What if man were not a fool stupid bastard?

[lounge60]

What if human race in XX century not had been so stupid? If not had been I,II world wars and cold war? No fascism,comunism,nazism,violent nationalism? What if men had been taken care above all of tecnological and medical research? where we would be now,and what kind of world would be now?

[bluestraggler]

What if human race in XX century not had been so stupid? If not had been I,II world wars and cold war? No fascism,comunism,nazism,violent nationalism? What if men had been taken care above all of tecnological and medical research? where we would be now,and what kind of world would be now?
Probably scratching in the dirt on some dusty savanna plain, digging for roots and grubs.
Evolution, biological or technological, is generally a product of conflict or hardship - "challenge and response" and all that. Sad to say, if we all "just get along" there would be very little progress.

[CCA]

Probably scratching in the dirt on some dusty savanna plain, digging for roots and grubs.
Evolution, biological or technological, is generally a product of conflict or hardship - "challenge and response" and all that. Sad to say, if we all "just get along" there would be very little progress.

Amen, we'd be living peacefully among ourselves ,but we'd be slaves to monkeys

[Spike Torch]

What if human race in XX century not had been so stupid? If not had been I,II world wars and cold war? No fascism,comunism,nazism,violent nationalism? What if men had been taken care above all of tecnological and medical research? where we would be now,and what kind of world would be now?

This is ASB territory.

[lounge60]

I speak of XX CENTURY. Competition between men and nations are a thing,crazy nationalism,world wars,fascism and communism another.I don't say what if men were angels,but what if in XX century had been less stupids and more wises?

[Bismarck1]

it would have to be a long time ago, for by the 20th century, nationalism was at it's hight, capitalism creates ineaqualities and as a result communism is the answer. their had been an arms race going on since the 19th century. in short this is asb.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

What if human race in XX century not had been so stupid? If not had been I,II world wars and cold war? No fascism,comunism,nazism,violent nationalism? What if men had been taken care above all of tecnological and medical research? where we would be now,and what kind of world would be now?

And who the fuck made you the innocent and all-knowing judge of humanity?

[Susano]

Its just... well, its just no valid WI. The questons too simple. I mean, so whatr do you propose? Mass enlightment of people who suddenly see the error of their ways? Yeah, well that would be AS allright. However, you cant just ask this question without giving any reaosn how and why it should happen!

Besides, man in the 20th century was no more uncivilised as in earlier enturies. He was jsut as agressive, hateful an denvious as his ancestors. He just had better technology at his disposal, so the destrcution became greater.

And I disagree with that we evolve through cnflict. The common argument is to look at all the inventions made in wartimes, but that is a faulty argument. Those are mostly inventions of engineering, not of science. In war, you try to find ways to use everything you have in some capacity in the war. But real development and advancement only comes through basic research, which prospers most in peace times.

[abas]

Its just... well, its just no valid WI. The questons too simple. I mean, so whatr do you propose? Mass enlightment of people who suddenly see the error of their ways? Yeah, well that would be AS allright. However, you cant just ask this question without giving any reaosn how and why it should happen!

Besides, man in the 20th century was no more uncivilised as in earlier enturies. He was jsut as agressive, hateful an denvious as his ancestors. He just had better technology at his disposal, so the destrcution became greater.

And I disagree with that we evolve through cnflict. The common argument is to look at all the inventions made in wartimes, but that is a faulty argument. Those are mostly inventions of engineering, not of science. In war, you try to find ways to use everything you have in some capacity in the war. But real development and advancement only comes through basic research, which prospers most in peace times.
You need yet another "true way":rolleyes:

[Blochead]

What if human race in XX century not had been so stupid? If not had been I,II world wars and cold war? No fascism,comunism,nazism,violent nationalism? What if men had been taken care above all of tecnological and medical research? where we would be now,and what kind of world would be now?

Alien Space Bats.

EDIT: Oh, and like the 19th century monarchies and imperialist systems were so great... Has it occurred to you that fool-stupid-bastardliness is not a characteristic unique to 20th century man?

[Burton K Wheeler]

Best WI ever.

[Romulus Augustulus]

Actually, humans are inherently violent; we're essentially killer apes. See, our very distant ancestors evolved stereoscopic vision and fairly sophisticated brains because they were tree-dwelling insectivores and needed to be able to get from branch to branch and get insects and fruit, but our intelligence was developed to the present-day extent because their descendants, the first recognizable human beings, walked upright on the savannah, hunting down and killing things. First off, generally predators are the smartest animals, on account of how you need a much more sophisticated CNS to be able to figure out how to attack and kill another animal, for obvious reasons. Next off, the additional protein in their diet enabled them to grow big, meaty, powerful brains. So actually violence and killing is in our genes. This includes intraspecies violence: generally humans organize themselves into units approximating tribes. Within the tribe generally people get along, but outside the tribe anything goes. Ever heard of endemic warfare among tribal peoples? Virtually all tribal societies engaged in chronic primitive warfare: it isn't warfare as we know it, being constant raids and ambushes, but it was quite bloody: every generation, something like 20% of the total population would die in warfare. Again, though, this encouraged further development of intelligence and technology in response to such selection pressures. So, war is inevitable.

Blamining "civilized" man is stupid, too: agricultural societies, civilized ones, are actually less violent than their tribal counterparts. It comes down to ecology: the hunter-gatherers are simply stripping an area of biomass, then moving on. (They always reach carrying capacity; the notion that they could control their population is bullshit.) By the time they get back, the biomass has grown back and they can resume the cycle. This does, however, put them at the mercy of nature and leaves them on the cusp of starvation; they are forced to raid their neighbors for survival. Agriculture, by comparison, is much more secure and efficient; furthermore, in an agricultural society, you have specialists dedicated to combat whereas in a tribal society more or less all the men fight. So, percentage-wise, civilized warfare is actually less bloody.

The WI is totally implausible; yeah, it's in ASB territory.

Next off, the horrendous violence of the 20th century probably wasn't much more than would be expected otherwise; it's just that larger populations and advanced technologies would mean that the death toll was larger than before.

To summarize:

1. War inevitable
2. War actually probably beneficial for humans; it was why humans became so intelligent in the first place. Also, it keeps selection pressures up on populations, encourages innovations, etc. Without that kind of selection pressure, you get people going all weak and decadent
3. Most of the technological innovations of the 20th century were originally military technology; development was encouraged by all the fighting
4. The violence and fighting probably served to limit what would otherwise have been a catastrophic population explosion; probably all those deaths bought us some time

That is all; no offense.

[NapoleonXIV]

Who says humanity was all that stupid in the 20thc? One might well argue that what caused all the conflict was the brilliance of the innovations, which then caused, or threatened, a great deal of change, and the change, or threat of same, was the actual problem.

[NapoleonXIV]

War actually probably beneficial for humans; it was why humans became so intelligent in the first place. Also, it keeps selection pressures up on populations, encourages innovations, etc. Without that kind of selection pressure, you get people going all weak and decadent

War is not eugenic, it hasn't been since WWI. That's one of the main problems of WWI, everybody had this romantic ideal of the Epic Struggle which was regrettable but nevertheless brought out 'the best and brightest' in everybody. What they got was industrial carnage, assembly line mayhem and death untouched by human hands, more often from ratborne disease than the enemy and even then being delivered in shrapnel or the anonymous machine gun bullet. Goodness, strength, bravery, even speed and intelligence, all mean nothing. Survival in modern war is a matter of random chance more than anything else.

(It might have been all along. You should read some Doestoyevsky instead of the War Nerd:p )

And if you think I'm being my typical liberal pantywaist self, please refer to Mein Kampf, by A. Hitler. I can't remember the page or words but the above is pretty much paraphrased from it (or one of its overall conclusions.)

