NationStates Jolt Archive

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)

I abhor violence and if I see people using it, I kick their asses! :mad:

Personally, as a pacifist, [] it's not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)

You're missing something right about where those brackets are.

Anyway, to be equally general, I'll say that unnecessary violence is a shame.

It has been suggested that our violence is caused by the lack of a "surrender reflex". Most other high animals have a clear signal that indicates their surrender (a dog showing their exposed neck for instance), which is then accepted by their opponent.

Humans just keep going.

Because as humans the way we put our will onto others is by using their desire not to feel pain against them, it's nothing to be ashamed of, it's simply who we are.

Ultimately words can only go so far, at the end of the day those who do not comply must be killed, that's ironically how I feel about capitalists.

Violence between proper human beings really isn't necessary. Humans should be able to decide upon the best course of action by using their brains (you know, the thing that made the species survive...unlike our fists). And once people take that as their way of life, then violence is idiocy - it's the acknowledgement that there are no rational arguments for your suggested course of action. And if your course of action isn't one that carries rational merit towards reaching the goal (say...a successful life), then as a rule your use of violence is an act against the goal, regardless of its short-term effects.

Of course, there are plenty of people who think that using their brains is too hard, or that their brains (and therefore they as people) aren't worth anything and so they flee towards ideas and people that tell them what to do. They join religions, armies, hierarchies, nations et al.

Basically violence is the easy way out if you think life is too hard.

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)

A vast number of animals use violence, maybe even most of them. The world is a violent place. That humans are violent isn't really surprising. Just look at our closest relatives, Chimpanzees. They're quite violent as well.

What makes violence all the more horrifying in humans is that unlike most animals, we use weapons beyond those that came with our bodies. We're not more prone to violence than most animals, we've just developed tools that make it more efficient.

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)



Violence is in our nature, I'm afraid. We evolved to be capable both of peaceful conduct and aggressive violence, and we can choose which stance to take in each and every situation. But some people are more inclined towards violence, others more towards peaceful solutions.

We might overcome it one day, but we need to physically evolve a bit for that.
And considering that society still allows aggression and violence to be successful evolutionary strategies, I don't really see that happen anytime soon.

Violence between proper human beings really isn't necessary. Humans should be able to decide upon the best course of action by using their brains (you know, the thing that made the species survive...unlike our fists). And once people take that as their way of life, then violence is idiocy - it's the acknowledgement that there are no rational arguments for your suggested course of action. And if your course of action isn't one that carries rational merit towards reaching the goal (say...a successful life), then as a rule your use of violence is an act against the goal, regardless of its short-term effects.

I agree, people should not use violence against one another. However I disagree where you say that it was our brains and not our fists that helped us survive. Yes, humans have always been (seemingly) better at thinking than other species; however there was a point in time where violence was just as important. We as a species would not have lasted long had we been passive during the ice age when it was litterally kill or be killed; violence was the only real way to get food, shelter, and to prevent ourselves from being eaten. This has probbaly created a violence instinct that many of us still have; some stronger than others.
Other members of the primate family use violence the same as us; look at chimpanzees who have been documented by some to fight minature wars for territory... and there are fatalities. Almost every species uses violence some way or another.

Of course, there are plenty of people who think that using their brains is too hard, or that their brains (and therefore they as people) aren't worth anything and so they flee towards ideas and people that tell them what to do. They join religions, armies, hierarchies, nations et al.

Thats an unfair statement; if you were truly a passivist you would beleive in the value and sanctity of all life.

Basically violence is the easy way out if you think life is too hard.

Still not true, sometimes violence is the only real option; we as a species have not learned when or how its best to use it.

I would tell you, but then I'd have to kill you and everyone you've ever know or loved.

One word: Testosterone. Just slip oestrogen into the water supply and things will settle down pretty quick. It might also solve the over-population problem. Win-win.

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)

I think it's the genetic makeup that and when humans feel upset it triggers extra hormones to go off, which means they get angry limiting ability to think rationally (e.g. someone threatens you with a knife you're not going to ask them where they bought the knife, you know the old Fight or flight response).

And it's part of our survival thing, if we lack a chance to express ourselves, or lack ability to fend for ourselves some of us would beat up someone else to nick what they got (in the way of food and money). That's why i think art is an excuse to exercise hormones.*hides*
And it's a conditioned response learned from the parent, to act like them, and if they are violent it passes on.
That and cultural socialisation (ie depending on how your friends act, music you like, icons that represent you) teaches you whether violence is good or bad.
Er i might have strayed off the point i was trying to make, but basically i think it's down to genetics, and survival instincts, and your culture.

Isn't the violence is good? Ask them to your children!

[Proceed to killing more innocents in KoH)

One word: Testosterone. Just slip oestrogen into the water supply and things will settle down pretty quick. It might also solve the over-population problem. Win-win.

Don't know if that will solve the problem. Some of the most irrational, emotional and sometimes violent behavior can be done by people with high levels of estrogen. ;)

Of course, there are plenty of people who think that using their brains is too hard, or that their brains (and therefore they as people) aren't worth anything and so they flee towards ideas and people that tell them what to do. They join religions, armies, hierarchies, nations et al.



Just want you to clarify the last part of this statement. It looks as if you are saying that nearly everyone doesn't want to use their brains and they think they are not worth anything.

We evolved in a violent world and had to be violent to survive. It may not be a terribly wonderful survival mechanism now, but hundreds of thousand years ago, it was the best we had. I doubt that the tendency will evolve away because there is always a need for it, however infrequent.

Because as humans the way we put our will onto others is by using their desire not to feel pain against them, it's nothing to be ashamed of, it's simply who we are.

Ultimately words can only go so far, at the end of the day those who do not comply must be killed, that's ironically how I feel about capitalists.

Everyone else may have ignored your genocidal rant here, but I am not one of your communist pals. Shame on you for wanting to kill innocent people, luckily for us however, if you try to kill in real life, you will go to jail.

But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?Why would it be one or the other?
Evolution allows organisms to overcome their genetic limitation. If you shoot half the violent people every generation, then that's pretty significant selective pressure against violence. (Admittedly you can wonder who'd you get to do the shooting, but that's hardly the point.)

One word: Testosterone. Just slip oestrogen into the water supply and things will settle down pretty quick. It might also solve the over-population problem. Win-win.At best it'd exchange physical violence for psychological violence ;)

However: Violence can be real fun...

We evolved in a violent world and had to be violent to survive. It may not be a terribly wonderful survival mechanism now, but hundreds of thousand years ago, it was the best we had. I doubt that the tendency will evolve away because there is always a need for it, however infrequent.

Pretty much this.

(Admittedly you can wonder who'd you get to do the shooting, but that's hardly the point.)

Robots. Easy.

Because every species isEven sponges?

Because every species is, and we're oh so much better than them at it. There's no species on earth that we couldn't kill off. Apart from some crazy space bacteria or something like that, I suppose.

We are in fact already pretty close to being unable to kill certain Streptococci. Thanks to farmers adding antibiotics to cattlefood we may soon have a completely resistant strain on our hands.
Evolution is fun, innit ;)

Because every species is, and we're oh so much better than them at it. There's no species on earth that we couldn't kill off. Apart from some crazy space bacteria or something like that, I suppose.

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)

Violence is endemic to all living things, not just humans.

If a tigress is annoyed by her cubs, she slaps them head over heels.
If a bird decides to build his nest in another bird's tree, there will be a loud chirping squabble and chase.
Even plants are violent, strangling out their competitors, even poisoning them, in order to gain resources.

Violence is a tendency that is hardwired into us. The advantage of having a larger brain and the capacity to reason and empathize helps humans to be compassionate and less violent, and we should hope that this would be sufficient, but it often isn't.

That is why we have a codex of laws, and authorities to enforce them, that punish people for giving in to their violent instincts instead of relying on their so-called superior logic and compassion.

Because as humans the way we put our will onto others is by using their desire not to feel pain against them, it's nothing to be ashamed of, it's simply who we are.

Ultimately words can only go so far, at the end of the day those who do not comply must be killed, that's ironically how I feel about capitalists.

