What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of War
War is a fact of human nature. As long as we exist, it exists. That's how the argument goes.
But longtime Scientific American writer John Horgan disagrees. Applying the scientific method to war leads Horgan to a radical biologically speaking, we are just as likely to be peaceful as violent. War is not preordained, and furthermore, it should be thought of as a solvable, scientific problem—like curing cancer. But war and cancer differ in at least one crucial whereas cancer is a stubborn aspect of nature, war is our creation. It’s our choice whether to unmake it or not.
In this compact, methodical treatise, Horgan examines dozens of examples and counterexamples—discussing chimpanzees and bonobos, warring and peaceful indigenous people, the World War I and Vietnam, Margaret Mead and General Sherman—as he finds his way to war’s complicated origins. Horgan argues for a far-reaching paradigm shift with profound implications for policy students, ethicists, military men and women, teachers, philosophers, or really, any engaged citizen.
But longtime Scientific American writer John Horgan disagrees. Applying the scientific method to war leads Horgan to a radical biologically speaking, we are just as likely to be peaceful as violent. War is not preordained, and furthermore, it should be thought of as a solvable, scientific problem—like curing cancer. But war and cancer differ in at least one crucial whereas cancer is a stubborn aspect of nature, war is our creation. It’s our choice whether to unmake it or not.
In this compact, methodical treatise, Horgan examines dozens of examples and counterexamples—discussing chimpanzees and bonobos, warring and peaceful indigenous people, the World War I and Vietnam, Margaret Mead and General Sherman—as he finds his way to war’s complicated origins. Horgan argues for a far-reaching paradigm shift with profound implications for policy students, ethicists, military men and women, teachers, philosophers, or really, any engaged citizen.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published November 15, 2011
10 people are currently reading
383 people want to read
About the author
John Horgan
45 books56 followersJOHN HORGAN is a science journalist and Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey. A former senior writer at Scientific American (1986-1997), he has also written for The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, Discover, The London Times, The Times Literary Supplement, New Scientist, and other publications around the world. He blogs for the Center for Science Writings and for Bloggingheads.tv (see links at left).
His latest book is Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality, published in hardcover by Houghton Mifflin in January 2003 and in paperback by Mariner Books in March 2004.
His latest book is Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality, published in hardcover by Houghton Mifflin in January 2003 and in paperback by Mariner Books in March 2004.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
February 11, 2013
Three and a half stars.
As someone who spent several years in the local peace movement and wrote numerous articles for local alternative media on peace issues, I took a particular interest in this book after reading an interview with the author on Alternet.
Overall, I found this comprehensive look at the issue of war to be moderately good. Several of Horgan’s arguments were strong; however, there were also a few that I found to be weak or oversimplified.
Perhaps the strongest part of Horgan’s analysis is where he makes the point that the archaeological evidence indicates that organized warfare did not occur until ten to thirteen thousand years ago – a mere blip in terms of human history. This puts to rest the idea promulgated by so many political and cultural leaders, including Barak Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, that war has always been part of the human experience. The book does a good job of demonstrating that war is, for the most part, a cultural construct that is contagious, a pathological narrative being acted out by humans.
Another strong point made – separate but related – is that humans are not inherently good or evil but are capable of a wide range of behaviors. This is what is known as human malleability or plasticity.
Horgan also provides an excellent overview of the social psychology of warfare and atrocity, including the work of military psychologist Lt. Col. David Grossman on humans’ innate resistance to killing their own kind and the military training that has been developed to weaken that resistance, Stanley Milgram’s studies on acquiescence to authority, and Philip Zimbardo’s studies on the human tendency to mete out sadistic punishment to those perceived to be beneath them in a hierarchical organization. Horgan also discusses the importance of revenge, such as when soldiers who aren’t necessarily motivated to kill the “enemy” see their buddies killed and are subsequently driven to avenge their comrades. The only omission I can think of was Dr. Robert Jay Lifton’s work on atrocity-producing situations.