[Romulus Augustulus]

Even in that sort of environment you do keep selection pressures up: resistance to disease, physical toughness, etc.

Of course, warfare during the 20th century (even civilized warfare...) has been something of an aberration. Historically it's been primitive warfare, which has kept selection pressures up.

Besides, it's important to keep those pressures up; it keeps everything fresh and alive. Without that sort of thing you have stagnant, decadent societies. So, war historically played that role.

I'd say a lot of what makes modern cubicle farms and other office environments so unpleasant is the dehumanizing effect; humans are predators. We aren't meant to be stuck in little boxes and spend sixteen hours a day bent over a keyboard staring into a monitor. Not pleasant.

[Grimm Reaper]

I was thinking that one result would be that this would be one incredibly dull board...

[NapoleonXIV]

Even in that sort of environment you do keep selection pressures up: resistance to disease, physical toughness, etc.

Of course, warfare during the 20th century (even civilized warfare...) has been something of an aberration. Historically it's been primitive warfare, which has kept selection pressures up.

Besides, it's important to keep those pressures up; it keeps everything fresh and alive. Without that sort of thing you have stagnant, decadent societies. So, war historically played that role.

I'd say a lot of what makes modern cubicle farms and other office environments so unpleasant is the dehumanizing effect; humans are predators. We aren't meant to be stuck in little boxes and spend sixteen hours a day bent over a keyboard staring into a monitor. Not pleasant.

Yeh, like the fresh aliveness that overcame Europe from 1800 to 1815, and how France, which had been arguably the most powerful nation in the world in 1800, has never really recovered.

Or the Springlike resurgence of Germany after the 30 years war, they caught up to the rest of Europe in unifying by what, 1866.

Or the cleansing revitalization which the mongols brought to south central and southwest Asia, both areas which were famed for prosperity and advancement from antiquity, and which remain poor backwaters to the present.

You need to read more actual history and draw your own conclusions instead of listening to people who talk about "decadence" and suchlike. The Romans, the example these people are always using, were "decadent" in the beginning and in the end. That was their culture. They had their greatest period under the "pax Romana" and their decline was due to massive Civil Wars and fighting among themselves, not a comforatable lifestyle

[Romulus Augustulus]

Are you a pacifist? Just wondering.

Back to this, though: the Napoleonic Wars kept things in Europe interesting by enabling the rise of Germany and changing things around in Europe; probably they contributed to the Industrial Revolution. It enabled a new power, Britain, to become dominant; furthermore, the Napoleonic Wars led to significant further change in Europe as well.

Although the Mongols did devastate quite a few areas, they also brought East and West into contact; their role in enabling the Renaissance (even bringing the plague) and enabling Europe to advance and have its industrial revolution is too often overlooked.

The Thirty Years' War, again, led to further conflict: it probably contributed to the occurrence of the Napoleonic War. Again, despite doubt the political changes that led to the Industrial Revolution would have occurred.

[Romulus Augustulus]

Again, though, it's a Malthusian thing: generally, human populations tend to increase until they are limited somehow. Sometimes it is plague, sometimes it is famine, sometimes it is warfare. So, it serves to control populations.

And it does keep selection pressures up on populations: generally, it takes a great deal of physical toughness, resistance to disease, intelligence, etc. to be able to survive a war.

It also has a kind of "blender" effect; returning to the Mongol conquests, they did build up quite an empire; they brought Europe and Asia into contact with each other and the exchange was important in bringing about the European Renaissance. Even the Black Plague was important to some extent: the damage done by the pandemic was devastating in the short term, but the social changes it precipitated did bring about the Renaissance.

[Smaug]

it would have to be a long time ago, for by the 20th century, nationalism was at it's hight, capitalism creates ineaqualities and as a result communism is the answer. their had been an arms race going on since the 19th century. in short this is asb.


I agree. These things weren't invented in the 20th Century, they were dialed- in and perfected.

[Susano]

Besides, it's important to keep those pressures up; it keeps everything fresh and alive. Without that sort of thing you have stagnant, decadent societies. So, war historically played that role.
Even if that was true (which it isnt): So what? Whats so bad living in a peaceful, desintersted, stagnating but wealthy society?

Rommy, your entire line of logic is flawed from the beginning. What if there was no conflict at th ebeginning of human evolution? Well,there still would have been evolution! A slower-paced one maybe, with more subtle means, but there would have. Of course, it wouldnt have been "us" developing, it would have been one or even several alternate species. But does it mean that, only because we evolved out of conclit, we have some kidna obligation to conflict? No, of course not, thats patent nonsense! We have no obligation to anything! So its quite irrelevant what happebned at the beginning of, and throughout human evolution.

We are where we are, and now we have to see how to make the best of the future. And, quite frankly, experiencing war sucks. Thats not exactly the "best of the future". It might be (it isnt so, but lets say for the sake of agrument) our descendants will be stronger, more intelligent, better because of the eugenics of war - but if theres only war, their lives still will suck. Whats the POINT in becoming stronger, mor eintelligent and more robust if you have miserable lives? There simply is no POINT to that. We already ARE at the absolute top of the food chain. Nothing can threaten our position! So WHY trying to become better (and as said, war is a miserable, inefficient way for that anyways)? We ARE already better then everything else. So, in that security, we might as well enjoy our lives!

And thats only genetics, which happens in timespans entirely outside of our understanding. For social development, war is poison. You see, social development, no matter how you define it and what you mean by it, has two bases: Technologcial Development, and Economical Development, which both also interact, of course. I dont think I need to explain why war is bad for economics. Yeah, right, here is the arments industry, but OVERALL economy will suffer, even in countries not directly touched by it. And in those countries that are directly touched by it, there is of course also the factor of widespread destruction. As a side effect of that, Technologcial Development also comes to a halt during war. You wont have much of true research, when your scientists are too busy making inventions out of the scientifical standard you have. Those inventions made inw ar are inventions of engineering: Executing, so to say, the scientifc standard you already have. But to really RAISE that standard, you need an intact, prospering economy, and a focus elsewhere then military.

So war is bad for technoloical and economical development, and with that also for civilisatory, cultural, psychologcial, etc etc etc development. Only long, prospering peace times will achieve that. And, compared to world history, we did have that the last 60 years. And guess what, we did get prospering, flourishing society!

So, in short: Youre incorrect, Rommy. War is bad for mankind, no matter mankinds past.

[Faeelin]

We are where we are, and now we have to see how to make the best of the future. And, quite frankly, experiencing war sucks. Thats not exactly the "best of the future". It might be (it isnt so, but lets say for the sake of agrument) our descendants will be stronger, more intelligent, better because of the eugenics of war - but if theres only war, their lives still will suck. Whats the POINT in becoming stronger, mor eintelligent and more robust if you have miserable lives? There simply is no POINT to that. We already ARE at the absolute top of the food chain. Nothing can threaten our position! So WHY trying to become better (and as said, war is a miserable, inefficient way for that anyways)? We ARE already better then everything else. So, in that security, we might as well enjoy our lives!

Ah, but as the flames burned their villas and centuries of literature to ashes, Roman citizens could watch as their family was slaughtered by Visigoths serenely, confident that the Dark Ages would in the long run benefit humanity. :D

[Romulus Augustulus]

I live in a stagnating, decadent society, and believe me, it sucks. Really, really sucks. I pity the poor bastards who are stuck in cubicles, for instance...

Also, war and conflict is how humans got to be able to develop to this extent in the first pace; evolutionary pressure from war and conflict kept human evolution going at a fast pace.