What a lovely world view. I disagree with it. Should I kill you because you won't change your mind?

One word: Testosterone. Just slip oestrogen into the water supply and things will settle down pretty quick. It might also solve the over-population problem. Win-win.

Obviously, you have never seen a girl fight (I'd sooner try to break up a fight between two teen males than females), or a woman with massive PMS.
YES, I went there!


*is immediately set upon and pecked to death by 10,000 bluejays*


And how much testosterone do toddlers have when they crack each other's heads open over a Tonka truck?

Most (not all; there are syndromes that do cause some of this) excuses about hormones are just that -- excuses.

OR we could just kill the infected livestock and burn them, irradiate the trays, hit them up with some soap, and develop a different strain of antibiotics.

You misunderstand. The streptos in question infect humans and are already resistant to ALL strains of antibiotics except one. And that one is very similar to a type farmers use to let their lifestock grow faster.
Let those famer-antibiotics come into contact with infected humans in sufficient quantities- through water or meatconsumption - and a resistant strain might develop.

Even sponges?
They've got filters, and they're willing to use them.
We are in fact already pretty close to being unable to kill certain Streptococci. Thanks to farmers adding antibiotics to cattlefood we may soon have a completely resistant strain on our hands.
Evolution is fun, innit ;)
OR we could just kill the infected livestock and burn them, irradiate the trays, hit them up with some soap, and develop a different strain of antibiotics.

You misunderstand. The streptos in question infect humans and are already resistant to ALL strains of antibiotics except one. And that one is very similar to a type farmers use to let their lifestock grow faster.
Let those famer-antibiotics come into contact with infected humans in sufficient quantities- through water or meatconsumption - and a resistant strain might develop.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Radiation_warning_symbol.svg/180px-Radiation_warning_symbol.svg.png

*nods*

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Radiation_warning_symbol.svg/180px-Radiation_warning_symbol.svg.png

*nods*

Could work. You would however take out the humans with it ;)
A better alternative might be to just become creationists. In their world resistant strains cannot exist.

One word: Testosterone. Just slip oestrogen into the water supply and things will settle down pretty quick. It might also solve the over-population problem. Win-win.
Errr no.

Could work. You would however take out the humans with it ;)
... well yes.

Copy Pasta!

Charles Darwin on Warfare and Natural Selection
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)


From The Descent of Man (1871), Chapter II - On the Manner of Development of Man from some Lower Form

We can see, that in the rudest state of society, the individuals who were the most sagacious, who invented and used the best weapons or traps, and who were best able to defend themselves, would rear the greatest number of offspring. The tribes, which included the largest number of men thus endowed, would increase in number and supplant other tribes. Numbers depend primarily on the means of subsistence, and this depends partly on the physical nature of the country, but in a much higher degree on the arts which are there practised. As a tribe increases and is victorious, it is often still further increased by the absorption of other tribes. The stature and strength of the men of a tribe are likewise of some importance for its success, and these depend in part on the nature and amount of the food which can be obtained. In Europe the men of the Bronze period were supplanted by a race more powerful, and, judging from their sword-handles, with larger hands; but their success was probably still more due to their superiority in the arts.

From The Descent of Man, Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties

Turning now to the social and moral faculties. In order that primeval men, or the apelike progenitors of man, should become social, they must have acquired the same instinctive feelings, which impel other animals to live in a body; and they no doubt exhibited the same general disposition. They would have felt uneasy when separated from their comrades, for whom they would have felt some degree of love; they would have warned each other of danger, and have given mutual aid in attack or defence. All this implies some degree of sympathy, fidelity, and courage. Such social qualities, the paramount importance of which to the lower animals is disputed by no one, were no doubt acquired by the progenitors of man in a similar manner, namely, through natural selection, aided by inherited habit. When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other. Let it be borne in mind how all-important in the never-ceasing wars of savages, fidelity and courage must be. The advantage which disciplined soldiers have over undisciplined hordes follows chiefly from the confidence which each man feels in his comrades. Obedience . . . is of the highest value, for any form of government is better than none. Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected. A tribe rich in the above qualities would spread and be victorious over other tribes: but in the course of time it would, judging from all past history, be in its turn overcome by some other tribe still more highly endowed. Thus the social and moral qualities would tend slowly to advance and be diffused throughout the world.

But it may be asked, how within the limits of the same tribe did a large number of members first become endowed with these social and moral qualities, and how was the standard of excellence raised? It is extremely doubtful whether the offspring of the more sympathetic and benevolent parents, or of those who were the most faithful to their comrades, would be reared in greater numbers than the children of selfish and treacherous parents belonging to the same tribe. He who was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature. The bravest men, who were always willing to come to the front in war, and who freely risked their lives for others, would on an average perish in larger numbers than other men. Therefore, it hardly seems probable that the number of men gifted with such virtues, or that the standard of their excellence, could be increased through natural selection, that is, by the survival of the fittest; for we are not here speaking of one tribe being victorious over another.

Although the circumstances, leading to an increase in the number of those thus endowed within the same tribe, are too complex to be clearly followed out, we can trace some of the probable steps. In the first place, as the reasoning powers and foresight of the members became improved, each man would soon learn that if he aided his fellow-men, he would commonly receive aid in return. From this low motive he might acquire the habit of aiding his fellows; and the habit of performing benevolent actions certainly strengthens the feeling of sympathy which gives the first impulse to benevolent actions. Habits, moreover, followed during many generations probably tend to be inherited.

But another and much more powerful stimulus to the development of the social virtues, is afforded by the praise and the blame of our fellow-men. To the instinct of sympathy, as we have already seen, it is primarily due, that we habitually bestow both praises and blame on others, whilst we love the former and dread the latter when applied to ourselves; and this instinct no doubt was originally acquired, like all the other social instincts, through natural selection. . . .

We may therefore conclude that primeval man, at a very remote period, was influenced by the praise and blame of his fellows. It is obvious, that the members of the same tribe would approve of conduct which appeared to them to be for the general good, and would reprobate that which appeared evil. To do good unto others- to do unto others as ye would they should do unto you- is the foundation-stone of morality. It is, therefore, hardly possible to exaggerate the importance during rude times of the love of praise and the dread of blame. A man who was not impelled by any deep, instinctive feeling, to sacrifice his life for the good of others, yet was roused to such actions by a sense of glory, would by his example excite the same wish for glory in other men, and would strengthen by exercise the noble feeling of admiration. He might thus do far more good to his tribe than by begetting offspring with a tendency to inherit his own high character.

It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.

I think most violence humans undergo is because of violent and coercive statist policies, most especially war, in which one side is demonized in order to create an aggressive and emotive/irrational group mentality to subjugate the opposition with. All, of course, for the benefit of party officials.

Because as humans the way we put our will onto others is by using their desire not to feel pain against them, it's nothing to be ashamed of, it's simply who we are.

Ultimately words can only go so far, at the end of the day those who do not comply must be killed, that's ironically how I feel about capitalists.

I think that humans are so violent because we are fundamentally stupid. We try to push our views on everyone else and when they choose to belive otherwise, we kill them.

I think that humans are so violent because we are fundamentally stupid. We try to push our views on everyone else and when they choose to belive otherwise, we kill them.

Maybe it's because so many believe in the ideas that permit killing others for?

Just today it hit you? Where have you been? We are by far the most violent animal on the planet. We can find any excuse to kill each other. It is part of who we are, it's how we have survived. Our violent nature is part of us, just as our sexuality and emtions are.

I think most violence humans undergo is because of violent and coercive statist policies, most especially war, in which one side is demonized in order to create an aggressive and emotive/irrational group mentality to subjugate the opposition with. All, of course, for the benefit of party officials.

Which of course explains why Joe Blow murders Jack for sleeping with Joe's wife, why street robbers kill their victims, why rapists kill their victims, why someone was nearly murdered so another woman's daughter could lead the cheerleading squad.... http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/245541/American-Justice-Texas-Cheerleader-Murder-Plot/overview


Because of course all those are related to violent and coercive statist policies. :rolleyes:

Because the meek never inherit anything.

