Evolutionary necessity of war/conflict?

take everything

Just reading an interesting enough blog on this.
I guess i'm trying to convince myself that man may ultimately be noble.
Depressingly, probably not. :pac:

So there are a variety of pressures involved. Biological, social, economic.
Selecting for the most violent alpha males etc.
Most would probably agree war's negatives far outweigh any positives.
So why does mankind take this route.
Are we doomed.
Or are there psychological brakes (maybe that have yet to properly evolve and take root) that can be applied to this and realise this may be a futile pursuit. I'm particularly interested in that aspect- a new psychological pressure vs all the legacy pressures above.

I dunno, maybe tendency to war, depressingly, is a vital, inextricable part of progression hardwired into our genetics and impossible now to change.
Anyway, thoughts?

Black Swan

War has been a human norm, not peace. Historians Will and Ariel Durant claimed in their 1968 book, The Lessons of History, that there has only been 264 years of peace during 3,421 years of recorded history. A sad testament indeed.

Why war? The Durant's saw competition as normal, with war being the ultimate form, citing Heracleitus: "Polemos pater Panton" (i.e., competition fathers all things).

Beyond actual warfare, it appears that it also exhibits itself in metaphor; e.g., War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc., proclaimed by the current (but historically temporary) Super Power.

Suggesting that war was consistent with Darwin's evolutionary theory may be problematic. I am uncertain how random variation and differential reproduction may fit with war. Then again, Herbert Spencer did his own variation on Darwin's theme with survival of the fittest, once again introducing competition into the mix, and war being yet another variation of competition to determine the fittest.

slowburner

Black Swan wrote: »

War has been a human norm, not peace. Historians Will and Ariel Durant claimed in their 1968 book, The Lessons of History, that there has only been 264 years of peace during 3,421 years of recorded history. A sad testament indeed.

War, whatever way you define it, has probably always been fought somewhere or other. It could well be that there has never been global peace.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

There are various methods of waging war.
On one hand there is total war where the state mobilises all its resources in a revolutionary struggle to the death. In Europe this dates from the French revolutionary era - as per "The First Total War" by David A. Bell.
On the other, there is the very limited war fought by proxy or by hired mercenaries. This for example is how the Italian city states fought during the Renaissance period.
The latter seems be the way modern conflict is tending - both for cost and a measure of political damage that causulties produce.
However, IMO, the instinct to combat is part of us as a species - so war is not going to end as a social phenomenon so long as politicians perceive it as a quick fix to an issue.

nyarlothothep

There is stronger opposition to war nowadays though. I think the evolutionary claims to war being hardwired into our brains is debatable and inevitably some will equate this idea with the notion that warfare is an inevitable form of behaviour as we're nothing more than animals who follow an evolutionary logic, devoid of the capacity of reflection etc which ignores a huge aspect of human consciousness, which is precisely to reflect on what one is doing and the attendant consequences.

In relation to alpha males, meh, this is similar in my mind to saying that something which is evolutionarily advantageous is good. Alpha male carries a lot of connotations which are attractive to people, but aren't necessarily good. Of course that's my subjective opinion but I'll let others tease that idea out for themselves. It also ignores differentiation in society by establishing one kind of personality as the absolute best, eg Einstein was an "alpha male" in physics but he wouldn't have been captain of the football team, but does this make him less important or noteworthy than the plethora of "alpha males" in our society, many of whom contribute little more than blowing their own horn, as would be in character for a chest beating alpha male? No! In many cases I wonder why people bother listening to or even acknowledging alpha males at all. (I know, they throw mud at you or whatever, I'd still be inclined to be completely indifferent to them, ie with respect to "charisma" or the notion of "strength"="competence").

Conflict may be inevitable, its a characteristic of the universe it would seem, but war...no, I think this is a conscious choice and cannot be excused by saying that humans are hardwired/destined to do it. Not that the article was claiming otherwise but some will inevitably say this.

slowburner

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Very interesting. Why do you think it was as late as 1901 before pacifism became a doctrine?
Was pacifism unheard of prior to then (the idea rather than the word) - was it 'normal' to be warlike?
I think it's probably fair to say that the 20th century stands out amongst all the others, in the sense that the need for war became questionable.
I wonder what events and attitudes in the 19th century caused the development of an idealism which questioned the 'value' of war.

Somehow, you would think that the more advanced a civilisation - the greater the tendency towards peace, and yet the facts don't support this.
As you say, small government.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

take everything wrote: »

I dunno, maybe tendency to war, depressingly, is a vital, inextricable part of progression hardwired into our genetics and impossible now to change.
Anyway, thoughts?

In the BBC series The Ascent of Man Jacob Bronowski puts forward a very interesting theory on war which is definitely not an evolutionary one. He argues that until the development of agriculture and then the city the kind of conflict we would now characterize as "war" or "battle" didn't exist as it wouldn't have served a purpose. He says that the purpose of war is gain something without having to produce it. That is why war, as we now know it, developed after agriculture, as suddenly there was actually something to steal. Before that one would simply have cut to the chase and done the hunting first hand. Double-meaning intended.

But, of course, war of the kind he discusses isn't the only kind of conflict, and I also think that there are other factors at play when governments go to war.

slowburner

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In the BBC series The Ascent of Man Jacob Bronowski puts forward a very interesting theory on war which is definitely not an evolutionary one. He argues that until the development of agriculture and then the city the kind of conflict we would now characterize as "war" or "battle" didn't exist as it wouldn't have served a purpose. He says that the purpose of war is gain something without having to produce it. That is why war, as we now know it, developed after agriculture, as suddenly there was actually something to steal. Before that one would simply have cut to the chase and done the hunting first hand. Double-meaning intended.

But, of course, war of the kind he discusses isn't the only kind of conflict, and I also think that there are other factors at play when governments go to war.

You'd imagine that evidence of war would be fairly difficult to find prior to the Neolithic invention of agriculture.
So this era in mankind's development is open to all sorts of theories.
Agriculture had scarcely reached Northern Europe by 7,000 BC - if at all, and yet there is evidence of cannibalism http://ancient-tides.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-evidence-points-to-neolithic.html

Bronowski's theory appeals though.
It's not hard to picture a landscape where it would have taken a colossal effort to make a piece of ground productive, given the tools and technology available.
Having spent all that time and effort cutting, clearing and tilling, you'd be fairly cheesed off if someone else were to try to reap its rewards.
Widespread fortification in Ireland, for example, parallels the establishment of agriculture.
Bronowski's theory could be extended to hint at the possibility that there is indeed a selection process involved with war, at whatever level.
Populations rise dramatically along with the development of agriculture.
The higher the population; the greater the probability of conflict.
The higher the population; the greater the competition for resources.
Ultimately, war is competition.

goose2005

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In the BBC series The Ascent of Man Jacob Bronowski puts forward a very interesting theory on war which is definitely not an evolutionary one. He argues that until the development of agriculture and then the city the kind of conflict we would now characterize as "war" or "battle" didn't exist as it wouldn't have served a purpose. He says that the purpose of war is gain something without having to produce it. That is why war, as we now know it, developed after agriculture, as suddenly there was actually something to steal. Before that one would simply have cut to the chase and done the hunting first hand. Double-meaning intended.

But, of course, war of the kind he discusses isn't the only kind of conflict, and I also think that there are other factors at play when governments go to war.

Except hunter-gatherers do have boundary skirmishes, raids, kidnap women etc.

Scanlas The 2nd

From what I've read war didn't exist or was at most very rare before agriculture. Agriculture is what causes the turmoil and suffering for our species.

Before agriculture in our natural state we were peaceful. There was no reason for major conflict. Unlike the gorilla human sexual competition takes place in the vagina in the form of sperm competition. There was no need to fight over women, women were highly promiscuous, it was normal for women to have sex with numerous males one after the other to allow for sperm competition. Everyone in the tribe shared in duties such as looking after the kids or finding food. It was an egalitarian society. Property didn't exist, food was plentiful and most people got more sex than they could want. There was no need for war.

slowburner

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

From what I've read war didn't exist or was at most very rare before agriculture. Agriculture is what causes the turmoil and suffering for our species.

