The knight in the big world of American TV series

Chapter 2238 Asking for the monthly ticket at the end of the month! ! ! !

Chapter 2238 Asking for the monthly ticket at the end of the month! ! ! !

It was also because of this failure that Gul...or rather, the Black Death Sword, gave up on conquering Asgard.

After all, although Gnar was arrogant, he was not stupid. He was sealed, and Gnar was just a low-level life. The power limit of the Black Death Sword in his hands was just that. If the Black Death Sword was in Thor's hands, Gnar would not need to avoid the edge at all, and would kill directly.

But reality is reality, and Nar is not the type to show his personality on such matters.

So he immediately changed his thinking and planned to try another way. It was also at this time that the Black Death Sword got a genius idea from a killed god - to be honest, Nar couldn't quite understand why the gods would design a weapon that could blow themselves to death. Isn't this just because they have nothing to do?

Take Gnar for example, can he design a weapon that can kill himself completely?

of course can!

Gnar represents the nothingness of the universe, the silence of nothingness, including himself. So it's not surprising that he designed a weapon that could kill himself, but why would he be so bored as to do so?

Perhaps this is a common trait of intelligent life.

Just like humans, humans do have amazing talents when it comes to killing.

Is war human nature, or did it develop as social organizations became more complex? Researchers on the subject are divided into two camps: hawks and doves. A thorough study of archaeological and other evidence suggests that large-scale collective killings gradually emerged 1.2 years ago, most likely due to changes in local customs and the establishment of social structures. Did humans—or, rather, only men—gradually develop a nature to massacre members of other tribes because of evolution? This "nature" not only has the ability to kill, but also an innate love of collective armed fighting? The word "collective" is crucial. After all, fighting and killing for personal reasons does not equal war.

War is a social behavior, a group of people killing another group of people in an organized manner. At present, the debate on the origin of war is divided into two distinct camps: the first view is that war is a tendency to eliminate all potential competitors, which has always existed in the evolution of human beings.

Another view is that armed fighting is a recent development, with changes in social conditions providing the motivation and organization for mass killings.

In recent years, scholars holding these two views have been classified as "hawks" and "doves." This debate has also prompted people to study chimpanzees to observe whether they have war-like behaviors and instincts. If war is natural, many traces of wars in small societies should be found in prehistoric archaeological records. "Any society on Earth, as long as the archaeological record is complete, there will always be evidence of war. Attributing 25% of total human deaths to war is probably a conservative estimate," an archaeologist once said. Evolutionary psychologists believe that the high mortality rate caused by war may serve as a mechanism of natural selection: survival of the fittest, and only those who survive have the right to obtain mates and resources.

This view has a wide influence. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama once wrote that the roots of modern wars and genocide can be traced back to the "hunting and gathering" human ancestors tens of millions of years ago, and even to the common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees. Bradley Sayer, a leading scholar in international relations, believes that evolutionary theory explains how the instinctive tendency to protect one's own tribe has transformed into ethnocentrism and group xenophobia in international relations over time. Scholars in the dove camp have challenged this view. They believe that humans are indeed very capable of participating in wars, but the human brain is not solidified, and it is not human nature to deliberately identify and kill outsiders in order to deal with collective disputes. According to this view, deadly group attacks did not begin to appear until the scale and complexity of hunting and gathering societies reached a certain stage. Combining archaeology with the study of modern hunter-gatherer culture can allow us to identify the era and social conditions that gave rise to and accelerated wars to a certain extent.

To find the origins of war, archaeologists need to find four major pieces of evidence.

Cave paintings are one of them. The Paleolithic rock paintings in the caves of Cougnac, Pechmer and Coscu in France are believed to have been made 25000 years ago. One of them has been interpreted by some scholars as a spear piercing a human body. This may mean that people began to wage war as early as the Upper Paleolithic. However, this interpretation has been challenged. Other scholars point out that some unfinished figures have wavy tails, which seem to represent witchcraft rather than physical objects such as spears. In contrast, the murals in the eastern Iberian Peninsula clearly show scenes of battles and executions, and they were probably made by farmers who settled here thousands of years later.

