Evolutionary necessity of war/conflict?

as125634do

Those periods of peace were just individuals getting slaughtered cos they didnt agree with the rest. Large scale war is just karma !!

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

...

Well, ok, the arguments are going in circles quite a bit so just going to leave it where it is.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well, ok, the arguments are going in circles quite a bit so just going to leave it where it is.

They're not though. Leaving aside the distraction of a polemic on US foreign policy, that really has nothing to do with the topic, you've made a number of assertions.

Firstly that man does not have a violent nature (by nature). When presented with historical and anthropological evidence to the contrary, you've dismissed this as somehow not being empirical, even though it actually is; if you care to look up the definition of the term.

I think you were confusing empirical with some requirement for absolute proof; the exact gene that would cause such violent behaviour. In reality, we don't need to know that to determine it exists, any more than we need to identify the graviton to determine that gravity exists.

So it's not going around in circles, it's just that your argument has be rebutted. If you want to call it going around in circles, then fine.

However, I did step away from your Internet changing the World theory, because (other than being only tenuously on topic) we probably would end up going around in circles on that one. I appreciate that you strongly believe that it will, but you've not demonstrated or even really explained how, and experience tells me that in such discussions your explanations would simply expand ad infinitum until they make absolutely no sense.

KyussBishop

I don't think I've asserted that man doesn't have a violent nature; I haven't stated an opinion one way or another about that, it's a bit too general a term.

What I disagree with, is taking "man has a violent nature", in this case as an evolutionary/genetic thing that affects behaviour i.e. men can be violent sometimes, and extrapolating that it makes war inevitable.

You've said specifically you don't think that war is inevitable I think, but then provide a lot of arguments (usually based on the violent nature stuff), which seems to suggest it strongly; we've seemed to iterate variations of that argument a few times, so it felt a bit like going in circles.


I don't actually agree or disagree with "man has a violent nature", it's a general statement which is correct in a limited sense, but is too easily applied to support other arguments where its interpretation is inaccurate.

That's part of the problem with arguments based on evolutionary theory and anthropology, they make perfect sense in a lot of situations, but they are extremely open to interpretation in an inaccurate way because they make very general statements about the psychology of people.

I've tried to read up on this a bit to nail it better, and there's a pretty good Wikipedia article here on the faults of 'evolutionary psychology':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

Specifically this bit, explains part of the issue here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology#Testability

A semi-decent quote:

"You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."

So to me, the use of arguments based on evolution to make general statements, is extremely prone to, well...generalization (surprise); which allows you to easily take a small fact or set of facts, and expand it/them to support a ton of arguments it doesn't support.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't think I've asserted that man doesn't have a violent nature; I haven't stated an opinion one way or another about that, it's a bit too general a term.

What I disagree with, is taking "man has a violent nature", in this case as an evolutionary/genetic thing that affects behaviour i.e. men can be violent sometimes, and extrapolating that it makes war inevitable.

Let me get this straight:

1. You do not assert that man doesn't have a violent nature, yet
2. you reject that man has a violent nature.

You don't see a contradiction?

You've said specifically you don't think that war is inevitable I think, but then provide a lot of arguments (usually based on the violent nature stuff), which seems to suggest it strongly; we've seemed to iterate variations of that argument a few times, so it felt a bit like going in circles.

The inevitability of war if man has a violent nature (or more correctly if a facet of man's nature is violent), is simply a question of probability. As I suggested earlier on, put a two-year old in a room and give them a sharp knife to play with and they may not hurt themselves. However, the longer you leave them playing with it, the greater the probability is that they will and thus it becomes inevitable in time.

The same can be said of any population (or populations) over time, where violence is part of the nature of those populations, that the violence will eventually manifest itself.

Do you follow now?

I don't actually agree or disagree with "man has a violent nature", it's a general statement which is correct in a limited sense, but is too easily applied to support other arguments where its interpretation is inaccurate.

Give an example of such an argument.

I've tried to read up on this a bit to nail it better, and there's a pretty good Wikipedia article here on the faults of 'evolutionary psychology':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology

Specifically this bit, explains part of the issue here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology#Testability

I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone dragged Chomsky into this.

So to me, the use of arguments based on evolution to make general statements, is extremely prone to, well...generalization (surprise); which allows you to easily take a small fact or set of facts, and expand it/them to support a ton of arguments it doesn't support.

Except I've not really made any such wild extrapolations. Certainly if part of our nature is violent [1] (do we agree on this much?), it's hardly a stretch that given enough time the probability of our turning to war becomes inevitable (approaches a value of one) [2].

And I have postulated that a man who possess a violent nature is better equipped towards violent defence than one without [3].

And I have theorised that much of our advancement may be as a result of the combination of both our creative and destructive sides of our nature [4].

Have I left anything out? If not, how are any of these either false based upon the arguments and evidence, or in the case of the last, how have I suggested this is true, rather than simply propose it.

