what went wrong?, page 1

Originally posted by daniel191159
Actually, it IS in human nature to be hostile )

And i suppose that settles it then?

Every species has a variety of methods to improve its survivability factor. Many people say that intelligence is the human improvement...these people have fallen a step short; it goes deeper.

In fact most species exists largely by chance because mass extinctions are the real problem against which the vast majority of species have no defense. Species have a variety of means by which they can thrive, survive or colonize new areas of the globe but survival/extinction of species is largely due to events beyond their control. If there is anything that sets humans apart it is in fact our intelligence which in the last few tens of thousand of years have allowed us to take control of the planet. This seems to be case mostly because the Genus Homo have been around for at least two million years without doing anything like thriving.

Intelligence is just a means to an end for the operation of the REAL human instinct.

In your apparent opinion, yes. Intelligence is in fact little but the means to acquire knowledge and to then make physical use of it. There is nothing about intelligence that inherently leads to hostility and violence and it in fact moderates whatever hostile 'nature' there might be by producing a far larger range of possibilities/strategies for survival.

Human survive primarily by DECREASING the survivability factors of other competing organisms.

Shear complete nonsense. Humans have thrived on this planet because we cultivated certain species in certain areas thus making us more independent of any natural inclination we might have to violence. .

They do this by killing or disabling entities which they determine to be POSSIBLE threats.

No one went lion and tiger hunting without understanding that their survival was in fact at stake. To suggest that preemptive violence against a known threat is somehow indicate of a violent nature is to confuse cause and effect; we did not hunt predators in our area because we enjoyed it but because intelligence dictates that it is better to attempt hunting than it is to be hunted unexpected.

Being social animals, humans also seek out these possible threats within the species as well; this ensures the survival of the cooperating majority (humans who do not pose as a possible threat).

And wouldn't you harsly punish the rapist/murderers and so forth? Why wouldn't the community, who are not inclined to uncoordinated violence , punish such individuals?

Human intelligence is a tool to better determine possible threats and to deal with them more efficiently; not to say that that is ALL it is usable for.

Intelligence has far more to do with day to day interaction and food gathering/cultivation than it does with any grand notion of 'determining possible threats'. To be a socially creature necessitates that you in fact automatically trust those around you to share common goals thus allowing cooperation and not perpetual paranoia and inaction. Intelligence leads logically to the understanding that cooperation is the absolute best defense when it comes 'determining possibile threats' both inside and outside of the tribal community and that individual suspicious are to be moderated so as to increase cooperative potential. Even PREDATORS such as wolves can be seen to closely cooperate without perpetually watching their backs for some kind of sneak attack by their pack. To suggest that highly intelligent human beings are or should be primarily motivated by suspicion is easily shown false by a casual look at human interaction.

Most societies only work because people are afraid of the consequences of actions that oppose their societies. This is the foundation of our legal system influenced greatly by utilitarianistic philosophy (sacrafice a few to save a lot).

Societies in fact works because the overwhelming vast majority of citizens already hold to a certain set of values of which some are then elevated to laws which would have resulted in some form of punishment by the local community without a large society being in evidence. The foundation of the modern legal system is being influenced mainly by two competing forces. You have the capitalist/imperialist creed of destroying whichever laws and customs they can to increase profit and thus control tempered by the democratic struggle of the citizens of the world who are attempting to erect the legal barriers that would protect them from the abuses resulting from poverty and local/foreign tyrants. The foundation of the legal system that capitalist/imperialist have by hook and by crook managed to enact ,despite overwhelming protest, rest on the fact that they will sacrifice as many people as it takes to gain a acceptable level of control over the rest.

I can guarantee, all mentally stable, healthy humans have a lust for violence...not all to the same degree...but all have it.

I just don't see where you get that from? Why does so few want to go to war if that is the case and why do very few of those who get there like it?

However, having an violent urges DOES NOT always mean that the person is violent.

So basically since we have no evidence that people have inherent violent urges we just cover it up by pretending that they don't act on it? People may have violent responses to circumstances, events or people but 'urges' are a effect without any cause indicated.

People have various NON-violent ways of expressing violent urges: exercising, sports, video games, music, television, writing...the list goes on.

People have a inclination towards trying to establish control/dominance at very little real risk to themselves but that is hardly surprising given the benefits as compared to the risk. Violence necessitates physical contact, and thus risk, and as can be seen physical contact sports are not the most popular by demand or by participation.