Using image enhancement to process cave art on the Iberian Peninsula, we can find traces of wars more than 5000 years ago. Weapons can also serve as evidence of war, but this is not as simple as it seems. I used to think that maces could prove that wars had occurred. However, on many maces, the grooves left for the handles are very small. If used in actual combat, the handles would definitely break after a single blow. Such maces are actually symbols of power, allowing people to resolve disputes through established laws instead of war. On the other hand, people are also likely to use unconventional weapons on the battlefield. Around 5000 BC, villagers in southern Germany experienced a massacre, and the weapon that killed them was a woodcutting axe. In addition to paintings and weapons, archaeologists also look for clues from ruins. People who are worried about being attacked usually take precautions. In the archaeological record, we sometimes find that people who live scattered in lowland plains will gather into fortified villages. Neolithic villages in Europe are surrounded by earthen mounds. However, not all of these enclosures were defensive structures; some were simply used to distinguish different social groups.

Human remains are ideal evidence for identifying wars, but they must be carefully identified. Less than 30% of wounds from spears, darts, and arrowheads leave marks on bones. Arrowheads buried with corpses can sometimes indicate the cause of death, but sometimes they are just ritual objects. If a corpse buried alone has unhealed wounds, it may be an accidental death, or it may be tortured to death or murdered. In fact, killings may be quite common in prehistoric societies, but this does not mean that wars have occurred. Moreover, not all battles result in death. At some burial sites, archaeologists often find skulls with old wounds. The pits on the bones have healed, so these scars are not the cause of death. These findings indicate that there were some fights in which personal disputes were resolved with sticks or other non-lethal means.

As a result, archaeological evidence from around the world is often ambiguous and difficult to interpret. Often, we need to piece together different clues to make a guess about the existence of war.

So does the existing archaeological evidence from around the world really show that humans have been waging wars since the beginning of human history? If the remains in your sample contain a large number of wounds inflicted before or near death, then you may draw a very bad inference. This is how the 25% violent mortality rate is derived. The media also likes to pick out such incidents and cause public misunderstanding. Any ancient homicide can make headlines, but the large number of unearthed results without signs of violence are ignored. If you conduct a deep screening of the data in a specific time window in a specific area, carefully identifying the number of times there are signs of war and whether there are signs of war, you may get a completely different picture: war is not common, and it cannot be traced back endlessly in the archaeological record. Humanity’s "career" of war does have a starting point.

Many archaeologists have proposed a bold hypothesis that warfare first appeared in some areas during the Mesolithic period, starting at the end of the last ice age (about 9700 BC). At that time, hunter-gatherers in Europe began to settle down and develop more complex social structures. In fact, there is no simple answer to when warfare began. Wars appeared at different times in different places. For 50 years, archaeologists have agreed that in an earlier stage, a large number of violent deaths occurred in the Sahaba Mountains along the Nile River in northern Sudan, around 12 BC. At that time, areas that were once abundant in food gradually became barren, and fierce competition emerged between different settled hunter-gatherer groups, eventually leading to the outbreak of conflict.

At a later date, weapons and burials from settlements in northern Tigris (where humans gradually gathered and lived) show that hunter-gatherers settled in villages engaged in warfare between 9750 and 8750 BC. Nearby, fortifications dating from 7000 BC are the earliest known village defenses built by farming people. Also nearby, remains of a battle to capture the city center between 3800 and 3500 BC have been found. By this time in human development, warfare was commonplace throughout Anatolia, and it spread with the conquest of settlers from northern Tigris.

In stark contrast, however, archaeologists have found convincing evidence from settlements, weapons, and bones in the southern Levant (from Sinai to southern Lebanon and Syria) only since 3200 B.C. And violent deaths from any cause were rare among hunter-gatherer groups in Japan from 13000 to 800 B.C.

Warfare has taken shape as a number of preconditions have matured. These include longer settlements, growing regional populations, concentrations of valuable resources (such as livestock), more complex and hierarchical societies, trade in high-quality goods, and the establishment of group boundaries and collective identities. These factors sometimes work in conjunction with harsh environmental changes. Warfare in the Sahaba Mountains, for example, may have been sparked by an ecological crisis when the Nile cut a valley that destroyed a rich wetland, forcing locals to abandon the land. The evidence suggests that when people need to fight for more, their societies organize themselves into groups that are more likely to start and engage in war.

But the archaeological record can only tell us so much, and we need to look elsewhere for answers. Ethnography, the study of different cultures, both living and past, can help us reconstruct the conditions that presuppose the emergence of warfare. One key point is the distinction between “simple” and “complex” hunter-gatherer groups. Simple hunting and gathering activities have been a long-standing feature of human society, dating back 20 years. Basically, members of simple hunter-gatherer groups cooperate with each other, live in small, egalitarian, nomadic groups, and survive in sparsely populated areas without much accumulation of wealth.

