"Is war really a human necessity?" is a controversial topic. Simpson and Margaret Mead have opposite views on this topic. Simpson uses Social Darwinism to argue that it's human's nature to have war, while Mead argues that it's not. Unlike Simpson's argument, Mead's argument is more effective and more likely to persuade young women because of her more effective use of ethos, logos, and pathos. Mead is a woman and her experiences of living with primitive people make her argument trustworthy to people, especially to women. She uses established examples from all over the world as evidence to support her idea. The comparison between primitive people's peaceful life and war as we have today gives people strong feelings that war is only an invention but not human's nature.
Both Mead and Simpson have good ethos, but Mead's ethos is more effective than Simpson's. Her argument is more persuasive to young women today since she is a woman and she argues from women's and all human's perspective. In Mead's article "Warfare: An Invention-Not a Biological Necessity", she explains how the Eskimo, the Lepchas of Sikkim, and some other primitive people don't go to war even today. She has had the experience of living with them. She implemented her field trip on the island of Ta'u in Samoa in 1925. She spent 9 months observing and interviewing Samoans. She says in the book Cooperation and Competition among Primitive Peoples that "war in Samoawas fought for no gains other than prestige, nor were there any important rewards for individual warriors" (302). This makes her argument more trustworthy. On the other hand, Simpson's argument is less persuasive to women because he is a white man and argues from a white man's perspective. In "Early Social Darwinism", Simpson doesn't show explicitly that he supports Social Darwinism. How can one persuade others to accept an idea which he doesn't agree himself! Thus, Simpson doesn't have ethos as effective as Mead.