Before agriculture in our natural state we were peaceful. There was no reason for major conflict. Unlike the gorilla human sexual competition takes place in the vagina in the form of sperm competition. There was no need to fight over women, women were highly promiscuous, it was normal for women to have sex with numerous males one after the other to allow for sperm competition. Everyone in the tribe shared in duties such as looking after the kids or finding food. It was an egalitarian society. Property didn't exist, food was plentiful and most people got more sex than they could want. There was no need for war.

It's possible that your view of mesolithic culture is a little utopian, but good fun

Scanlas The 2nd

slowburner wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

From what I've read war didn't exist or was at most very rare before agriculture. Agriculture is what causes the turmoil and suffering for our species.

Before agriculture in our natural state we were peaceful. There was no reason for major conflict. Unlike the gorilla human sexual competition takes place in the vagina in the form of sperm competition. There was no need to fight over women, women were highly promiscuous, it was normal for women to have sex with numerous males one after the other to allow for sperm competition. Everyone in the tribe shared in duties such as looking after the kids or finding food. It was an egalitarian society. Property didn't exist, food was plentiful and most people got more sex than they could want. There was no need for war.

It's possible that your view of mesolithic culture is a little utopian, but good fun

If you look at the evidence that's what it points to. Why would hunter gatherers be at war?

Look at hunter gather societies in existence today, they are healthier than us and don't suffer from the likes of depression and cardiovascular disease and cancer like us. Their life is pretty good, it would seem they are happier than us.

Chuck Stone

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Before agriculture in our natural state we were peaceful.

Before agriculture we were so busy trying to stay alive that there was little time to be risking injury and death battering the shit out of one another.

Agriculture allowed people to produce an excess of food. In winter there was less work to do (stored food from the harvest) which allowed time for ideas and experimentation to flourish.

Civilisation as we know it has its heritage in agriculture.

Scanlas The 2nd

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Before agriculture in our natural state we were peaceful.

Before agriculture we were so busy trying to stay alive that there was little time to be risking injury and death battering the shit out of one another.

Agriculture allowed people to produce an excess of food. In winter there was less work to do (stored food from the harvest) which allowed time for ideas and experimentation to flourish.

Civilisation as we know it has its heritage in agriculture.

Before agriculture people had too much free time to know what to do with it. A few hours of hunting and gathering every day or two was enough. The rest of the time would be spent socialising, lazing around, having sex and fun. Just look at hunter gatherer societies in existence today for evidence. Agriculture is possibly the word thing to have happened for humans. As a result we are less healthy, more prone to disease, repressed sexually by being forced by social and religious conditioning into unnatural monogomous relationships and have lost countless lives as a result of war.

Chuck Stone

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Before agriculture people had too much free time to know what to do with it. A few hours of hunting and gathering every day or two was enough. The rest of the time would be spent socialising, lazing around, having sex and fun. Just look at hunter gatherer societies in existence today for evidence. Agriculture is possibly the word thing to have happened for humans. As a result we are less healthy, more prone to disease, repressed sexually by being forced by social and religious conditioning into unnatural monogomous relationships and have lost countless lives as a result of war.

Seriously, you have it upside down and back-to-front. If you're trolling me then I commend you on your expertise.

Before agriculture life was short and pretty brutal. Collecting ripe fruit and hunting live prey is energy intensive and a race against hunger, injury, disease and death.

I'm pulling this from memory but IIRC us humans life expectancy compared to most mammals based on the number of heart beats per average lifetime is something like 2½ times that of the other mammals.

Agriculture and the division of labour are the reason why we have such longer lives.



(Alcohol disclaimer, couldn't be bothered getting the sources)

Scanlas The 2nd

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Before agriculture people had too much free time to know what to do with it. A few hours of hunting and gathering every day or two was enough. The rest of the time would be spent socialising, lazing around, having sex and fun. Just look at hunter gatherer societies in existence today for evidence. Agriculture is possibly the word thing to have happened for humans. As a result we are less healthy, more prone to disease, repressed sexually by being forced by social and religious conditioning into unnatural monogomous relationships and have lost countless lives as a result of war.

Seriously, you have it upside down and back-to-front. If you're trolling me then I commend you on your expertise.

Before agriculture life was short and pretty brutal. Collecting ripe fruit and hunting live prey is energy intensive and a race against hunger, injury, disease and death.

I'm pulling this from memory but IIRC us humans life expectancy compared to most mammals based on the number of heart beats per average lifetime is something like 2½ times that of the other mammals.

Agriculture and the division of labour are the reason why we have such longer lives.



[SIZE="1"](Alcohol disclaimer, couldn't be bothered getting the sources)[/SIZE]

It's a myth that people lived short and brutish lives before agriculture, it was normal for an adult to live to 70 prevent 80 years of age. There was a higher rate of death at during birth but grown adults could expect to live until 70. They were much healthier than we are today, also bigger and stronger as they didn't eat grains and only ate lots of healthy food, populations were small so there was no shortage of food.

I reiterate in terms of the happiness and health of humans agriculture is the single worst invention. It has caused immense suffering.

Chuck Stone

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

it was normal for an adult to live to 70 prevent 80 years of age. There was a higher rate of death at during birth but grown adults could expect to live until 70.

You're moving the goal posts here. Life expectancy is life expectancy; the word 'adult' is a relatively new term. Would it be legitimate for me to say something like... 90% of 55 yr olds make it to 60 yrs old?

They were much healthier than we are today,

Source?

also bigger and stronger

Source?

as they didn't eat grains and only ate lots of healthy food

What is health food? Healthy food for a hungry person is any food you can get your hands on. Healthy food for an obese person is much less of what he's eating. 'Healthy food' is a pretty meaningless term.

populations were small so there was no shortage of food.

This is bass-ackwards. Populations were small because of a lack of food.

I reiterate in terms of the happiness and health of humans agriculture is the single worst invention. It has caused immense suffering.

Sir, the above statement is rubbish. Agriculture underpins civilisation as we know it.

slowburner

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's a myth that people lived short and brutish lives before agriculture, it was normal for an adult to live to 70 prevent 80 years of age. There was a higher rate of death at during birth but grown adults could expect to live until 70. They were much healthier than we are today, also bigger and stronger as they didn't eat grains and only ate lots of healthy food, populations were small so there was no shortage of food.

I reiterate in terms of the happiness and health of humans agriculture is the single worst invention. It has caused immense suffering.

You're not a member of the IFA, by any chance?

The success of a species is usually measured by the number of individuals in the population. Even though agriculture can be seen as the root of conflict, it still made humans the most successful species on the planet, in terms of the exponential growth of its population.

There are two claims about conditions in the Mesolithic in this post which need supporting with evidence.

That average life expectancy was around 70 years.
There is an interesting study here which shows that male life expectancy declined from 35.4 years in the Palaeolithic (30,000 - 9,000 BC) to 33.1 years in the late Neolithic (5,000 - 3,000 BC).
By the late Bronze Age (c.1,500 - 1,150 BC) life expectancy had reached 39.6 years.
A statistician will need to test the significance of this variation.

That consumption of grains is unhealthy.
I'll leave this to someone who knows what they are talking about, but there may be a (grain) of truth in it.
See here.

Scanlas The 2nd

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/

Why is the amount of the population important?

Nothing is more important than happiness IMO, that's something which hunter gatherers evidently are much more successful at.

The Corinthian

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Nothing is more important than happiness IMO, that's something which hunter gatherers evidently are much more successful at.

That is questionable, not least of all because you've supplied precious little beyond your opinion, and the less said about your other claims the better.

Hunter gatherer societies have never been all that peaceful. If they are it is only down to low population densities, meaning that a tribe would cover an area that would sustain their low population, but changes in climate and food supply would see them periodically brush against other tribes, after which raiding and conflict would arise.

This behaviour was hardly limited to pre-historic man, but was evident in hunter gatherer societies that survived into the modern age; Amazonian tribes still constantly raid each other today.

Secondly, you appear to be pushing the idea that hunter gatherer societies are somehow anarchic utopias that promote free love. Setting aside your preoccupation with promiscuity for a moment, all such societies have displayed often rigid rules governing social interaction and conflict.

As to sex, just because people in hunter gatherer societies don't wear a lot of clothes, does not mean they're shagging like rabbits. Some, as used to exist in Polynesia, were very sexually permissive, however, others - such as in North America up to the 19th century - were not. Again resources are a major determinant in this, as sex leads to children and children need to be fed. And if your food supply is limited or inconsistent you'll want to control your birth rate - infanticide was also a means of doing this.

