|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 3200 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I know you didn't feel like researching the numbers, but you really should have. I knew you'd tke care of that.
The number of known wars in the 20th century is staggering. Yet, not one in the US, Canada, Sweden, UK, etc. Where a less agreessive people reside. Of the places where these wars are taking place, how many are first world countries, have a lawful government, or even a structured government? Why are people from counrties where wars are taking place trying to get to the US, where no wars are taking place? - Would you not agree that it's for a better living condition, for the raising of their children in a non-hostile environment, for the safety of their families, etc? My point was that people/families/social groups, will always seek a less agreessvive, less hostile environment to raise their children. If their current environment is not representative of this then they migrate to one that is.
You can reduce these causes of death and still wage war and fight increasing number of conflicts and see the population increase. Yes but you raise the wars else where, where living conditions are not good to begin with. Not one war has been started on US soil in a long period of time, this type of non-aggressive environment that we enjoy in the US - (and else where too) - is protected and nurtured to stay that way. It is governed with laws to ensure it's success. It is sought after by people around the world. It is where people want to live, and why, because, like I stated:
Oni writes: Simply put, a society that is less aggressive will have a better success rate and pass these traits to their offspring. The decrease of aggression and increase of altruism will insure the future success of the species as a whole. So we are altruistic because as a whole it is a better environment for us to live in and raise children. - Oni "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stagamancer Member (Idle past 5165 days) Posts: 174 From: Oregon Joined: |
That was not my point. Well, then you need to be more clear. In one sentence you argue that altruism would be selected for by natural selection, and the next you state that this increase in altruism would ensure the success of the species as a whole. So, how is that not your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 3200 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
In one sentence you argue that altruism would be selected for by natural selection, and the next you state that this increase in altruism would ensure the success of the species as a whole. Yes, that was my point. But you said:
Stagamancer writes: Natural selection is never directed by the future success of the species as a whole Which I never said it did. Would you not agree that those who have these traits and pass it on to their offspring will have a better success rate than those who do not have these traits? - In other words, would a society that was not altruistic survive for a long period of time given todays more modern standards of living? I would argue that they would not, as shown by our current rate of success in altruistic societies vs. non-altruistic socities. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2947 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Cedre.
It's good to see you back.
Cedre writes: Lets for a second analyze what I actually mean by unbeneficial humanitarianism; many times when we are good to others almost never do we think about the future much less about our selfish futures we in fact try to concentrate on the present and how we can best help the person who is in need, this is the experience of even the individual who argues from the selfish standpoint that I have given above that is that we do good things to others because we will benefit in the end. I think you've missed something rather important with this explanation: Evolution is not a conscious process. Altruism need not be, either. The fact that you aren't consciously thinking about the future when you do something good doesn't really prove anything about your reason for doing it. You need not be aware of the evolutionary benefit of something in order for it to have an evolutionary benefit. For example, does it require any forethought in order to sweat?Perspiration helps us prevent overheating on warm days, yet one does not need to be aware of this benefit in order for perspiration to occur. Likewise, you do not need to understand the benefits of feeling good about helping somebody in order for the feeling to convince you to help somebody. So, the good feeling you mentioned is easily explained as a mechanism of immediately rewarding a behavior whose real evolutionary benefits are not so immediate. Anyone who receives such a reward will continue to behave such that the reward continues, and, because the behavior brings benefits, those who find the behavior rewarding are more likely to perform the behavior, and, consequently, more likely to achieve a greater portion of the benefits. And, they need not be aware that any of this is going on, at all. ----- I should also like to point out that selfishness is as much dependent on premeditative analysis as is altruism. How can you serve your own best interests if you are unable to determine what behaviors serve your own best interests? Impulsively grabbing a piece of cake cannot truly be considered selfish if it doesn't benefit you more than not grabbing the cake, so selfishness requires as much knowledge of what will benefit oneself as "selfish altruism" does. So, if the message of Christ is true (i.e., that charity is in our best interest), how can greed and gluttony be considered selfish? Rather, they should be considered, short-sighted. -----
Cedre writes: for this selfless acts to be dismissed as your typical selfishness in disguise they should ultimately increase the survival of the giver to be precise and not anyone else apart from the giver. There is no need for evolution to be stingy. Bees visit flowers to get nectar and pollen for food. But, it inadvertantly helps the flower propagate itself. Thus, there is clearly no need for an action to completely deny benefits to all but one’s own self. Furthermore, designing such an action such that nobody else could benefit from it would probably require more forethought than selfish altruism. Edited by Bluejay, : Minor edits -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2762 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Yet, not one in the US, Canada, Sweden, UK, etc. Where a less agreessive people reside. Oh geez, how many wars is the US responsible for in the past century? How many wars have we actually fought in the past century? It doesn't really matter if we haven't had any wars within our own borders, because that does no measure non-aggression. It simply means no one is really capable of attacking us on our own land. Are you familiar with the wars Britain has fought in? Has actually had to fight within her own borders? Sweden's an anomaly, but they got awful close in WWII, and they were basically Hitler's dog in terms of troop transit and war goods until he was losing the war. Had they put up firmer resistance, Sweden would not have stood.