Because the meek never inherit anything.
But they don’t mind that. They are meek after all (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoL7AqJ1Ivo).

I abhor violence and if I see people using it, I kick their asses! :mad:
You a kick ass kinda guy. :D

http://s140.photobucket.com/albums/r5/foxylayouts//comments/flirt/ropeEmRideEmCowgirlCuadro.gif

Humans are aggressive. It's just how we are. But the same aggression that causes us to try and kill each other is also what drives us to do amazing things like go to the moon or build giant particle accelerators to determine the nature of the universe.

What is happening now is that the belief in war as a good thing is dying out. Humans now desire peace, because we have seen what war can do to us. In general, war is no longer an end in itself, but a means to an end.

why are we so violent?

because it works.

we cooperate with "ourselves" and kill "the others".

whoever can kill the other guy the best wins everything he has.

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)

Since the human race is a population of moon-calves anyway, I think violence is a positive force.

We as a species would not have lasted long had we been passive during the ice age when it was litterally kill or be killed; violence was the only real way to get food, shelter, and to prevent ourselves from being eaten.
And I want to bet that we didn't kill all that many animals with our fists.

Violence against animals is a different matter. If they're non-sentient, then it's not all that different to violence against a tree.

Violence against other people wasn't necessary in the ice age either.

Thats an unfair statement; if you were truly a passivist you would beleive in the value and sanctity of all life.
I never said I was a passivist. In fact, I think that the thinking process is often only complete once you then go ahead and actually implement what you thought about.

I think there is a certain value in life itself. But most of our worth as people is self-created, and people who refuse to think and who refuse to take action in order to better their lives just aren't making a particularly good case for themselves.

Still not true, sometimes violence is the only real option; we as a species have not learned when or how its best to use it.
If two sentient beings come together who are willing to accept that rationally thinking about a solution to their problems is the way to live their lives, then violence is not necessary and is indeed counterproductive. If it ever seems in such a case like violence is the only real option, that's because someone isn't willing to think or accept the consequences of thought.

And if I meet someone who wants to hurt me for whatever reason, then I may well have to respond with violence myself. But again, it wouldn't be all that different from cutting down a tree.

Just want you to clarify the last part of this statement. It looks as if you are saying that nearly everyone doesn't want to use their brains and they think they are not worth anything.
That seems to be the sad truth, yes.

Which of course explains why Joe Blow murders Jack for sleeping with Joe's wife, why street robbers kill their victims, why rapists kill their victims, why someone was nearly murdered so another woman's daughter could lead the cheerleading squad.... http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/245541/American-Justice-Texas-Cheerleader-Murder-Plot/overview


Because of course all those are related to violent and coercive statist policies. :rolleyes:

Actually, it does. With the destruction of strong family structures or the tight-knit enclaves that dominated American cities (as described in Jane Jacob's Death and Life of Great American Cities) due to various domestic policies such as inheritance tax, debasement of money, welfare, public education, etc., people become alienated from one another and the importance of sustaining cordial personal relations and far-sightedness is diminished. Naturally, we can expect more violence to result. (Which is why I was astounded when that family was ostracized by their neighborhood when their daughter was found to have contributed to the suicide of a girl. That this kind of collective action is unusual enough to be newsworthy is rather disturbing.)

*cough* *cough* Ghandi :P *cough* *cough* it's just the tempatation to bear arms is a strong one, and eye for an eye.
Or theres Martin Luther King... as long as we have someone with enough character to sway the masses we can live peacefully

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)

Violence on the social level is primarily the result of institutions. Governments around the world are essentially violence institutionalized. Ultimately, the only factor that maintains their "legitimacy" is their capacity for naked aggression. And those who sit at the commanding heights of these institutions are immensely benefited by the use of violence on others. Naturally, they make war or oppress their people. In the US, we find this with the massive amounts of tax money shunted into the defense industry by our politicians.

On the individual level, violence is primarily a response to social conditions. Those who grow up in violent households, culturally conditioned to violence by church and culture will tend to grow up to be violent people. In areas of extreme poverty, violence and crime become the means of survival.

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)

Violence is a part of human nature, and something that is unable to be overcome.

Everyone (well, most people) want peace. Problematically, these people want peace on their terms. I'm sure Amadinejad (sp?) would be a great and peaceful guy if everyone that he hated were dead, and the world was ruled under him. However I doubt that fits Barack Obama's desire for world peace.

War, and violence is something that humans have, and have had throughout it's history, and culture, and even religion, I don't think that we can now 'fix' what has never ever been able to be 'fixed'. It is tied too much to who we are as a species.

Violence is a part of nature. If you think it's a problem particular to humans, you need to get out more, or at least watch some more nature shows. Many species engage in violence against others of their own species.

Why is humankind inclined to be so violent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

That's pretty much it. Not enough $STUFF to go around.

Throughout human history, well meaning people have invented various political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) and economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism) systems with the intention of doing the best for the most people, given the frustrating constraints of our fundamental problem.

Unfortunately, other not so well meaning people have also invented various political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism) and economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Revisionism) systems (or corrupted already existent ones) with the intention of relieving scarcity only for themselves and no one else.

It is this later group that is prone to the use of violence.

Its biological for humans to be inclinced towards violence. Comes from before we were fully evolved humans and were more animalistic. Its part of our nature and hardwiring. That, however, doesnt mean that us evolved humans with the evolved capacity for reason shouldnt be able to supress out violent urges.


Evolution is a beautiful thing.

Violence is what is used by the unintelligent to fill the void in their meaningless existence. If you're an intellectual, you can find peace through both understanding and creativity. If you're stupid, you realize deep down your existence is miserable and meaningless, so you use physical force to give yourself a sense of meaning.

Everyone else may have ignored your genocidal rant here, but I am not one of your communist pals. Shame on you for wanting to kill innocent people, luckily for us however, if you try to kill in real life, you will go to jail.
Yes well bourgeois laws concern me very little, and as you know the class that controls the apparatus of the state decides the laws.


What a lovely world view. I disagree with it. Should I kill you because you won't change your mind?

As I said, talking only goes so far.

I think most violence humans undergo is because of violent and coercive statist policies, most especially war, in which one side is demonized in order to create an aggressive and emotive/irrational group mentality to subjugate the opposition with. All, of course, for the benefit of party officials.
As I see it, pacifism is just more naive idealism and stupidity, the strength of a state is dependent on it's ability to destroy it's opponents. Just as the bourgeois state uses such tactics against the exploited workers, so must any proletarian state when in power use the whole apparatus of the state to repress and destroy any bourgeois counter-revolutionary activities.

Ultimately talking only goes so far, and as Engels said 'an ounce of action is worth a tonne of theory'.

Revolutionary violence is the ultimate tool to impose your will and to silence all reactionaries, it's the ultimate tool to project power against your enemies.

Violence between proper human beings really isn't necessary. Humans should be able to decide upon the best course of action by using their brains (you know, the thing that made the species survive...unlike our fists).


I understand your point about "proper human beings" (those of the first well-meaning group in my own post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13420299&postcount=51)) but I wouldn't completely discount the utility and necessity of fists. Whether used against saber-toothed tigers, the Schutzstaffel, bomb-toting terrorists, or the occasional home invader, fists have been critical to the survival of those who would otherwise prefer brains.

Which is why any proper discussion of "violence" needs to be careful to distinguish between aggression and defense.

</nit-pick>

"If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." - Maximilien Robespierre

One word: Testosterone. Just slip oestrogen into the water supply and things will settle down pretty quick.


Madeleine Albright
Margaret Thatcher
Golda Meir
Hillary Clinton


Can 'O Whoop-ass is a genderless trait. :p

[/I]"If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." - Maximilien Robespierre

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" ~ Mohandas Gandhi

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." ~ Voltaire

"If you are required to kill someone today, on the promise of a political leader that someone else shall live in peace tomorrow, believe me, you are not only a double murderer, you are a suicide, too." ~ Katherine Anne Porter

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." ~ Nietzsche

I can keep spitting these out all day.

