New study suggests humans are not naturally violent.

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Western Front,Christmas day 1914.

After 6 months of huge battles then as autumn comes in the frontline transforms in to trench warfare.Near a million dead already the soldiers are subjected to mass artillery,watching there fellows being torn to ribbons,body parts forming part of their enviroment while the rats feast off their dead comrades.Surely the nearest man has experienced to classic visions of hell.

If there was a time and place to demonstrate mans natural tendency to violence then that would be it yet when the guns fell silent christmas day one or two heads popped up above the parrapet.

Naturally violent man would gleefully put a .303 round in that bold head yet where this happened the response almost always was to do the same,wave,shout christmas greetings.Before long British and Germans men mingled,swapped cigarettes,cocky remarks and they did battle with a football instead.

The General Staff were furious and more than a little concerned because if it caught on and a majority fratenised with his German opponent in the trenches across no mans land then they never be able to make them get back in to the trench and pick up his weapon.Even after the killing and mameing so far you would imagine the High Command wouldnt have a problem encourageing violence yet in many sections of the front line British soldiers only returned under the threat of the firing squad and at the point of British bayonets.

Note that by christmas 1915 the misery,degredation and costly battles that year plus the constant propaganda on the bestial atrocities the enemy would sink to any comradely feelings towards the enemy were gone as the war became increasingly industrial.

Looking at WW2 it's easily seen that the highly indoctrinated soldiers of the SS and NKVD were the most brutal,taking pleasure in killing violently,butchering unarmed women children.

History suggests that the armies fueled on religeous or polictical ideology dont take prisoners and commit brutal crimes against civillians which would support the idea we tend to require a certain degree of conditioning to violence.

Personally speaking I'm not keen on violence and never seek it but I accept that it has its place.In situations were threats are being made towards me or my family then i'll seek a compromise but if it cant be resolved and the threat persists then i will resort tö it.

That would suggest to me that violence is not a natural tendancy.

Early hominids werent predators killing for food but omnivores.Möre often prey than predator their bodies rather weak self defense prob made them smart,using the brain and tools to overcome large predators

.Violence seems a strategy than natural force to me




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Wholly geez. Watch a nature special. Or do a cursory study of biological science and evolution. Nature is violent. Humans are violent. We are animals. Obviously, violent ones. It is perfectly natural. We aren't living "unnaturally" We are just a minor part of nature. To think otherwise is religion and/or hubris.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Wholly geez. Watch a nature special. Or do a cursory study of biological science and evolution. Nature is violent. Humans are violent. We are animals. Obviously, violent ones. It is perfectly natural. We aren't living "unnaturally" We are just a minor part of nature. To think otherwise is religion and/or hubris.


Humans are emotional always and violent some of the time.

However, serious cruelty is not natural among animals, and among humans it has to be cultivated by ideology.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Thinking back to every time I got in a fight when I was a kid, it was never because I wanted to be violent. It was always in self defense if somebody else was harassing me. I think most people deep down have the ability to be peaceful if they aren't provoked.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by generik
i don't think i agree with the findings. from what i have seen of young children and it doesn't seem to matter how they were raised seem to have a violent tendency. whether it be kicking, biting, scratching, pulling hair, throwing tantrums. they ALL seem to do it. pretty much as soon as they are really mobile this trait seems to come out to varying degrees. all it can take to trigger it is something they want, and you will not give it, or something they don't want like eating their dinner and they start. even the best behaved children seem to go through this especially if they are tired. that to me seems to state that it is inherent behavior and not trained behavior. in fact i have NEVER HEARD OF a child who didn't do this. especially at the age of about 2 or 3 years old. even to the point that one of the first learned and most often used words is NO or linguistically similar words for that or DO NOT LIKE. i see this behavior from pretty much all kids, doesn't mater if they are disciplined or not disciplined or even just let run wild.it also dosn't seem to matter if those around them constantly fight or never fight, or even if the only other person is a single parent. as such i can't swallow that it is LEARNED behavior.


Uhhhh, you can't make assumptions that humans are inherently violent because of the few examples of young children and how they kick and bite and scream.

Humans learn by example, you should take a look at some philosophical parenting books...

By your logic, you're saying that a child raised in a community of consistent kindness, compassion, non-violence, and love will grow up to be violent because it is in their genes (by no coincidence, this is the arguments of one of my closest friends...he tells me there is a violence gene, lol)


And to the other member that says that hunting is a naturally violent trait, that is also patently false. You don't have to be violent to hunt.
edit on 5-10-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by purplemer
 



What they have measured is the basic altruism seen in every living creature on the planet. That snake that bites you....is just doing what snakes do when scared. There isn't malevolence. Why? Because of the physical manifestation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the behavior of creatures. "Universal law" means that it effects even living animals, taking calculated logic to work against. No animal does work that it doesnn't have need of doing (even if that need is just moving to keep the metabolism stoked)

But part of human nature is the results of our logical mind. No, it isn't part of the base behavior, but it is part of the natural behavior for a human to use abstract thought to identify scarcity as a real concern (or whatever else it is that would drive a person to kill). Greed is nothing more than behavioral habit created by fear of scarcity.