Of the places where these wars are taking place, how many are first world countries, have a lawful government, or even a structured government? Actually, most of them. The most destructive wars were carried out by first world countries or countries that have structured government. Most wars are carried out by countries that have a structured or lawful government. Non-war mass deaths are generally carried out by the same. And they generally take place within those borders. Who was it, exactly, who dropped the A-bomb? Who was it who firebombed Germany and Japan? Who was it, exactly, who carried out the final solution? Who was it who carried out the purges around the world? Who was it who started WWI and WWII? Who, exactly, is responsible for the rape of Nanjing? Who was it who fought wars in the middle east concerning Israel? Who invaded Grenada? Who started the UK-Argentinian conflict? In the case of civil war, more often than not have a structured government is fighting against separatists or revolutionaries (which can lead to the breakdown of government). This is because government has a monopoly on the means of violence within the state. If not government, than a quasi-governmental organization that fills the same role. But throughout history, the worst are started by those "less aggressive" countries. And actually take place within those countries. Remember, you claimed that we were less aggressive in total, not that we simply weren't aggressive within our own borders (which is questionable itself: how many gun deaths do we have each year due to violence?). So let me repeat: we are not any less aggressive than we were even a century ago, never mind 6000 years ago. If anything, we are more aggressive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 1086 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Kuresu writes: Oh geez, how many wars is the US responsible for in the past century? How many wars have we actually fought in the past century? It doesn't really matter if we haven't had any wars within our own borders, because that does no measure non-aggression. It simply means no one is really capable of attacking us on our own land. In reference to the US, not since WW2. May have something to do with nuclear deterrence.
Are you familiar with the wars Britain has fought in? Has actually had to fight within her own borders? The UK sure had plenty of wars within such borders prior to Culloden. There are plenty of instances where thousands of troops fought each other over who should be the CEO of Britain.
Sweden's an anomaly, but they got awful close in WWII, and they were basically Hitler's dog in terms of troop transit and war goods until he was losing the war. Had they put up firmer resistance, Sweden would not have stood. A perceptive and historically backed observation. ...
So let me repeat: we are not any less aggressive than we were even a century ago, never mind 6000 years ago. If anything, we are more aggressive. That depends entirely by who is meant by 'we.' Are China and India included in this 'we?'