As to your claims of being healthier, living longer, etc. I'll grant you that much is probably true. Life expectancy in the Upper Paleolithic was just over 30, dropping to as low as 20 in the Neolithic and did not surpass 30 again until the late middle ages. Meat consumption dropped due to an increase in dependants on crops and this also had the curious effect of decreasing height - it is only as of the 20th century that we have returned to pre-Neolithic height averages.

The difference between hunter gatherer and post-Neolithic revolution societies is largely down to scale. The former never get beyond a few dozen, where everyone knows everyone else, and the latter composed of thousands or more (Jericho, one of the earliest permanent settlements is estimated to have had about 1,500 inhabitants around 9,000 BC). This led to a number of developments that differed from hunter gatherer societies:

• Hierarchies developed. Earlier societies were small enough that everyone knew everyone else, but as they grew structure developed so as to impose authority over people whom you did not know directly.
• Farming freed up a sizeable portion of the population to specialize in other areas. Prior to the Neolithic revolution, if you wanted to survive, you had to be a hunter or a gatherer. Now, you could be a potter, or a builder, or a scribe, or an artist.
• War became more organized. Migration was no longer viable due to the massive increase in population density. As a result, the old raiding culture of warfare was refined and better organized, so that your aim was no longer to grab some of your neighbours resources, but to subdue them and keep those resources indefinitely.

Nonetheless, your assessment of hunter gatherer societies is a little romantic, especially where it comes to war. Like it or not, on an evolutionary standpoint, we're a lot more like the common chimpanzee than the bonobo.

Scanlas The 2nd

The Corinthian wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Nothing is more important than happiness IMO, that's something which hunter gatherers evidently are much more successful at.

That is questionable, not least of all because you've supplied precious little beyond your opinion, and the less said about your other claims the better.

Hunter gatherer societies have never been all that peaceful. If they are it is only down to low population densities, meaning that a tribe would cover an area that would sustain their low population, but changes in climate and food supply would see them periodically brush against other tribes, after which raiding and conflict would arise.

This behaviour was hardly limited to pre-historic man, but was evident in hunter gatherer societies that survived into the modern age; Amazonian tribes still constantly raid each other today.

Secondly, you appear to be pushing the idea that hunter gatherer societies are somehow anarchic utopias that promote free love. Setting aside your preoccupation with promiscuity for a moment, all such societies have displayed often rigid rules governing social interaction and conflict.

As to sex, just because people in hunter gatherer societies don't wear a lot of clothes, does not mean they're shagging like rabbits. Some, as used to exist in Polynesia, were very sexually permissive, however, others - such as in North America up to the 19th century - were not. Again resources are a major determinant in this, as sex leads to children and children need to be fed. And if your food supply is limited or inconsistent you'll want to control your birth rate - infanticide was also a means of doing this.

As to your claims of being healthier, living longer, etc. I'll grant you that much is probably true. Life expectancy in the Upper Paleolithic was just over 30, dropping to as low as 20 in the Neolithic and did not surpass 30 again until the late middle ages. Meat consumption dropped due to an increase in dependants on crops and this also had the curious effect of decreasing height - it is only as of the 20th century that we have returned to pre-Neolithic height averages.

The difference between hunter gatherer and post-Neolithic revolution societies is largely down to scale. The former never get beyond a few dozen, where everyone knows everyone else, and the latter composed of thousands or more (Jericho, one of the earliest permanent settlements is estimated to have had about 1,500 inhabitants around 9,000 BC). This led to a number of developments that differed from hunter gatherer societies:

• Hierarchies developed. Earlier societies were small enough that everyone knew everyone else, but as they grew structure developed so as to impose authority over people whom you did not know directly.
• Farming freed up a sizeable portion of the population to specialize in other areas. Prior to the Neolithic revolution, if you wanted to survive, you had to be a hunter or a gatherer. Now, you could be a potter, or a builder, or a scribe, or an artist.
• War became more organized. Migration was no longer viable due to the massive increase in population density. As a result, the old raiding culture of warfare was refined and better organized, so that your aim was no longer to grab some of your neighbours resources, but to subdue them and keep those resources indefinitely.

Nonetheless, your assessment of hunter gatherer societies is a little romantic, especially where it comes to war. Like it or not, on an evolutionary standpoint, we're a lot more like the common chimpanzee than the bonobo.

I disagree on a lot of what you say. Palaeolithic people routinely lived to 70 assuming they didn't die at birth and I think the evidence suggests we are more similar to bonobos than chimpanzees. Also chimpanzees are thought to be much more aggressive than they actually are due to the unnatural circumstances they are usually studied.There are many modern societies that arent peaceful which are thought to be hunter gatherers but actually aren't as they farm and claim land as property. I'll don't have time at the moment to write a detailed reply with back up right now but i will when I get a chance.

The Corinthian

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Palaeolithic people routinely lived to 70 assuming they didn't die at birth

That is incorrect. Life expectancy, including infant mortality, was about 33 years - I took this as a baseline for all the comparisons. If you survived to 15, and not just post-partum, then that average went up to about 54. Please note, that all the other averages would also have increased substantially in the event of surviving childhood.

If you have evidence that supports your claim of 70, please feel free to share it with us. Otherwise I will conclude that you are incorrect.

and I think the evidence suggests we are more similar to bonobos than chimpanzees.

What evidence. Please supply. Otherwise I will conclude that you are incorrect.

Also chimpanzees are thought to be much more aggressive than they actually are due to the unnatural circumstances they are usually studied.

Who thinks so (other than you)? Please supply sources. Otherwise I will conclude that you are incorrect.

There are many modern societies that arent peaceful which are thought to be hunter gatherers but actually aren't as they farm and claim land as property.

Again, please supply sources - I did so in my previous post, citing an anthropological study that refutes what you have said. Otherwise I will conclude that you are incorrect.

I'll don't have time at the moment to write a detailed reply with back up right now but i will when I get a chance.

TBH, if you want to include detail in your replay, I would suggest you do so in the form of sources and evidence from accredited third parties or other credible sources. If you want to simply write a large slab of argument backed up by nothing, then you will not be convincing me or anyone else.

Scanlas The 2nd

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/05/do_huntergatherers_have_it_rig.html

Humans and bonobos are very similar. Bonobos are peaceful just like we are in our natural environment. Both humans ( in natural environbent, not force fed agriculture and monogamy) and bonobos are sex crazy where females and males are receptive to sex all through the menstrual cycle. Females encourage makes to mate with ten one after the other. There isn't much need for conflict between males as sex and food is plentiful so long as the climate is stable and no natural disasters. Why do women scream during orgasm and more capable of having multiple orgasms? Why are men turned on by women orgasming? Because its part of the dynamic where the warfare takes place amongst sperm not humans. Men didn't need to compete over women or food.

The Corinthian

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/05/do_huntergatherers_have_it_rig.html

All that article points to is that human health and diet suffered with the advent of agriculture, something that I already conceded in my first point. However it makes no attempt to support your claim that hunter gatherers "routinely lived to 70", let alone your other claims.

As an aside, I also note that in the interview associated with the article a claim is made that hunter gatherers protected their environment was also made; something that has been refuted by recent evidence.

Humans and bonobos are very similar. Bonobos are peaceful just like we are in our natural environment.

You're just repeating your claim, still with no evidence or sources to back this up. You've also failed to address, let alone rebut, the sources I have supplied. I think, as I said, we need to conclude that you are incorrect on much of what you said.

If you have nothing further of value to add, perhaps we can finally take your rather romantic utopian picture as wishful thinking and get back to a more reasoned discussion?

slowburner

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/05/do_huntergatherers_have_it_rig.html

Humans and bonobos are very similar. Bonobos are peaceful just like we are in our natural environment. Both humans ( in natural environbent, not force fed agriculture and monogamy) and bonobos are sex crazy where females and males are receptive to sex all through the menstrual cycle. Females encourage makes to mate with ten one after the other. There isn't much need for conflict between males as sex and food is plentiful so long as the climate is stable and no natural disasters. Why do women scream during orgasm and more capable of having multiple orgasms? Why are men turned on by women orgasming? Because its part of the dynamic where the warfare takes place amongst sperm not humans. Men didn't need to compete over women or food.