But let's get back to the main point.

Considering human nature, war is inevitable. Why? Again, you have to look back at how humans evolved. Our very distant ancestors were tree-dwelling insectivores; they initially developed stereo vision and fairly powerful brains to deal with the challenges they'd face as tree-dwellers: snatching up insects and fruits, as well as getting from tree-branch to tree-branch without dropping off and falling to a painful death. This provided a base for later development. We probably owe our human anatomical traits to trees: stereo vision, brains, hands, etc. It took dwelling on land to develop those traits to the present extent.

At some point some other distant ancestors of ours, descendants of the tree-dwellers, moved onto the ground and walked upright. This necessitated physiological changes for life on the ground: for instance, a bipedal gait, with everything that entails. In fact, humans are excellent distance runners: over long distances, we can run down practically any animal on the planet. The early humans somehow got to hunting and killing animals for meat; the fact that their hands were well-suited for tool use, having opposable thumbs and being quite precise and flexible, helped immensely. The additional protein in the human diet enabled an increase in human intelligence, as a great deal of protein is necessary to support the kind of brain human beings have. So, right off the bat, we're killer apes: our ancestors evolved really, really big brains due to hunting. This led to a sort of feedback loop: the additional protein in the diet enabled greater intelligence, and greater intelligence enabled human beings to better hunt down and kill animals, which provided additional protein, which fed the cycle. Also, generally animals that are predators tend to have the highest intelligence, for obvious reasons: a successful predator needs to be smart, and feeding on animals can provide the protein necessary for a big brain and high intelligence. On Earth at least there's a correlation between high intelligence, good eyesight, and such an ecological niche; humans are one example, as are predators in other environments. Sharks and hawks are pretty smart, too, far smarter than the peaceful, harmless stuff they feed on.

Humans also have a social tendency: congregating in hunting-packs, or tribes, or gangs, or whatever you want to call it, was an advantageous trait. Within the tribe generally things are pretty amicable; after all, they are your kin. Such tribal units encouraged things like parental care; also, a division of labor appeared between the sexes, the males generally tending to do the hunting and the killing, the females generally doing the foraging and the child-rearing.

Of course, this isn't an efficient way to live: you're basically stripping an area of edible biomass before moving on. Primitive societies didn't have any notion of population control; they just grew in number until they hit carrying capacity, although their populations were limited by starvation, hunting accidents, high infant mortality, etc. So, you have tribal warfare: constant raids and ambushes. Very high fatality rates: 20% casualties every generation, on average. This works by either stealing food supplies or else killing off the competition, so there are fewer mouths to feed and said mouths are in one's tribe at the expense of another tribe. So, this is going to be a successful trait. Human groups can prosper at the expense of their neighbors.
Primitive warfare, by the way, isn't like civilized warfare, which has armies and battles and the other niceties; rather, in primitive warfare, all the males are warriors to some extent, and the combat takes the form of constant raids and ambushes on the hostile tribe or whatever.

Regarding species, a brief digression: Species aren't an end in themselves, they're only a means to an end. A given lineage or germline or whatever you want to call it, or at least the lifeforms it is expressed as, adapt to a particular environment so they can flourish in that environment and the individuals comprising that species and their lineage can do well. Natural selection is a pretty vicious struggle. However, social behavior, essentially enlightened self-interest, can be a successful strategy, although generally not at the level of the species.

So, humans evolve hunting and killing animals, being predators, and fighting amongst themselves. So, war and conflict has played a very large role in shaping the human species. Also, probably a violent and vicious group of humans in a primitive environment (humans in the wild, more or less...) would almost certainly benefit at the expense of peaceful, nonviolent humans, as the peaceful, nonviolent humans would probably be wiped out. So, this whole violence thing was historically an extremely successful evolutionary trait.

Eventually you get the transition to agriculture. This actually means less violence and killing overall; agriculture is much more efficient and the supply of food much more secure, which enables larger populations and specialists, which include specialized warriors/soldiers. In earlier societies all the males were warriors in some capacity, but now generally only a small group fights. So, war between farmers is between small, specialist groups, not between whole populations. Percentage-wise, the casualties are substantially lower and the fighting less devastating.

But you wouldn't have gotten to that stage if it wasn't for humans being violent in the first place. So, perhaps war has outlived its usefulness, but its role in making humans what they are today should not be overlooked.

As for eliminating war, that would probably be a totally futile endeavor. If you were to change human nature to the extent necessary, which is probably the only way, you'd be screwing humans over in the long run, because you'd be destroying what made humans so successful in the first place.

I also don't think you should pass judgment on that; those humans were doing what they had to do to survive, and it just so happened that being a vicious psychopathic killer ape was a successful strategy, because one could simply exterminate one's competitors, so ensuring that rival traits died out and the murderous psychopathic traits lived on.

[Susano]

I live in a stagnating, decadent society, and believe me, it sucks. Really, really sucks.
Yeah, right. Live a year or two in Darfur or so, and maybe then your opinion will change.

And, damnit, didnt you listen? Or rather, didnt you read? It friggen doesnt matter how we evolved. Its the past. Now, Im studying histroy, so I of coruse wont say the pst is not important, however, just because the past has been in soem certain way, doesnt mean the futrue will be so. And MOST certainly it doesnt mean it SHOULD be so!

Thats the problem with this particular post of yours. So youre posting a nice little array of how you think things are. But I cant see how anybody can conclude from that things SHOULD be that way. There is a logical gap there in your argumentation.

This works by either stealing food supplies or else killing off the competition, so there are fewer mouths to feed and said mouths are in one's tribe at the expense of another tribe. So, this is going to be a successful trait. Human groups can prosper at the expense of their neighbors.
I dont think I really need to point out how this is irrelevant in modern times, no? Of course, if youre a group of hunter-gatherers, it seems the easiest way to start a war with your neighbours over ressources. Its not like you have any great oversight, anyways. Well, nowadays we do, or at least inifnitly more so then those hunter-gatherers. Yes, sure, you can prosper by beating your enemies - for as long as your enemies dont beat you. So that requires an "arms race", if we can use that modern word on earlier times, and THAT is a drain on ressources itself! And if that is only, in more primitievb societies, that you always at any given times need a number of men for guards that could, elsewise, be used otherwise. So, while in the short run you can gain from war, in the long run everybody will suffer in one way or another.


Regarding species, a brief digression: Species aren't an end in themselves, they're only a means to an end. A given lineage or germline or whatever you want to call it, or at least the lifeforms it is expressed as, adapt to a particular environment so they can flourish in that environment and the individuals comprising that species and their lineage can do well. Natural selection is a pretty vicious struggle. However, social behavior, essentially enlightened self-interest, can be a successful strategy, although generally not at the level of the species.
Lineages are no end. Its an automatism, after all. The ost sucessful lineage will procreate, and thus become, by evolutionary standards, "sucessful". So, I dont see why we should feel obliged to that. We have been able to look behind it, so were able to just outright ignore it.

As for eliminating war, that would probably be a totally futile endeavor. If you were to change human nature to the extent necessary, which is probably the only way, you'd be screwing humans over in the long run, because you'd be destroying what made humans so successful in the first place
Well, it boils down to that, doesnt it? I say: Who cares? We DO HAVE that place now, dont we? And its secure. So as said, we can lean back and just enjoy life!

[Romulus Augustulus]

Yes, it was in the past, but my point was that often the role warfare played in human evolution is overlooked.