Here is a decent approximation of actual casualties due to war, political and ethnic violence, genocide, famine, and the direct demands of human sacrifice among some religions. Unfortunately, it does not cover most deep past examples of anything other than war casualties due to lack of data. Perhaps a deeper examination of the data may lead to a different conclusion, particularly when viewed in terms of percentage of population, rather than raw numbers. To me the data indicates most all humans at any time in history are capable of both massive violence and cruelty, regardless of geography. I see no modern trend toward Europeans being more 'evil' or indeed as a percentage of the population, more 'cruel' than anyone else on this planet. I vote for modern democracies within the last 100 years being less likely to start wars or engage in genocide, perhaps you would like to argue otherwise in the appropriate thread. {ABE} (to all, not Kuresu) Or more to the point of the thread, how did Darwin cause the An Shi Rebellion, the Mongol Empire, the Taiping Rebellion, Timur, Napoleon, The Thirty Year's War, or the Yellow Turban Rebellion, just to start? I'm all ears (eyes). Edited by anglagard, : Attempt to be on topic Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1739 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
First of all thank you all for your contributions to this thread so far; the reaction at this point I should say is pleasing. However judging from your own answers to this question I can safely say that it is no doubt a tough nut to crack, but crack it we shall ultimately; hopefully this is one of the fortes of having a critically analyzing brain. Enough about that time to get down to brass tacks.
Firstly I’m not completely at ease with the argument from inclusive altruism or survival of the genes model. This is a response that I have heard mentioned one too many times already and it let me down each time. I’m not saying that it is plain useless but it’s just not a satisfactory reply to this question. Let me make my claim.We are aware that in normal circumstances that it is the individuals of a population that harbor the fitter that is the more suited genes to that given setting that are responsible for protecting the population’ weaker and more vulnerable components and warding off potential dangers. Now let us take following invented but possible example: Let us assume that a strange disease is sweeping a squirrel population everyone’s affected save one squirrel that is somehow immune to it. Victims are defenseless and are much too in agony to mind their circumstances. Suddenly danger looms and the unaffected member spots it alone he sounds the relevant distress signal and the population right away reacts and starts finding safe haven. The only healthy member is quickly devoured by the fearsome predator having exposed his location and the others manage to sneak away on their last legs. The entire population may die down later on if the sickness is deadly or they may recover but they have lost the only gene that is resistant to the sickness. Here we have survival of the weakest and not the fittest. Is this a remote case? Hardly, the stronger fitter members always risk their lives to protect the weaker members at their own expenses thereby risking the passing on of fitter genes. No matter how we argue survival of the fittest deals directly with the individuals’ survival predominantly and maintaining his/her genes, and it has no business with the survival of others because natural selection is not a conscious process. Furthermore why should individual be willing to keep its competition alive? When resources get so limited and survival is the rule of the day, it makes more sense for individuals to be selfish and fight for resources.We see this kind of behavior often in social cats and even primates they will fight for the resources because at the end of the day this is the best way to survive in a world with limited resources. This is what is also happening inside the business world, generally selfishness and greed is what keeps many companies to stay on top of their game, it would be a fatal move for a business guy to bail out his competitor when his business is going bust, and not doing this is what nurtures survival of the fittest and not survival of the weakest. Another vital point worthy of mention is that looking at our own species; the stronger tougher folks are those ones who have had it tough, who have received the least care an affection from others they become the gritty business man/women and they know how to survive, on the other hand those who have had it easy will be less likely to make a success in the world. Here’s the mechanism for natural selection, you need a dodgy environment to develop new structures to counter the new dangers and limitations that face you, this will pressure you body to cope in new ways. But when you always feel secure as everyone around you is feeling sorry for you and always helping you, your body will have no need to develop ways to better survive. This counters the true spirit of natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1739 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
Bluejay writes: I think you've missed something rather important with this explanation: You have missed the point of that statement, my point is that we do things even if they don't benefit our survival we help others we are kind to them awe are gallant. This is strange in world where our prime purpose is to survive, why do we take care of the sick whenthey will have no affect on our own survival why do we look after terminal patients to the last breath. This can not be explained by the studies committed on altruism. In fact altruism is bad for evolution, look here as an example, when plants compete for resources the stronger plants will cause the demise of the weaker ones by being tough competitors, however when weaker plants survive through competition it may develop ways in which to become better competitors, and when they do the previously strong but now weaker competitors will also be pressured into developing new ways to survive. This is what drives natural selection to start with "competition". Bluejay writes: There is no need for evolution to be stingy. Bees visit flowers to get nectar and pollen for food. But, it inadvertantly helps the flower propagate itself. Thus, there is clearly no need for an action to completely deny benefits to all but ones own self. Furthermore, designing such an action such that nobody else could benefit from it would probably require more forethought than selfish altruism." Again you have missed the mark with this one, Evolution has to be stingy in order to be effective. Bees are attracted to the brightest sweetest smelling flowers aren't they. If your a dull little tiny scentless flower in the shadow of your bigger flower neighbors, your chances of having a bee land on you are meager compared to you brighter larger counterparts, in this way the flowers also compete to be more attractive and they may also find new ways of disseminating their pollen or fertilization. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 287 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Cedre. You didn't say whether you had read The Selfish Gene or not. Given what you have written though, I'm assuming not. If you genuinely want to understand this issue I strongly recommend picking up that book. Communicating over the internet will only get you so far.