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" ~ Mohandas Gandhi


"If you are required to kill someone today, on the promise of a political leader that someone else shall live in peace tomorrow, believe me, you are not only a double murderer, you are a suicide, too." ~ Katherine Anne Porter

Gandhi was not a very nice or sane individual. So any counterintuitive (loony) logic espoused, isn't going to hold much weight.


WWII???

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" ~ Mohandas Gandhi

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." ~ Voltaire

"If you are required to kill someone today, on the promise of a political leader that someone else shall live in peace tomorrow, believe me, you are not only a double murderer, you are a suicide, too." ~ Katherine Anne Porter

"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." ~ Nietzsche

I can keep spitting these out all day.

I love how you quote Nietzsche, I thought I was one of the few people who liked him. In this case, I would say that convictions (hate), greed (or need), and fear are the leading causes of violence, on the local level and on the international level.

Evolution is a VERY slow process. It took over a billion years for bacteria to evolve into people. We've only stopped "needing" violence within the last few centuries. That's a very short time when you consider how much evolution and God (if you are one of us theist folk) procrastinate.

During the ice age, violence meant the difference between life and death. Those unwilling to aggressively kill their food often starved to death or froze to death in their weakened, starved state. Often, you had competition in the form of other tribes. What do you do when your food is so damn hard to kill and sometimes very scarce? Kill the opposing tribe. There wasn't enough food for two or more competing tribes in the area. Either one died or both starved. There was no farming. It was the Ice Age. Food crops would have died.

This violent tendency helped our species survive in times of famine. Kill or starve.

Today, we've lost much of our tendency to just kill anyone outside our tribes and we've made great strides in the field of having children that didn't die before adulthood, but we haven't lost our sex drives or our stupid. This combination of often-unprotected sex and lower death rate has caused a population surge that could one day kill off our species. While a small population can be easily wiped out, a large population drains resources and eventualy starves. The tendency to just kill things is almost as important in our overpopulated world as it was centuries, even millenia ago.

Gandhi was not a very nice or sane individual. So any counterintuitive (loony) logic espoused, isn't going to hold much weight.

I don't care if he was a nice individual. And I have no reason to doubt his sanity. It does not matter by what holy name we kill people. At the end of the day, people are dead. The only legitimate reason to kill is for self-defense against a clear and present danger.

I love how you quote Nietzsche, I thought I was one of the few people who liked him. In this case, I would say that convictions (hate), greed (or need), and fear are the leading causes of violence, on the local level and on the international level.

Indeed they are. I think that Nietzsche brings some vary valuable insights to the table, and they should often be heeded.

The only legitimate reason to kill is for self-defense against a clear and present danger.

Only self-defense?

Gandhi was not a very nice or sane individual. So any counterintuitive (loony) logic espoused, isn't going to hold much weight.



Fail.



"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato.


I stand by that statement, and it pretty much sums up my views of human nature and the possibility of world peace.

"If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." - Maximilien Robespierre

Live by the guillotine, die by the guillotine.

Only self-defense?

Perhaps "self-defense" isn't the most accurate term. As I understand the term, it is a bit broader than merely me individually defending myself. It incorporates a broader collective defense against aggressors.

I'm not sure. I certainly abhor violence of the sort evidenced upon any British street on a Friday or Saturday night; it is mindless, soulless and destructive. However, violence perpetrated in self-defence, or justified by another factor; honour, family, one's country etc. is an action I can only accept as reasonable.

I have little time for those who seek to subdue and repress humanity's immanent violence; it is ingrained within us inextricably. Hence, I'd sooner see it given a safe or justified outlet than see it manifest itself in the myriad more deplorable ways we seem so proficient at finding.

It incorporates a broader collective defense against aggressors.

If only because the collective stands as a stronger force, thus more effectively defending each individual contained therein.

"We" is just lots of "me"'s, and both are the yin and yang of "self."

Live by the guillotine, die by the guillotine.

I was just thinking about pointing that out to Andaras, actually.

If only because the collective stands as a stronger force, thus more effectively defending each individual contained therein.

"We" is just lots of "me"'s, and both are the yin and yang of "self."

Most certainly.

As I see it, pacifism is just more naive idealism and stupidity,

Who the Hell ever said I was a pacifist? I simply realize that violence is always costly, and in the case of killing extremely so, so it is always a physical evil, though not always a moral evil (as in the case of self-defense.) The far more naive and stupid idea is that violence is actually intrinsically good (which is what your foolish statement of violence being 'nothing to be ashamed of' and a useful tool to impose your will would indicate.)

the strength of a state is dependent on it's ability to destroy it's opponents.

Yes, the strength of the state is dependent upon its ability to beat up someone and steal what they have for the benefit of a small political elite. Hence why it deserves to be as weak as possible, or non-existent.

Just as the bourgeois state uses such tactics against the exploited workers, so must any proletarian state when in power use the whole apparatus of the state to repress and destroy any bourgeois counter-revolutionary activities.

The state is always its own particular interest out for the maximization of its income; the particular ideology or host is immaterial to this fact. As its source of income is to decide as its own third party in its own favor against any of its plaintiffs regardless of what the merits might be, to advocate expanding this power by hysterical declarations of crisis is to speak words they have put into your mouth for the parasitic aggrandizement of a political elite. War, as Randolph Bourne astutely noted, is the health of the state, and the health of the state is the sickness of all else.

Ultimately talking only goes so far, and as Engels said 'an ounce of action is worth a tonne of theory'.

Just because you cannot get your way through discussion does not mean that violence should be the next step; in fact, it is hardly ever justified, and it brings into question the veracity of your position just as surely as the argumentum ad baculum.

Revolutionary violence is the ultimate tool to impose your will and to silence all reactionaries, it's the ultimate tool to project power against your enemies.

Revolutionary violence only tightens the bonds that a new political elite shackle those on the periphery with, and just as surely as they project their power upon their enemies so too do they project their power upon their servants more than those who have preceded them. So it has been since time immemorial.

In regard to the OP, humans eat meat.

We evolved in a violent world and had to be violent to survive. It may not be a terribly wonderful survival mechanism now, but hundreds of thousand years ago, it was the best we had. I doubt that the tendency will evolve away because there is always a need for it, however infrequent.

We evolved in a hostile environment (as have even the most non-violent of animals), not necessarily a violent one. We are equipped with various tools that help us to avoid violence as well as take part in it. It is human nature to problem solve, and violence is one solution that can be generally avoided within social situations.

We evolved in a hostile environment (as have even the most non-violent of animals), not necessarily a violent one. We are equipped with various tools that help us to avoid violence as well as take part in it. It is human nature to problem solve, and violence is one solution that can be generally avoided within social situations.

Maybe not, but your thinking too much in terms of brute force, people can be much more subtle in giving the threat of force, our technology has advanced to make our violence more effective and has adapted to modern situations. The threat to kill is still the ultimate power, and it's what holds society together.

Because of people like me.

Perhaps "self-defense" isn't the most accurate term. As I understand the term, it is a bit broader than merely me individually defending myself. It incorporates a broader collective defense against aggressors.

So then, where does that collective end? Where does Self-defense end?

If someone is clearly threatening me, or a friend, by your logic, I can take violent action in a perfectly moral way.

This was the basis, in effect for US involvment in WWII, so any aggression on the parts of any ally must have been ok as well, because we gave them our seal of approval.

Does a pre-emptive strike count? Only if the danger is 'clear and present'? Who makes that determination?

All of a sudden your "simple" only self-defense stance becomes muddled and quite unclear.

it (humanity) ISN'T inheirently violent at all. rather, those who get off on telling others how to live, hit on the formulae of getting what they wanted by stirring people up against each other and appearing to ride in to their rescue a long time ago. we aren't inhierently VIOLENT. what we ARE is inhierently GULLABLE!

=^^=
.../\...

Venndee, you talk as if the socialist use of revolutionary violence is because of a 'failure' of using discussion, but in reality and to the Marxist we know that the only way to dislodge the bourgeois state is by violence.

As Marx rightly observed, no ruling class has ever willingly given up their power without bloodshed. Revolution is the only way, any 'reform' leaves the bourgeois power structure intact, even if it's limited, and thereby like a disease it eats away at worker power from within.