That's not exactly how primitive warfare works. See, you have the hunter-gatherers hunting and gathering. The males are hunting stuff down for protein, the females tending to the children and foraging. They're not exactly organized; such societies lack military discipline and so you're not going to have people guarding stuff. It's not like warfare as we perceive it in the West; it's constant raids and ambushes. There was a very interesting book on this topic, by Lawrence H. Keeley, titled War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. It's a very interesting read; I suggest you check it out.

Now, if such a trait (predisposition to violence and the aggresive nature) were to evolve, a warlike tribe would have a huge advantage over its neighbors at least initially, as it would be able to exterminate its neighbors. Similar events occur elsewhere, tribes fragment, shit happens, etc. until this violent nature is a human trait. It was very successful in the past; a peaceful group of humans would be at a tremendous disadvantage, as they'd probably get exterminated. So, such peaceful traits would die out.

So, historically, war was the main force shaping human evolution and what made human beings what they are today; without it, we wouldn't be here today. Probably we'd be off foraging on some plain in what would have been Africa. I wouldn't like that.

Or maybe we'd be in the trees. Also wouldn't like that.

In short, it is because of war that humans evolved the way they did and became so intelligent and survivable and were capable of coming up with civilization and all these amenities we enjoy today.

I will concede, though, that perhaps this aggresion has outlived its usefulness; I would not eliminate it outright, though, as that would be screwing over our descendants and betraying all of our ancestors who fought so hard to get here. Rather, perhaps redirect it to something more productive.

I don't think that's possible, though. The war and violence thing is too deeply ingrained in our genes. It's who we are; it's what we do. Ultimately there's a lot of unpleasant stuff deep down inside of us most of us don't care to acknowledge.

Schopenhauer was right, though: this world is Hell, and men are both the demons and the damned.

[Susano]

What part of "It doesnt bloody matter!" didnt you unerstand?

You know...
I wouldn't like that.

Or maybe we'd be in the trees. Also wouldn't like that.
Yeah, well, we dont. So what if agressivity brought us here? Irrelevant! We can as well STAY here.

And that goes way beyond agressivity having outlived its "usefulness". The entire concept of anything being useful for further competition and evolution is, well, pointless. As said several times already, we have no obligation to that concept. We dont NEED to evolve. Well, we will anyways, its an automatic and perpetual process. But we dont need anything to make us in any form "better". Being better, after all, is no end, its a mean. But a mean to what? If youre better, and eventualyl the other side is also better - it makes no differnce, war and misery will go on and on and on and on. Thers no point to that, as said.

Now, as said, evolution is an automatism. You dont it there and think "How can I contribuet to evoltion?" and hell, no other lifeform would even have the capacity to do so! It happens automatically, and anyways. If some lineage, species, lifeform or group is sucessful, its genes will spread, and the sucessful traits will thus spread, too. While the other traits will die out. Rommy, I have understood that, you dont need to explain it to me again. But as Ive said, its an automatism - its nothing humans did to inentionally BECOME the way we are now. So, its also nothing to be somehow particularily stressed and embraced as you do.

Its just a process. And having understood that process, we can try to stop it. Of coure its utopic to say we could just so end mans violent nature, but we certainly can start a social trend towards that. We can maybe not abolish that trait (though, as said, evolution happens always anyways, so if theres an eternal peace, that trait might be bred out automatically), but we can override it with such things as civilisation and ethics. It will now an dthen still break out, of course, but Id say thats an advancement over perpetual warfare.

as that would be screwing over our descendants and betraying all of our ancestors who fought so hard to get here
Do you need it spelt out?
W-e h-a-v-e n-o o-b-l-i-g-a-t-i-o-n t-o t-h-e-m!

[Romulus Augustulus]

What part of "It doesnt bloody matter!" didnt you unerstand?

You know...

Yeah, well, we dont. So what if agressivity brought us here? Irrelevant! We can as well STAY here.

And that goes way beyond agressivity having outlived its "usefulness". The entire concept of anything being useful for further competition and evolution is, well, pointless. As said several times already, we have no obligation to that concept. We dont NEED to evolve. Well, we will anyways, its an automatic and perpetual process. But we dont need anything to make us in any form "better". Being better, after all, is no end, its a mean. But a mean to what? If youre better, and eventualyl the other side is also better - it makes no differnce, war and misery will go on and on and on and on. Thers no point to that, as said.

Now, as said, evolution is an automatism. You dont it there and think "How can I contribuet to evoltion?" and hell, no other lifeform would even have the capacity to do so! It happens automatically, and anyways. If some lineage, species, lifeform or group is sucessful, its genes will spread, and the sucessful traits will thus spread, too. While the other traits will die out. Rommy, I have understood that, you dont need to explain it to me again. But as Ive said, its an automatism - its nothing humans did to inentionally BECOME the way we are now. So, its also nothing to be somehow particularily stressed and embraced as you do.

Its just a process. And having understood that process, we can try to stop it. Of coure its utopic to say we could just so end mans violent nature, but we certainly can start a social trend towards that. We can maybe not abolish that trait (though, as said, evolution happens always anyways, so if theres an eternal peace, that trait might be bred out automatically), but we can override it with such things as civilisation and ethics. It will now an dthen still break out, of course, but Id say thats an advancement over perpetual warfare.


Do you need it spelt out?
W-e h-a-v-e n-o o-b-l-i-g-a-t-i-o-n t-o t-h-e-m!

YES WE DAMN WELL DO.

We have every obligation to make sure that our descendants have a decent planet to live on, that still has things like forests and wild animals to enjoy.

We also have an obligation to our ancestors. Your genetic code is the product of three billion years of constant struggle and toil; it is practically sacred. To betray in that fashion would be...God, I don't know, that just pisses me off. But saying that we have no obligation to our descendants is stupid and shortsighted. It's no excuse to make it so that future generations will be weak and inbred and need machinery to keep them alive; it's also no excuse to totally trash the planet.

[Susano]

We have no obligation to our ANCESTORS. Ancestors - descendants. See the difference? Now our ancestors, theyre dead, and I dont believe in afterlife, so, well, theyre non-existant and thus irrelevant.

Theres absolutely NO reason to make our own lifes miserable because of people (hell, beings that werent even really "people"!) dead for decamillenia! Especially as they, as said, would never have thought of the genetic code, teh evolutionary process, or anything coming with it. As said, its just an automatism. A technical process. Thats it. Nothing more. And our ancestors didnt even think about it, so theres no reason we should hold it in any way sacred, either! And, as said, certainly we shouldnt make our lives miserably for it!

As for our descendants - oh, yes, we do have an obligation to them. We have an obligation to them that they my also life happy and godolives. We have an obligation to them to give them a world NOT scarred by warfare, with a population NOT collectively traumatised by violence. Because, as said, theres no point in being anyhow better if your life sucks!

[Romulus Augustulus]

We have no obligation to our ANCESTORS. Ancestors - descendants. See the difference? Now our ancestors, theyre dead, and I dont believe in afterlife, so, well, theyre non-existant and thus irrelevant.

Theres absolutely NO reason to make our own lifes miserable because of people (hell, beings that werent even really "people"!) dead for decamillenia! Especially as they, as said, would never have thought of the genetic code, teh evolutionary process, or anything coming with it. As said, its just an automatism. A technical process. Thats it. Nothing more. And our ancestors didnt even think about it, so theres no reason we should hold it in any way sacred, either! And, as said, certainly we shouldnt make our lives miserably for it!

As for our descendants - oh, yes, we do have an obligation to them. We have an obligation to them that they my also life happy and godolives. We have an obligation to them to give them a world NOT scarred by warfare, with a population NOT collectively traumatised by violence. Because, as said, theres no point in being anyhow better if your life sucks!

We may not have an obligation to our ancestors directly, but we owe them and we should honor their memory.

