Excellent question!

It is indeed a paradox that humans, capable of magnificent acheivements are also perpetrators of such base horrors.

Rahma,

"Why Do Humans Commit Large-Scale Atrocities? A Paradox of Aggression and Survival Instincts ?

I'll offer this one suggestion: values.

We all value things differently. For example, perhaps due to some weirdness in my DNA, I could not possibly care less about anything to do with pro sports. I am desperately bored if I'm made to watch any kind of match, especially ones that involve teams. Individual events, as you see in the Olympics, I'm okay with that.

I will claim, people are very much that way about other human experiences, including the commission of atrocities. They just don't see them as all that negative.

Today, Putin responded to a question from a BBC reporter. Putin thinks he brought Russia "back from the brink."

Brink of what? His atrocities are acceptable, because he has an inferiority complex? In short, that seems to be the case. Different values involved here.

Barry Turner

It is indeed a strange paradox.

In the past, humans constantly faced survival threats, and this was genetically inherited in modern humans: the aggressive survival instinct and the need for a constant threat to stay alert and defensive. Aggression is indeed present in us, but as I mentioned, the matter is bigger and more horrifying than this. Having found no real external threat, humans unconsciously turned their aggression toward themselves, I believe.

Additionally, I think social and political factors may amplify this aggression, pushing humans to commit acts of extreme violence to achieve certain goals, assert dominance, or engage in conflicts over power and resources.

If there were higher, more intelligent beings threatening human existence, would things have been different, or at least would such atrocities not have occurred?

Another question that might explain all of this: What did early humans do? Did they form groups, kill each other in savage ways, and take pleasure in torturing one another?

Does this line of thinking seem somewhat logical to you?

I believe the issue is not just psychological but also carries some philosophical aspects.

Humans have been threat to each other for a very long time. In this respect however they are not unique in the animal world. Just about every species of fish, reptile, bird or mammal will attack its own. Sometimes this is rare but often it is routine.

Early hominids certainly killed each other in conflicts over territory or food and in many cases carried out violent ritualised killing. The evidence that it is ritualised in some cases indicates a degree of fulfilment achieved by it.

A number of archeological sites indicate internecine or tribal warfare. The natter of the injuries on the human remains indicate the use of specialised weapons such and stone maces and projectiles such as spears and arrows. There is some debate over whether these were actual weapons built solely for warfare or simply adapted tools but the significance of this is largely irrelevant.

It is likely that if there were higher, more intelligent beings that they would have evolved via a violent stage. It is difficult to see how this could be evolved out of since this leading by example would have been likely victims of those retaining the violent traits.

What is particularly disturbing is that human belief systems virtually always contain some attraction towards violence. Politics and religion, which are in reality simply manifestations of the same thing justify and even glorify in violence. While it may be the case that a few religions eschew violence altogether they are outliers in human behaviour. It is of curse questionable that even they have given up all violence in reality.

The current wars we see in the 21st century are motivated by atavism, tribalism and absurd territorial claims over land given by 'gods' or some often concocted history.

Here is an interesting article from a distinguished historian on how ideologies can backfire.

Albert Manfredi

Yes, I believe part of this is related to values and how we perceive things. However, at the end of the day, we are human, and there may be unconscious motivations within us.

But when it comes to Putin or any other tyrannical ruler — and there are many — I think the issue goes beyond just values or seeing such atrocities as acceptable. There are many other factors and motivations at play. For example, there is a president in a country that could be described as poor. He is a dictator who imprisons anyone who opposes his rule, most of whom are intellectuals and thinkers. There are people who will spend their entire lives in prison simply for speaking out against this dictator.

This dictator has caused corruption, devastation, and numerous problems in this country, looting the nation's wealth while viewing all this injustice as normal. Not only that, but he also believes he is a prophet from God or some kind of savior. He literally believes this.