Class warfare, friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

That's pretty much it. Not enough $STUFF to go around.

Throughout human history, well meaning people have invented various political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith) and economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism) systems with the intention of doing the best for the most people, given the frustrating constraints of our fundamental problem.

Unfortunately, other not so well meaning people have also invented various political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism) and economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Revisionism) systems (or corrupted already existent ones) with the intention of relieving scarcity only for themselves and no one else.

It is this later group that is prone to the use of violence.

This is true, it is also in our genetics i.e. Fight or Flight, humans are far more often willing to chose fight even against impossible odds. Also we've got nothing to resist but each other. I wonder what would happen if we found an abandoned alien research facility on Mars ala Mass Effect, or if an alien race tried eradicating us ala the covenant from Halo. Could we really unite? but anyway it comes down to scarcity of resources and survival. I'm all for diplomatic means but if a foreign dignitary tried to threaten my country I'd cause an international incident right then and there. We are a tenacious race, our tenacity and our minds are our best assets.

Maybe not, but your thinking too much in terms of brute force, people can be much more subtle in giving the threat of force, our technology has advanced to make our violence more effective and has adapted to modern situations. The threat to kill is still the ultimate power, and it's what holds society together.

I am talking about the threat to kill as well.

In regard to the OP, humans eat meat.

And because, as everyone has been ignoring, we are animals, and animals use violence on a frequent basis.

"When someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back."
Capt. Malcolm 'Mal' Reynolds

Put too many mice in an eclosure. They start killing each other.

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?


"Tapping our children on the wrist" is violence? Have you actually seen or experienced some actual violence?

Anyway, yes, violence is in our genetic makeup: we're the ultimate predators on this planet, and you can't be a predator without using violence.
Yes, we can overcome unnecessary violence: or, at least, those of us who can use their brains to mitigate and control their own instincts can. Other humans, however, simply act their instincts as the beasts they are.

Venndee, you talk as if the socialist use of revolutionary violence is because of a 'failure' of using discussion, but in reality and to the Marxist we know that the only way to dislodge the bourgeois state is by violence.
The bourgoisie knows this very well, I might add... ask Louis XVI. ;)

I suppose it was the millions of years of killing for food and protection, raping for procreation and whatever else our ancestors did to survive. The most violent humans survived and we are their offspring. We may have a more advanced mind than they did but you cant suppress millions of years of evolution and instinct. It will be a long time before we lose our violent tendancies.

For those of you who think its because of some sort of class warfare, get a clue and try studying something called science. Those that think we should solve everything by discussion, also get a clue. The reality is violence wins, bullshit loses.

Venndee, you talk as if the socialist use of revolutionary violence is because of a 'failure' of using discussion, but in reality and to the Marxist we know that the only way to dislodge the bourgeois state is by violence.

Revolutionary violence is always the ploy of a group of political elite that is dissatisfied that the current leaders are not doing enough to grovel before the state. This is why brutes like Peter the Great, Louis XIV, and Henry VIII are celebrated, but timid leaders like Nicholas II, Louis XVI, and Charles I end up dead. The nature of the state as a particular interest is to expand its power of its monopoly over jurisdiction so as to increase their income through their unique power of subjugating others. All of this babble about 'sociaist revolution' is merely another ploy by a political elite to prey upon hysteria so as to bring the periphery further under their control, for nothing increases the power of the state like militaristic discipline and a messianic savior from illusionary boogeyman.

As Marx rightly observed, no ruling class has ever willingly given up their power without bloodshed. Revolution is the only way, any 'reform' leaves the bourgeois power structure intact, even if it's limited, and thereby like a disease it eats away at worker power from within.

Your unsophisticated political philosophy neglects the nature of the state action. Other than the competition of other states, the only restraint upon state power is its internal legitimacy, since, because as a monopoly on jurisdiction it will abuse others in its own favor, it needs the tacit approval of at least the majority to avoid its income being disrupted. Committing acts of violence against the state will merely increase its legitimacy as it heightens the emotive propaganda it produces in order to initiate a crackdown. Peaceful secession is a superior means of eliminating the state, as it eliminates the power of the state in one region, and would bring its legitimacy into question should it use repressive means against the breakaway region.

Class warfare, friend.

Is nothing but hysteria spurred for the gain of the state and loss of all others.

Why are human beings violent? Because, well, human beings are violent. That's the way we are. So, the actual question ought to be, why are we the way we are? And the answer is, obviously, evolution.

There was an article early summer last year in the Independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent) (British newspaper) about a psychologist who had come to the researched conclusion that we became the dominant species because we're so violent. The quote I remember distinctly was something along the lines of, "Through a combination of violence and something or other, human beings have killed their way to the top of the chain." Both other humans, and other animals.

Basically, violence is a shitty thing, but if it wasn't for past violence and our violent nature, you wouldn't be able to type words on a keyboard into a computer powered by electricity, and so on and so forth. Most of the technological booms have happened because of technology's application to killing other human beings. Not a pleasant thought, huh.

Violence is a necessary evil

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)
Violence is how life works. Really. Everything successful in nature is violent for various reasons, all related to survival. Wimps don't become top dogs. No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given region will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary. It's just how evolution works, by fighting it you're fighting your very nature.

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)
Violence is a feature of our world. No matter how much of a pacifist you are, there are times when you'd be very happy for a bit of violence. For instance, try opening the jar of mustard in my fridge without violence. Try getting open-heart surgery without somebody doing violence to your body. Etc.

What I think you mean is the type of violence which is used to injure, wound, or otherwise harm somebody.

Some violence will always exist, due to accidents and misunderstandings. That's what happens in our messy, matter-filled world.

Directed, intentional violence that is aimed at causing harm...well, there's no physical law requiring this to exist. It's just that it's efficient as hell in many situations, and natural selection has favored those individuals who are prepared to do violence in certain situations.

The cool thing about being human is that we've been shaped by all the same fundamental selective pressures as all other life on this planet, yet we also possess a gloriously massive brain which can over-ride just about any instinctive or "programmed" behaviors we might have.

Violence is how life works. Really. Everything successful in nature is violent for various reasons, all related to survival. Wimps don't become top dogs. No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given region will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary. It's just how evolution works, by fighting it you're fighting your very nature.

Oh yeah?
What about pigeons? They aren't particularly violent, yet there's millions of those.
What about chickens there are roughly 3 chickens for every human on earth.
What about sheep? There's loads of them.
I think evolution can change to work for humans and not the other way around, so we could water down violent actions, in fact i think the longer humans retrain from violence society's will be less inclined towards violence. An example of this could be various tiny tribes you might come across in the Amazon or a better one might be the Buddhists in Tibet (before they were taken over by China, pretty low taking over a tiny nation like Tibet, as an aside why did China take over Tibet in the first place?).
So yes humans have adapted to be aggressive to survive but eventually i think humans might be able to become a more intelligent and tolerant people if Earth isn't destroyed in the near future.

For that to work, practically everyone would have to become less violent because there are people who would take advantage of the situation to, say, conquer a peaceful country or just plain rob someone.

And it will be inevitable but the timescale for it to happen could take thousands of years before this is so. Consider this the age of revelation.
But wars wouldn't happen because genetically people would be less inclined to fight (and hopefully by then the governments are representative of the people).

Oh yeah?
What about pigeons? They aren't particularly violent, yet there's millions of those.
What about chickens there are roughly 3 chickens for every human on earth.
What about sheep? There's loads of them.
I think evolution can change to work for humans and not the other way around, so we could water down violent actions, in fact i think the longer humans retrain from violence society's will be less inclined towards violence. An example of this could be various tiny tribes you might come across in the Amazon or a better one might be the Buddhists in Tibet (before they were taken over by China, pretty low taking over a tiny nation like Tibet, as an aside why did China take over Tibet in the first place?).
So yes humans have adapted to be aggressive to survive but eventually i think humans might be able to become a more intelligent and tolerant people if Earth isn't destroyed in the near future.

For that to work, practically everyone would have to become less violent because there are people who would take advantage of the situation to, say, conquer a peaceful country or just plain rob someone.