Early humans came upon the whole violence thing as a successful strategy; they found that by fighting and killing, they could survive even at the expense of their neighbors. Perhaps they weren't aware of the larger significance, but they were aware it was a life-or-death situation.

As for our descendants: as long as they are recognizably human, they will fight and have wars, because that sort of thing is a human trait. It's who we are; it's what we do. In fact, making it so that our descendants aren't aggresive and competitive (that's why there's war; people are aggresive and competitive) would be screwing them over, because it's that aggresion that has made humans so successful, even if it has led to war.

So, basically, as long as there are human beings there will always be war, for better of for worse. In fact, making it so that there is no war or conflict would be a bad thing...ever read Brave New World? I wouldn't want to subject anyone to that sort of sterile, lifeless environment.

Nothing personal. And it's been an interesting discussion.

[Susano]

I have. IMO, its a kind of utopia. A firghtening utopia for sure, but IMO frightening more for its alieness and strangeness then anything else. Just like OA is also an utopia, but a frightening one. Well, in BNW, People are happy. IIRC (was a time back), the protagonist wasnt happy because his position enabled him to look behind the system. Well, that obviously was a flaw in the system, but overall the idea was right. I mean, what bad can be said about that society? That it is shallow? Well, as with every attribute, "shallow" is relative. Being shallow is only negative if people realise its shallow, for which theyd need comparision material. And second, of course, genetic slavery. But if the slaves are also content - well, to quote Chairman Yang: How can you enslave a person who dos not feel pain?

Now, I wouldnt actively strife for having a BNW utopia, but it is certianly one form of utopia, IMO.

Well, anyways, back to the point:
We owe nothing to our ancestors. You cant owe something to something non-existant, and dead people are utterly non-existant. Certainly, their lives dont become better if we honour them, because, well, their lives are long gone. They gain nothing at all by being honoured, whereas we would susbtantially lose something. So, utilitarian pragmatism tells us that not honouring our ancestors the way you propose is the more logical alternative!

As for our descendants... I guess Ill have to spell that out to you, too:

B-e-i-n-g s-u-c-c-e-s-f-u-l i-s i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t!

If youre sucessful, but your lfie sucks (because of, say, eternal conflict), theres no point to it. Yes, yes, for the umpteenth time: I know violence is part of our history, and I admit it contributed bringing us to where we are now. But we ARE where we are now, wich is securely at the top. And that is all that matters. Wed screw our descendants over if made our and their lives msierable to become "better" even though we already are best.

And, as said, war is a terribly inefficent tool for that anyways. Once we get to genetic engineering, thats much more efficient. But to come to there, we need a good scientific and economic base, which we only will have when we have long times of peace, heh.

[Faeelin]

We also have an obligation to our ancestors. Your genetic code is the product of three billion years of constant struggle and toil; it is practically sacred. To betray in that fashion would be...God, I don't know, that just pisses me off. But saying that we have no obligation to our descendants is stupid and shortsighted. It's no excuse to make it so that future generations will be weak and inbred and need machinery to keep them alive; it's also no excuse to totally trash the planet.

You enjoy that, while I manipulate my DNA to become an immortal superbeing.

[Romulus Augustulus]

You enjoy that, while I manipulate my DNA to become an immortal superbeing.

Manipulation of your DNA would not be enough; biological systems have their limitations. Ultimately you'd need cyberware.

I am generally in favor of transhumanism, by the way; it offers a way to continue human evolution, as we seem to have reached a sort of dead end in that respect, what with having had eliminated selection pressures.

Susano: Another SMAC player? Nice. It was "Tyranny? How can you tyrannize someone who cannot feel pain?" and it regarded the Genejacks.

Thing is, though, even during the civilized period war served to advance technology: it was a big factor in metalworking becoming popular, for instance, and conquerors like the Mongols brought cultures into contact through warfare and advanced things. Even during the civilized period, war and conflict kept things chaotic and unstable enough that things would keep advancing; after all, a perfectly stable and peaceful system will probably be stagnant. You need an element of chaos and uncertainty to keep things moving along.

And historically, for the vast majority, life has sucked anyway.

It's funny, though: often, genetic success is incompatible with personal benefit to some extent. A lot of male birds, for instance, don't live very long, at least as not as long as the females, due to their bright plumage, but they can reproduce at a higher rate than the duller-colored males, so that trait, which leads to genetic success, even at the expense of the individual, is successful.

[Grimm Reaper]

...Grimm saunters in, knuckles dragging on the ground, looking even shaggier than usual. Walks up to Faeelin, begins running his fingers through Faeelin's back hair for tasty lice. Makes a puzzled hooting sound when he discovers the cyberware...

[Susano]

Yeah, SMAC rules. The concep is far sueprior to that of teh CIv games, its just that the AI sucks donkey balls.

And as Ive sid above, I do not think war advances technology. While innovations ae made en masse in times of war, they are innovations of engineering: Using the already existing technology and scientific knwoeldge for new applications. But to actually advance, and raise the level of technology and scientific knowledge, you need well-funded basic research onl ypossible in times of peace.

You need an element of chaos and uncertainty to keep things moving along.
Sounds rather like metaphysics gone bad. I do not think so. Europe has been peaceful for six full decades now, two generations,and certainly technology, society and economy have evolved rapidly, no?

And historically, for the vast majority, life has sucked anyway.
Yeah, true. But there is no need for it to be. Just because something is so doesnt need it should be so!


It's funny, though: often, genetic success is incompatible with personal benefit to some extent. A lot of male birds, for instance, don't live very long, at least as not as long as the females, due to their bright plumage, but they can reproduce at a higher rate than the duller-colored males, so that trait, which leads to genetic success, even at the expense of the individual, is successful.
Thats what Im saying! Its an automatism, and it sucks for everybody involved in it. Of course, the automatism goes on, even nowadays for mankind, but there is no need to embrace or support it!

[Romulus Augustulus]

Yes, successful trait may suck to some extent, but being successful, it will by definition be common.

It does look like we might be able to finally win at this horrible zero-sum game called life, though.

*removes the wig to show the little removable panels under which there are neural implants*

So...how well do you think I can argue this sort of thing? I need all the practice I can get.

[Susano]

Yes, they are common. That is the "is". But the "should" is anothe question entirely, and that was the point of debate...

Well, I may give you an evaluation tomorrow, but for now I think Ill stumble to bed...

[Smaug]

I think what he's trying to say is that we come originally from arboreal, bug eating Ape thingies, who later ventured out to the savahna, and became scavengers and hunter and gatherers.

We can't deny this, and it shows in our character today and in recent history. This behavior doesn't have to be continued, just because its a part of our past. Our aggression and innovation did however play into the fact we've been pretty successful as a species.

We are in a position now, to look at our past in a retrospective manner, and realise that we might perhaps have made some mistakes. People have a choice, to a point, if they want to continue this pattern of behavior. JMO

[Keenir]

Considering human nature, war is inevitable. Why? Again, you have to look back at how humans evolved. Our very distant ancestors were tree-dwelling insectivores; they initially developed stereo vision and fairly powerful brains to deal with the challenges they'd face as tree-dwellers: snatching up insects and fruits, as well as getting from tree-branch to tree-branch without dropping off and falling to a painful death.

this is why humans* have a fear of falling.

* = a roughly 6-foot-tall bipedal walking critter.

This provided a base for later development. We probably owe our human anatomical traits to trees: stereo vision, brains, hands, etc. It took dwelling on land to develop those traits to the present extent.

as legal representative for the cephalopod family, I resent that remark.

