace.
The misuse of scientific facts and theories to legitimize violence and war, while not a new phenomenon, is closely associated with the advent of modern science. For example, the theory of evolution has been “used” to justify not only war, but also genocide, colonialism and the elimination of the weak.
We express our point of view in the form of five proposals. We are fully aware that there are many other issues relating to violence and war that could also be discussed within the framework of our disciplines, but we deliberately limit ourselves to what we consider an essential first step.
FIRST PROPOSAL
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT that we have inherited a propensity for war from our animal ancestors. Although fighting is a widespread phenomenon among animal species, there are only a few known cases of destructive intra-species struggles between organized groups. In no case do they involve the use of tools as weapons. Predatory behavior towards other species, which is normal, cannot be considered equivalent to intra-species violence. War is a specifically human phenomenon that does not occur in other animals.
The fact that warfare has changed so radically over time is proof positive that it is a product of culture. It is mainly through language, which makes coordination between groups, the transmission of technology and the use of tools possible, that war’s biological filiation is established. From a biological point of view, war is possible, but it is not inevitable, as shown by the variations in place and nature it has undergone over time and space. Some cultures have not waged war for centuries, while others have frequently done so at certain times and then lived in lasting peace.
SECOND PROPOSAL
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that war or any other form of violent behavior is genetically programmed into human nature. If genes are involved at all levels of nervous system functioning, they are the basis of a developmental potential that can only be realized in the context of the social and ecological environment. While individuals are undoubtedly differently predisposed to the imprint of their experience, their personalities are nonetheless the result of the interaction between their genetic endowment and the conditions of their upbringing. Apart from a few rare pathological conditions, genes do not necessarily lead to individuals predisposed to violence. But the opposite is also true. Genes may be involved in our behavior, but they alone cannot completely determine it.
THIRD PROPOSAL
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection in favor of aggressive behavior over other types. In all well-studied species, the ability to cooperate and perform social functions adapted to the structure of a group determines the social position of its members. The phenomenon of “dominance” involves social bonds and filiation; it does not result from the mere possession and use of superior physical strength, although it does set the stage for aggressive behavior. When such behaviours have been artificially created in animals through genetic selection, the rapid appearance of hyperaggressive individuals has been observed, suggesting that under natural conditions the pressure for aggression had not naturally reached its maximum level. When such hyperaggressive animals are present in a group, they either destroy the social structure or are eliminated. Violence is neither part of our evolutionary heritage nor our genes.
FOURTH PROPOSAL
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that humans have “violent brains” – although we do indeed possess the neural apparatus that enables us to act violently, it is not automatically activated by internal or external stimuli. As with higher primates, and unlike other animals, higher neural functions filter out such stimuli before responding to them. Our behavior is shaped by our conditioning and socialization patterns. There is nothing in neural physiology that compels us to react violently.
FIFTH PROPOSAL
IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT to say that war is an instinctive phenomenon or responds to a single motive. The emergence of modern warfare is the culmination of a process that began with emotional factors, sometimes referred to as instincts, and culminated in cognitive factors. Indeed, modern warfare involves the institutionalized use of personal characteristics such as blind obedience and idealism, as well as social skills such as language, and rational approaches such as cost assessment, planning and information processing. The technologies of modern warfare have considerably accentuated the phenomenon of violence, both in the training of combatants and in the psychological preparation of populations for war. As a result, there is a tendency to confuse causes and consequences.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we proclaim that biology does not condemn mankind to war, that mankind can, on the contrary, free itself from the pessimistic vision provided by biology and, having regained its confidence, undertake, in this International Year of Peace and in the years to come, the necessary transformations of our societies. Although this is primarily a collective responsibility, it must also be based on the awareness of individuals, whose optimism and pessimism are essential factors. Just as “wars begin in the minds of men”, peace also has its origins in our minds. The same species that invented war is also capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each and every one of us.
—————————————————————————————
Summary
The following text is a summary of this Declaration, drawn up in 2006 by Richard PETRIS, Director and founder of the Grenoble School of Peace, and Philippe MAZZONI, of the same School:
1. It is scientifically incorrect to say that we can never put an end to war because animals wage war, and that man is like an animal. Firstly, this is not true because animals do not wage war. Secondly, it’s not true because, unlike animals, man possesses a culture and the ability to change it. A culture that went to war at one time can change and live in peace with other cultures at another time.
2. It is scientifically incorrect to say that war can never be stopped because it is an integral part of human nature. Controversies about human nature will never amount to anything, because human culture confers on men the ability to shape and transform their nature from one generation to the next.
3. It is scientifically incorrect to say that violence cannot be stopped because violent animals and humans live better and reproduce more than others. On the contrary, everything points to the fact that living well is directly linked, for both humans and animals, to the ability to cooperate.
4. It is scientifically incorrect to say that men are doomed to violence because their brains are “violent” by nature. In fact, the brain can be used for cooperation as well as violence. It all depends on the intention, which is “shaped by our behavioral patterns and modes of socialization”.
5. It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is based on “instinct”. Scientists hardly ever use the term “instinct”, because there is not a single aspect of human behavior that is so determined that it cannot be modified by learning. Of course, everyone has emotions: but in modern warfare, decisions and actions are not necessarily emotional.
Conclusion: War and violence are not biologically inevitable. It is possible to put an end to war and the suffering it causes. This work must begin in the minds of men, men who are confident in the possibility of peace. If man has made war, then he is capable of building peace. Everyone has a role to play.
Summary text taken from the website – http://www.irenees.net