What about chickens there are roughly 3 chickens for every human on earth.

I work with chickens. Let me tell you, those little buggers can be plenty violent.

I work with chickens. Let me tell you, those little buggers can be plenty violent.

True but what i mean is they haven't planned mass genocide because another chicken looks different.

True but what i mean is they haven't planned mass genocide because another chicken looks different.

Do you really believe Chickens would be capable of setting up an intricate system of concentration camps?

Do you really believe Chickens would be capable of setting up an intricate system of concentration camps?

No, but if they were capable then they probably would, just to see what would happen, but in order for that to happen they would need to vastly increase levels of intelligence and memory, effectively becoming human.

Which is not what chickens are, thus Chickens aren't as violent as humans.

I suppose i could argue that a throwoff with intelligence is it will be used for nasty things, until some point in the future where everyone realises it just don't work no more.

Oh yeah?
What about pigeons? They aren't particularly violent, yet there's millions of those.
They can swarm, peck, and crap shit to death.

What about chickens there are roughly 3 chickens for every human on earth.
They can be plenty violent, they're stupid, and they're bred for food.

What about sheep? There's loads of them.
Rams fight over mates. Prey also compensates for being pussies by having a fuckload of kids.

I think evolution can change to work for humans and not the other way around, so we could water down violent actions, in fact i think the longer humans retrain from violence society's will be less inclined towards violence. An example of this could be various tiny tribes you might come across in the Amazon or a better one might be the Buddhists in Tibet (before they were taken over by China, pretty low taking over a tiny nation like Tibet, as an aside why did China take over Tibet in the first place?).
So yes humans have adapted to be aggressive to survive but eventually i think humans might be able to become a more intelligent and tolerant people if Earth isn't destroyed in the near future.
You have fun trying to get all of humanity to turn its back on the very thing that has made us the dominant species on this planet. When you're finished call me so I can take over the whole damn pacifist world with a water pistol.

No, but if they were capable then they probably would, just to see what would happen, but in order for that to happen they would need to vastly increase levels of intelligence and memory, effectively becoming human.

Which is not what chickens are, thus Chickens aren't as violent as humans.

I suppose i could argue that a throwoff with intelligence is it will be used for nasty things, until some point in the future where everyone realises it just don't work no more.

You arguing something separate. You are arguing that intelligence makes it easier for already violent animals to enact violence on a wide scale. I am saying that humans are, although violent, probably less violent then animals due to signs of a subtle altruistic nature, as well as how we can apply reason ect... Other animals on the other hand don't bother with moral consideration, that's why you routinely see them eating their young.

No, but if they were capable then they probably would, just to see what would happen, but in order for that to happen they would need to vastly increase levels of intelligence and memory, effectively becoming human.

Which is not what chickens are, thus Chickens aren't as violent as humans.

I suppose i could argue that a throwoff with intelligence is it will be used for nasty things, until some point in the future where everyone realises it just don't work no more.

Our violent tendencies only have greater ability through our higher intelligence to do damage on a large scale. Our nature is no more intrinsically violent than that of our closest relative, the Chimpanzee.

They can swarm, peck, and crap shit to death.


They can be plenty violent, they're stupid, and they're bred for food.


Rams fight over mates. Prey also compensates for being pussies by having a fuckload of kids.


You have fun trying to get all of humanity to turn its back on the very thing that has made us the dominant species on this planet. When you're finished call me so I can take over the whole damn pacifist world with a water pistol.

As i suggested in a previous post (see above) i'm not saying this pacifist stance is inevitable, and it's certainly not reasonable to assume things will get better soon.
What i am saying is that in a few thousand years i think as long as humanity stays alive, we'l adapt to be less violent.:)

You arguing something separate. You are arguing that intelligence makes it easier for already violent animals to enact violence on a wide scale. I am saying that humans are, although violent, probably less violent then animals due to signs of a subtle altruistic nature, as well as how we can apply reason ect... Other animals on the other hand don't bother with moral consideration, that's why you routinely see them eating their young.
Yes humans aren't as violent as some animals, but most animals don't have the capacity to plan widescale violence, thus inspite of many human ideas humans are still violent.
Also i think our altruistic nature is also due to genetics (in large part), and we can change things for better but hmm i'll try an abstract analogy.

Humans are in a play of life,
Genetics is the script,
but occiasonally the actors forget their parts,
so the actors have to change the script,
so genetics are a combination of past scripts,
pasted together,
in the hope that future acts,
will please the audience.

Our violent tendencies only have greater ability through our higher intelligence for doing more damage. Our nature is no more intrinsically violent than that of our closest relative, the Chimpanzee.

A valid point you make, but what i'm trying to say is humans might be able to be less violent in time, and eventually maybe no violence will suffer this planet.

(Honestly i give one optimistic view and i'm taken out by three different posters at once! I only want a light at the end of the tunnel, i know i know in all probability it's a frieght train)

The only way we'll evolve to be less violent over time is if those among us with the most peaceful natures are the ones who breed the most and those on the more violent side breed the least.

The only way we'll evolve to be less violent over time is if those among us with the most peaceful natures are the ones who breed the most and those on the more violent side breed the least.

Or the violent ones, learn by conditioning that violence is useless for future self advancement.
And the peaceful ones teach the violent ones, or at least take power.

As i suggested in a previous post (see above) i'm not saying this pacifist stance is inevitable, and it's certainly not reasonable to assume things will get better soon.
What i am saying is that in a few thousand years i think as long as humanity stays alive, we'l adapt to be less violent.:)
No. There are 3 rules that govern all dominant life.

1. Survival of one's species and one's self are paramount.
2. Wimps don't become top dogs.
3. All dominant life will assume the first two rules apply to all other dominant life.

You can become less violent and more trusting but you leave yourself open to attack when you do so. You cannot afford to be wrong.

(Honestly i give one optimistic view and i'm taken out by three different posters at once! I only want a light at the end of the tunnel, i know i know in all probability it's a frieght train)
Before you stand on the tracks and try to embrace the light do me a favor and give me your wallet.

Or the violent ones, learn by conditioning that violence is useless for future self advancement.
And the peaceful ones teach the violent ones, or at least take power.
Good thing for those of us inclined to violence that this will never be the case. Naked force has solved more conflicts throughout history than anything else.

Got a problem with that? Talk to the gun.

Some people think they can outsmart those inclined to violence. I've never seen anyone outsmart a bullet.

I abhor violence and if I see people using it, I kick their asses! :mad:

I'd have thought you'd TP their houses or pie them in the face. :p

What about pigeons? They aren't particularly violent, yet there's millions of those.

You obviously haven't been to Philly.


What about chickens there are roughly 3 chickens for every human on earth.

And look where that's gotten them, all cooped up.


What about sheep? There's loads of them.


I remember a time when calling someone a mindless sheep was an insult.

No. There are 3 rules that govern all dominant life.

1. Survival of one's species and one's self are paramount.
2. Wimps don't become top dogs.
3. All dominant life will assume the first two rules apply to all other dominant life.

You can become less violent and more trusting but you leave yourself open to attack when you do so. You cannot afford to be wrong.


Before you stand on the tracks and try to embrace the light do me a favor and give me your wallet.
No survival of one's species are not paramount, look at people who commit suicide? how on earth are they thinking they want to survive? This is a flaw in your theory.
No "top dogs" probably aren't 'wimps' but i would rather not be a top dog any day.
Is that really true? the more you trust people the more open to attack you are? Are you paranoid? What about friends? you need to trust them a some point, what about family you need to place trust in them at some point, and yes there have been abuses in the past and even now, but i don't see how it's an accepted norm.

I would gladly give you my money before i die, i'm not going to need it. Not all of it maybe some if i have any.

Good thing for those of us inclined to violence that this will never be the case. Naked force has solved more conflicts throughout history than anything else.

Got a problem with that? Talk to the gun.