I also think the situation with Putin is different. It’s not just about values

“While nothing is easier than to denounce the evil doer, nothing is more difficult than to understand him”

Dostoevsky, The Possessed

It is indeed the case that autocrats, who are by far the worst perpetrators of atrocities are motivated by a whole range of factors and are not simply ‘evil’. There is a superb book on this called Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities: Terribly and Terrifyingly Normal? By Allette Smeulers which examines in detail the complex personalities of violent autocrats.

The book develops the idea postulated by Hannah Arendt at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal how war criminals and the like are surprisingly ordinary and far from the cackling and deranged monsters they are portrayed as in the movies. Arendt described it as the “banality of evil” although many of the Nazis on trial were far from banal in its true meaning.

Autocrats live in a dangerous world, not only dangerous to their victims but extremely hazardous to themselves. They maintain their position largely by violent coercion and intimidation but a surprising number of them also have significant public support. Another excellent insight here is provided by Tom Ambrose in The Nature of Despotism.

The obvious problem with living in a world where violent coercion is the infrastructure of the state is that it applies universally. This is why it is so extraordinarily difficult when an autocrat is deposed, usually violently, for the state to embrace democracy and the rule of law. The legacy of often decades of violent coercion is difficult to erase and it is very much easier to engage in a orgy of revenge on the ousted leader and his family and acolytes.

Another very insightful book into the mindset of the autocrat and despot is Archie Brown’s The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern Age. Brown exposes the myth of strength and of exceptionalism in despots focussing on their weaknesses and how the public frequently misreads their behaviour and rhetoric as strength and power.

For a superb modern analysis of autocracy and those who commit atrocities Anne Applebaum’s latest book Autocracy Inc. is difficult to match. Applebaum looks at the current batch of autocrats and sees little in the way of ideology or philosophy. Of course they may claim to be devoted patriots and saviours of the people but their motivation is that of the gangster or the modern corporate CEO. All three possess a surprising number of characteristics straight out of the DSM-V or ICD-11 classification for psychopathy. When it comes to the crunch, the reasons why they do such evil things is actually because they like doing them.

Below is an observation made by Oxford University philosophy Don Thomas Dewar Weldon. Weldon had served as an officer in World War One and seen at first hand the carnage of that conflict. During World War Two he was aide-de-camp to Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris who advocated the area bombing of German cities. His famous biblical ‘reap the whirlwind speech’ is one of the most chilling threats ever made by a military leader during war and is also to be seen below.

Both speeches give an interesting insight into the minds of those who preside over the prosecution of war.

“So therefore, it is not a question of ethics at all! War is not the opposite of peace, nor is it a corollary of it! War is a complete breakdown in civilization, so it shouldn't have "ethics" thrust upon it. Because that way lies danger; that way, war becomes acceptable. The means of death and destruction are immaterial, war was always war, the only difference today is the scale of it.

So, when this war is finally over, the world should accept that there is no limit; there are no "Hague Rules of Combat" anymore. The worse war is, the more savage it becomes. When people understand this, and stop trying to limit it, then perhaps, we shall achieve lasting peace”

Wing Commander (Professor) Thomas Dewar Weldon

“The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else and nobody was going to bomb them.

At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation.

They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

Cologne, Lubeck, Rostock—Those are only just the beginning.

We cannot send a thousand bombers a time over Germany every time, as yet.

But the time will come when we can do so.

Let the Nazis take good note of the western horizon.

There they will see a cloud as yet no bigger than a man’s hand.

But behind that cloud lies the whole massive power of the United States of America.

When the storm bursts over Germany, they will look back to the days of Lubeck and Rostock and Cologne as a man caught in the blasts of a hurricane will look back to the gentle zephyrs of last summer.

It may take a year. It may take two.

But for the Nazis, the writing is on the wall.

Let them look out for themselves. The cure is in their own hands.

There are a lot of people who say that bombing can never win a war.

Well, my answer to that is that it has never been tried yet, and we shall see.

