Music Banter - View Single Post - Is humanity hard-wired for war and conflict?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 08-02-2015, 08:32 PM

disclaimer: this is basically how i see it... im not a scientist or any **** like that, just a guy with an internet connection and an interest in this sort of topic

survival of the fittest is about survival strategies. people are often mislead into thinking the fittest means bigger, more aggressive, more violent, etc. those are just particular survival tactics that, when implemented properly can lend to a successful survival strategy. but that is not the case in every organism. it all depends on what niche you have.

humans seem to value intelligence over brute force/strength. we evolved as hunters, from a group of animals that previously were not hunters. we don't compete with a lot of the immediate competition (in terms of hunting big game on the savanna) through meeting force with force. a lion, leopard etc easily can outhunt a human, as hunters relying on tradition tooth & claw predatory tactics. humans compete through hunting in more innovative and complex ways, that require more intelligence.

at the same time, humans have an inherent tendency towards tribalism since in the context in which we evolved, the tribe was a very important aspect of the human's survival strategy. so a lot of those in-group/out-group behaviors that seem so commonplace in people were once upon a time a useful survival strategy.

but i would say that, to put a sort of silver lining on it or a light at the end of the tunnel... human culture and technology seems to evolve much faster than human genes do. so i don't necessarily think it's correct to say there's no way around our warlike nature, because our warlike nature is like everything else, dependent on certain contexts.

and as human civilization becomes this increasingly isolated machine that isn't operating strictly on the basis of the selection of certain genetic traits, the more it becomes possible and feasible for us to withstand the fact that we might have certain counterproductive (in modern contexts) inclinations, without becoming a slave to them or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. because at the end of the day we have sort of started to develop priorities that go beyond just spreading genes.

and so in being conscious of those priorities we might have some incentive to modify our behavior in ways which frankly have little to no genetic value. in some cases we might even divert these instincts into slightly less deadly, more mundane and yet more productive activities. such as sports, for example.

08-02-2015, 08:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	disclaimer: this is basically how i see it... im not a scientist or any **** like that, just a guy with an internet connection and an interest in this sort of topic survival of the fittest is about survival strategies. people are often mislead into thinking the fittest means bigger, more aggressive, more violent, etc. those are just particular survival tactics that, when implemented properly can lend to a successful survival strategy. but that is not the case in every organism. it all depends on what niche you have. humans seem to value intelligence over brute force/strength. we evolved as hunters, from a group of animals that previously were not hunters. we don't compete with a lot of the immediate competition (in terms of hunting big game on the savanna) through meeting force with force. a lion, leopard etc easily can outhunt a human, as hunters relying on tradition tooth & claw predatory tactics. humans compete through hunting in more innovative and complex ways, that require more intelligence. at the same time, humans have an inherent tendency towards tribalism since in the context in which we evolved, the tribe was a very important aspect of the human's survival strategy. so a lot of those in-group/out-group behaviors that seem so commonplace in people were once upon a time a useful survival strategy. but i would say that, to put a sort of silver lining on it or a light at the end of the tunnel... human culture and technology seems to evolve much faster than human genes do. so i don't necessarily think it's correct to say there's no way around our warlike nature, because our warlike nature is like everything else, dependent on certain contexts. and as human civilization becomes this increasingly isolated machine that isn't operating strictly on the basis of the selection of certain genetic traits, the more it becomes possible and feasible for us to withstand the fact that we might have certain counterproductive (in modern contexts) inclinations, without becoming a slave to them or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. because at the end of the day we have sort of started to develop priorities that go beyond just spreading genes. and so in being conscious of those priorities we might have some incentive to modify our behavior in ways which frankly have little to no genetic value. in some cases we might even divert these instincts into slightly less deadly, more mundane and yet more productive activities. such as sports, for example.