Some people think they can outsmart those inclined to violence. I've never seen anyone outsmart a bullet.
Naked force does not solve violence, there is no solution to violence i am aware of than stopping being violent somewhere.
True you can't outsmart a bullet, but you can outsmart the person holding the gun that fires the bullet, by running away.
And besides society is not ruled by fear of bullets, it's ruled by socialising factors that affect you through your culture and accepted norms and values you're brought up with, for example even in Nazi Germany although there was the Gestapo the Nazis did not rule by iron belief in bullets winning all conflict, they played on the human solution to violence, by manipulating many systems. Yes violence does lead to survival, but i would prefer to die in a moral society in peace than a violent one and survive.
You obviously haven't been to Philly.

And look where that's gotten them, all cooped up.

I remember a time when calling someone a mindless sheep was an insult.

Yeah there's loads of insults, but far more of making fun of other humans for various differences they have with your own beliefs.
True i haven't been to Philly, well you can't really blame the chickens for being cooped up it's not as if they had the opportunity to decide what genetics they will have.
Man i make a few optimistic ideas come out and suddenly near enough 7 posters have tried to prove me wrong.
So maybe i'm wrong, or maybe you're all thinking the same thing which happens to be incorrect, perhaps there's another theory?
I can see the merit of your comments but i disagree that humans will always class survival above basic moral behaviour, as moral behaviour (as in being nice to other people) is a better strategy for survival than any theory on violence being a better idea.

But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?


yes


to both.

is it something that humankind can overcome?

Not any time soon, if people keep popping out babies and using resources. Scarcity will bring increased competition.

No survival of one's species are not paramount, look at people who commit suicide? how on earth are they thinking they want to survive? .

Defective people. Other drives have over-ridden the survival instinct. Evolution produces functional, not perfect.



Is that really true? the more you trust people the more open to attack you are? Are you paranoid? What about friends?.

Yes it's true. It does not mean that ALL people will attack you, just that you will be more open and invite more attack. This is why senior citizens attract more scam artists. This is why children shouldn't be trusting of the stranger who offers a ride home. This is why Zebras don't stray from the herd. There are predators out there.



I would gladly give you my money before i die, i'm not going to need it. Not all of it maybe some if i have any.
.[/QUOTE]

A million good causes in the world and that's the best you can do? How about leaving it to UNICEF? Doctors without Borders? Nature Conservancy?
Please, don't die for a while. Become wealthy, find something you believe in, write a Will, then if it floats your boat, go for it.



Naked force does not solve violence, there is no solution to violence i am aware of than stopping being violent somewhere..

You don't need a solution to violence, just a solution to the fact that something is trying to kill you. Your solution may in fact be violent, but that does not change the fact that you are alive and free to ponder future solutions.


And besides society is not ruled by fear of bullets, it's ruled by socialising factors that affect you through your culture and accepted norms and values
.

Society is ruled by norms and values backed by bullets. The world got a first hand experiment: Montreal, 1969: What happens when the police go on strike in a modern, Western city? How long before the first riot? And mind you, Canadians, not Somalis.



Yes violence does lead to survival, but i would prefer to die in a moral society in peace than a violent one and survive..

You are currently surviving in a violent society. There are no non-violent societies in the world, just varying degrees.

Or the violent ones, learn by conditioning that violence is useless for future self advancement.
And the peaceful ones teach the violent ones, or at least take power.

That will not alter their genetic code.

No survival of one's species are not paramount, look at people who commit suicide? how on earth are they thinking they want to survive? This is a flaw in your theory.
When was the last time you saw a whole dominant species get together and jump off a cliff? This is a flaw in you criticism of my assertion.

No "top dogs" probably aren't 'wimps' but i would rather not be a top dog any day.
You're human, humans are the dominant species on Earth. You're not top withing the species and you'll probably never be close but you're above cats, dogs, fish, and just about any other species you can name whether you like it or not. If you don't want to be top dog then get on your knees and be my bitch.

Is that really true? the more you trust people the more open to attack you are? Are you paranoid? What about friends? you need to trust them a some point, what about family you need to place trust in them at some point, and yes there have been abuses in the past and even now, but i don't see how it's an accepted norm.
I don't have friends, I've never had any and I'm not in any hurry to make some. And this is about the dominance of species, it's not perfectly descriptive of individuals, it was meant to show why people are violent. Humanity got to be what we are today because it followed those rules. Abandon them now and you'll leave yourself open to attack.

I would gladly give you my money before i die, i'm not going to need it. Not all of it maybe some if i have any.
I wasn't talking about money, I was talking about life. What I was saying is that if you don't guard yourself you could end up dead.

Naked force does not solve violence, there is no solution to violence i am aware of than stopping being violent somewhere.
Again, you don't seem to understand what violence or conflict are. Violence is a form of conflict resolution. A conflict is a disagreement, something that happens when two or more opposing interests clash. Violence resolves conflict by eliminating one or more of what is causing the incompatibility. Violence is a win/lose form of conflict resolution, different from other forms like compromise which is lose/lose.

True you can't outsmart a bullet, but you can outsmart the person holding the gun that fires the bullet, by running away.
You cannot outrun a bullet and that usually ends the conflict in favor of the person holding the gun so the use of force has resolved the conflict.

And besides society is not ruled by fear of bullets, it's ruled by socialising factors that affect you through your culture and accepted norms and values you're brought up with, for example even in Nazi Germany although there was the Gestapo the Nazis did not rule by iron belief in bullets winning all conflict, they played on the human solution to violence, by manipulating many systems. Yes violence does lead to survival, but i would prefer to die in a moral society in peace than a violent one and survive.
You'd prefer to die in a moral society in peace than die in a violent society and survive? And the authoritarian you mentioned ruled through the threat of force, something you can only do after demonstrating the force at least once.

You cannot escape the fact that you are here today because your ancestors were violent, ate everything in sight like they had some sort of wasting illness, and fucked non-stop. If you have the willpower to fight millions of years of evolution and stop being violent, cool, more for the rest of us. If you can do the same and stop eating so much, cool, more for the rest of us. And if you can fight your sexual urges, cool, more for the rest of us.;)

Man i make a few optimistic ideas come out and suddenly near enough 7 posters have tried to prove me wrong.
So maybe i'm wrong, or maybe you're all thinking the same thing which happens to be incorrect, perhaps there's another theory?
We've got science and evolution on our side, I doubt we're incorrect on this.

A good start would be to weed out republi-fascism.

I really hope that was said for the lulz.
One can never tell after LG hits the stage.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13423778&postcount=36
<.<
>.>

A good start would be to weed out republi-fascism.
I really hope that was said for the lulz.

(generic) "you", can always spin what you mean by violence, but to knowingly cause avoidable suffering, is in no way justified by doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

I don't think we're inclined to be violent; the more we've learned about evolution, the more evidence there is that trust, altruism and compassion play a far greater role in biological evolution than any form of violence or aggression. Honestly and fairness are a deeply ingrained aspect of biological and conscious ethics; as much as we might want to deny it, humans are by and large inclined to work together rather than against each other. Organisms generally share, work together, pool their resources, and generally act in a way we would consider "good"; there is violence, but the inherent trend is towards peaceful cooperation and fair competition rather than violence.

The truth is, competition can only go so far; a species that relied solely on competition would die out very, very quickly because there would be no way for them to work together to ensure their common survival. We've seen it time and again in human culture; when people lose the ability to cooperate and instead descend in to a violent, competitive free-for-all that is completely incapable of working together to face common problems, that civilization collapses and it is ultimately destroyed by those that are more capable of working together. Cooperation is so deeply ingrained in to human biocultural behavior that it would be nothing more than sheer ignorance to attempt to survive, let alone thrive completely without the help of others.

Lastly, there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest". It is not a part of the theory of evolution, end of story. This is nothing more than an inaccurate myth that reflects the archaic, racist and elitist ideology known as Social Darwinism rather than the reality of the natural world; nature doesn't give a damn if you're the best, all it cares about is that you're good enough to reproduce. Humans aren't predisposed to violence, we're just a lot better at it because of our intelligence and ability to consciously manipulate our environment.