Sharks and hawks are pretty smart, too, far smarter than the peaceful, harmless stuff they feed on.

only you would call dolphins peaceful.

to be a successful trait. Human groups can prosper at the expense of their neighbors.

Primitive warfare, by the way, isn't like civilized warfare, which has armies and battles and the other niceties; rather, in primitive warfare, all the males are warriors to some extent, and the combat takes the form of constant raids and ambushes on the hostile tribe or whatever.

if that's such a great thing, why are you sitting behind a computer?


So, humans evolve hunting and killing animals, being predators, and fighting amongst themselves. So, war and conflict has played a very large role in shaping the human species. Also, probably a violent and vicious group of humans in a primitive environment (humans in the wild, more or less...) would almost certainly benefit at the expense of peaceful, nonviolent humans, as the peaceful, nonviolent humans would probably be wiped out. So, this whole violence thing was historically an extremely successful evolutionary trait.

only because of sexual selection. look at bonobos.


But you wouldn't have gotten to that stage if it wasn't for humans being violent in the first place. So, perhaps war has outlived its usefulness, but its role in making humans what they are today should not be overlooked.

As for eliminating war, that would probably be a totally futile endeavor. If you were to change human nature to the extent necessary, which is probably the only way, you'd be screwing humans over in the long run, because you'd be destroying what made humans so successful in the first place.

tribalism is understandable in small tribes....it becomes lethal in dense cities.

a membranous tail fin was a great development for fish...but after leaving the sea, vertabrates didn't need it, as it'd become a liability.

[Keenir]

So, historically, war was the main force shaping human evolution and what made human beings what they are today; without it, we wouldn't be here today. Probably we'd be off foraging on some plain in what would have been Africa. I wouldn't like that.

Or maybe we'd be in the trees. Also wouldn't like that.


you wouldn't be here, in such a case, in which case your desires are moot.


I will concede, though, that perhaps this aggresion has outlived its usefulness; I would not eliminate it outright, though, as that would be screwing over our descendants and betraying all of our ancestors who fought so hard to get here.

your ancestors fought so hard to get you sitting behind a computer?
:p
Australopithecus would be horrified.

[Keenir]

YES WE DAMN WELL DO.

We have every obligation to make sure that our descendants have a decent planet to live on, that still has things like forests and wild animals to enjoy.

that's not obligation. that's simply avoiding despoiling.

We also have an obligation to our ancestors. Your genetic code is the product of three billion years of constant struggle and toil; it is practically sacred. To betray in that fashion would be...God, I don't know, that just pisses me off.

we have an obligation to our ancestors?

you mean to vast mats of methane-eating bacteria?

you mean the quilted sessile things that barely qualified as animals?

you mean the filter-feeding jawless fish that were eaten by scorpions?

you mean the salamanders that crawl like seals on paws (each of which has 8 fingers) ?

you mean the sail-backed herbivores that lived to be lunch for better-designed critters?

which of those do you have an obligation to? which do you want to live like?

[Burton K Wheeler]

This thread has at least given me a truly awesome signature.

[NapoleonXIV]

So, humans evolve hunting and killing animals, being predators, and fighting amongst themselves. So, war and conflict has played a very large role in shaping the human species. Also, probably a violent and vicious group of humans in a primitive environment (humans in the wild, more or less...) would almost certainly benefit at the expense of peaceful, nonviolent humans, as the peaceful, nonviolent humans would probably be wiped out. So, this whole violence thing was historically an extremely successful evolutionary trait.

Eventually you get the transition to agriculture. This actually means less violence and killing overall; agriculture is much more efficient and the supply of food much more secure, which enables larger populations and specialists, which include specialized warriors/soldiers. In earlier societies all the males were warriors in some capacity, but now generally only a small group fights. So, war between farmers is between small, specialist groups, not between whole populations. Percentage-wise, the casualties are substantially lower and the fighting less devastating.

But you wouldn't have gotten to that stage if it wasn't for humans being violent in the first place. So, perhaps war has outlived its usefulness, but its role in making humans what they are today should not be overlooked.

As for eliminating war, that would probably be a totally futile endeavor. If you were to change human nature to the extent necessary, which is probably the only way, you'd be screwing humans over in the long run, because you'd be destroying what made humans so successful in the first place.

Human beings stopped evolving several hundreds of millenia ago, when the first caveman wore a fur coat, instead of waiting for his descendants to grow one. Intelligence, cooperation and culture has removed us from the evolutionary race for several thousands of years now. Your struggle against 'stagnation' was lost a long, long time ago.

What has made humans so successful is the fact that we cooperate, not the conflict. Even your vaunted war is a cooperative enterprise in the end. Truly primitive societies do not have war, they cannot afford it, so it is war that violates our generally cooperative human nature and peace that agrees with it.

Why, if, violence and bloodshed is so much our heritage, is there a general human revulsion against cannibalism? Could it be because of the distant memory of how it feels to be prey ourselves and a resolve, a sort of species wide cry of "never again" when we remember how it really was to evolve rather than reason?

We are indeed, as you say, killer apes, but generally of other species. Your view of evolution is as overromanticised (and as wrong) as your view of war.

[Gladi]

Why, if, violence and bloodshed is so much our heritage, is there a general human revulsion against cannibalism? Could it be because of the distant memory of how it feels to be prey ourselves and a resolve, a sort of species wide cry of "never again" when we remember how it really was to evolve rather than reason?

Bright day
There is no instinctual revulsion to cannibalism and it was not uncommon till recently.

[NapoleonXIV]

Bright day
There is no instinctual revulsion to cannibalism and it was not uncommon till recently.

Then why are even the starving reluctant to resort to it and what do you mean by recently?

Even the societies that do (did) so commonly attach (ed) either a particular savagery or a ritualistic aspect to it, indicating that it is something that is of some import to do.

Name one society anywhere(when) where people were or are eaten casually and/or people were raised for food, like we eat hamburger today.

In any case, my original statement stands. Human beings have not been commonly eaten by other animals for food since the dawn of time and war throughout history has not generally involved eating one's enemy, Aztec's notwithstanding.

[Susano]

Then why are even the starving reluctant to resort to it and what do you mean by recently?
Social restraints. Social, not genetic or inherent to man.

Even the societies that do (did) so commonly attach (ed) either a particular savagery or a ritualistic aspect to it, indicating that it is something that is of some import to do.
What is savagery is in the eye of the beholder, no? If there realyl was an inherent convulsion, it wouldnt have been possible to have such rituals, imported or not.

Name one society anywhere(when) where people were or are eaten casually and/or people were raised for food, like we eat hamburger today.
Which might have to do with the fact that this is very inefficient. After all, those humans would eat more then they produce food. Its more efficient to grass-eating cattle etc. So, cannibalism is only efficient when done so hunting.

Human beings have not been eaten by other animals for food since the dawn of time and war throughout history has not generally involved eating one's enemy, Aztec's notwithstanding.
True. Eventually, it seems, societies do develop a convulsion, but as said, its a social one then. There is no inherent one.

[Gladi]

Then why are even the starving reluctant to resort to it and what do you mean by recently?


I guess 20-30 000 old human race, so recent on that.

Why not? It opens a can of manflesh. If you a person you are also effectively stating that you are edigible adn people live pretty badly with idea of being edigible. When I figured out that I could, under certain circumstances, kill a person, I became more afraid of walking in the city after dark. But that is social understanding- make the eaten "subhuman" or just other tribe and it fades away.

[Earling]

If humans are naturally predisposed towards peace why is warfare, from the tribal skirmishes of savages to the industrialised bloodletting of first world nations so common? The answer would seem to me that many (not nessasarilly all) humans are naturally greedy (for wealth, power etc) and as such if they believe they can take these resources from others by force they shall make the attempt.