To say that one is deviod of these violent urges is just to say that that person has repressed their violent tendencies for one reason or another (usually because it is considered wrong by the people around him).

If there isn't evidence i suppose we must manufacture excuses to defend what we have chosen to believe.

I'm not sure which parallel Earth you have been living on but this is just plain incorrect )[/quote

I didn't know technology existed to allow communication between universes.

Religion has played a MAJOR part in many wars and lesser conflicts in all parts of the world.

Religion played no part in the vast majority of wars you could or could not find information on, even if you were history buff, in modern times; things are a bit more complex as you go back in time but even 2000 years ago you will find that wars were started for the same old imperial reasons and fought with the same threats/encouragement by 'representatives' of 'god' on Earth.. Sure religion were used to make these wars appear more legitimate or used to encourage/threaten citizens into fighting for this god or against another but to blame religion is once again to confuse cause and effect.

I'm not a history buff but I could easily find examples if necessary.

I am a bit of a history buff and i didn't hence my claims.

Anyway, religion often gives a member the self-confidence to act against a social norm that they usually would not act against (example: WW2) by sanctioning their actions thus creating a new code of acceptable behavior.

So do you or don't you understand that religion like racism are means to a end and not causative factors for those who propagates both? If religion gave so much self confidence why were both Americans and Germans dead set against a war and why did the citizens of both countries try to avoid it as best they could? Isn't that the whole point of religion? To get people to do what you want , despite their better normal judgement, in the name of 'god' and for eternal reward? This is why i have far more sympathy with those who claim that human beings are gullible and stupidly trusting than i have for those who think we are somehow predisposed to violence.

I agree; the above comment is a behavioral example of the inherent violence within human instincts.

Self interested behaviour IS a survival strategy but there is no obvious connection with violence against tribe/specie members in putting your own interest first which in a social creatures context almost always corresponds to the groups general interests. Violence doesn't feature anywhere in this other than that which is required for self defense. How we can be predisposed to violence and still suffer such a alphabet soup of social disorders ( which scores no points with the larger social tribal group) when we go to war and actually suffer or deal out violence is probably not something your going to discuss.

Stellar

I apologise for taking so long at getting to this reponse.

Originally posted by daniel191159
You are correct; intelligence does NOT inherently lead to hostility and violence. However, it DOES play a significant role in how humans reduce the survivability factors of other species around them. I feel that you are mistaken in the primary cause of violent urge moderation. Having a strong urge to socialize (to form social structures) is the primary moderator of not only the expression of violent urges but ANY behavior that is deemed unacceptable.

Or increase the survivability of those species that are considered beneficial. Social interaction is the first and foremost defense mechanism which automatically moderates any and all violent 'urges' that might be created by isolation ( lack of interaction) or severe competition.

Perhaps we have different definitions of what constitutes "violent tendencies". Killing something simply because it poses a POSSIBLE threat, in my opinion IS violent. Killing something that is an IMMEDIATE threat is not, in my opinion. Perhaps it is here that we disagree.

When terms are correctly defined and understood ( if everyone only read dictionaries first) much perceived reason for disagreement would disappear. I should have been more specific in saying that 'possible threat' is not very descriptive unless talking about large felines and things with teeth in general. I can agree with you and add that few of us would not shoot a armed criminal ( if we are thus suitably armed) before he has a chance to turn the gun on us. Obviously the perception of a threat has much to do with socialization and the like and even the worse gangs of murderers and pillagers manages to cooperate perfectly well while killing and destroying at will.

Actually, I wasn't speaking of individuals who committed crimes; I was thinking more along the lines of the interment camps created specifically for the Japanese by the United States during WW2 and other instances where those who have NOT presented themselves to be threats have been treated as if they did.

So how many Germans were involved in that and how many liked it or would have done it they could have avoided it without risk to themselves? Again internment camps were not something Us citizens voted on and it was mostly a political stunt from on high based on the legitimate suspicion many would have held towards a very small immigrant population.

As I said, determining possible threats is not the ONLY use for intelligence.
My point is that when an individual chooses NOT to cooperate, the individual is viewed as a threat.

More of a nuisance and irritation than a threat unless they make themselves one by making themselves a threat trough their actions.

