WA 3 draft 1

What about peace? 

Well, what about it? Peace and war are usually considered opposites. However, I believe that war is a much simpler side of human nature than peace. I am not criticizing peace; on the contrary, I think it is a very good thing for humans to practice. We should do it more often. But I am also saying that it takes a great deal of thought and self-restraint to practice peace than it does to wage a war. You don't have to do any thinking to pick up a rock and throw it at someone who makes you angry. You do have to think, however, in order to not pick up that rock and just walk away. Therein lies the problem.

Animals are often at war with each other, for different reasons - leadership of a group, mates, territorial disputes, ect. But this is natural behavior for them. Fighting is a basic instinct, a way to defend or prove yourself. The one who wins the fight gets the prize. Animals are much more simple-minded than humans in their pursuit of basic needs. If someone has what you want, you fight for it. You do not negotiate or offer to share. 

However, most animals (sea mammals and primates excluded) lack a developed neocortex. This is the part of the brain that can plan and rationalize. This is the logical portion of the brain. Because most animals don't have it, they can't predict the outcomes of their disputes beyond the very obvious - that they will catch their prey or something like that. But animals who do have neocortexes are capable of reasoning, and developing sophisticated rules and language. Humans have the largest neocortexes. We can not only predict the basic, physical outcomes of our disputes and actions, we can also predict the moral outcomes. We can deduce whether or not performing a certain action on another living being will hurt it. Most other creatures don't bother with the moral outcomes, such as when a cat plays with a wounded mouse. They don't see their behavior as cruel; they are not capable of such developed thought.

So when you choose to leave someone alone rather than hurt them, are you using your higher brain? I think so. We humans are governed by a set of morals and values; we perceive certain actions, such as torture, as wrong. Why? Because our morals tell us that intentionally hurting another person is a bad thing to do. Another person's pain disturbs us and, because we live in such a complex and sophisticated civilization, seems wrong because we are no longer simply a group of primates fending for ourselves in the wilderness. 

Which brings me back to my original problem: Peace is harder to enact than war because peace requires more brainpower and self-restraint than simply lashing out based on your emotions and instincts. Inaction is frustrating to people after a war; often they feel the enemies have not been punished enough or that the enemy has wronged them too much to be left alone. But acting on what are rational, analyzing, complex minds are telling us what to do than what our honest, simplistic instincts are telling us to do is what sets us apart from other animals. We can enact a peace. We can stop a war. We just have to will ourselves to do it. We are not ruled by our baser minds; we are the products of a large and complex neocortex! Let's use it more often.