Horgan’s analysis starts to fall short in the middle of the book as he gets into the factors that most often lead to war in the first place, namely injustice and environmental stressors. While I agree that these are not deterministic in the sense of always leading to war, they are phenomena that loom large for humanity. As psychology, sociology and anthropology all indicate, we are probably the most social creatures on the face of the earth and have lived for the majority of our history in small, relatively egalitarian groups; therefore, we are particularly sensitive to perceived unfairness. History is also rife with examples of our tendency to mismanage resources with tragic and terminal consequences. This is especially poignant as inequality and environmental destruction/mismanagement are occurring on a scale never seen before and are clearly going to be the main drivers of conflict in the 21st century.
I was also concerned as the book went along that Horgan seemed to be cherry-picking the work of a few academics who are spinning the data in such a way that supports what Horgan would like to believe, such as the political scientist, Rudolph Rummel, who splits hairs in defining war. Rummel makes a distinction between war and what he calls “democide” or the mass killing of civilians in general by their own governments, as well as genocide, which together admittedly accounted for “far more bloodshed than international or civil wars.” (p. 135). This sounds like a convenient way to massage the numbers when it suits someone, especially if one wanted to cloak the casualties that are indirectly attributable to war as more narrowly defined. “Democide” and genocide are killings, either committed by or with, the consent of a government against an “enemy,” albeit defined by political identification, religion or ethnicity as opposed to national borders. I just don’t see this as a legitimate distinction.
Moreover, attempts to predict future trends in war based on the first decade of the 21st century is foolish since anyone who would have done the same in the 20th century would not have predicted both world wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear arms race, the plethora of overt and covert wars associated with the Cold War and genocides from Cambodia to Rwanda. I also don’t believe that war was trending downward in the latter part of the last century. Read Killing Hope by William Blum to get an idea of the covert wars and CIA interventions that fomented and/or intensified wars just to get an idea what our own country was doing, much less the Soviet Union. I won’t even go into the hundreds of military bases and the legal precepts of the War on Terrorism that all point toward an eternal war agenda in the U.S.
Several other reputable sources over the years have documented the rate of casualties and the proportion of those casualties being combatants or non-combatants attributed to war. One source, UNICEF, cites that “civilian casualties in wartime have climbed from 5 percent at the turn of the [last] century…to more than 90 percent in the wars of the 1990s.” They also point out that with modern technology, the weapons of war increasingly are non-discriminatory and are lethal past the official cessation of hostilities, such as mines, cluster bombs, depleted uranium weapons, drones, and bombs that are so massive that it is impossible to use them surgically to target only combatants. (See www.unicef.org/graca/patterns.htm).
Another instance where Horgan does not appear to have applied critical rigor in his analysis of sources is his use of Freedom House as cited in Chapter 5 where he attempts to make the case that humans are increasingly embracing peace as well as freedom and democracy – as he thinks these factors are linked. Freedom House is an organ of right wing propaganda and has ties to the CIA. (See Chomsky and Daley, The Manufacturing of Consent, pp. 27-28). Freedom House’s slant on many post-WWII conflicts has been distorted in the service of ideology to the point of reprehensible. Their slant on Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime in the late 1970’s is one of the most egregious examples.
I guess I trust UNICEF, William Blum and Noam Chomsky more than I trust some of the sources Horgan uses, even though they paint a more bleak picture of the state of humanity’s embrace of war and violence. I think it is imperative for us to be honest about what we are dealing with if we are to have any chance of eradicating war.
One last point that troubled me was Horgan’s dismissal of Bill McKibben by stating that his views advocate for “small, decentralized government – which I worry might leave us more vulnerable to attacks from violent groups.” (p. 119). I admit I haven’t read McKibben’s latest book, Eaarth, but I have read Deep Economy as well as several of his articles and I think Horgan is misrepresenting McKibben’s views. As I recall, McKibben advocates for a type of economic subsidiarity – economic organization at the local bio-regional level and the adjustment of laws to facilitate local control and accountability over our economic lives. I don’t ever recall McKibben advocating for the dismantling of federal protection of human citizens. This kind of misrepresentation or lack of rigor, as the case may be, hurts Horgan’s credibility.