I am having difficulty trying to understand where this fits in to this discussion.
Perhaps you could enlighten me - I try very hard to be open to new and interesting theories, especially when they are as challenging as this.

Scanlas The 2nd

slowburner wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/05/do_huntergatherers_have_it_rig.html

Humans and bonobos are very similar. Bonobos are peaceful just like we are in our natural environment. Both humans ( in natural environbent, not force fed agriculture and monogamy) and bonobos are sex crazy where females and males are receptive to sex all through the menstrual cycle. Females encourage makes to mate with ten one after the other. There isn't much need for conflict between males as sex and food is plentiful so long as the climate is stable and no natural disasters. Why do women scream during orgasm and more capable of having multiple orgasms? Why are men turned on by women orgasming? Because its part of the dynamic where the warfare takes place amongst sperm not humans. Men didn't need to compete over women or food.

I am having difficulty trying to understand where this fits in to this discussion.
Perhaps you could enlighten me - I try very hard to be open to new and interesting theories, especially when they are as challenging as this.

The reason I mentioned that is it shows the males of our species aren't built to be competing with each other physically nearly as much as people think. Which I believe adds evidence to the idea we aren't evolutionarily built for war. Conflict among males ( who cause the wars since agriculture was invented) was minimal as there was wasn't a huge need to compete sexually on that level, that's why I think we are relatively peaceful in our natural palaeolithic environment. Gorillas are highly aggressive and designed for conflict as they compete sexually by fighting. That's why they are so much bigger than female gorillas, human males are only 10 - 20 percent bigger than females which suggests the males haven't needed to adapt for fighting much which suggests we are relatively peaceful in our evolved environment.

The Corinthian

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The reason I mentioned that is it shows the males of our species aren't built to be competing with each other physically nearly as much as people think.

How so? Women orgasm, ergo we are not naturally violent? Bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Which I believe adds evidence to the idea we aren't evolutionarily built for war.

That's not evidence; it's a theory, or opinion, nothing more.

human males are only 10 - 20 percent bigger than females

That's something else you appear to be misinformed on.

Any reason you are ignoring the call made by me and others to you, to supply evidence and/or sources for your claims?

slowburner

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The reason I mentioned that is it shows the males of our species aren't built to be competing with each other physically nearly as much as people think. Which I believe adds evidence to the idea we aren't evolutionarily built for war. Conflict among males ( who cause the wars since agriculture was invented) was minimal as there was wasn't a huge need to compete sexually on that level, that's why I think we are relatively peaceful in our natural palaeolithic environment. Gorillas are highly aggressive and designed for conflict as they compete sexually by fighting. That's why they are so much bigger than female gorillas, human males are only 10 - 20 percent bigger than females which suggests the males haven't needed to adapt for fighting much which suggests we are relatively peaceful in our evolved environment.

Are you saying that all conflict is the product of sexual competition?

Zombrex

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's a myth that people lived short and brutish lives before agriculture, it was normal for an adult to live to 70 prevent 80 years of age. There was a higher rate of death at during birth but grown adults could expect to live until 70. They were much healthier than we are today, also bigger and stronger as they didn't eat grains and only ate lots of healthy food, populations were small so there was no shortage of food.

I reiterate in terms of the happiness and health of humans agriculture is the single worst invention. It has caused immense suffering.

That is a view that was popular among some anthropologist such as Marshall Sahlins for a while but has been largely debunked.

Violent death was a much higher risk in H/G societies, and the way it was working out that they spend a lot of time socializing and relaxing has been shown to be flawed (if you consider the time to not only gather food but also to prepare it they worked much longer than modern humans).

The Corinthian

The utopian view of hunter gatherer societies has been about for a while. There's been a few isolated studies in this, and even in human similarities to the bonobo, but none of these studies are widely accepted and have been largely debunked.

You still see some of their claims regurgitated, and often exaggerated, online from time to time though. They strike me more as some form of new age wishful thinking than objective assessment and rarely stand up to scrutiny for long, as we've seen here.

Scanlas The 2nd

slowburner wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The reason I mentioned that is it shows the males of our species aren't built to be competing with each other physically nearly as much as people think. Which I believe adds evidence to the idea we aren't evolutionarily built for war. Conflict among males ( who cause the wars since agriculture was invented) was minimal as there was wasn't a huge need to compete sexually on that level, that's why I think we are relatively peaceful in our natural palaeolithic environment. Gorillas are highly aggressive and designed for conflict as they compete sexually by fighting. That's why they are so much bigger than female gorillas, human males are only 10 - 20 percent bigger than females which suggests the males haven't needed to adapt for fighting much which suggests we are relatively peaceful in our evolved environment.

Are you saying that all conflict is the product of sexual competition?

I'm saying it's the result agriculture and the concept of property. Put most animals in the the right circumstances and they will become violent. We have designed a scenario for ourselves where Most people want more, be it land, money, sex etc. it's my contention that before the agricultural revolution people were much more content. You couldn't point to a river full of fish and say that's mine or that forest is mine. People had what they needed. Sex is a huge drive in us, without that drive conflict would be greatly reduced. Men who don't get sex can are more likely to be violent. When it was more freely available that would reduce needless violence.

slowburner

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'm saying it's the result agriculture and the concept of property. Put most animals in the the right circumstances and they will become violent. We have designed a scenario for ourselves where Most people want more, be it land, money, sex etc. it's my contention that before the agricultural revolution people were much more content. You couldn't point to a river full of fish and say that's mine or that forest is mine. People had what they needed. Sex is a huge drive in us, without that drive conflict would be greatly reduced. Men who don't get sex can are more likely to be violent. When it was more freely available that would reduce needless violence.

Sure sex is a driving force, but so is hunger, the need for shelter, water and so on.
If your belly is empty, or you are freezing, sex is not going to be top of the list, is it?
As for 'men who don't get sex are more likely to be violent' - I think you would need to show support for a statement like that.

If it were true, then there would be a statistical correlation between celibacy (religious or otherwise) and violence.
Common sense and experience, inform us that no such correlation exists.

There is a body of evidence to suggest that deprivation of affection and physical contact in childhood may have links to drug abuse, alcoholism, depression, anti-social behaviour and violence.
Perhaps you are confusing sexual frustration and inadequate affection/physical contact in the formative years.

My personal opinion is that if a man is compelled to violence as a consequence of a lack of sexual gratification - he should probably be on a register where his every movement can be monitored.

The Corinthian

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Sex is a huge drive in us, without that drive conflict would be greatly reduced. Men who don't get sex can are more likely to be violent. When it was more freely available that would reduce needless violence.

Unfortunately this does not tie in with the reality of hunter gatherer society:

Few Anthropologists have even written about the violent rape of other tribes, however the fact that it was widespread can be seen in the casual manner that Aborigines talked about it. In 1795, Watkin Tench, an English military officer, asked an Aborigine named Bennelong how attained a scar on his hand:

"He laughed, and owned that it was received in carrying off a lady of another tribe by force. "I was dragging her away. She cried aloud, and stuck her teeth in me." "And what did you do then?" "I knocked her down, and beat her till she was insensible, and covered with blood. Then..."

Are you going to actually back up anything you're saying with credible sources, as pretty much everyone at this stage here has asked of you?

slowburner

It is important too, to know that cannibalism was a fact of life before the development of agriculture. Here is a selection of links to evidence of cannibalism in Europe.
France
Germany
Britain

Scanlas The 2nd

The Corinthian wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Sex is a huge drive in us, without that drive conflict would be greatly reduced. Men who don't get sex can are more likely to be violent. When it was more freely available that would reduce needless violence.

Unfortunately this does not tie in with the reality of hunter gatherer society:

Few Anthropologists have even written about the violent rape of other tribes, however the fact that it was widespread can be seen in the casual manner that Aborigines talked about it. In 1795, Watkin Tench, an English military officer, asked an Aborigine named Bennelong how attained a scar on his hand:

"He laughed, and owned that it was received in carrying off a lady of another tribe by force. "I was dragging her away. She cried aloud, and stuck her teeth in me." "And what did you do then?" "I knocked her down, and beat her till she was insensible, and covered with blood. Then..."

Are you going to actually back up anything you're saying with credible sources, as pretty much everyone at this stage here has asked of you?

http://www.raw-food-health.net/HunterGatherers.html

Why are hunter gatherers happier than us if it is such a terrible existence?