Complex hunter-gatherers lived in fixed settlements with populations of up to 100 people. They divided society into classes based on blood ties and interpersonal relationships, and obtained food resources in a paternal inheritance system. Political leadership structures were also more developed. Social structures began to become complex during the Mesolithic period, and the emergence of complex hunter-gatherer groups (sometimes, but not always) marked the transition to agricultural societies. Ancient human groups at this time often waged war. These prerequisites are also partial, and they cannot be used to predict the time when large-scale conflicts broke out. In the southern Levant, these prerequisites have existed for thousands of years, but there is no evidence of war there. Why are some areas less conflict than others? Because these societies may have maintained peace through special prerequisites. For example, cross-ethnic blood ties and intermarriage, cooperative hunting, cooperative farming, food sharing, allowing members of the same tribe to move to other tribes, and being willing to accept members of other tribes. In addition, this includes instilling social norms that peace is good and killing is shameful, and developing recognized means of resolving conflicts. Although these mechanisms cannot eliminate vicious conflicts, they can play a certain role in channeling them and prevent killings from happening, or limit killings to a small number of individuals.

If so, why do later archaeological discoveries show deadly warfare everywhere? Over thousands of years, the preconditions for war had matured in more and more places. Once the smoke of war was lit, the flames of war spread, and the docile people were replaced by mobs. States around the world gradually developed, and they deployed people to guard borders and trade routes. Sudden changes in the environment (such as frequent droughts) also worsened social conditions, sometimes even precipitating wars. After that, even if the situation was no longer tense, peace was gone forever. The Medieval Warm Period from 950 to 1250 AD and the rapid transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age around 1300 AD saw an increase in warfare in the Americas, the Pacific, and other regions. War was nothing new to the world at that time, but conflicts were intensifying and the death toll was rising.

Then came the period of European global expansion, which changed the face of warfare around the world, exacerbating local wars and sometimes igniting wars in areas where there were none. These wars were not just about conquest or resistance, but also about local indigenous peoples fighting each other, and colonial powers and colonial goods were causing new hatreds. The influence of new and old expansionist forces on each other, coupled with subsequent conflicts, gradually determined the self-identity of different tribes and their differences. Uncolonized areas were also forced to be subject to three long-range influences - trade, epidemics and population replacement. These influences can easily lead to war. Colonial countries also forced clear political institutions to replace the local organizations with vague powers they encountered during colonial aggression, thereby creating conflicts among indigenous peoples. Some scholars hope to find support for the view that humans willingly participated in deadly group conflicts before the birth of the state in the inter-tribal war behavior. After studying the ethnography of hunter-gatherer tribes living in northwestern Alaska from the late 18th century to the 19th century, it is easy to find traces of war in these oral materials. However, if you look deeper, you will find that there is no evidence of warfare in the early archaeological sites of simple hunter-gatherer cultures. It is not until 400 to 700 AD that traces of warfare gradually appear. This is probably brought by immigrants from Asia or southern Alaska, where warfare was already present. The scale of the warfare was small and the intensity was probably very limited. In 1200 AD, the climate became more suitable and the society built by the local whalers developed to a more complex level. The population became denser, the settlements became more fixed, and the trade routes became longer. Then, warfare became more common. The warfare in the oral history did make the situation worse and the population continued to decline. However, warfare is closely related to the expansion of the state, not tradition. The expansion of the state was made possible by the large trade network that emerged after the establishment of Russian trade centers in Siberia. The later warfare led to a change in the social environment across the Bering Strait, and the tribal bodies that had developed after a round of development began to promote extreme territorialization and centralization.

The debate over war and human nature will not be settled any time soon. The view that fierce warfare with large numbers of casualties has always existed in prehistoric times still has its supporters. However, when all the evidence is considered, the doves prevail. Overall, there is little evidence in older archaeological finds to indicate that war was an essential part of human life.

People are people. We fight and sometimes kill each other. Given the right conditions and culture, humans are capable of war. But the conditions and culture that make war possible have only been around for about 1 years. In many places, they are even later. As the title of anthropology's founder Margaret Mead's 1940 paper put it, "War is an invention, not a biological necessity."

But the magical thing is... if you expand this observation range to the entire universe, you will find that almost all civilizations in the universe have similarities in the development of war.

War... is like the original sin of intelligent life.

Sooner or later, it will happen!

And there is no escape!