Horgan does end on a strong note, however, by underscoring the power of non-violent action and its superiority, both morally and pragmatically, for problem-solving and conflict resolution in the long run.
In conclusion, this was a decent book on war, despite its shortcomings. But, considering the gravity of the topic, it should have been even better.
As someone who spent several years in the local peace movement and wrote numerous articles for local alternative media on peace issues, I took a particular interest in this book after reading an interview with the author on Alternet.
Overall, I found this comprehensive look at the issue of war to be moderately good. Several of Horgan’s arguments were strong; however, there were also a few that I found to be weak or oversimplified.
Perhaps the strongest part of Horgan’s analysis is where he makes the point that the archaeological evidence indicates that organized warfare did not occur until ten to thirteen thousand years ago – a mere blip in terms of human history. This puts to rest the idea promulgated by so many political and cultural leaders, including Barak Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, that war has always been part of the human experience. The book does a good job of demonstrating that war is, for the most part, a cultural construct that is contagious, a pathological narrative being acted out by humans.
Another strong point made – separate but related – is that humans are not inherently good or evil but are capable of a wide range of behaviors. This is what is known as human malleability or plasticity.
Horgan also provides an excellent overview of the social psychology of warfare and atrocity, including the work of military psychologist Lt. Col. David Grossman on humans’ innate resistance to killing their own kind and the military training that has been developed to weaken that resistance, Stanley Milgram’s studies on acquiescence to authority, and Philip Zimbardo’s studies on the human tendency to mete out sadistic punishment to those perceived to be beneath them in a hierarchical organization. Horgan also discusses the importance of revenge, such as when soldiers who aren’t necessarily motivated to kill the “enemy” see their buddies killed and are subsequently driven to avenge their comrades. The only omission I can think of was Dr. Robert Jay Lifton’s work on atrocity-producing situations.
Horgan’s analysis starts to fall short in the middle of the book as he gets into the factors that most often lead to war in the first place, namely injustice and environmental stressors. While I agree that these are not deterministic in the sense of always leading to war, they are phenomena that loom large for humanity. As psychology, sociology and anthropology all indicate, we are probably the most social creatures on the face of the earth and have lived for the majority of our history in small, relatively egalitarian groups; therefore, we are particularly sensitive to perceived unfairness. History is also rife with examples of our tendency to mismanage resources with tragic and terminal consequences. This is especially poignant as inequality and environmental destruction/mismanagement are occurring on a scale never seen before and are clearly going to be the main drivers of conflict in the 21st century.
I was also concerned as the book went along that Horgan seemed to be cherry-picking the work of a few academics who are spinning the data in such a way that supports what Horgan would like to believe, such as the political scientist, Rudolph Rummel, who splits hairs in defining war. Rummel makes a distinction between war and what he calls “democide” or the mass killing of civilians in general by their own governments, as well as genocide, which together admittedly accounted for “far more bloodshed than international or civil wars.” (p. 135). This sounds like a convenient way to massage the numbers when it suits someone, especially if one wanted to cloak the casualties that are indirectly attributable to war as more narrowly defined. “Democide” and genocide are killings, either committed by or with, the consent of a government against an “enemy,” albeit defined by political identification, religion or ethnicity as opposed to national borders. I just don’t see this as a legitimate distinction.
Moreover, attempts to predict future trends in war based on the first decade of the 21st century is foolish since anyone who would have done the same in the 20th century would not have predicted both world wars, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear arms race, the plethora of overt and covert wars associated with the Cold War and genocides from Cambodia to Rwanda. I also don’t believe that war was trending downward in the latter part of the last century. Read Killing Hope by William Blum to get an idea of the covert wars and CIA interventions that fomented and/or intensified wars just to get an idea what our own country was doing, much less the Soviet Union. I won’t even go into the hundreds of military bases and the legal precepts of the War on Terrorism that all point toward an eternal war agenda in the U.S.