Scarcity is, in theory, a part and parcel of our planet. That would make the behavior derived from scarcity, greed, a natural behavior arising from our natural penchant for abstract thought.


Great post but I'm a little confused by two of your points. Just to clarify, you say malevolence doesn't exist but at the end of your post, you say greed is a natural behavior. Does the two points correlate? is greed, malevolence? by your post, I would say no.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914
reply to post by purplemer
 


One of the most important books on this subject in my view is "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.

The book is required reading at all major military academies, the CIA, FBI and many state and local law enforcement agencies.

The book basically teaches those who lead or send men into battle how to overcome the troops natural aversion to killing. How to break down their natural resistance and fight back. The book documents many proven techniques to turn people into killers, against their natural tendencies. The book documents many cases in wars and conflicts past where even under fire, men still refused to shoot back. It sounds crazy I know, most of us believe it a natural reaction to fight back, or to willingly go into battle against complete strangers, but men who send others into battle know this to not be the case, and that is why this book is required reading.

I highly recommend this book.


www.amazon.com...



Man what a great post, THANK YOU.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


well of course, humans only become violent because they are put in the bad path at a young age



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer



A new study published last month in Nature Journalsuggests that humans are naturally good. This study adds to the mounting evidence against the popular misconception that corruption is a trait of human nature.

In ten experiments using economic games, scientists observed that faster decisions result in more cooperation and generosity, while slower, calculated decisions show a decrease in cooperation and generosity. The conclusion is that the automatic reaction is to be friendly, generous and cooperative, and only upon further consideration do humans become greedy or violent.


www.trueactivist.com...

This kind of goes against what we are taught to believe. That it is natural for human beings to be negative to each other. Children know positive facial recognition from birth. Negative recognition is taught. I wonder how much society and government teach us to be negative..
edit on 4-10-2012 by purplemer because: (no reason given)


Looks like Carl Jung was right after all.

Take that Freud



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by purplemer
 



What they have measured is the basic altruism seen in every living creature on the planet. That snake that bites you....is just doing what snakes do when scared. There isn't malevolence. Why? Because of the physical manifestation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the behavior of creatures. "Universal law" means that it effects even living animals, taking calculated logic to work against. No animal does work that it doesnn't have need of doing (even if that need is just moving to keep the metabolism stoked)

But part of human nature is the results of our logical mind. No, it isn't part of the base behavior, but it is part of the natural behavior for a human to use abstract thought to identify scarcity as a real concern (or whatever else it is that would drive a person to kill). Greed is nothing more than behavioral habit created by fear of scarcity.

Scarcity is, in theory, a part and parcel of our planet. That would make the behavior derived from scarcity, greed, a natural behavior arising from our natural penchant for abstract thought.


Great post but I'm a little confused by two of your points. Just to clarify, you say malevolence doesn't exist but at the end of your post, you say greed is a natural behavior. Does the two points correlate? is greed, malevolence? by your post, I would say no.


Greed, as mentioned, is an artifact of the mind, of thought. Yes, greed is malevolent. But, to the point of the article, this malevolence only rears its head once someone takes a moment to reconsider.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
If Humans are none violent please explain table manners?

The very notion of having to apologise in advance of reaching across someone elses food is demonstration that we are monkeys with manners.

If someone reaches across your plate your natural reaction is to bare your teeth and snarl....the only way your fragile, animalistic brain can cope is by having a protocol associated with behaviour around food to prevent violence.

We live in this never-been-better utopia of none violence in the West so it's very easy to supress our violent tendancies ...put the average person today back in time 2000 years and they'll be killing people from neighbouring villages on sight within 2 weeks.

edit on 5-10-2012 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Jukiodone
 


read the article. "manners" would be one of those behaviors that occurs after humans have reconsidered, meaning that it is not part of our "base" behavior set, it is a learned behavior.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Waiit...so the more we think about things, the worse we are? I don't really like the implications here. If calculated decisions are less moral, that presumably means we ought to reason less, and follow our instincts more...

As far as natural evil goes, society is the congregating together of individuals. Society can only corrupt to the extent that the individuals in a society are corrupted. Same with the government. Blaming society and government on our evils will, in my opinion, result in us scapegoating people--in fact, everyone but ourselves. We are all a part of society; if we see a problem with it, let's start with ourselves.