I don't think we're inclined to be violent; the more we've learned about evolution, the more evidence there is that trust, altruism and compassion play a far greater role in biological evolution than any form of violence or aggression. Honestly and fairness are a deeply ingrained aspect of biological and conscious ethics; as much as we might want to deny it, humans are by and large inclined to work together rather than against each other. Organisms generally share, work together, pool their resources, and generally act in a way we would consider "good"; there is violence, but the inherent trend is towards peaceful cooperation and fair competition rather than violence.

The truth is, competition can only go so far; a species that relied solely on competition would die out very, very quickly because there would be no way for them to work together to ensure their common survival. We've seen it time and again in human culture; when people lose the ability to cooperate and instead descend in to a violent, competitive free-for-all that is completely incapable of working together to face common problems, that civilization collapses and it is ultimately destroyed by those that are more capable of working together. Cooperation is so deeply ingrained in to human biocultural behavior that it would be nothing more than sheer ignorance to attempt to survive, let alone thrive completely without the help of others.

Lastly, there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest". It is not a part of the theory of evolution, end of story. This is nothing more than an inaccurate myth that reflects the archaic, racist and elitist ideology known as Social Darwinism rather than the reality of the natural world; nature doesn't give a damn if you're the best, all it cares about is that you're good enough to reproduce. Humans aren't predisposed to violence, we're just a lot better at it because of our intelligence and ability to consciously manipulate our environment.

Thank you, i tried to say this. Strange how no none has criticised this comment, but hammered into mine even though they are pretty similar, no fair.

Thank you, i tried to say this. Strange how no none has criticised this comment, but hammered into mine even though they are pretty similar, no fair.
I have somewhere to be for the next 6 hours so I won't be able to pick it apart but I may when I get home tonight. Violence is the oldest and among the easiest and most popular kind of conflict resolution. You are here today because your folks were aggressive, clever, sex-crazed gluttons.

Lastly, there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest". It is not a part of the theory of evolution, end of story.

"This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest." -Charles Robert Darwin, cited in the Bartleby Online edition of Origin of Species

Survival of the fittest most definitely is a concept that has been a part of the theory of evolution since Darwin. However, it doesn't mean what most people think it means.


This is nothing more than an inaccurate myth that reflects the archaic, racist and elitist ideology known as Social Darwinism rather than the reality of the natural world; nature doesn't give a damn if you're the best, all it cares about is that you're good enough to reproduce.

That's the key right there:

As far as "nature" is concerned, in this context, fitness is determined by whether or not you are able to produce offspring which reach sexual maturity.

It's kind of defined backwards. If what you did worked, then you were "fit." If it didn't, you're not.

Note: simply reproducing IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THIS. If you produce 100 offspring but they all get eaten by bears in infancy, you are a failure from the point of view of selection, just as assuredly as if you'd had no offspring at all.


Humans aren't predisposed to violence, we're just a lot better at it because of our intelligence and ability to consciously manipulate our environment.
Humans most definitely are predisposed to violence. Of course, we're predisposed to a lot of things that aren't always a great idea in every context. That's where our brains come into play. Humans rely very, very little on instinct.

That's the key right there:

As far as "nature" is concerned, in this context, fitness is determined by whether or not you are able to produce offspring which reach sexual maturity.

It's kind of defined backwards. If what you did worked, then you were "fit." If it didn't, you're not.

Note: simply reproducing IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THIS. If you produce 100 offspring but they all get eaten by bears in infancy, you are a failure from the point of view of selection, just as assuredly as if you'd had no offspring at all.


Quite so. "Fittest" doesn't necessarily mean "strongest," "smartest," "fastest," etc.

Fittest just means good enough to get your genes across to the next generation, who in turn get their genes, including those you contributed, to the following one. "Fittest" simply means well adapted to survive long enough in your environment to produce viable offspring.

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)

Violence is necessary when one is faced with violence. When someone attacks you you do not have the option of not fighting. You have the options of winning or loosing the fight by violence or loosing it by default.

When fighters face pacifists they tend to replace them. Not every time, but often enough that there's mostly just fighters left.

I don't think we're inclined to be violent; the more we've learned about evolution, the more evidence there is that trust, altruism and compassion play a far greater role in biological evolution than any form of violence or aggression.
Where is this evidence? I have seen plenty that shows the faster, stronger, smarter, more aggressive, and more sexually active are more successful but I have not seen nearly as much showing that rolling over, selflessness, and being a pussy help a species survive. One would think that in the competition of nature those would be bad qualities. So is getting killed for being overly aggressive and overconfident but that's not what I'm arguing.

Honestly and fairness are a deeply ingrained aspect of biological and conscious ethics; as much as we might want to deny it, humans are by and large inclined to work together rather than against each other. Organisms generally share, work together, pool their resources, and generally act in a way we would consider "good"; there is violence, but the inherent trend is towards peaceful cooperation and fair competition rather than violence.
There is nothing in our genes that makes us work together or gives us some concept of ethics and morality. If there were then I'd have more friends and be less of a paranoid loner who's far to cynical for my age. To suggest that honesty, a sense of fairness, and ethics are determined by biology is just plain foolish. We learn our values through socialization; it's our bodies, not our minds, that are determined by nature. Your conscious is the result of your upbringing, determined by nuture.

The truth is, competition can only go so far; a species that relied solely on competition would die out very, very quickly because there would be no way for them to work together to ensure their common survival. We've seen it time and again in human culture; when people lose the ability to cooperate and instead descend in to a violent, competitive free-for-all that is completely incapable of working together to face common problems, that civilization collapses and it is ultimately destroyed by those that are more capable of working together. Cooperation is so deeply ingrained in to human biocultural behavior that it would be nothing more than sheer ignorance to attempt to survive, let alone thrive completely without the help of others.
The truth is that competition got you where you are today, the very competition that you're arguing against right now.

Lastly, there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest". It is not a part of the theory of evolution, end of story. This is nothing more than an inaccurate myth that reflects the archaic, racist and elitist ideology known as Social Darwinism rather than the reality of the natural world; nature doesn't give a damn if you're the best, all it cares about is that you're good enough to reproduce. Humans aren't predisposed to violence, we're just a lot better at it because of our intelligence and ability to consciously manipulate our environment.
Since someone already mentioned that survival of the fittest is a part of the theory of evolution, the mechanism which drives evolution, I won't bother with that assertion.

I will however mention that Social Darwinism is often misunderstood. Social Darwinism is a theory that competition between individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. It's often used and misused by critics who try to equate it to Nazism, racism, and claim it professes anti-philanthropic policies and activities.

What matters is survival. If being nice to everything and everyone were more effective and efficient than throwing a few punches then what you're saying would be true, but it isn't so I'm right and you're wrong. If you've got a problem with that then...
http://aklemai.com/albums/forum/slapya.gif

Humankind are bastards, yea, we are just huge bastards who are idiots. *nods*

Today it hit me. We are truly a violent race. From vicious long wars to tapping our children on the wrist, we use violence. But is it in our genetic makeup, or is it something that humankind can overcome?

Personally, as a pacifist, violence is not necessary, and all violence saddens me, but I would like to know what everybody thinks. :)

Personally, violence is fun! I don't see why your hypothalomus doesn't release endorphins as you fence a Buccaneer across the deck of a frigate and then plunge your cutlass striaght into his gut or when, after having chased a gazelle across the savana at a breakneck sprint, you sink your teeth into its neck and vigorously wrestle it to the ground (i.e., if you're a cheetah)...

Who cares about morality? Hurrah for booty or fresh gazelle carcass!

Hurrah for booty or fresh gazelle carcass!

Or fresh gazelle carcass booty ;)

Quite so. "Fittest" doesn't necessarily mean "strongest," "smartest," "fastest," etc.

Fittest just means good enough to get your genes across to the next generation, who in turn get their genes, including those you contributed, to the following one. "Fittest" simply means well adapted to survive long enough in your environment to produce viable offspring.

In short, if your ancestors had no descendants, you don't get to vote.

Thank you, i tried to say this. Strange how no none has criticised this comment, but hammered into mine even though they are pretty similar, no fair.

Too many words in it. :p
Actually, it's probably an issue of credit ... Vetalia's worked up quite a bit in his stay here.