quote: I hope you realise that the measure of a successful theory is not whether you are at ease with it or not.
quote: No we don't. That is simply not true. Take my rabbit example. Will the rabbit with the best genes always be the one who spots the predator? Clearly not. The rabbit with the lousiest genes in the group might be the one who spots it. Any rabbit that spots a predator will drum out a warning, not just those with the "best genes".
quote: Let's not assume that. It's a terrible example and it is extremely unrealistic. My rabbit example happens every day. In your example, all but one squirrel is doomed, so the whole group is doomed anyway.
quote: Just to reiterate, this is not the case. Also, "fitter" in an evolutionary sense need not mean "stronger". I think you are already aware of this, but none the less.
quote: Remember, the animal (in most cases except man) is not fully concious of why it does the things it does. A rabbit drums out a warning by instinct, it doesn't decide to do it. This is important, because it is the gene that matters here. Why should a rabbit risk itself? Because in doing so, it can help preserve its fellows and thus preserve its genes. The kind of behaviours that we are talking about take place in social animals, so there is a group of genetically related animals. The rabbit may be risking itself, but it is protecting its close relations, siblings, offspring and so on. Even the less more distantly related members of the group will share a high percentage of genes. The only genetic information that will be lost (in my rabbit example again) would be any de novo mutations in the animal that is killed. I would also like you to think for a moment about how predation works in practise. In giving the warning is the rabbit increasing its risk? Yes, but only marginally. Is the rabbit that gives the warning necessarily the one that the predator was targeting? Absolutely not. Is the rabbit that spots the predator likely to be the one who spots it first? Maybe, maybe not. What I am trying to say here is that whilst the rabbit that gives the warning is making some sacrifice, it is hardly imposing a death sentence on itself. The risk is real, but acceptable.
quote: They will also share resources. Lions share their kills with the pride, with some preference given to pecking order, but no consideration given to who actually made the kill. Chimps have a highly developed sense of social altruism and very often co-operate with each other. The reality on the ground does not fit the picture you are painting.
quote: Really? How did you determine that? How do you know that this is the best way? How do you know that altruistic co-operation isn't more effective? Did you study the literature? Conduct a series of detailed experiments? Or did you just decide that that was the was it was? The very fact that many creatures display co-operative behaviour is enough to prove that selfish individualism is not always the best way; sometimes it is simply more effective to co-operate. Example; African hunting dogs. Theses are social animals. they live in family groups/packs. They live socially and hunt co-operatively. Indeed, they could hardly do otherwise, since a lone dog makes a poor hunter. They depend upon each other to survive. Exiles from the pack would be doomed. So what happens when a dog suffers an injury, such as a broken leg? It can't hunt effectively, it can't fight effectively, it is, in short, dead wood, a liability. So do the other dogs act selfishly and drive it out? No. They still share food with the wounded dog, even though it had no part in catching the prey. In other words, they are altruistic. The pack-bonding instinct is so strong, that it induces the pack to look after their comrade. In doing so, the wounded dog clearly benefits and may even recover sufficiently to breed at a later date. The pack also benefit. If they are attacked by predators or rival packs, the (expendable) wounded dog will take the flak, whilst the rest of the pack make a getaway. Note that this last example is less altruistic, but it does work. This is not an idle notion by the way; I use this example because I have seen footage of exactly this situation played out in a nature documentary.
