NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally wonder whether violence is necessary for humans (males in the very least) to feel truely alive. Many people seek out high adrenaline thrills from sky diving, bungee jumping, and the like because it offers the fear of death. My normal life as a United States citizen means I encounter absolutely no risk of death ever. I can easily make enough to provide food for myself no matter what job I choose to take. The only risks I need to take are those from driving accidents which can be almost negated with decent driving.

Humans are a very rare example of a species that has almost entirely eliminated all preditors in many areas of the world. I think this is the reason for the increasing rates of mental disease. As people progress their instincts and genetic dependencies cannot keep up and so the elimination of mortal risk results in a feeling of hopelessness and depression among many.

How many people have thought about WWII with yearning? (be honest with yourself) Even in Iraq the risk of United States troops and their allies is very very low. I am not implying that I do not understand the horrible ramifications of global conflict nor am I an advocate for war but I do wonder whether the lack of mortal danger in everyday life weighs on the human instincts and leads to depression and a feeling of worthlessness.

People have a basic instinct to dominate all living speices. This explains our current world dominance. We also have the intellegence to dislike waste and needless suffering. I feel these two traits are at a serious crossroads where world peace could lead to a global mental defect and world war could lead to annihilation. The only alternative seems to continue to make petty reasons to indulge ourselves in violence in the name of righteousness. You see this everyday in conflicts between types of government, religion, markets, civil rights, and plain nationalism. There needs to be violence of some sort to keep us all sane. Without it we would sooner or later have a break down and take the road of total annihilation.

I personally feel that violence (and thus war) may be a necessary part of human nature that cannot be removed without further evolution. If you have never fought for anything can you truely feel alive? If you answer "yes" are you so sure that this is true for the majority of humans?

I personally wonder whether violence is necessary for humans (males in the very least) to feel truely alive. Many people seek out high adrenaline thrills from sky diving, bungee jumping, and the like because it offers the fear of death. My normal life as a United States citizen means I encounter absolutely no risk of death ever. I can easily make enough to provide food for myself no matter what job I choose to take. The only risks I need to take are those from driving accidents which can be almost negated with decent driving.

Humans are a very rare example of a species that has almost entirely eliminated all preditors in many areas of the world. I think this is the reason for the increasing rates of mental disease. As people progress their instincts and genetic dependencies cannot keep up and so the elimination of mortal risk results in a feeling of hopelessness and depression among many.

How many people have thought about WWII with yearning? (be honest with yourself) Even in Iraq the risk of United States troops and their allies is very very low. I am not implying that I do not understand the horrible ramifications of global conflict nor am I an advocate for war but I do wonder whether the lack of mortal danger in everyday life weighs on the human instincts and leads to depression and a feeling of worthlessness.

People have a basic instinct to dominate all living speices. This explains our current world dominance. We also have the intellegence to dislike waste and needless suffering. I feel these two traits are at a serious crossroads where world peace could lead to a global mental defect and world war could lead to annihilation. The only alternative seems to continue to make petty reasons to indulge ourselves in violence in the name of righteousness. You see this everyday in conflicts between types of government, religion, markets, civil rights, and plain nationalism. There needs to be violence of some sort to keep us all sane. Without it we would sooner or later have a break down and take the road of total annihilation.

I personally feel that violence (and thus war) may be a necessary part of human nature that cannot be removed without further evolution. If you have never fought for anything can you truely feel alive? If you answer "yes" are you so sure that this is true for the majority of humans?

If we didn't have violent tendencies humans would have been eaten by all the cute, furry animals on the planet.

it's 1:00 am and I am tired. I will finish this in the morning. Wake me up at 9:30, I have an important meeting with a friend at 12:15, okay?

Thanks.

If we didn't have violent tendencies humans would have been eaten by all the cute, furry animals on the planet.

it's 1:00 am and I am tired. I will finish this in the morning. Wake me up at 9:30, I have an important meeting with a friend at 12:15, okay?

Thanks.

Wake up.

Violence makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If my tribe has violent genes we're more likely to eliminate other tribes that might compete for resources and that gives us an edge in survival.

Violence makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If my tribe has violent genes we're more likely to eliminate other tribes that might compete for resources and that gives us an edge in survival.

It sort of makes sense. Women seem to be predisposed to like alpha males in any given society. That doesn't mean that all women will automatically like whomever is has the most of whatever trait is being looked for, but simply that in general, more women will usually be more attracted to a man who has more of the desired quality than other men. But although violence (or at least, the perceived capacity to inflict it) once upon a middle school was the desirable trait, it isn't necessarily: lots of women are attracted to wealth or charisma, and neither of those traits go hand in hand with violent tendencies.