The Corinthian

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

http://www.raw-food-health.net/HunterGatherers.html

Why are hunter gatherers happier than us if it is such a terrible existence?

If you want to say 'greater quality of life' fine, but the term 'happier' is a subjective term that is meaningless in rational debate.

Let's examine (topic by topic) at the article you've posted:

Vigor, Age and the Senses. It has already long been conceded that diet and health suffered as a result of the Neolithic revolution and has only relatively recently returned, and surpassed, pre-Neolithic levels. Nonetheless, I would question the relevance of the anecdotal evidence, such as the man killing the leopard with his bare hands, being indicative of such societies or differentiating them from other society types - we can point to similar examples, after all.

Taking It Easy. Much of this draws evidence from Sahlins's studies on the subject, which have been heavily criticized and when time spent is more accurately calculated paints a far less rosy picture of hunter gatherer free time.

Happiness. As I've already said, this is a subjective term, as it how it is 'studied' in the source ("Sharing, Talking and Giving" by Lorna Marshall) does not exactly prove that the tribe studied does laugh more often than other groups, let alone that this is indicative of hunter gatherer societies - only the social habits of one tribe.

The Original Social Safety Net. What is argued in this point is dreadful nonsense. It compliments hunter gatherer societies for lack of senicide and that the 60% of the population, between the ages of 20 (15 for girls) and 60, are supposed to provide for the other 40% - yet this has typically been the case outside of hunter gatherer societies throughout history. So it really doesn't prove much.

Equality Of The Sexes. It is altogether possible that this may be indicative of some hunter gatherer societies, but as has already been documented, not all have been.

Hunt Little, Gather Much. It is interesting that the Neolithic revolution saw our health deteriorate along with our diet, in part due to the lack of meat in it, yet this point appears to contradict this point - indeed, that we've been eating too much meat is a pretty modern phenomenon. Which is it now?

Unlimited Equality. The claims made in this part of the article has long been debunked. While hunter gatherer societies, being smaller, do not require the same rigidity in power hierarchies, that does not mean that they do not have them at all. Tribes still retain authority figures, such as elders, chiefs an shamans, as well as the traditions and rituals by which they must abide, so claiming that they are somehow devoid of all such social constraints is fanciful at best and dishonest at worst.

Peace. As pointed out, with evidence, twice or more above, hunter gatherer societies are not peaceful by nature. They can be if isolated and small, but raiding and skirmishes are commonplace and have been frequently recorded.

Good Sex Starts Young. This could be true, although not all hunter gatherer societies necessarily share the same views on sex. Regardless, it does not mean that sexual liberation is a function of being a hunter gatherer society. Hellenistic culture was vastly more permissive than our own, for example, as were many of the pre-Columbian civilizations of central and south America. We derive our sexual morals from the Abrahamic culture which have never been very permissive, but that in itself is not tied to our being hunter gatherers or not.

Low Maintenance Cultivation. I already debunked that earlier - here's the article again.

Overall, the entire article you've supplied reads like propaganda designed to encourage the reader to set up "'new tribalism' communities". It repeatedly attempts to use examples of traits occurring in a single tribe are presented to be the standard for all tribes - and in reality they're not and this is the fundamental flaw in the article.

Lower population densities meant that authority was less rigid, but that does not mean that it did not exist. It also meant that war was not on the same scale, but neither does that mean that it did not happen frequently, let alone at all. Average lifespans were higher (although lower than modern lifespans) but certainly people did not "routinely live" to be 70. Nor is sexual dimorphism in humans a mere 10 - 20%, as you claimed. Or that we can say that we are closer to the bonobos than the common chimpanzee.

Ultimately as I, and others, have said, there are certainly areas where pre-Neolithic man was better off, however this should not be exaggerated into some garden of Eden fantasy.

The Corinthian

Returning to the original topic the escalation of human-human conflict, or war, was almost certainly an inevitable consequence of the Neolithic revolution. As has been documented time and time again, war pre-dated this point in our history, however it tended to be limited in scope (i.e. raids). As population density increased and population migration slowed, a new form of war that did not simply raid, but conquer had to be developed.

It is interesting to note that as a species, civilization did not develop until relatively recently. Homo Sapiens appeared about 200,000 years ago, and reached behavioural modernity about 50,000 years ago, yet the earliest civilizations are no older than about 12,000 years.

Prior to that there was little to differentiate us from other hominids, indeed the two greatest 'inventions' at this point (fire and stone tools) pre-dated Homo Sapien, but once we began to coalesce into permanent communities the accelerator appears to have been pressed down.

Necessity is the mother of invention and in permanent settlements, with greater population, resources become a more precious necessity, as does management of that population and knowledge. As war is the most extreme example of fulfilling necessity, it is hardly a surprise that its development also accelerated and in turn many things that developed as a result of war fed back into non-military applications (it is no secret that fields such as engineering and medicine have benefited from war, for example).

But is war an evolutionary necessity? Yes and no, IMHO. The periods of 1871 - 1914 and 1945 - present have both been relatively peaceful, yet saw significantly high levels of cultural and technological advancement (it can, however, be argued that both saw periods of 'cold war' that engender this).

Nonetheless, if treating humanity as a single organism, the capacity to wage war still remains important. A World where we can banish war from our culture is a high ideal and probably worth the loss of stimulus it gives us to advance. But any organism can only forgo the ability to defend itself as long as there are no predators around to eat it, and unless we are willing to presume that we are alone in the universe, it may some day prove to be a very foolish trait to sacrifice.

KyussBishop

To be honest, the idea that war is biologically inherent in us or 'necessary' for evolutionary reasons, seems a bit ridiculous. War only exists out of some peoples desire to have control and power over others, or their resources; it's perfectly possible to have a world where these kind of socio/psychopaths aren't in power.

When it comes to resolving any conflict, there is This post had been deleted.[/quote]
Interesting point of view, but what is going to stop countries/governments (or just corporations themselves with the help of mercenaries) from violently combating for resources? That translates in a pretty straight forward way to economic gain.

Economic value of resources plus greed has the automatic potential for violence really; an economically dominated world is going to avoid large scale wars like the two World Wars, but look at the huge number of wars the US has engaged in since?



Anyway, personally I think that a better informed and more aware population, free from and vigilant against manipulation from coerced media platforms, has a big chance at addressing many political and international issues like this over time.

It won't solve everything, but I think long term the Internet has truly enormous potential in this regard, and watching stuff like SOPA/ACTA being pushed to censor copyright-infringing content on the Internet, triggers tons of alarm bells for me with the massive potential for wide scale political censorship of the Internet.

If the Internet can be kept completely uncensored, and old media (and their grip on agenda-setting with the populace) dies or adapts into a more effective/worthwhile form, I think it will much better allow people to police their own governments, and prevent wars.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

To be honest, the idea that war is biologically inherent in us or 'necessary' for evolutionary reasons, seems a bit ridiculous.

Actually, on an evolutionary level conflict, leading to an 'arms race' is a pretty well accepted stimulus - it has been postulated to be one of the principle causes of the Cambrian explosion, for example.

Of course that does not mean that we should be slaves to such behaviour, but to dismiss it would be equally foolish.

War only exists out of some peoples desire to have control and power over others, or their resources; it's perfectly possible to have a world where these kind of socio/psychopaths aren't in power.

Really, how?

When it comes to resolving any conflict, there is always an alternative other than war.

Only if you can eliminate this trait from human nature in all sides of a potential conflict. Otherwise it remains the ultima ratio regum.

And even if you did, which is already a stretch, you would have to assume, or hope, that we are alone in the universe and that no aggressive extraterrestrial life exists that we could come into contact tomorrow or in a thousand years. Otherwise, mankind would likely suffer the same fate of the dodo.

If the Internet can be kept completely uncensored, and old media (and their grip on agenda-setting with the populace) dies or adapts into a more effective/worthwhile form, I think it will much better allow people to police their own governments, and prevent wars.

Which is a pretty ironic argument given you are effectively talking about censoring a pretty ingrained human trait.

This is not to suggest that I support war or feel we should remain warlike for the good of the species - not at all - but we should consider the practical considerations, not to mention if it is even possible - to employ policies designed to eliminate it.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, on an evolutionary level conflict, leading to an 'arms race' is a pretty well accepted stimulus - it has been postulated to be one of the principle causes of the Cambrian explosion, for example.