quote: Have you read the news lately? Selfishness and greed are what has caused a global frickin' recession! Ask Bernie Madoff's investors if they are pleased about how greedy he was. The business world is a poor metaphor for natural selection in my opinion.
quote: I'm sorry, but, with due respect, you are talking crap. There is no justification for such an idea. If this were true, poverty stricken Africa should be world leader, whereas the easy-living USA should be the worst performing nation. then of course, as the roles are reversed, the situation should swing back around. This does not happen You are making this up I think.
quote: Absolutely not. This is completely wrong. All you need for natural selection to take place is a genetically varied population and an environment that has changing requirements. The environment need not be especially harsh. Indeed, if the environment is outstandingly cushy and provides an easy life, natural selection will favour genes which are suited to that life.
quote: No it doesn't, it only counters the mistaken view of evolution that you have come up with. No matter how much an organism co-operates with weaker members of its species, it cannot make them immune to the effects of the environment. Disease, famine, predation, overpopulation and other threats will always exist at some level. This is more than enough for the differing reproductive success rates, upon which natural selection depends, to take hold. If by aiding those individuals who share some of my genes helps to protect them, it is also helping protect those genes which we share. The gene triumphs, even if it is occasionally at the expense of the individual. Remember, it is the gene that is being replicated, not the individual. Individuals die and disappear, but genes live on. Please read The Selfish Gene. It really will help you understand this topic. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 3200 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Catching a flight so I'll just respond quickly.
Oh geez, how many wars is the US responsible for in the past century? How many wars have we actually fought in the past century? It doesn't really matter if we haven't had any wars within our own borders, because that does no measure non-aggression. Answer me this Kuresu, a young man from a poor family finds himself enlisting into the military so he can get some cash for college. Along the way his overly greedy governement decides to invade yet another country, for political reasons unknown to the young soldier, and he is called into battle. He finds himself in a situation where he either kills or gets killed, but fuck, all he wanted was to study medicine in school but had no other means for financial backing. The young man is in a war. He is shooting people, he is killing people. However, would you really label this person aggressive?
Remember, you claimed that we were less aggressive in total, not that we simply weren't aggressive within our own borders (which is questionable itself: how many gun deaths do we have each year due to violence?). Our governement is aggressive, for reasons that we can argue but you would not say that they are aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive, would you? Your second point is again curious...how many deaths due to violence do we have in upper class neighborhoods? Are the people in the inner cities simply being aggressive for the sake of aggression or have they fouund themselves in a struggle where you are either killed or be killed just to make some money and feed your family? I think you have confused aggression with neccessity. A soldier at war, who joined for a GI Bill, but is now unloading a 50cal. on a building is not being aggressive, he is in survival mode. A young kid in an inner city who has no other means to make money, that he can see for himself, is not being aggressive for the sake of it, he too is in survival mode. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2762 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I vote for modern democracies within the last 100 years being less likely to start wars or engage in genocide, perhaps you would like to argue otherwise in the appropriate thread. Perhaps the only law in political science that holds relatively true: democracies do not fight wars and such against other democracies in modern history. We (the democracies) just aim our sights elsewhere. And most of the current conflicts aren't fought by even one democratic participant. It's just the democratic starter that's done the most damage in current and ended conflicts (as in, just how many people are we directly or indirectly responsible for killing in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places? how many people has the second tuareg rebellion killed?) So when oni says that we (whether the US, the West, or the World) are getting less aggressive, I have to point out that the 20th century is the bloodiest on record in total deaths and has a high, if not highest, rate of conflict in history. And that it's not just third-world nations doing it. In fact, the US has fought in more wars in the 1900s than from 1600-1899. I find it facetious to claim we are getting less aggressive simply because we're not killing the native americans or ourselves any more. When you ask who the "we" is I refer to, I meant humanity. So unless the chinese are no longer human (ah, good 'ole WWII, Korea, and the "gook"), they are included. I guess I should have made that more clear. I did not mean to drag this thread off-topic like this, and if someone wants to start a thread on it, I'll gladly participate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