Now if you had a society where everyone could live within their means with a reasonable degree of confort, never believe they suffered from any form of inequality nor had the desire to aquire more then perhaps there would be perpetual peace. That, unfortunately, is hardly the reality for most.

Whether that arguement is Marx or Malthus is debatable but the outcome is the same. Inequality leads to poverty, expanding populations without expanding resources does likewise.

[Romulus Augustulus]

Humans kept evolving right up until the present day, actually; human ancestors several hundred thousand years ago were not modern humans (I believe they had substantially less brain volume...) and even a hundred thousand years ago they were pretty far-removed from today. I'd actually say that selection pressures haven't been removed totally in some parts of the world even today, although in the developed world most have been eliminated thanks to modern medicine.

So, warfare still played a tremendous part in human evolution. And we are killer apes of each other as well; primitive societies were forced to either fight each other and live, or else starve and die. It wasn't a matter of cannibalism: humans aren't very good to eat, as being predators we're full of all kinds of little parasites and it isn't particularly efficient, but if you kill off your neighbors, you can steal their food supplies, meaning that there are substantially fewer mouths to feed and those mouths are in your tribal group. Endemic warfare was one of the few real human universals.

It isn't cooperation at the species level, but cooperation at the tribal level. Again, the whole evolutionary struggle is for perpetuation of the individual or small groups, not the species as a whole.

Again, humans, in the wild, so to speak, kill not only animals for food but competition between tribal groups results in constant low-level warfare. This, being very commonplace, almost certainly had its effects: the violent tribe of humans would have a tremendous edge over its neighbors, as it could simply exterminate them. This would perpetuate the violent traits; the tribe would grow larger and fragment. The trait would spread or else be originated independently. A peaceful tribe would be at a huge disadvantage, especially if its violent neighbors were willing to exterminate as they pleased.

As a side-effect, you get tribal racism. The whole Hutu-Tutsi thing is an example of something hateful and ancient and dangerous. You can even read about in the Bible in some parts; a lot of it is about movements of tribal peoples and the intense hatreds between them.

There has always been war between humans (again, there's a book by Lawrence H. Keeley, War Before Civilization...) and both violence in the form of hunting and primitive warfare has played an enormous role in shaping the human species.

I think we have intertribal warfare not because we are stupid, but perhaps we are too smart for our own good: members of a particular tribal group see that a given area can only support so many people, and there are other tribal groups present who are straining the area's resources, so they'd better go and kill some of their neighbors so they don't starve. Ultimately it's due to ecology.

I bet a few hundred thousand years of this imprinted this on human psychology.

See, you can think of the planet as a sort of giant prison, writ large. It isn't a free-for-all; humans are social animals. The human social mantality, though, involves forming up into units approximating gangs (that's really what tribes are; gangs, but a little more respectable...) or whatever. Within the tribe you get along and things are generally amicable, although of course there's always going to be a little intratribal violence.

Intertribal interactions, on the other hand...well, I think Gary Brecher put it very well, "My gang yay! Your gang boo!" It's that simple. Nothing on the species level. So, members of a given tribal unit would be willing to kill members of other tribal units in order to ensure the survival of their own unit.

Hell, probably members of a given tribe probably don't even think of their neighbors as being in the same species as they are; they hate and revile and dehumanize them. Ever wonder why so many tribal names translate as "the people?" Outside the unit are "not-people."

So, warfare between groups is actually an inevitable byproduct of the human social mentality.

[Keenir]

much more sensibly-stated....though I have a single thing to say:


. Endemic warfare was one of the few real human universals.


did you tell the Inuit this? :eek:

[EvolvedSaurian]

did you tell the Inuit this? :eek:

Well, it's not like they have anyone to fight.

[Romulus Augustulus]

much more sensibly-stated....though I have a single thing to say:



did you tell the Inuit this? :eek:

There is actually warfare between groups even in the polar regions; however, due to the very low population density, it's quite rare.

Often, the tribes that inhabit such areas were the losers in combat with other tribes and were forced into inhabiting marginal areas.

Again, read Lawrence H. Keeley's book that I mentioned (also something along the same lines by some guy named LeBlanc) and you'll see.

Warfare between humans has been quite commonplace ever since there were animals that were recognizably human. In fact, the advent of civilization has made wars less frequent and bloody.

[Romulus Augustulus]

Oh, and regarding cannibalism: ritual cannibalism as a sort of "sympathetic magic" wasn't too rare in primitive societies.

[NapoleonXIV]

Why, oh why, did I bring up cannibalism?? I knew that you guys would find the few exceptions and begin eating away at them:p

Humans kept evolving right up until the present day, actually;

Most anthropology books I've read say that man stopped developing about 35,000 years ago. Thirty-five millenia is enough to say it's over in my book. However, if you know of any modern primitives who have fur, or eyes that see in the infra-red....

It isn't cooperation at the species level, but cooperation at the tribal level. Again, the whole evolutionary struggle is for perpetuation of the individual or small groups, not the species as a whole.

You make my point with your argument against it. Were man the sociopathic killer you say there would be no tribes to conflict with one another. I am not trying to argue that man does not make war, nor that war has not had very substantial effect on the development of man's civilization, but it is that very civilization/cooperation that makes war possible, and thus is the real shaper of man's nature, not the other way around.

[Susano]

Most anthropology books I've read say that man stopped developing about 35,000 years ago. Thirty-five millenia is enough to say it's over in my book. However, if you know of any modern primitives who have fur, or eyes that see in the infra-red....
Bah! Im no expert, butgiven the timespans evolution happens in, Id say 35k years arent even relevant. Id say 35k years would be too less to develop infraredsight.

Besides, as that, evolution cant stop. The degree of evolutionary pressure might vary, to the point that there is hardly any pressure left at all (though that is very western-centric: Go to Third World slums and youll still see much evolutionary pressure!). But evolution itself cant stop. How its supposed to? That genetic lineages go on, spread, stop or whatever, all that happens with the normal continuity of the human race. So evolution doesnt stop.

It isn't cooperation at the species level, but cooperation at the tribal level. Again, the whole evolutionary struggle is for perpetuation of the individual or small groups, not the species as a whole.
Because tribes who are agressive are sucessful, the concept of agressivity will spread, yes.

But it also works the other way round, you know. The Argentinian Ant is on the advance on practcialyl the whole world. And the biggest reason is that their colonies dont fight eahc other, as colonies of other ant species do. Hence, the Argentinians Ants will spread.

Its the exactly same concept in both cases: There is no directed evolutionary struggle, as you describe, its just an automatism happening anyways, as thos etwo examples taken together show. But what they also show is that humanity as a species would profit from cooperation instead of intrafighting, too.

[Smaug]

This thread has at least given me a truly awesome signature.


Nice...You'll go far with that :D

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

The Argentinian Ant is on the advance on practcialyl the whole world. And the biggest reason is that their colonies dont fight eahc other, as colonies of other ant species do. Hence, the Argentinians Ants will spread.

Do they fight other ant species? And if they ever become the dominant one you can rest assured their colonies will start fighting each other.

[Susano]

Do they fight other ant species? And if they ever become the dominant one you can rest assured their colonies will start fighting each other.

Yes, they do. Thats the point. With other ant species, there is infighting between their colonies. With the Argentinian Ants, there is not, so of course in the long run, the Argentiniant Ants spread. As said, an automatism.

An exception to hat is Argentinia itself. Youre right, when theyve become dominant, the colonies apparently do fight each other.