Of course that does not mean that we should be slaves to such behaviour, but to dismiss it would be equally foolish.

Conflict may help adapt and develop species during evolution, but it's certainly not a necessary thing with humans in modern society, and the idea that we are evolutionarily or genetically destined to fight wars repeatedly and forever, just seems plain false to me.

The Corinthian wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

War only exists out of some peoples desire to have control and power over others, or their resources; it's perfectly possible to have a world where these kind of socio/psychopaths aren't in power.

Really, how?

If governments are properly transparent and accountable, with a system that's not so easily abused as it is now, the population could have the proper strength in their role of holding their government back from war, instead of some countries finding it extremely easy to engage in war without the consent of the populous.

This would require reducing the effectiveness of modern news media as a means of propaganda and agenda-setting, and having an alternative (and less propagandized) means of distributing such information, such as over the internet where the ground is more even and massive media corporations don't have an exclusive hold.

The Corinthian wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

When it comes to resolving any conflict, there is always an alternative other than war.

Only if you can eliminate this trait from human nature in all sides of a potential conflict. Otherwise it remains the ultima ratio regum.

Not really, the whole point of my argument is that war isn't a necessary part of human nature?

The Corinthian wrote:

And even if you did, which is already a stretch, you would have to assume, or hope, that we are alone in the universe and that no aggressive extraterrestrial life exists that we could come into contact tomorrow or in a thousand years. Otherwise, mankind would likely suffer the same fate of the dodo.

Even if we get to a position where war can be eliminated, there will still be an inherent requirement for nations to have enough weaponry to defend themselves anyway; be foolish not to have that because there inevitably will be some socio/psychopaths in the world, and the potential threat of war (even if very remote).

Anyway, if aliens ever do come here, presumably they can travel faster than light, and if they can do that they could wipe out the whole planet literally before we even see anything coming, with relativistic weapons

The Corinthian wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

If the Internet can be kept completely uncensored, and old media (and their grip on agenda-setting with the populace) dies or adapts into a more effective/worthwhile form, I think it will much better allow people to police their own governments, and prevent wars.

Which is a pretty ironic argument given you are effectively talking about censoring a pretty ingrained human trait.

Not really, I think the whole argument that war is a 'human trait' is completely false, without anything other than anecdotal/historically-speculative arguments to back it up.

It's really amazing how less violent the world is now compared to how it was through most of the rest of history, and it's a trend that keeps on improving, with the public more aware than ever of the horrible and unjust stuff happening in the world, and who's responsible.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

Conflict may help adapt and develop species during evolution, but it's certainly not a necessary thing with humans in modern society, and the idea that we are evolutionarily or genetically destined to fight wars repeatedly and forever, just seems plain false to me.

I never suggested it was necessary in modern society, only that there is a price to losing it. At the very least you accept that it "may help adapt and develop species during evolution", in which case we would lose such help - unless you believe we have reached the apex of our own evolution.

If governments are properly transparent and accountable, with a system that's not so easily abused as it is now, the population could have the proper strength in their role of holding their government back from war, instead of some countries finding it extremely easy to engage in war without the consent of the populous.

This would require reducing the effectiveness of modern news media as a means of propaganda and agenda-setting, and having an alternative (and less propagandized) means of distributing such information, such as over the internet where the ground is more even and massive media corporations don't have an exclusive hold.

That's all very well, but does not answer my question; how is it perfectly possible to have a world where these kind of socio/psychopaths aren't in power? All you're doing is extolling the benefits of such a World, without actually explaining how it can come about - or are you suggesting that modern news media has produced these aberrations throughout human history?

Not really, the whole point of my argument is that war isn't a necessary part of human nature?

Yet it exists and as I said, unless "you can eliminate this trait from human nature in all sides of a potential conflict", conflict will continue. Anyone who's ever said that violence doesn't solve anything obviously never heard of Carthage.

Even if we get to a position where war can be eliminated, there will still be an inherent requirement for nations to have enough weaponry to defend themselves anyway; be foolish not to have that because there inevitably will be some socio/psychopaths in the world, and the potential threat of war (even if very remote).

Then you don't really want to eliminate man's desire for conflict, only control and suppress it until it may be useful. Fair enough.

Anyway, if aliens ever do come here, presumably they can travel faster than light, and if they can do that they could wipe out the whole planet literally before we even see anything coming, with relativistic weapons

Maybe, maybe not - that's why I suggested a thousand years time, when we may stumble upon them and not the other way around. Or would you prefer that we evolve into a form of Eloi regardless?

Not really, I think the whole argument that war is a 'human trait' is completely false, without anything other than anecdotal/historically-speculative arguments to back it up.

It's kind of difficult to ignore 12 millennia of human civilization, along with vast amounts of documented evidence as to the often constant warfare in many hunter gatherer societies, not to mention the violent predispositions of many of our closest primate relatives. If that is "anecdotal/historically-speculative", what do you have to offer by way of a rebuttal?

It's really amazing how less violent the world is now compared to how it was through most of the rest of history, and it's a trend that keeps on improving, with the public more aware than ever of the horrible and unjust stuff happening in the world, and who's responsible.

Well, it's less violent after a fashion; both of the relatively peaceful periods I cited earlier had their own low-level conflicts, with the Great Game in the nineteenth century and the Cold War in the twentieth. Perhaps this is the optimum solution for us in that it limits conflict, while supplying the stimulus of war that we apparently so crave.

And unfortunately there is more than enough evidence that shows that we do have a violent nature, as much as a creative one. We may be able to suppress or control it, or arguably do without it altogether, but it's a bit idealistic to pretend that it does not exist in the face of overwhelming evidence.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote:

I never suggested it was necessary in modern society, only that there is a price to losing it. At the very least you accept that it "may help adapt and develop species during evolution", in which case we would lose such help - unless you believe we have reached the apex of our own evolution.

Okey, fair enough. As far as its usefulness in evolution, I think it is long past its use for humans now in an evolutionary role; there's no need to stamp out non-competitive gene-lines in humans anymore.
Pretty soon (sometime this century probably) people will be able to modify their own genes, which is going to take us in a very interesting (and controversial) evolutionary direction.

The more important evolutions that are ahead of us now, are scientific, technological, political and societal (plus more that don't come to mind offhand); war and violence are inherently destructive to those particular 'evolutionary' processes.

That's all very well, but does not answer my question; how is it perfectly possible to have a world where these kind of socio/psychopaths aren't in power? All you're doing is extolling the benefits of such a World, without actually explaining how it can come about - or are you suggesting that modern news media has produced these aberrations throughout human history?

Ya okey, fair point; there isn't a perfect system known at the moment, that will keep socio/psychopaths away from power, in a completely foolproof way. So I guess there will always be the risk of war.

From what I can see though, there is quite a huge amount of improvement that can be made, and I think the Internet as a platform for unstoppable flow of information (if it is kept that way and not censored), has absolutely enormous untapped (currently only partially tapped) potential for change there.

It's not going to solve everything, not by a long way, but it will greatly help inform people better, more and more over time, but there will still be issues with apathy from the population and a lot of room for propagandistic manipulation. Such manipulation will just be less prevalent, thus it will (hopefully) become a lot more difficult to engage in war without proper justification.

Yet it exists and as I said, unless "you can eliminate this trait from human nature in all sides of a potential conflict", conflict will continue

Ah okey; well, yes, unless all sides agree to avoid violence, it will continue. There is just always an alternative other than violence, provided the parties involved are willing to take that other route.

Then you don't really want to eliminate man's desire for conflict, only control and suppress it until it may be useful. Fair enough.

Well, ya it can't be eliminated entirely as some people will always want more power over others, there will always be some socio/psychopaths in the world, so ya it's only sensible to have a defense.

Maybe, maybe not - that's why I suggested a thousand years time, when we may stumble upon them and not the other way around. Or would you prefer that we evolve into a form of Eloi regardless?

