No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Impediments to peace
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 January 2024
Abstract
While effective institutional practices are critical for the evolution of peace certain factors deter their effectiveness. In-group and out-group dynamics may make peace difficult between culturally distinct groups. Critical ecological conditions often lead to intractable conflict over resources. And within group conflicts of interest most prominently between generations may inhibit effective peace making.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Allen, M. W., Bettinger, R. L., Codding, B. F., Jones, T. L., & Schwitalla, A. W. (2016). Resource scarcity drives lethal aggression among prehistoric hunter–gatherers in central California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(43), 12120–12125. doi:10.1073/pnas.1607996113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, P., & Podolefsky, A. (1976). Population density, agricultural intensity, land tenure, and group size in the New Guinea highlands. Ethnology, 15(3), 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dow, G. K., Mitchell, L., & Reed, C. G. (2017). The economics of early warfare over land. Journal of Development Economics, 127, 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efferson, C., Lalive, R., & Fehr, E. (2008). The coevolution of cultural groups and ingroup favoritism. Science (New York, N.Y.), 321(5897), 1844–1849. doi:10.1126/science.1155805CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ember, C., & Ember, M. (1992). Resource unpredictability, mistrust, and war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 242–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1994). War, socialization, and interpersonal violence: A cross-cultural study. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(4), 620–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (2014). Violence in the ethnographic record: Results of cross-cultural research on war and aggression. In Martin, D. & Frayer, D. (Eds.), Troubled times: Violence and warfare in the past (pp. 1–20). Routledge.Google Scholar
Ember, M. (1982). Statistical evidence for an ecological explanation of warfare. American Anthropologist, 84, 645–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575–604. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, R. L. (2013). From the peaceful to the warlike: Ethnographic and archaeological insights into hunter–gatherer warfare and homicide. In Fry, D. P. (Ed.), War, peace, and human nature: The convergence of evolutionary and cultural views (pp. 151–167). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(26), 15387–15392. doi:10.1073/pnas.251541498CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, M. M., Navarrete, C. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2012). Evolution and the psychology of intergroup conflict: The male warrior hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1589), 670–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Otterbein, K. F. (1973). The anthropology of war. In Honigmann, J. J. (Ed.), Handbook of social and cultural anthropology (pp. 923–958). Rand McNally.Google Scholar
van der Dennen, J. M. G. (1995). The origin of war: The evolution of a male-coalitional reproductive strategy (Vols. 1 and 2). Origin Press.Google Scholar
Walker, R. S., & Bailey, D. H. (2013). Body counts in lowland south American violence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(1), 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrangham, R. W., Wilson, M. L., & Muller, M. N. (2006). Comparative rates of violence in chimpanzees and humans. Primates, 47(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Target article
The evolution of peace
Related commentaries (30)
A game of raids: Expanding on a game theoretical approach utilising the prisoner's dilemma and ethnography in situ
A neurological foundation for peaceful negotiations
Capacities for peace, and war, are old and related to Homo construction of worlds and communities
Creating shared goals and experiences as a pathway to peace
Cultural technologies for peace may have shaped our social cognition
Economic games for the study of peace
Enhanced cooperation increases the capacity for conflict
Evolution, culture, and the possibility of peace
Experimental evidence suggests intergroup relations are, by default, neutral rather than aggressive
Group-structured cultural selection can explain both war and peace
How language and agriculture promote culture- and peace-promoting norms
Impediments to peace
Is peace a human phenomenon?
Language likely promoted peace before 100,000 ya
On peace and its logic
On the evolved psychological mechanisms that make peace and reconciliation between groups possible
Peace as prerequisite rather than consequence of cooperation
Peace in other primates
Peace is a form of cooperation, and so are the cultural technologies which make peace possible
Police for peace
Rethinking peace from a bonobo perspective
Social and economic interdependence as a basis for peaceful between-group relationships in nonhuman primates and humans
Social norms, mentalising, and common knowledge, in making peace and war
The evolution of (intergroup) peace hinges on how we define groups and peace
The evolution of peace (and war) is driven by an elementary social interaction mechanism
The importance of social rejection as reputational sanction in fostering peace
The intertwined nature of peace and war
The psychology of intergroup relations was grounded in intragroup processes
The role of religion in the evolution of peace
The roots of peace
Author response
Author's response: The challenge of peace