I think you are mistaken about the implications of my analysis of human instinct. It doesn't imply that humans are perpetually suspicious; it implies that humans become suspicious and also hostile towards anything (or anyone) that MIGHT pose a threat.

Perpetual suspicion of others will make you a social outcast very quickly if the ulcers don't get you someone very well might! I suppose we should define the word 'threat' next as it can be taken to mean different things on different realms of human interaction.

I do agree on this point. However, this point also supports my initial claim that humans are inherently a violent species; this connection can be seen by the "rule makers'" willingness to sacrifice some people (those that protest/disobey) to maintain their level of control and thus perpetuate their own survival.

So why have we not killed each other in a naked struggle for the top dog position? Why are there thousands of followers and tens of thousands who do their best to set a independent course for every one of these self styled leaders? Why do we accept being led if we are so violent and suspicious of everyone?

Because, their will to survive (and therefore their desire to get OUT of their dangerous circumstances) outweighs their violent urges

Or they do not have violent urges against completely strangers who never did a thing to them? Isn't violence thus normally merely a possible result of a lack of cooperation between individuals who could not settle their differences?

I'm having trouble understanding the logic in your statement...mainly your implication that there isn't any evidence that people have inherent violent urges. I define "violent urges" in the following mannor: a dormant desire to behave in a destructive mannor usually brought out of its dormant state by circumstances, events, or people but occasionally acted on when the gratification outweighs the consequences of acting on that desire. Do we differ on our definition of "violent urges"? It would explain many of our disagreements if that were the case.

So per your definition the 'urge' is dormant unless brought about by circumstances, events or people with the occasional gratification of perceived needs trough violent means? If so i am don't see what we are arguing about as neither of us apparently consider violent urges to dominate our reasoning or reactions to external stimuli.

I DO agree mostly with you here. When presented with a significant risk factor, most humans will opt to take the least dangerous route to accomplish their goals.

And then by extension those with truly violent urges have picked enough pointless fights to slowly 'urge' themselves out of the gene pool? Isn't my point that humans are fundamentally cowardly in that they will do their best to satisfy their basic needs cooperatively and by means of the least resistance? How is that evidence of and inherent violent nature?

I am confused as to the latter half of the above comment though. What do you mean by "...and as can be seen physical contact sports are not the most popular by demand or by participation"?

Sports involving physical contact ( with the possibility of being injured by the 'opposition') are not the most popular in the world by a wide margin which in my lay opinion goes some way towards proving that our violence actions are based on necessity and not 'urges'.

"I didn't know technology existed to allow communication between universes."

Not yet; but that's a discussion for a different post.

It looks that way, yes.

Do you not feel that these reasons were significant in perpetuating/involving people in wars?

Not in my reading and opinion, no. Religion is a way to sanction violence ( because it's in my opinion not a normal urge or tendency for at least the vast majority) that is required by some leaders and persons in the world to further their own goals. They will use devices such as religion ( "God ordered it; you will still be going to heaven") and racism ( " They are lesser 'things' that you can treat in ways you wouldn't your own people" ) to justify or cover up the actions they know they could not so easily get normal people to do against other normal people.

My appologies; I misread your original post. I do in fact agree that religion is NOT a causative factor in wars. I believe that it, as you said, is a means to an end.

It's such a rare thing to see people apologising that i sometimes do it just to get the idea across that it's in fact something you can do without spontaneously combusting! Either way this discussion might fo the way of the dodo ( die out) if we keep at this for a little bit more time.

The connection between violence and self-serving behavior is most evident in situations such as the one pointed out by you when you were talking about capitalistic/imperialistic rule.

Violence is merely one the last means to getting what you want when the gains or necessity outweighs risks or your choices on hand. As per the imperial model you can find a certain very small percentage of people in each society that can be made to do truly horrendous things if suitably rewarded or protected from retribution. You do not need many of these types to do the physical act of building empire and the rest of the society will resist depending on how much they know or how big a risk it will be to them.

Again, this is because the individual's urge to live is stronger than their dormant violent tendencies.

Then the urge to violence is clearly not ( as per historic record and certainly per individual aspiration) not preeminent amongst our apparently rather more urgent urges to survive and to gain the acceptance of our peers?

In conclusion i think we ( but secretly, or perhaps not anymore, i think you) got too many definitions mixed up and presumed too much by the occasional wars and mass exterminations perpetrated by savage leaders at the head of roving armies and tribes.

Stellar