Is it safe to say that conflict is the main source of human misery?

It seems to be a major cause. Human relationships are rife with conflict. We disagree about virtually everything.

One question over which we often disagree is who gets what. In general, we always disagree over how to best use our finite time and resources. The disciplines of political science, business management, and economics are all devoted to finding answers. Have they ever really helped?

We make decisions, but are they good ones? We can never agree. The outcomes benefit some, while harming others. Those who benefit think the decision was good, in retrospect. Those who suffer, think it was bad. We want to repeat the results of past decisions that helped us, and avoid those that harmed us. And because we disagree, we argue and fight. We have conflict.

We disagree because we are selfish. As long as we are all selfish, some of us will suffer. Even if we have it in our power to address their suffering. Someone else—probably someone with more power–will perceive helping somone else as a threat to them. But there is no real cure for selfishness. We are biological organisms. Biology is a self-centred phenomenon. Although the definition of “self” is flexible, insofar as individuals might sacrifice their individual selves for their offspring, or their colony, or their entire species.

Many things are scarce in the world. But not all things. And not all things are as scarce as we might think. Depending on our creative ability to address privation.

But one thing is always scarce: power. Another thing that is not only scarce, but virtually non-existent: knowledge of the future. The only reliable strategy, to prepare for unknown future threats, is to hoard resources. Social power is a kind of resource. Practically speaking, social power is the power to direct a percentage of the productive capacity of other people. When disaster strikes, such control translates into the ability to direct some of that capacity—or even the supposed private property of others–to oneself.

Seeking social power is a successful strategy. So our species evolved to do it more. This tendency is distributed through the population according to a normal distribution of time spent seeking to increase one’s power. Most people only seek enough power to provide for the predictable short- or medium-term needs of themselves and their families. But some spend every waking moment scheming to gain more, while others expend virtually no concscious effort at all.

We compete for a scarce resource; competition leads to conflict. It seems very simple. Even obvious. And yet, at the same time, pointless. Except through the evolutionary frame. Social behaviours are rooted in biological characteristics. Without that biological features—mostly captured by various structures in the brain—society would not be possible. Language would not be possible. Social relationships would not be possible. Social power would not exist.

Is conflict—along with its miserably consequences—inevitable? Speaking personally, I want to believe otherwise. But there is little evidence that we can transcend what is really a deeply programming aspect of human nature. Except in isolated cases. Collectively, we are in the grips of our individual drive for self-preservation. Even at the risk of collective self-destruction.