Indeed, the only person who has made absolutist assertions here has been you.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

I don't think I've asserted that man doesn't have a violent nature; I haven't stated an opinion one way or another about that, it's a bit too general a term.

What I disagree with, is taking "man has a violent nature", in this case as an evolutionary/genetic thing that affects behaviour i.e. men can be violent sometimes, and extrapolating that it makes war inevitable.

Let me get this straight:

1. You do not assert that man doesn't have a violent nature, yet
2. you reject that man has a violent nature.

You don't see a contradiction?

Eh? Please find quote an example of point 2 there, and show me how it says "man does not have a violent nature".

The Corinthian wrote:

The inevitability of war if man has a violent nature (or more correctly if a facet of man's nature is violent), is simply a question of probability. As I suggested earlier on, put a two-year old in a room and give them a sharp knife to play with and they may not hurt themselves. However, the longer you leave them playing with it, the greater the probability is that they will and thus it becomes inevitable in time.

The same can be said of any population (or populations) over time, where violence is part of the nature of those populations, that the violence will eventually manifest itself.

Do you follow now?

Seriously, that is ridiculously simplistic; I don't want to continue a drawn out debate with stuff like this.

The Corinthian wrote:

suppose it was only a matter of time before someone dragged Chomsky into this.

:rolleyes: Ya I'm not altogether surprised you attack the person (Chomsky) and not the argument, and use that one small bit to ignore the rest of what I said.

This really is going around in circles now, I've explained at length and backed up why I don't like arguing against generalizations based on 'evolutionary psychology' or the like.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

Eh? Please find quote an example of point 2 there, and show me how it says "man does not have a violent nature".

Actually, reading over what you wrote again, I misread you. I apologise.

Seriously, that is ridiculously simplistic; I don't want to continue a drawn out debate with stuff like this.

You'll need to back up that dismissal, otherwise it's just an excuse.

:rolleyes: Ya I'm not altogether surprised you attack the person (Chomsky) and not the argument, and use that one small bit to ignore the rest of what I said.

I didn't ignore it. I responded, and now you've ignored that response, snipping the end of my post.

This really is going around in circles now, I've explained at length and backed up why I don't like arguing against generalizations based on 'evolutionary psychology' or the like.

What generalizations? I listed out everything I may have proposed and asked you to address how I have erred in the manner you describe, because I do not believe I have done so.

Instead, I believe you are using this as a straw man argument to facilitate your exit from a discussion you're not doing too well in.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote:

You'll need to back up that dismissal, otherwise it's just an excuse.

Okey I'll take back the dismissal as I don't want to continue the debate over it.

The Corinthian wrote:

I didn't ignore it. I responded, and now you've ignored that response, snipping the end of my post.

What generalizations? I listed out everything I may have proposed and asked you to address how I have erred in the manner you describe, because I do not believe I have done so.

Instead, I believe you are using this as a straw man argument to facilitate your exit from a discussion you're not doing too well in.

Okey, well without getting into a continued debate about it, I'll just state the points I disagree with, and we'll need to disagree:

The inevitability of war if man has a violent nature (or more correctly if a facet of man's nature is violent), is simply a question of probability.

I disagree with this, I think this is an example of a generalized use of the term "violent nature".

Certainly if part of our nature is violent [1] (do we agree on this much?), it's hardly a stretch that given enough time the probability of our turning to war becomes inevitable (approaches a value of one) [2].

I disagree with this, for same reasons as above.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

Okey, well without getting into a continued debate about it, I'll just state the points I disagree with, and we'll need to disagree:

I disagree with this, I think this is an example of a generalized use of the term "violent nature".

I hardly see how it is generalized. I am saying that the violent facet of human nature is a determinant or influence in our behaviour - you accept that it exists, so then your only objection at this point would be that it is not a determinant or influence in our behaviour. Fair enough, except there is more than sufficient empirical evidence from our history that regardless of being in permanent civilizations, migratory hunter gatherers or whatever, war (that is inter-human conflict) has been a constant.

This points to it being a determinant or influence in our behaviour, observable in numerous environments and social paradigms - unless you have a better explanation as to why we keep on doing this.

On that basis, it is not difficult to extrapolate that while probability of conflict is lower in certain circumstances (low population density with rich local resources, for example), it still remains. Given enough time, even small probabilities will ultimately see at least one positive instance, which means that even in the best case scenario one could have peace for years, decades or centuries, but eventually conflict will eventually break out.

Now, if you would care to explain to me where I have made any damning generalizations, feel free to do so as I have already asked.

I disagree with this, for same reasons as above.

I would imagine this is because it is the same point; I was repeating it in summation at the end of my post.

I also note you did not appear to oppose my other two points and given you accept that part of our nature is violent, it appears you only disagree with me on the second point.