Heh, that article is an interesting read Must get that book sometime, as it has me enticed a bit now. I guess we'd either be screwed if they could travel faster than (or close to speed of) light, or if they couldn't, we'd have hundreds of years to develop the military technology to fight them

It's kind of difficult to ignore 12 millennia of human civilization, along with vast amounts of documented evidence as to the often constant warfare in many hunter gatherer societies, not to mention the violent predispositions of many of our closest primate relatives. If that is "anecdotal/historically-speculative", what do you have to offer by way of a rebuttal?

Well the history of violence and war is of course important, but it often gets misused in anecdotal ways to promote the argument: "it's always been that way, therefore it always will be that way"

That's the basic false argument behind it, which promotes the rebuttal "prove it won't always be that way", when the burden of proof should be the other way around "prove it is/will-be", which you can't do in an empirical way with historic/evolutionary arguments.

Another aspect of it which is inaccurate is it promotes speculation, particularly evolutionary speculation, which theorizes/speculates that a certain behaviour is innate and immutable, but with there being no empirical way to prove that.

Well, it's less violent after a fashion; both of the relatively peaceful periods I cited earlier had their own low-level conflicts, with the Great Game in the nineteenth century and the Cold War in the twentieth. Perhaps this is the optimum solution for us in that it limits conflict, while supplying the stimulus of war that we apparently so crave.

Well, I think we should always strive for better, and I don't see why we can't have no war eventually. The most antagonistic and aggressive state, most engaged in wars today, is the US, and there's literally no good reason at all for any of their wars since WWII, and they are politically preventable.

I think everyone can agree, the world would be a much better and more peaceful place, if the US was not as much of a warmongering nation as it is now.

And unfortunately there is more than enough evidence that shows that we do have a violent nature, as much as a creative one. We may be able to suppress or control it, or arguably do without it altogether, but it's a bit idealistic to pretend that it does not exist in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Well sure, humans get angry and can sometimes be violent, but there's no reason that has to inevitably lead to wars. The connection between human emotions/behaviour when it comes to violence, has very little connection to most wars anyway; it's usually about certain resources or strategic interests, rarely for the sake of violence itself.

slowburner

Excuse me for butting in.
Just to say this discussion has become increasingly interesting.
It has brought up a very significant concept which is not entirely unconnected with the OP.

If there is evidence that man has engaged in warlike behaviour since the dawn of his existence, there is every possibility that this trait has become so ingrained that it is a necessity.
Perhaps this warlike tendency originates in the fact that we are predators. For millennia we were hunters, and the most efficient hunters are organised groups, designed to kill.

I am not saying that all hunters are warriors, I am saying that the ability to hunt and kill animals is not at all far removed from the act of war.
The term sniper, for example, originates from British hunters who were expert at shooting snipe in India in the late 18th C. Many of the techniques in contemporary sniping originate from the expertise of deer stalking Scottish ghillies.
Shuffle forward a few more millennia, and the need for hunting has pretty well dissipated.
But the desire to hunt persists.
I believe that this desire to hunt persists, but has been adapted to new circumstances.

The need to hunt, and by tentative extension, the need for war have mutated into competition, sport, and are possibly the base instinct of ambition.
Freud believed that we have two primal instincts, Eros and Thanatos.
Eros is the force of love, life and creation, Thanatos is the force of death, destruction and chaos.
Without going into too much detail, the theory goes that these two forces are in a constant state of tension and produce a spectrum of character types according to the degree of either force.
It's probably a fair guess that if the person (for whatever reason) is motivated more by Thanatos, then he (most likely?) or she, would have more warlike tendencies.
We all know people who just have to beat everyone at everything, they always have to be the first, the fastest, the strongest, the cleverest, or whatever. Then there are people just too laid back to compete at all.
These are shades of Eros and Thanatos.

I am fully aware that I am not showing evidence for these ideas, I merely put them forward as a hypothesis for discussion, and hope that it is a valid contribution.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

Okey, fair enough. As far as its usefulness in evolution, I think it is long past its use for humans now in an evolutionary role; there's no need to stamp out non-competitive gene-lines in humans anymore.

How do you know that those genes that give rise to our violent nature are not also those that give rise to our competitive one?

The more important evolutions that are ahead of us now, are scientific, technological, political and societal (plus more that don't come to mind offhand); war and violence are inherently destructive to those particular 'evolutionary' processes.

Or complimentary to them. As already pointed out warfare has proven an incredible stimulus to science and innovation; look at technology pre and post World War I, or World War II, or the Napoleonic Wars.

From what I can see though, there is quite a huge amount of improvement that can be made, and I think the Internet as a platform for unstoppable flow of information (if it is kept that way and not censored), has absolutely enormous untapped (currently only partially tapped) potential for change there.

Yes and no. Commercially and socially it has huge implications, but I wouldn't overestimate it either. After all, it is ultimately still subordinate to violence - or what do you think censorship is?

It's not going to solve everything, not by a long way, but it will greatly help inform people better, more and more over time, but there will still be issues with apathy from the population and a lot of room for propagandistic manipulation. Such manipulation will just be less prevalent, thus it will (hopefully) become a lot more difficult to engage in war without proper justification.

The same was suggested of film, television and even printing; that they would bring truth to the populous. The propagandists adapted, and so they shall on the Internet too.

Ah okey; well, yes, unless all sides agree to avoid violence, it will continue. There is just always an alternative other than violence, provided the parties involved are willing to take that other route.

Correct.

Well, ya it can't be eliminated entirely as some people will always want more power over others, there will always be some socio/psychopaths in the world, so ya it's only sensible to have a defense.

Which means that to eliminate our violent nature is done so at our peril.

Heh, that article is an interesting read Must get that book sometime, as it has me enticed a bit now.

I wouldn't take it too seriously though; Wells was ultimately influenced by the Victorian fashion for social Darwinism too.

Well the history of violence and war is of course important, but it often gets misused in anecdotal ways to promote the argument: "it's always been that way, therefore it always will be that way"

Yes and no. It will always lurk in our genetic code, unless we choose to eradicate it even there, and there's a price to that, as I've said. However we are also creatures of reason and can be somewhat rough-hewed through social means so that its negative implications are minimized.

Unfortunately, man is not tabula rasa, so there will always be very real limits to this - as we discovered with communism.

I think everyone can agree, the world would be a much better and more peaceful place, if the US was not as much of a warmongering nation as it is now.

It might be, but we'd all probably be speaking Russian too. Overall, the question of the US being good/evil/whatever is another discussion altogether.

The Corinthian

slowburner wrote: »

If there is evidence that man has engaged in warlike behaviour since the dawn of his existence, there is every possibility that this trait has become so ingrained that it is a necessity.
Perhaps this warlike tendency originates in the fact that we are predators. For millennia we were hunters, and the most efficient hunters are organised groups, designed to kill.

This is one area where I would partially agree with Scanlas; biologically we are still more adapted to be hunter gatherers. Certainly we've changed and adapted too as a result of 12,000 years of civilizations - the development of the overbite is is quite recent, for example.

However, we still retain many of the habits of hunter gatherers; males still group round each other competing for and coalescing to an alpha male. Females still compete against each other, especially when there is a male around. Females are, allegedly, better equipped at multi-tasking - which no doubt was a useful ability if you were gathering and caring for a child at the same time. Males still gravitate towards hunting and conflict - even if it's just in the movies we watch. Sexual dimorphism is still pronounced, not only in terms of physical strength but even things such as spacial acuity (an important trait for hunting) for males.

And all this is hardly surprising, given that if we look at only our own species, the Homo Sapien, we've been hunter gatherers for all but 12 our of about 200 thousand years; if this was a day, it would mean that we stopped being hunter gatherers just over 95 minutes ago. And all this on the back of what we inherited from previous hominid ancestors.

So, I'd agree with you; the desire to hunt persists, but has been adapted to new circumstances.

I am fully aware that I am not showing evidence for these ideas, I merely put them forward as a hypothesis for discussion, and hope that it is a valid contribution.

I think there's plenty of evidence there. While we've been concentrating on evidence of humanity's warlike nature to date in this discussion, our creative side is just as well documented, from prehistoric cave paintings, to classical philosophy, through to art and music.

I think it is fairly self evident that we are a mixture of the two, or perhaps an interaction of the two.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote:

How do you know that those genes that give rise to our violent nature are not also those that give rise to our competitive one?

That wasn't what the quote was talking about, we were talking about conflict (war, violence) and that it is not a necessary part of human society.