So I would say as a direct answer to the question that violence is not a necessary human trait, but it is one trait that can be and often is selected for biologically and socially.

Is violence a necessary human trait? No. And if you suggest it again I will punch you spark out. Got it? Good.





I apologise for this poor attempt at humour, but it's all I could manage.

It makes sense anyway that you look at it.

No, violence isn't a necessary human trait. Conflict, which is not the same thing as violence, is. Violence can grow out of conflict, but is not always necessary to resolve conflict.

Is violence a necessary human trait? No. (i.e. Ghandi)

However, violence is a trait that can be attributed to any species. Self-defense, in most instances, involves violence. Self-defense is necessary for survival in a predator-prey/dog-eat-dog world. Self-defense is built in to our systems. Because it's built into our systems, violence is a human trait that takes form in whatever nature a person wants it to take (aggressive/defensive).

as a person (in modern life, 1st world country): i don't think so. adrenaline can simply be addictive, and violence of one sort or another is an effective means of providing that 'fix'
certainly there is very little or no violence in my life and i don't regret it. i don't feel "alive" half the time, but thats for other reasons. and when i do feel alive, its because of love and definatley not violence.

philisophically: read Rousseau. again i would say no.

evolutionary standpoint: yes.... and no. our brains and ability to think and use tools (to further make our violence efficient) was what set us apart from other violent animals. but then yes, too...

Of course. How else culd we defend against the foreigners!

Humans have eliminated all major competition in any given part of the world, save one: other humans. The biggest threat to resources is another human. If you're thirsty, the worst thing that can happen is someone else coming along to claim your water.

In short, yes. Violence is natural. It's part of who we are. We have no other competitors, so the only way we have to show our superiority is to kill one another. The only way to secure our own survival is to kill the other guy.

edit: even in first-world countries there is competition for resources. Though it may not result in bloodshed, this competition is still violence.

In short, yes. Violence is natural. It's part of who we are. We have no other competitors, so the only way we have to show our superiority is to kill one another. The only way to secure our own survival is to kill the other guy.
In other words, nice guys finish last?

As long as people disagree with each other there will be violence, and disagreeing is quite permanent.

In other words, nice guys finish last?

No, there's other traits that are equally powerful, and sometimes, more effective than violence:

-cunning
-manipulation
-greed

...In this case, manipulation is possible. The nice guy could possible fight off the violent guy by saying, 'If you hurt me, my dad will know, and he's more violent than you.'

Hence the albeit human nature to usually flee or be scared of things more powerful than itself.

It's certainly one of the most fun!

individually? yes. as a whoel? no.

the fact is that it's there, and that others will always use it regardless of illogical nature. so in a sense, it is necesary for the individual to be ready to use violence.

maybe i hsoudl have read the thread first

To begin with, you cannot generalize about all people being safe. The genocide in Africa? Terrorism. The chances of a terrorist killing you is slim, but it is still possible, so you can't say all people are safe. If humans weren't inteligent, then we wouldn't be here. However inteligence gives us a sense of culture and the sense of differences between each other. I do not feel that I need an adrenaline rush. Differences cause us to cooperate and to hate.
Watching violence is also something to consider. In ancient Rome people watched gladiators kill each other. Now we watch hockey, rugby, football (American), laccrose, and whatever sports where you can tackle check etc. We watch movies where people kill each other. Violence is interesting to watch.
Oh and there are no violent genes.
So is violence needed? No it isn't NEEDED, but humans were, are, and will be violent. We use violence whether you like it are not, so therefore it becomes needed in ALL humans, or NO humans.

Violence makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If my tribe has violent genes we're more likely to eliminate other tribes that might compete for resources and that gives us an edge in survival.Yeah, I think the choice of the word "necessary" in the opening post was an odd one, as I think violent tendencies are an evolutionary trait more than anything else, and I think it's one that's being selected for less and less in the industrialized world. There are parts of the world where violent tendencies might be an evolutionary plus--Iraq currently comes to mind--but in most of the industrialized, it's not so much of one, so it's probably not as dominant in selection anymore. And who know--if we can manage to avoid blowing ourselves up in the next twenty thousand years, maybe we'll see a substantive change. :D

Without WW2, the jet plane and nuclear power, along with a lot of other stuff we take for granted would be would be pretty new today if we had it at all. Without the cold war, people would've never gotten to the moon or sent probes to the planets in the system, and we wouldn't even have sat tv. War does a lot of good because fear, anger, and a lust for power are excellent motivators.