That sounds less like “the men crave warfare” and more like “the men like their homes, their wives, their children, and will fight to defend them if someone tries to destroy them”.
Yes, there is certainly a kind of altruistic motivation too, but it doesn’t really explain why individuals seem to be eager to defend their country. A particular Ukrainian soldier’s contribution to the battle is not going to turn the tide to or from victory and defend their particular family. It also doesn’t really explain anecdotes like the following, where people in these circumstances seem distraught to the point of depression if an authority figure tells them they get to sit the conflict out. This certainly doesn’t apply to all men, not even most men (you can see a direct followup with another person where it’s very much the opposite) but it does apply for some of them.
I’d bet if you asked the Ukrainian soldiers, most of them will say that they’d rather this war didn’t happen.
Well of course they’re going to say that; I’m absolutely not saying otherwise either. War itself is almost entirely collateral damage. Modern warfare in particular is also so completely unrewarding for the combatants that it removes most of any kind of potential for glory. Getting shelled randomly by artillery so that someone else doesn’t is not the kind of thing people imagine when they imagine fighting.
But your claim is stronger, that there is some pressure so large that there would be a literal need for coliseums and gladiator fights to fulfil it. And I’m saying that that can’t be the case because if it was there would not be enough gyms for all the MMA fighters around.
Yes, there is certainly a kind of altruistic motivation too, but it doesn’t really explain why individuals seem to be eager to defend their country.
It’s basic Golden Rule stuff. Sure, the army maybe would win without me. But if everyone thought that way and was a freerider, no one would go fight in the army, and the war would be lost. People feel responsible, they feel guilty, they feel ashamed, they have a sense of duty and of what’s right.
You know who else was a young hot-blooded male? All those Russian men who booked it as soon as the invasion started just so they could escape conscription. Russia mostly ended up needing to conscript and press-gang people into fighting its stupid pointless war, because unlike Ukrainians, these men could see clear as day that they had absolutely no good reason to risk their life, and they didn’t give a shit if their country lost.
You realize over a million people in the U.S. practice competitive MMA, right? Say ~0.25% of those people are interested in mortal combat. There’s your arena.
0.25% of 1 million is 2500 people. Hardly a massive social problem that needs addressing with an escape valve. Having a ban on death matches is necessary to prevent people who do NOT crave the battlefield from being variously socially or economically pressured in risking (and losing) their life, as it used to be. If this means that 2500 MMA fighters are a bit frustrated by the impossibility to engage openly and legally in deadly combat on live TV as their berserker hearts would wish, well, tough luck. It’s not even that they can’t do that anyway privately—they just need to be willing to risk jail besides their life.
Yes, there is certainly a kind of altruistic motivation too, but it doesn’t really explain why individuals seem to be eager to defend their country. A particular Ukrainian soldier’s contribution to the battle is not going to turn the tide to or from victory and defend their particular family. It also doesn’t really explain anecdotes like the following, where people in these circumstances seem distraught to the point of depression if an authority figure tells them they get to sit the conflict out. This certainly doesn’t apply to all men, not even most men (you can see a direct followup with another person where it’s very much the opposite) but it does apply for some of them.
Well of course they’re going to say that; I’m absolutely not saying otherwise either. War itself is almost entirely collateral damage. Modern warfare in particular is also so completely unrewarding for the combatants that it removes most of any kind of potential for glory. Getting shelled randomly by artillery so that someone else doesn’t is not the kind of thing people imagine when they imagine fighting.
You realize over a million people in the U.S. practice competitive MMA, right? Say ~0.25% of those people are interested in mortal combat. There’s your arena, at least for the largest cities like Los Angeles or New York.
It’s basic Golden Rule stuff. Sure, the army maybe would win without me. But if everyone thought that way and was a freerider, no one would go fight in the army, and the war would be lost. People feel responsible, they feel guilty, they feel ashamed, they have a sense of duty and of what’s right.
You know who else was a young hot-blooded male? All those Russian men who booked it as soon as the invasion started just so they could escape conscription. Russia mostly ended up needing to conscript and press-gang people into fighting its stupid pointless war, because unlike Ukrainians, these men could see clear as day that they had absolutely no good reason to risk their life, and they didn’t give a shit if their country lost.
0.25% of 1 million is 2500 people. Hardly a massive social problem that needs addressing with an escape valve. Having a ban on death matches is necessary to prevent people who do NOT crave the battlefield from being variously socially or economically pressured in risking (and losing) their life, as it used to be. If this means that 2500 MMA fighters are a bit frustrated by the impossibility to engage openly and legally in deadly combat on live TV as their berserker hearts would wish, well, tough luck. It’s not even that they can’t do that anyway privately—they just need to be willing to risk jail besides their life.