Several other reputable sources over the years have documented the rate of casualties and the proportion of those casualties being combatants or non-combatants attributed to war. One source, UNICEF, cites that “civilian casualties in wartime have climbed from 5 percent at the turn of the [last] century…to more than 90 percent in the wars of the 1990s.” They also point out that with modern technology, the weapons of war increasingly are non-discriminatory and are lethal past the official cessation of hostilities, such as mines, cluster bombs, depleted uranium weapons, drones, and bombs that are so massive that it is impossible to use them surgically to target only combatants. (See www.unicef.org/graca/patterns.htm).
Another instance where Horgan does not appear to have applied critical rigor in his analysis of sources is his use of Freedom House as cited in Chapter 5 where he attempts to make the case that humans are increasingly embracing peace as well as freedom and democracy – as he thinks these factors are linked. Freedom House is an organ of right wing propaganda and has ties to the CIA. (See Chomsky and Daley, The Manufacturing of Consent, pp. 27-28). Freedom House’s slant on many post-WWII conflicts has been distorted in the service of ideology to the point of reprehensible. Their slant on Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime in the late 1970’s is one of the most egregious examples.
I guess I trust UNICEF, William Blum and Noam Chomsky more than I trust some of the sources Horgan uses, even though they paint a more bleak picture of the state of humanity’s embrace of war and violence. I think it is imperative for us to be honest about what we are dealing with if we are to have any chance of eradicating war.
One last point that troubled me was Horgan’s dismissal of Bill McKibben by stating that his views advocate for “small, decentralized government – which I worry might leave us more vulnerable to attacks from violent groups.” (p. 119). I admit I haven’t read McKibben’s latest book, Eaarth, but I have read Deep Economy as well as several of his articles and I think Horgan is misrepresenting McKibben’s views. As I recall, McKibben advocates for a type of economic subsidiarity – economic organization at the local bio-regional level and the adjustment of laws to facilitate local control and accountability over our economic lives. I don’t ever recall McKibben advocating for the dismantling of federal protection of human citizens. This kind of misrepresentation or lack of rigor, as the case may be, hurts Horgan’s credibility.
Horgan does end on a strong note, however, by underscoring the power of non-violent action and its superiority, both morally and pragmatically, for problem-solving and conflict resolution in the long run.
In conclusion, this was a decent book on war, despite its shortcomings. But, considering the gravity of the topic, it should have been even better.
December 14, 2014
Kind of a foreshortened version of Pinker's Better Angels, Horgan's brief and compact little book serves as a good counter to T.H. White's Once and Future King and Waltz's Man, The State, and War. Horgan argues that human nature is not naturally war-prone, bringing in all kinds of scientific evidence to demonstrate his main point: war is a habit, a bad one, and we merely need to decide not to use it and it will end. What Horgan does not seem to take much into account (or into account at all) is that war is often defensive and that the presence of an offensive power will force the issue even for states and communities opposed to the use of force.
February 16, 2012
weak arguments, "wishful thinking". expected more solid stuff....
July 21, 2016
Okay, my pessimism is weakened, my optimism is strengthened. However, this is going to take a while. What the author doesn't address is how to convince those of us who are already locked in decade/century old struggles where violence and war are so ingrained that peace isn't a concept they are familiar with. How do you explain to a 17 year old orphan of war wielding an AK-47 who is fueled by rage and resentment that putting it down is better than blowing something up?
April 26, 2012
Very interesting read. Horgan makes some interesting points. The problem is there are a lot of holes in his arguments. But, the idea and theory, overall, is a nice one. The future he envisions would be awesome.
May 3, 2020
I enjoyed John Horgan's optimistic look at a roadmap to leaving war behind, but I couldn't help but view it as an artifact of the Obama days. I'm not sure that the last three years have aided Horgan's vision.
This is still very much worth reading, as it lays out an understanding of war, and argues strongly against it.