Germany, clinging more and more desperately to her widespread conquests and even seeking foolishly for more, will make a most interesting initial experiment.

Japan will provide the confirmation.

But the time is not yet. There is a great deal of work to be done first, and let us all get down to it”

Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris. RAF

Barry Turner

Thank you for your response and explanation of the topic.

This suggests that aggression and violence in humans are merely a natural extension, whether or not there is something threatening human survival to trigger this aggression. I still believe the matter is much deeper—it might not be exactly as you described, but perhaps it is indeed part of our makeup. But how can our nature be so complex? How can violence and aggression be an inherent part of human composition, while the word "human" itself carries so much meaning, including the concept of humanity Truly, it is a strange contradiction!

Rahma

We are animals of the order mammalia and although we tend to think of ourselves as thinking rational creatures we plainly are not. That is part of our make-up but we are very recent additions to the animal kingdom and we are still animals.

Early hominids killed each other just as their forebears in the primate world did and still do. It would appear that seven million years is not quite enough time to have evolved this out of ourselves.

As a species we represent the greatest threat to all other life on the planet and that includes ourselves. The only other life form that was ever able to wreck the global environment in Earth’s history was prokaryote cyanobacteria staring 2.7 billion years ago. It took them many million years to completely pollute the atmosphere (with oxygen) its taken us less than 300 and if we carry on we will end up on the endangered species list ourselves. Cyanobacteria incidentally had an excuse, they were not aware of what they were doing but we are.

We have been civilised, and I use that term loosely only 11 thousand years but in that time we have built weapons that could wipe out every civilisation on Earth and we are still pointing them at each other.

I am reading a great book at the moment called 1177 BC. It is about the collapse of the Bronze Age civilisations 3200 years ago. It is fascinating how many parallels there are with what is going on today.

All of those highly civilised societies thought they would last forever of course, like we do. They were wrong and so are we.

I think one way of looking at this is that human beings are incredible intelligent creatures capable of fantastic achievements. The problem appears to be that humanity is however quite stupid.

In the middle to late Bronze Age human civilisation was struck by a series of natural disasters and idiotic constant warfare. We today are facing massive environmental catastrophes and we too still devote vast resources and massive effort to find ways of destroying each other. “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose “ as the saying goes.

Of course they may claim to be devoted patriots and saviours of the people but their motivation is that of the gangster or the modern corporate CEO. All three possess a surprising number of characteristics straight out of the DSM-V or ICD-11 classification for psychopathy.

Aside from the completely gratuitous mention of "CEOs," good click bait but not much else, the rest is pretty obvious.

The autocrats are self-centered people intent on retaining power. This is the common denominator. Indefinitely long terms in office.

They have psychopathic tendencies because they are only interested in this goal, at everyone and anyone's expense. If those psychopathic tendencies also manifest in their foreign policy, as Putin's, then it should be no surprise. Xi, on that similar path. If the Philippines have rocks in their internationally recognized EEZ, Xi does not care. He claims those rocks as his own anyway. If Hong Kongers and Taiwanese way much prefer their own methods of governance, he also doesn't care. They are both diluting his authority.

There is a definite similarity there, how Putin dismisses what Ukrainians have wanted, for over a century, and the way Xi dismisses these other countries or territories.

Their interests are personal and anyone standing in their way had better watch his back. And the pathetic acolytes are always ready to sing their praises, as if the survival of the country is only possible with the superior intellect and insight of the autocrat.

Contrary to that, what makes a CEO stay in his position is only if he increases the company's revenues. They are glad handers, they make deals, they merge companies or split them apart, whatever it takes to make that business grow and to be profitable. And they are removed from their positions when they cannot fulfill their promises.

You might be able to equate these types if the autocrats could be removed by a board of directors. Instead, this is hardly ever the case. The autocrat has a tight little group of insiders. A handful, typically. Any of these steps out of line, he would likely be offed.