[Romulus Augustulus]

Why, oh why, did I bring up cannibalism?? I knew that you guys would find the few exceptions and begin eating away at them:p



Most anthropology books I've read say that man stopped developing about 35,000 years ago. Thirty-five millenia is enough to say it's over in my book. However, if you know of any modern primitives who have fur, or eyes that see in the infra-red....



You make my point with your argument against it. Were man the sociopathic killer you say there would be no tribes to conflict with one another. I am not trying to argue that man does not make war, nor that war has not had very substantial effect on the development of man's civilization, but it is that very civilization/cooperation that makes war possible, and thus is the real shaper of man's nature, not the other way around.

You said that humans stopped evolving several hundred thousand years ago.

No, man is not a pure sociopath; rather, combat between tribal groups is quite frequent and common. Also, I think we all have that murderous sociopath in us.

It isn't a free-for-all; it's along tribal lines.

Also, don't you think that constant tribal warfare would force additional cooperation within tribes?

But let's get back to what I was saying: humans form gangs. They're not really rational or democratic, but they're tribal. The human social mentality is basically "Yay my/our gang! Boo your gang!" The rest is cosmetics, as Gary Brecher would say.

(Okay, fine...maybe Gary Brecher is a persona John Dolan adopts for some reason. I believe the War Nerd is real, that is, a real, miserable office slave in Fresno, because it is consoling.)

Again, within the gang, you have cooperation and formation of social organization, although obviously you see conflict and tension even within a gang.

Mainly, though, said conflict and tension tends to be inter-gang, not intra-gang. In the wild, so to speak, members of a gang will be forced to constantly raid and attack other gangs, as it is a question of survival. Long story short, endemic tribal warfare is a fact of life for hunter-gatherers. It exists for ecological reasons.

One side effect is going to be enormous casualties due to the constant warfare. Practically all the males are warriors in some capacity; attacks can be directed at anyone in a hostile gang. It's a tribal version of Total War. From what I've read, apparently ~20% of the population would die in wars every generation. That is much higher than what you see in civilized societies; in civilized societies, generally among the specialists you get warriors and attacks will at least initially be focused on other warriors. It's far less devastating; it also isn't something constant and endemic, since in a civilized society the food supply is secure enough that you don't fight over survival, at least not as often.

Anyway, though, probably the pressure from tribal warfare actually reinforced the sociality of humans; between gangs or tribes or whatever, they were hateful and really anything went, but in response to that perhaps they became more coherent within their social units. So, it resulted in coherent tribal-level organizations. I bet a lot of the human social programming (we do have a social instinct, to some extent...) is a response to our violent past.

[Keenir]

It isn't a free-for-all; it's along tribal lines.

not as often as you might think.

sons kill fathers, wives kill husbands, brothers kill brothers.

that's all intra-tribal.

Also, don't you think that constant tribal warfare would force additional cooperation within tribes?

it also forces additional cooperation between tribes.

in a civilized society the food supply is secure enough that you don't fight over survival, at least not as often.

riiight.

[Romulus Augustulus]

not as often as you might think.

sons kill fathers, wives kill husbands, brothers kill brothers.

that's all intra-tribal.



it also forces additional cooperation between tribes.



riiight.

Yeah, I mentioned intra-tribal violence, but mainly the violence was inter-tribal. From what I've read, though, they often have high murder-rates, too.

Agriculture is a lot more efficient, and the source of food is more secure. Especially so if there's been time to learn the right techniques.

Why it would force cooperation between tribes?

Anyway, though, the inter-tribal violence was constant and nasty; it led to a tribal racism we can still see today in some places. Again, it reinforces the human social tendency, which is to form gangs. Disputes and warfare mainly occurs on gang/tribal lines; it's less of a free-for-all when it comes to intra-tribal violence, though.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Before Rommy repeats himself again, my 2 cents:

Rivalry cannot be avoided. Some other group has something you want/need, wants/needs something you have, will become a threat if you don't stop them, and/or will be threatened by you if they don't stop you. Rivalry can only cease when you trust the others, the others trust you, and nobody wants to abuse this trust. Such a situation has never occured and probably never will. War is just a manifestation of rivalry. The best we can hope for is to take that rivalry to more general levels; fewer rivalries means fewer (and more organized) wars. From tribes and city-states to countries to empires and alliances. Humans will stop fighting each other when they'll find a halfway similar alien species to fight instead.

[lounge60]

Ok,i change my question in this:what if men in XX century (with a little bit of fortune) succeed to avoid world war first,communist revolution in Russia,fascism and nazism? I don't think that this is space-bat area.We said that Archduke Francis Ferdinand is not shot,and the European states reach to an agreement in 1916.Hitler is a painter in Los Angeles,Lenin died for pneumonia,Stalin is shot in Moscow from a drunk,and Mussolini is a journalist in Milano.And now? is possible that the XX century is a bit less ugly?

[Keenir]

Why it would force cooperation between tribes?

MAD theory. you can see it in modern and historical Italy, Russia, Japan, Brazil, etc.

[Romulus Augustulus]

MAD theory. you can see it in modern and historical Italy, Russia, Japan, Brazil, etc.

Mutual assured destruction? Hmm...

You mean multiple tribes acting as allies? Yeah, that can occur; the general pattern tends to be hostility, though. The factions shift.

[Dave Howery]

Ok,i change my question in this:what if men in XX century (with a little bit of fortune) succeed to avoid world war first,communist revolution in Russia,fascism and nazism? I don't think that this is space-bat area.We said that Archduke Francis Ferdinand is not shot,and the European states reach to an agreement in 1916.Hitler is a painter in Los Angeles,Lenin died for pneumonia,Stalin is shot in Moscow from a drunk,and Mussolini is a journalist in Milano.And now? is possible that the XX century is a bit less ugly?

well, you could certainly tone down some of the horrors... but there are some issues that will only be decided by war. There are too many 'tribal wars' in Europe that involve different nations wanting to own parts of other nations. And Japan... hard to see how to stop that one... they wanted to be part of the modern world with modern industry, but all available resources nearby were locked up by China or colonial powers. You might have negotiated away some of these, but this might only leave one side feeling aggrieved... grim as it is, war is sometimes the only thing that finally decides some of these issues...

[Keenir]

Mutual assured destruction? Hmm...

You mean multiple tribes acting as allies?

I never said allies. :)


and, even as each clan might raid or do minor killings of other clans (in Scotland or Italy), the leaders of each clan knew that - if their clan overreached or was too severe - their clan would be wiped out.

[lounge60]

well, you could certainly tone down some of the horrors... but there are some issues that will only be decided by war. There are too many 'tribal wars' in Europe that involve different nations wanting to own parts of other nations. And Japan... hard to see how to stop that one... they wanted to be part of the modern world with modern industry, but all available resources nearby were locked up by China or colonial powers. You might have negotiated away some of these, but this might only leave one side feeling aggrieved... grim as it is, war is sometimes the only thing that finally decides some of these issues...
Yes,of course,are always many problems and "tribal wars",and maybe (but i hope not) a big war in pacific between USA- British Commonwealth-a coalition of European country and Japan in 40s.But without world war I,Communism,Fascism,Nazism,and cold war is possible that the world is a little bit a better place for milions of people?

[Dave Howery]

Yes,of course,are always many problems and "tribal wars",and maybe (but i hope not) a big war in pacific between USA- British Commonwealth-a coalition of European country and Japan in 40s.But without world war I,Communism,Fascism,Nazism,and cold war is possible that the world is a little bit a better place for milions of people?

of course... anything with less war makes a better world. But I don't think they were all avoidable. Communism was something that was coming along regardless, although it didn't necessarily have to start in Russia... and this makes the cold war about unavoidable too, as it was so blatantly hostile to the west...