As far as human nature goes, everything I've seen about human nature suggests that it is definitely fallen, but also redeemable. I'd say the good and evil struggle within almost all of us.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I dunno...depends on what you mean by serious cruelty. Animals don't have the conception of cruelty that we do. With that being said, they'll commit some acts that are atrocious by human standards.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 

We seem to have the capacity to change these things. Maybe animal behavior as we see it now is just one of many programs from one perspective.



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer



A new study published last month in Nature Journalsuggests that humans are naturally good. This study adds to the mounting evidence against the popular misconception that corruption is a trait of human nature.

In ten experiments using economic games, scientists observed that faster decisions result in more cooperation and generosity, while slower, calculated decisions show a decrease in cooperation and generosity. The conclusion is that the automatic reaction is to be friendly, generous and cooperative, and only upon further consideration do humans become greedy or violent.


www.trueactivist.com...

This kind of goes against what we are taught to believe. That it is natural for human beings to be negative to each other. Children know positive facial recognition from birth. Negative recognition is taught. I wonder how much society and government teach us to be negative..
edit on 4-10-2012 by purplemer because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry, but I busted out laughing when I saw the title. Only because of the insane contention! Hitler, Stalin, Mao, just to name a few.

Japanese war crimes occurred in China, Korea, the Philippines, and other Asian countries during the period of Japanese imperialism, primarily during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. Some of the incidents have also been described as an Asian Holocaust[2] and Japanese war atrocities.[3][4] Some war crimes were committed by military personnel from the Empire of Japan in the late 19th century, although most took place during the first part of the Shōwa Era, the name given to the reign of Emperor Hirohito, until the military defeat of the Empire of Japan, in 1945.

Historians and governments of some countries hold Japanese military forces, namely the Imperial Japanese Army, the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Imperial Japanese family, especially Emperor Hirohito, responsible for killings and other crimes committed against millions of civilians and prisoners of war.[5][6][7][8][9] Some Japanese soldiers have admitted to committing these crimes.[10]

Since the 1950s, senior Japanese Government officials have issued numerous apologies for the country's war crimes. Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that the country acknowledges its role in causing "tremendous damage and suffering" during World War II,




The arrest of Pinochet in 2000 brings up the issue of which other leaders should be or should have been tried for atrocities committed during their rule. Here is a tentative list of modern mass murderers and the estimated number of people killed by their orders (excluding armies they were formally at war with). In Stalin's and Mao's cases, one has to decide how to consider the millions who died indirectly because of their political decisions. The Chinese cultural revolution caused the death of 30 million people (source: the current Chinese government), but many died of hunger. Stalin is held responsible for the death of millions by Ukrainians, but "only" half a million people were killed by his order. Khomeini sent children to die in the war against Iraq, but it was a war, so they are not counted here.



Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 6,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98) 200,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56) 200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99) 100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83) 70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000
Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-61) 50,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) 30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) 30,000
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) 30,000
Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez (El Salvador, 1932) 30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) 25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) 20,000
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority) 20,000
Bashir Assad (Syria, 2012) 14,000
Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83) 13,000
Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957) 10,000 (war in Algeria)
Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya's Mau-Mau rebellion) 10,000
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) 6,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001) 3,500
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) 3,000
Al Zarqawi (Iraq, 2004-06) 2,000


I say the study has some esplaining to do! And may I introduce Cain and Abel?
edit on 5-10-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Soooo, I'm hoping the murder rate in the world will go down. Because according to this site, it isn't
chartsbin.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Actually I would have to disagree with this study under the fact that human beings are natural, therefore making anything we do natural. Are birds natural, and are the things they do not natural as well? Therefore EVERYTHING human beings do is natural and everything human beings do is natural human behavior.

It may well be that the only instinctual behavior of human beings is suckling on their mothers teat. Other than that everything is learned behavior. Dr. Harlow performed despicable acts against monkeys. From his studies he concluded that mother monkeys, having learned nothing about being a mother gave absolutely no regard for their children. Some of the mothers flung their children around like play toys and even crushed their own children's skulls against the floor. If we are not taught how to behave then we just simply behave and there is no right or wrong to it. Morality is completely imagined.
edit on 5-10-2012 by Dystopiaphiliac because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 





I'm sorry, but I busted out laughing when I saw the title. Only because of the insane contention! Hitler, Stalin, Mao, just to name a few


I think I know where you are coming from. As humans we are capable of both great acts of compassion and hatrerd. In the light of this evidence does it not maybe mean that the people mentioned above are the result of a social sickness...



posted on Oct, 5 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
All over the world in almost all cultures, parents teach their kids to respect everyone, not to hurt anyone, to be kind. Yet bullying is a perennial and ubiquitous problem, and kids are some of the worst bullies - even kids who are barely the size of my forearm. That's because by nature humans are vile, filthy, and wicked.




new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join