Rather than pseudo-political answers, you may find doing some research yourself more beneficial in understanding the changes that occur in individuals as a starting point for further exploration.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: a Lesson in the Power of Situation. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(30), B6–B7.

This is not the original paper; it may be an interesting starting point.

I had a few more moments; plenty of information exists to start exploring your question.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's Studies Really Show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426

Another must read on this topic is the seminal work by psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.

One phenomenon that is of particular interest is the strange increase in internecine violence when civilisations are under threat from natural disasters.

Strong evidence exists of this from the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the fall of the Minoan civilisation and the spectacular virtual extinction of the Mayan civilisation. Numerous other examples exist in both the archaeological record, historical records and even mythology and fairy tales, like the Bible.

The appearance of plague in classical and medieval times also engendered populations violently turning on minorities and others as scapegoats and the apocalyptic visions painted by the Flemish painters Bosch & Breugel depict this quite disturbingly.

Another couple of books worth catching, although they are beginning to show their age are Jared Diamond's The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee. and Guns, Germs & Steel.

Last but not least, Civilised to Death: The Price of Progress by Christopher Ryan offers excellent insights into the conflicting consequences of our chosen form of civilisation.

This is a fascinating subject and examines the counter-intuitive psychology of a species that is supposed to be sentient and intelligent. Those two concepts probably need a rethink.

This question touches on the paradox of human consciousness I believe—our ability to create and empathise, yet also to destroy.

It prompts us to reflect: What values drive our actions? Could distorted values like power or fear overshadow empathy, allowing us to rationalize atrocities?

Survival instincts may play a role. Unlike animals, humans abstract these instincts, fighting for ideologies or identity rather than immediate needs. Without external threats, do we turn this aggression inward? How can we redirect these instincts toward creativity and connection?

You suggest a universal principle—needing external threats to unify us. Without them, do divisions grow unchecked? History shows humanity uniting against common challenges, but what if we chose collective goals that transcend conflict? What shared purpose could guide us toward unity?

Unlike animals, whose violence is bounded by survival, humans scale destruction through dehumanization. We see this everywhere especially with social media... This invites us to reflect: When have you consciously seen another’s humanity, even when it was hard?

The key may not lie in solving this paradox but in embracing it with awareness. Recognizing both our capacity for light and darkness, how can we nurture compassion in ourselves and our systems? What role does consciousness play in transcending our destructive instincts? I think reflecting on this gives us some direction.

For another fascinating view from the prehistoric is Julien Maxwell-Heath's Warfare in Neolithic Europe, an analysis of 'warfare' in Neolithic Europe. It is definitely worth catching, even if it is controversial among established pre-historians.

Chris J. Lengyel

You're absolutely right, and I know that. I am indeed trying to search through books and research papers. However, in the beginning, the question was pressing for me, and I wanted to know the answer.

Additionally, alongside researching and trying to understand the topic, hearing other opinions is very important. It can open your perspective to other ideas. Unfortunately, though, the research is unavailable. Do you have a copy or a link?

Sunita

Most certainly abstract ideas cause humans to behave in the most obscene fashion to each other and other animals. The most obvious cases involve ideologies that claim to embrace enlightenment while engaging in the most egregious atrocities.

The most obvious ones include National Socialism, that claimed to be a humanistic creed. It escaped the paradox of its brutality by dehumanising those it hated by calling them untermensch and am existential threat to humanity.

Slave owners also justify their inhumanity to their slaves by degrading them to less sentient than their masters. Even those who did not engage in abject brutality to their slaves still treated them as if they were domesticated animals rather than fellow human beings.

Both of these examples are of course the basis of racism. The concept of supremacy or even exceptionalism. These have even been underpinned by hideously distorted and magnified pseudosciences such as Eugenics.

The most difficult paradox is the human need to be part of a gregarious society while simultaneously desiring more power and wealth than their peers.