Response to StellarX:
"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."
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
"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..."
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.
"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?"
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
"Intelligence has far more to do with day to day interaction and food gathering/cultivation than it does with any grand notion of 'determining
As I said, determining possible threats is not the ONLY use for intelligence.
"...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."
My point is that when an individual chooses NOT to cooperate, the individual is viewed as a threat.
"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
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.
"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 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.
"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
Because, their will to survive (and therefore their desire to get OUT of their dangerous circumstances) outweighs their violent urges.
"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."
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.
"People have a inclination towards trying to establish control/dominance at very little real risk to themselves... 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."
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. 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"?
"I didn't know technology existed to allow communication between universes."
Not yet; but that's a discussion for a different post.
"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."
Do you not feel that these reasons were significant in perpetuating/involving people in wars?
"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?"
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.
"Self interested behaviour IS a survival strategy but there is no obvious connection with violence against tribe/specie members..."
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
How we can be predisposed to violence and still suffer such a alphabet soup of social disorders when we go to war and actually suffer or deal out
violence is probably not something your going to discuss.
Again, this is because the individual's urge to live is stronger than their dormant violent tendencies.