Cedre writes: Let us assume that a strange disease is sweeping a squirrel population everyone’s affected save one squirrel that is somehow immune to it. Victims are defenseless and are much too in agony to mind their circumstances. Suddenly danger looms and the unaffected member spots it alone he sounds the relevant distress signal and the population right away reacts and starts finding safe haven. The only healthy member is quickly devoured by the fearsome predator having exposed his location and the others manage to sneak away on their last legs. The entire population may die down later on if the sickness is deadly or they may recover but they have lost the only gene that is resistant to the sickness. Here we have survival of the weakest and not the fittest. Ask yourself how it could happen that this gene inhabits only a single squirrel in the population? By attempting to answer this question you'll discover how unlikely this is. What is more commonly the case in a population is variation. Genes become distributed throughout a population roughly according to their ability to provide successful adaptation to the environment. Your squirrel scenario is certainly possible were the disease to strike in the very generation where the gene conferring resistance first appeared, but much more likely is that the gene would have been around a while and achieved a fair degree of distribution throughout the population, and there would be a number of resistant individuals to sound the alarm. Competition between members of the same species tends not to become deadly to the point of threatening extinction because there is built in negative feedback. In the extreme case, a male that is so strong and aggressive that he wipes out all other males would have likely sounded the death knell for his species, since the removal of so much variation would leave it extremely vulnerable to a wide variety of threats, from disease to predators to competition from other species to environmental change. For example, wolves tend to hunt in packs. A male wolf that wipes out all other males would be less successful in hunts because of the reduced pack size. The smaller population would be more vulnerable to the vagaries of surviving in the wild. What seems to be selected for is the ability to display characteristics that correlate with strength and health (very desirable characteristics to potential females who seek a mate able to confer protection and strong, healthy offspring), but in ways that aren't fatal. What almost always happens in altercations between males for dominance is that one eventually becomes submissive. Non-deadly combat is one common way whereby populations establish dominance hierarchies so that the group functions without constant infighting. The general principle is that cooperation provides a survival advantage. Species have evolved many different cooperative strategies, and altruism is one of them. There is strength in numbers, and strategies that increase numbers will be selected for. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2762 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
However, would you really label this person aggressive?
He could very well be. Not because he joined the military, but because people have aggressive tendencies. And if he is killing people, at that moment he is being aggressive, whether or not he generally isn't.
you would not say that they are aggressive just for the sake of being aggressive, would you?
Um, Bush? Rumsfeld? Cheney? What about the whole doctrine of flexing our muscle just so everyone knows we still have some fight left in us? But that's beside the point. If you resort to war to settle an issue, you are being aggressive. If you resort to violence, you are being aggressive.
A soldier at war, who joined for a GI Bill, but is now unloading a 50cal. on a building is not being aggressive, he is in survival mode. A young kid in an inner city who has no other means to make money, that he can see for himself, is not being aggressive for the sake of it, he too is in survival mode. Both are certainly being aggressive. Because that is one of the ways for them to survive, which you rightly point out. But that doesn't mean they are not being aggressive. And your examples can go back in time. Those in Napoleon's army probably weren't there because they wanted to be there but had to be. Those who fought with Sargon to create the sumerian empire were probably in similar situations. So if they've just been doing what they had to all along, how have we gotten any less aggressive?
I think you have confused aggression with neccessity.
Not really. Aggressive actions may be necessary or unnecessary. WWI was an aggressive action that was unnecessary. WWII may very well be an aggressive action that was necessary. The Iraq war is an aggressive action that was unnecessary. The Afghanistan war may be an aggressive action that was necessary. My original counter-point again: we have not gotten any less aggressive over the past 6000 years. We have just gotten better at protecting lives from deaths. I still haven't seen anything which really counters my counter-point. I hope I'm not simply being dense here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 3200 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
As long as admin lets us roll with this...
