Dr. Malcolm Sharp of the University of Chicago School of Law moderates a discussion of whether human beings are inherently violent and what might be done to curb violence and prevent the annihilation of the human race. Dr. Margaret Mead, cultural anthropologist and psychologist of the American Museum of Natural History, and Dr. Harlow Shapley, director of the observatory of Harvard University are his panelists.
Mead argues that anthropological evidence shows that human societies have continually developed inventions which have allowed more and more people to live together peacefully. Shapley argues that there are moral substitutes for war - competitions against nonhuman enemies like illiteracy or between teams in sports - that might curb and rechannel our aggression.
Malcolm Sharp Introduces the program, which touches on whether Men are made to fight or if they are a social creation.
He introduces Dr. Margaret Mead, a psychologist and anthropologist from the American Museum of Natural History, and Dr. Harlow Shapley, director of the observatory of Harvard University.
Sharp asks if it makes a difference if we fight another.
Shapley notes other metaphoric fights, like baseball. He notes that it would make us look foolish to aliens and possibly kill us.
Mead notes that men, of the same background can be either peaceful or warlike depending on social structures.
They discuss the technological aspects of war - jet propulsion, atomic weapons, biological - which is new to modern warfare. People are psychologically distant from the effects of war. Obedience is a more significant factor in modern war, according to Mead. Mathematics and precision are more important.
They talk about the new targets of war. They also talk about changes in media.
Sharp asks quickly the following questions:
What has science done to war? As scientists, how would you determine whether war is part of human nature? How would you develop practical measures to limit fighting? How do other societies say about "human pugnacity"? Is there such a thing as assertiveness? Does not the history of civilized people show extraordinary in the practice of war? Do we accept nature or nurture, or without a clear victor, what do we do about it?
Shapley does not think it matters to the universe what happens to the Earth. He goes into whether we can survive on this planet or another. He asks what are the chances of an astrological disaster or of climate change destroying humanity. Nil he thinks. Man could very easily destroy itself. He thinks in 3 or 4 years the die will be cast and we will head towards doom or not.
Mead thinks that the chances are good. Shapley goes into family planning in light of eminent disaster.
Mead brings up the example of primitive people. She talks about inventions that have made it easier for people to live together with a relative degree of peace. We have made great progress here. She talks about a group of cannibals exploiting their neighbors and contrasts them with a tribe 50 miles away who lives peacefully.
Shapley notes the importance for conflict and contests in baseball and evolution. Mead notes the Balinese compete in the arts rather than through warfare.
Has the purpose war served in the past, anthropologically or biologically, no longer work in the present?
Mead notes that organization of large aggregates of society was facilitated through war. Shapley reiterates this.
Shapley and Sharp note Mead's optimism. Sharp talks about the competition with Russia. Mead does not feel she was optimistic, we have very little time, but anthropological evidence does show that it is possible.
Sharp asks what we might do? Education? Mead does not think there is time to train the young.
Shapley thinks education might help, but there is no time. There is a crisis.
Sharp feels religion is tribal and hence a problem. Mead notes its ethical aspects - the impulse it provides is not enough, we need techniques for preventing wars.
Sharp asks about science. Shapley does not think there is enough backing, especially compared to Russia.
Sharp wonders what physical scientists do. Shapley feels social scientists are a better candidate. Mead wants resources if they are to handle the problem - money and people and the help of the physical scientists.
Shapley talks about how the social and physical scientists are intertwined, in things like the atomic bomb.
Mead thinks social science needs to be understood on the world level. International cooperation and understanding is crucial.
Shapley concedes aggression is natural, but they need nonhuman elements to fight, bringing up literacy, uniformitarianism, "major maladies," and ignorance and superstition as being things that should be fought. Shapley notes a quote from Stalin about Russia leading the charge against the US in the progression of science.
Mead talks about Shapley's positive competitions as being tools and techniques that can be used to prevent wars. Shapley feels that if these battles continue they can absorb aggressive impulses.
Sharp recaps Mead's and Shapley's main points. Mead thinks that our impulses towards fighting can be molded. Sharp feels that violence is persistent and that fighting will need to be repressed. Mead advocates for the social scientists and Shapley talks about moral substitutes for war. Both have a faith in humanity and in science.
Audio courtesy of the NYC Municipal Archives WNYC Collection
WNYC archives id: 92547
Municipal archives id: LT1388