Or complimentary to them. As already pointed out warfare has proven an incredible stimulus to science and innovation; look at technology pre and post World War I, or World War II, or the Napoleonic Wars.

There's no doubt that war stimulates technological development, but if the same money that is put into war is put into science directly instead, you would have incredibly more efficient use of resources, and more technological/scientific gain.

Just look at the US 'defence' budget, or the money spent over the last 12 years on wars (over a trillion dollars), and imagine if that were put into raw science.

Yes and no. Commercially and socially it has huge implications, but I wouldn't overestimate it either. After all, it is ultimately still subordinate to violence - or what do you think censorship is?

Well, the whole premise of the argument is that the Internet remains free from censorship, which so far it is; the Internet can not be politically censored in a way which is not blindingly obvious and corrupt, and you would need something akin to a totalitarian state to contain the public outrage over seeing that.

The same was suggested of film, television and even printing; that they would bring truth to the populous. The propagandists adapted, and so they shall on the Internet too.

The propagandists only succeeded on those other platforms, because they had 100% complete control over them, and could 100% censor dissenting voices.

That is why the Internet is so special, it completely levels the playing field, and it is impossible to censor the Internet in a way that shuts down all dissenting voices, unless you back that up with a totalitarian state which permits violence and extremely harsh criminalization of political dissent.

It's an all-or-nothing thing when it comes to censorship; you must either completely censor the Internet, or not censor it at all. Partial censorship on the Internet can trivially be routed around, and the complete censorship necessary to stop that, can only come about in the most extreme totalitarian state.

It is a game changer basically, and it's only barely starting to achieve it's potential; the efforts of governments around the world to censor the Internet in various ways (most perniciously with overbearing copyright laws), show government fear of the Internet (in my opinion), and the very start of the fight between complete censorship or complete freedom of information on the Internet.

Which means that to eliminate our violent nature is done so at our peril.

No, to have an adequate defence doesn't equate to inevitable war.

Yes and no. It will always lurk in our genetic code, unless we choose to eradicate it even there, and there's a price to that, as I've said.

See that's exactly the kind of unempirical argument I was talking about; it's taking genetic and evolutionary theory, and using it to speculate in a way that isn't supported empirically.

If you debate against that kind of an argument, you are accepting the burden of proof when the argument presented to you is not supported by any proof (just by speculation).

It might be, but we'd all probably be speaking Russian too. Overall, the question of the US being good/evil/whatever is another discussion altogether.

Not really, there isn't a single war the US undertook since WWII which saved us from any danger; Russia collapsed itself primarily.

Even if you want to make events during the cold war debateable, then things would at least still have been better if the US did not engage in its wars since then.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

That wasn't what the quote was talking about, we were talking about conflict (war, violence) and that it is not a necessary part of human society.

I know, which is why I postulated that those genes that engender completion are either dependant or the same as those that engender conflict.

There's no doubt that war stimulates technological development, but if the same money that is put into war is put into science directly instead, you would have incredibly more efficient use of resources, and more technological/scientific gain.

Perhaps, but I think you're confusing resource with impetus.

Well, the whole premise of the argument is that the Internet remains free from censorship, which so far it is; the Internet can not be politically censored in a way which is not blindingly obvious and corrupt, and you would need something akin to a totalitarian state to contain the public outrage over seeing that.

And the truth will win out? That's a little naive, don't you think?

The propagandists only succeeded on those other platforms, because they had 100% complete control over them, and could 100% censor dissenting voices.

That's actually completely untrue, if it were all media would speak with uniformity and it does not.

The Internet is a game changer all right, but so was television, so was the printing press.

No, to have an adequate defence doesn't equate to inevitable war.

Not what I said. What I suggested was that to eliminate our violent nature would in effect eliminate our capacity to defend ourselves also; how can a man defend himself if he has neither the will nor inclination to do so?

See that's exactly the kind of unempirical argument I was talking about; it's taking genetic and evolutionary theory, and using it to speculate in a way that isn't supported empirically.

So it would be false to suggest that genetic traits persist, often long after a species has evolved into another? I think there's plenty of empirical evidence to support that assertion, even the inheritance of violent traits in hominids.

Of course, we may also such traits in the course of our evolution, but to date the empirical evidence points to it being with us for at least a little while longer.

I've already put forward said empirical evidence earlier, would you like me to repeat it?

Not really, there isn't a single war the US undertook since WWII which saved us from any danger; Russia collapsed itself primarily.

I would disagree with both those positions; I really don't think that one can judge the US, or anyone else, in such absolutist terms as you have. Neither do I think it wise to suggest that the US had no part in stemming Soviet expansion (at the very least into Western Europe) or contributing to its eventual economic collapse.

Either way, it's a different discussion which if engaged in would simply serve to wreck the current one.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote:

And the truth will win out? That's a little naive, don't you think?

There will still be many ways to hide things and suppress the truth, but once information gets onto the Internet, and into the right hands, it's unstoppable.

I think as time goes on, the population of countries will realize more and more that there is no excuse for the lack of transparency in their governments, and will demand that they make this information available on the Internet (which is the most cost effective way of publishing information, and with the most broad access).

If the increasing movement for greater transparency succeeds, it will make corruption far more difficult (but not impossible admittedly), and will greatly reduce the number of ways governments can hide corruption.

The Internet will not be a 100% perfect truth/information utopia, but over time it will make an incredible difference compared to how things are now.

That's actually completely untrue, if it were all media would speak with uniformity and it does not.

It's not untrue though, look at any modern news organization, they have a monopoly on political agenda-setting, which is mostly abused to dissuade and punish dissent.

All the media platforms you described were one-way, from the broacaster to you, and only that. The Internet allows everyone to share their opinion, and for everyone to choose their sources of information, without any censorship; modern news media simply does not do that, they maintain a monopolistic situation.

Not what I said. What I suggested was that to eliminate our violent nature would in effect eliminate our capacity to defend ourselves also; how can a man defend himself if he has neither the will nor inclination to do so?

You don't need to have a "violent nature" (which is a pretty generic and undefined term) to defend yourself, and a debate centralized over the term "violent nature", without being specific, allows the argument to be spun off in any number of obfuscatory directions (so effectively, this line of argument is becoming meaningless).

So it would be false to suggest that genetic traits persist, often long after a species has evolved into another?

That wasn't the argument; the whole evolutionary/genetic/behaviour traits leading to inevitable war argument can not be anything other than speculative, because their is no empirical evidence backing that, just evidence that humans can be violent.

Your arguments may revolve around the trait of violence, but my arguments revolve around the inevitability of war, I'm not concerned with violence as a part of human behaviour.

I would disagree with both those positions; I really don't think that one can judge the US, or anyone else, in such absolutist terms as you have. Neither do I think it wise to suggest that the US had no part in stemming Soviet expansion (at the very least into Western Europe) or contributing to its eventual economic collapse.

Either way, it's a different discussion which if engaged in would simply serve to wreck the current one.

Ya fair enough Will agree to disagree so.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

The Internet will not be a 100% perfect truth/information utopia, but over time it will make an incredible difference compared to how things are now.

I think we'd best leave it at this, because I've already spent enough time on this thread arguing with one individual who was convinced of his own vision of utopia, without really being able to roadmap how it is possible, without having to address another such discussion, because they always end up with the idealist (that's you) getting upset that I don't feel the same way.

In any case, the relevance of the Internet as some form of evolutionary game changer has certainly not been demonstrated, without which it is tangential to the core discussion.

You don't need to have a "violent nature" (which is a pretty generic and undefined term) to defend yourself, and a debate centralized over the term "violent nature", without being specific, allows the argument to be spun off in any number of obfuscatory directions (so effectively, this line of argument is becoming meaningless).

Violent nature; predisposition towards physical aggression. Give a man without this a rifle and set him against one with it and see what happens.

I can assure you it is not meaningless for either of them.

That wasn't the argument; the whole evolutionary/genetic/behaviour traits leading to inevitable war argument can not be anything other than speculative, because their is no empirical evidence backing that, just evidence that humans can be violent.

Just as speculative as giving a two-year old child a sharp knife will result in a nasty accident. Would you care to test that notion?

Your arguments may revolve around the trait of violence, but my arguments revolve around the inevitability of war, I'm not concerned with violence as a part of human behaviour.

Why not? Have we not accepted that the two are related?