And if he is killing people, at that moment he is being aggressive, whether or not he generally isn't. He could be, but he could also be in a defensive mode. However, the reason for him being in the situation to begin with was not due to his aggression, it was due to his necessity - (as I stated, for the GI Bill).
Um, Bush? Rumsfeld? Cheney? What about the whole doctrine of flexing our muscle just so everyone knows we still have some fight left in us? The euphamisms they spew on the airways to rally the get-R-done patriots in no way reflects their true intents. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney did not commit the henious crimes they did just to show the world how big our aggressive balls are, they did it for money, power and greed. These are not aggressive men, these are pussies who send fit young men/women to battle for financial gain...a battle they themselves don't posses the balls to fight physically. Aggressive men get a cage closed behind them and go at it knuckle-to-knuckle, men who send people to battle while they sit in an air conditioned office lack the ability to be aggressive in that manner, but they can still be intelligent, dishonest and manipulative - which is what those 3 fucks are, IMHO.
If you resort to war to settle an issue, you are being aggressive. I agree. But the people who declare the war are few in comparison to the rest of the citizens who didn't declare war on anyone, except maybe a douche bag neighbor. Nor are the soldiers fighting the war doing so because of their aggressive nature, IMO.
Because that is one of the ways for them to survive, which you rightly point out. But that doesn't mean they are not being aggressive. You are right, the actions they are taking are aggressive actions as opposed to being passive, but my point, and perhaps we just disagree on this, is that they are not acting on the basis of their aggressive nature, they are acting aggressively because of obstacle they see before them that, in their minds, requires that they act agressively. In other words, if the person who joined the military for the GI Bill had a rich uncle wo would have covered the bill for school, he wouldn't have joined the military and would never have been firing on a building. - The aggressive action is gone. Just as the inner city kid, say he gets adopted as an infant by a rich family, he would not be in the streets robbing and shooting people. - The aggressive action is gone. My point: I don't think, in general, most peoples aggressive behaviour is based solely on their will to want to act aggressively, many people find themselves in situations where aggression is the only way to survive. *Sadly, most of the violence in the US can be attributed to economic and educational struggles. Rid ourselves of these and watch our streets get safer. *Rid the world of poverty and hunger and help them acheive a decent living condition and watch the violence go down. *just my opinion.
My original counter-point again: we have not gotten any less aggressive over the past 6000 years. We have just gotten better at protecting lives from deaths. I still haven't seen anything which really counters my counter-point. I hope I'm not simply being dense here.
No, I do not think you are being dense. And I would agree that you make a good counter point if we are simply looking at death toll and wars caused by power hungry nations. However, I think that society as a whole demands a less aggressive living condition where people are not stoned to death and witches burned alive, only to go back to business as usual moments after burning the witch. Example: We have people in todays society that try to remove the death penalty even when the convicted fellon has murdered children and/or raped them. People advocate for less aggressive actions to be taken. Not just a small few, there is a huge portion of our society that would like to see the death penalty done away with. Do you know of any empire in the last 6000 years that has not had a death penalty? In the US we may eventually do away with it. This is, to me, a sign of a society that wants a less aggressive government, law system and in turn less aggressive outlook on society as a whole. We almost don't want to punish anymore but rather we want to teach and help to better the person. In our day to day lives we live in a less aggressive society than, I would say, has been experienced in the last 6000 years. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SammyJean Member (Idle past 4323 days) Posts: 87 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Hi Cedre,
You obviously didn't read about mirror neurons or the article that is linked to in my first responds to this tread. Mirror neurons answer your original question as to why humans tend to be altruistic. Also Granny Magda's response is on the right track as well; although The Selfish Gene was published in 1976 long before mirror neurons were discovered. Both provide an excellent scientific explanation to your question. Please read I feel your pain | Salon.com ...and tell me where this fails at answering your original query??? Because I think it does provide the answer but you just don't want learn about it or understand it for fear that you will have to give up on whole "we are good, because god is good and he made us in his image" excuse. That researchers are baffled by altruism is simply not the truth!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024