This is still very much worth reading, as it lays out an understanding of war, and argues strongly against it.
September 26, 2023
Read this for first year seminar but genuinely would read without the prompting of a class. examines the fact that humans make the conscious decisions to start war and therefore can make the inverse decision to end it. i felt like i was in ap psych again in the best way and i'm actually excited to write the paper on it🤓 might have to buy mr. ranker a copy.
October 23, 2025
breezy and thoughtful
December 23, 2025
Quick but effective in dismantling the idea that war is inevitable in humans
February 23, 2012
Really fascinating stuff. Horgan's an engaging and warm guide through a lot of thought-provoking material (studies of tribes and warfare, chimps, modern war, etc.). I essentially agree with Horgan that it is possible to end war, and like his emphasis on human free will, but didn't think the argument was quite as airtight as I would have liked. I also kept thinking about Ta-Nehisi Coates, who recently wrote a compelling series of blog posts about why he thinks that it might have been impossible (and/or undesirable) to avoid the Civil War. I'd love to see a discussion between Coates and Horgan -- Horgan would be a much more thoughtful interlocutor than Ron Paul (who Coates was responding to), who argued that the Civil War was avoidable and also gives a speech in front of a Confederate flag. Wrestling with the limits and power of nonviolence, and with the proper approach to making a more peaceful world, is important stuff, and I am very glad I read this book.
August 16, 2015
This is a good survey on the subject. A subject which is grossly neglected, especially in the militaristic USA. Although the author makes some good points about ending war, he is so politically correct I got the impression he might someday favor re-education camps for non-politically correct persons, so long as no one actually goes to war with them. The author appears to be preparing his reader for the velvet glove style dictatorship, disguised as a democracy, wherein social control is attained via a docile and compliant population that doesn't require the use of direct force (or violence) to control it (Sweden comes to mind here.). Sort of a "We no longer have wars because we no longer have any passion for anything." I'm all for peace, but not the Establishment's notion of peace, which is what I think this author is pushing.
October 10, 2013
Before reading this book i read some scathing remarks. I started reading and became iffy about a third of the way into this book. I am glad i read it all, as it ended on a wonderful note. I love the way John Horgan brought this book to the finish line with a surge. Loved it, overall. First, it makes you think. It gives you many perspectives to look into these issues. I highly recommend reading this book, especially the way our wonderful President, Barack Obama, is handling the Syrian and Iranian issues. These talks may in the end not work out, but for the sack of humanity as John Lennon preached, "Give peace a chance".
June 25, 2016
I think Horgan's argument is true, but he could have done a better job proving it. His main thesis is that war is no as inevitable as we think it is, but I think he could have shown how this path might be achieved as part of a system rather than a call to action. I think war will lessen simply because the institutions and structures we create won't make it easy to do anymore rather than some sort of agreed cognitive choice humanity makes collectively to end war. What are the trends that will lead us there? Horgan doesn't necessarily go into depth on these as much as I would have liked.
February 29, 2012
This is a well-written, interesting book by an established acamedician giving his case for the end of war. The book explores history, anthropology, philosophy, politics, and real-world examples to make a case for modern civilization's move toward, and ability to exist, without war. While this will most likely remain an academic prospect, the arguments put forth are objective, supported, and worthwhile. After reading, however, I remain what Horgan calls a pessimist, dare I say realist.
November 22, 2012
Excellent arguments on the choices underlying the recurrence of war and the role of free will.
September 24, 2013
Makes an interesting case against the idea that war is part of human nature. Rather, it is a human invention (a particularly gruesome one at that), and we can move beyond it.
November 28, 2015
Presents interesting ideas. A good read.
March 20, 2016
Read this for sure if you want to experience backstory to warfare and arrive at conclusions about the stupidity of war.
January 17, 2017
Suosittelen kaikkien luettavaksi. Sota ja väkivalta eivät ehkä olekaan niin synnynnäisiä ominaisuuksia kuin pessimistit usein väittävät.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews