Warfare in an evolutionary perspective

Janus faced: The co-evolution of war and peace in the human species

The human species presents a paradox. No other species possesses the propensity to carry out coalitionary lethal attacks on adult conspecifics coupled with the inclination to establish peaceful relations with genetically unrelated groups. What explains this seemingly contradictory feature? Existing perspectives, the "deep roots" and "shallow roots" of war theses, fail to capture the plasticity of human intergroup behaviors, spanning from peaceful cooperation to warfare. By contrast, this article argues that peace and war have both deep roots, and they co-evolved through an incremental process over several million years. On the one hand, humans inherited the propensity for coalitionary lethal violence from their chimpanzee-like ancestor. Specifically, having first inherited the skills to engage in cooperative hunting, they gradually repurposed such capacity to execute coalitionary killings of adult conspecifics and subsequently enhanced it through technological innovations like the use of weapons. On the other hand, they underwent a process of cumulative cultural evolution and, subsequently, of self-domestication which led to heightened cooperative communication and increased prosocial behavior within and between groups. The combination of these two biocultural evolutionary processes-coupled with feedback loop effects between self-domestication and Pleistocene environmental variability-considerably broadened the human intergroup behavioral repertoire, thereby producing the distinctive combination of conflictual and peaceful intergroup relations that characterizes our species. To substantiate this argument, the article synthesizes and integrates the findings from a variety of disciplines, leveraging evidence from evolutionary anthropology, primatology, archeology, paleo-genetics, and paleo-climatology.

The intertwined nature of peace and war

Glowacki discusses how humans regularly face collective action problems that may result in either peaceful or aggressive between-group interactions. Peace and war probably coevolved in humans. Using a gene-culture evolutionary framework is a powerful way to analyse why, when, and how humans have the capacity to build and maintain long-term peaceful interactions between groups and also to wage deadly wars.

The evolution of peace

While some species have affiliative and even cooperative interactions between individuals of different social groups, humans are alone in having durable, positive-sum, interdependent relationships across unrelated social groups. Our capacity to have harmonious relationships that cross group boundaries is an important aspect of our species' success, allowing for the exchange of ideas, materials, and ultimately enabling cumulative cultural evolution. Knowledge about the conditions required for peaceful intergroup relationships is critical for understanding the success of our species and building a more peaceful world. How do humans create harmonious relationships across group boundaries and when did this capacity emerge in the human lineage? Answering these questions involves considering the costs and benefits of intergroup cooperation and aggression, for oneself, one's group, and one's neighbor. Taking a game theoretical perspective provides new insights into the difficulties of removing the threat of war and reveals an ironic logic to peace - the factors that enable peace also facilitate the increased scale and destructiveness of conflict. In what follows, I explore the conditions required for peace, why they are so difficult to achieve, and when we expect peace to have emerged in the human lineage. I argue that intergroup cooperation was an important component of human relationships and a selective force in our species history beginning at least 300 thousand years. But the preconditions for peace only emerged in the past 100 thousand years and likely coexisted with intermittent intergroup violence which would have also been an important and selective force in our species' history.

The Fusion-Secure Base Hypothesis

Identity fusion is traditionally conceptualized as innately parochial, with fused actors motivated to commit acts of violence on out-groups. However, fusion's aggressive outcomes are largely conditional on threat perception, with its effect on benign intergroup relationships underexplored. The present article outlines the fusion-secure base hypothesis, which argues that fusion may engender cooperative relationships with out-groups in the absence of out-group threat. Fusion is characterized by four principles, each of which allows a fused group to function as a secure base in which in-group members feel safe, agentic, and supported. This elicits a secure base schema, which increases the likelihood of fused actors interacting with out-groups and forming cooperative, reciprocal relationships. Out-group threat remains an important moderator, with its presence "flipping the switch" in fused actors and promoting a willingness to violently protect the group even at significant personal cost. Suggestions for future research are explored, including pathways to intergroup fusion.

Variation between species, populations, groups and individuals in the fitness consequences of out-group conflict

Out-group conflict is rife in the natural world, occurring from primates to ants. Traditionally, research on this aspect of sociality has focused on the interactions between groups and their conspecific rivals, investigating contest function and characteristics, which group members participate and what determines who wins. In recent years, however, there has been increasing interest in the consequences of out-group conflict. In this review, we first set the scene by outlining the fitness consequences that can arise immediately to contest participants, as well as a broader range of delayed, cumulative and third-party effects of out-group conflict on survival and reproductive success. For the majority of the review, we then focus on variation in these fitness consequences of out-group conflict, describing known examples both between species and between populations, groups and individuals of the same species. Throughout, we suggest possible reasons for the variation, provide examples from a diverse array of taxa, and suggest what is needed to advance this burgeoning area of social evolution. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.

Dominance or Tolerance? Causes and consequences of a period of increased intercommunity encounters among bonobos (Pan paniscus) at LuiKotale

Group-living primates exhibit variable reactions to intergroup encounters (or IGEs), reflecting species-specific strategies and individual motivations. In chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), dominating in IGEs provides fitness benefits. Less is known about responses to IGEs in bonobos (Pan paniscus) despite their equal relevance for understanding the origins of human intergroup relations. We observed the Bompusa West (WBp) bonobo community at LuiKotale during a 2-month shift in ranging resulting in frequent IGEs with the smaller Bompusa East (EBp) community. We tested whether incursions provided ecological benefits, and whether responses to IGEs were consistent with inter-community dominance or tolerance. We measured fruit availability and collected activity scans from 26 mature WBp community members when in their core ranging area, during incursions into the EBp ranging area, and during IGEs. We collected data on sexual interactions and aggression with in-group and out-group members during 19 independent IGEs. During their shift in ranging, fruit availability was greater in the EBp ranging area, and WBp bonobos consumed more fruit during incursions than when in their core ranging area. Coalitionary intergroup aggression occurred during nine IGEs, and outcomes were consistent with imbalances in fighting power, in that larger WBp parties supplanted smaller EBp parties from the immediate area. However, communities reformed associations following 70% of coalitionary conflicts, and prolonged IGEs facilitated out-group sexual interactions and female transfers. The WBp community shift in ranging was likely motivated by ecological factors and responses to increased IGEs reflected a mixture of competitive and tolerant strategies.

The ripples of modernity: How we can extend paleoanthropology with the extended evolutionary synthesis

Contemporary understandings of paleoanthropological data illustrate that the search for a line defining, or a specific point designating, "modern human" is problematic. Here we lend support to the argument for the need to look for patterns in the paleoanthropological record that indicate how multiple evolutionary processes intersected to form the human niche, a concept critical to assessing the development and processes involved in the emergence of a contemporary human phenotype. We suggest that incorporating key elements of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) into our endeavors offers a better and more integrative toolkit for modeling and assessing the evolution of the genus Homo. To illustrate our points, we highlight how aspects of the genetic exchanges, morphology, and material culture of the later Pleistocene complicate the concept of "modern" human behavior and suggest that multiple evolutionary patterns, processes, and pathways intersected to form the human niche.