Quote Originally Posted by Hroðgar View Post
I am relatively new to the active reading of philosophy so I did not just want to dive in so a friend recommended a book to start with. I am still working on Critique of Religion and Philosophy but I find it excellent aid in rational thought about the two subjects.



When you look at real early man or even proto-humans one could assume that "man" would realize the benefit of peaceful interactions between "new people". The reason some believe this is that man would realize that within their own group people had different views or ways of doing things and that new individuals would increase the likelihood of finding easier ways to do "things."

This slowly allowed humans to build larger cooperative communities that ultimately led small hunter gatherer groups to evolve into larger agricultural based groups. Of course this is something that varied from one place to another and your thoughts were probably true in other areas where resources were in less abundance.

So basically my point is that base human nature would realize the benefit of increasing the numbers in one group if the resources are available.
You have some valid points, a lot of them. Yet, I believe that it was just survival instinct, telling those peoples that it would be more beneficial to not fight some, for risk of losing their own lives. What could be taken by force usually was, but what couldn't was obtained through diplomacy. Both are instincts for survival, to obtain neccessities, yet two sides of the same coin.

For example, you are in a large alliance, with many many resources, and are very heavily defended, while I have a small standing army. I cannot take it by force, so I join the alliance, and ask for your assistance. I get what I need.
But it would have been taken by force had I been of the capacity to do it. It's instinct which tells you when to use peace, and when to use force.