Evolutionary necessity of war/conflict?

take everything

Just reading an interesting enough blog on this.
I guess i'm trying to convince myself that man may ultimately be noble.
Depressingly, probably not. :pac:

So there are a variety of pressures involved. Biological, social, economic.
Selecting for the most violent alpha males etc.
Most would probably agree war's negatives far outweigh any positives.
So why does mankind take this route.
Are we doomed.
Or are there psychological brakes (maybe that have yet to properly evolve and take root) that can be applied to this and realise this may be a futile pursuit. I'm particularly interested in that aspect- a new psychological pressure vs all the legacy pressures above.

I dunno, maybe tendency to war, depressingly, is a vital, inextricable part of progression hardwired into our genetics and impossible now to change.
Anyway, thoughts?

Black Swan

War has been a human norm, not peace. Historians Will and Ariel Durant claimed in their 1968 book, The Lessons of History, that there has only been 264 years of peace during 3,421 years of recorded history. A sad testament indeed.

Why war? The Durant's saw competition as normal, with war being the ultimate form, citing Heracleitus: "Polemos pater Panton" (i.e., competition fathers all things).

Beyond actual warfare, it appears that it also exhibits itself in metaphor; e.g., War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc., proclaimed by the current (but historically temporary) Super Power.

Suggesting that war was consistent with Darwin's evolutionary theory may be problematic. I am uncertain how random variation and differential reproduction may fit with war. Then again, Herbert Spencer did his own variation on Darwin's theme with survival of the fittest, once again introducing competition into the mix, and war being yet another variation of competition to determine the fittest.

slowburner

Black Swan wrote: »

War has been a human norm, not peace. Historians Will and Ariel Durant claimed in their 1968 book, The Lessons of History, that there has only been 264 years of peace during 3,421 years of recorded history. A sad testament indeed.

War, whatever way you define it, has probably always been fought somewhere or other. It could well be that there has never been global peace.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

There are various methods of waging war.
On one hand there is total war where the state mobilises all its resources in a revolutionary struggle to the death. In Europe this dates from the French revolutionary era - as per "The First Total War" by David A. Bell.
On the other, there is the very limited war fought by proxy or by hired mercenaries. This for example is how the Italian city states fought during the Renaissance period.
The latter seems be the way modern conflict is tending - both for cost and a measure of political damage that causulties produce.
However, IMO, the instinct to combat is part of us as a species - so war is not going to end as a social phenomenon so long as politicians perceive it as a quick fix to an issue.

nyarlothothep

There is stronger opposition to war nowadays though. I think the evolutionary claims to war being hardwired into our brains is debatable and inevitably some will equate this idea with the notion that warfare is an inevitable form of behaviour as we're nothing more than animals who follow an evolutionary logic, devoid of the capacity of reflection etc which ignores a huge aspect of human consciousness, which is precisely to reflect on what one is doing and the attendant consequences.

In relation to alpha males, meh, this is similar in my mind to saying that something which is evolutionarily advantageous is good. Alpha male carries a lot of connotations which are attractive to people, but aren't necessarily good. Of course that's my subjective opinion but I'll let others tease that idea out for themselves. It also ignores differentiation in society by establishing one kind of personality as the absolute best, eg Einstein was an "alpha male" in physics but he wouldn't have been captain of the football team, but does this make him less important or noteworthy than the plethora of "alpha males" in our society, many of whom contribute little more than blowing their own horn, as would be in character for a chest beating alpha male? No! In many cases I wonder why people bother listening to or even acknowledging alpha males at all. (I know, they throw mud at you or whatever, I'd still be inclined to be completely indifferent to them, ie with respect to "charisma" or the notion of "strength"="competence").

Conflict may be inevitable, its a characteristic of the universe it would seem, but war...no, I think this is a conscious choice and cannot be excused by saying that humans are hardwired/destined to do it. Not that the article was claiming otherwise but some will inevitably say this.

slowburner

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Very interesting. Why do you think it was as late as 1901 before pacifism became a doctrine?
Was pacifism unheard of prior to then (the idea rather than the word) - was it 'normal' to be warlike?
I think it's probably fair to say that the 20th century stands out amongst all the others, in the sense that the need for war became questionable.
I wonder what events and attitudes in the 19th century caused the development of an idealism which questioned the 'value' of war.

Somehow, you would think that the more advanced a civilisation - the greater the tendency towards peace, and yet the facts don't support this.
As you say, small government.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater

take everything wrote: »

I dunno, maybe tendency to war, depressingly, is a vital, inextricable part of progression hardwired into our genetics and impossible now to change.
Anyway, thoughts?

In the BBC series The Ascent of Man Jacob Bronowski puts forward a very interesting theory on war which is definitely not an evolutionary one. He argues that until the development of agriculture and then the city the kind of conflict we would now characterize as "war" or "battle" didn't exist as it wouldn't have served a purpose. He says that the purpose of war is gain something without having to produce it. That is why war, as we now know it, developed after agriculture, as suddenly there was actually something to steal. Before that one would simply have cut to the chase and done the hunting first hand. Double-meaning intended.

But, of course, war of the kind he discusses isn't the only kind of conflict, and I also think that there are other factors at play when governments go to war.

slowburner

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In the BBC series The Ascent of Man Jacob Bronowski puts forward a very interesting theory on war which is definitely not an evolutionary one. He argues that until the development of agriculture and then the city the kind of conflict we would now characterize as "war" or "battle" didn't exist as it wouldn't have served a purpose. He says that the purpose of war is gain something without having to produce it. That is why war, as we now know it, developed after agriculture, as suddenly there was actually something to steal. Before that one would simply have cut to the chase and done the hunting first hand. Double-meaning intended.

But, of course, war of the kind he discusses isn't the only kind of conflict, and I also think that there are other factors at play when governments go to war.

You'd imagine that evidence of war would be fairly difficult to find prior to the Neolithic invention of agriculture.
So this era in mankind's development is open to all sorts of theories.
Agriculture had scarcely reached Northern Europe by 7,000 BC - if at all, and yet there is evidence of cannibalism http://ancient-tides.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-evidence-points-to-neolithic.html

Bronowski's theory appeals though.
It's not hard to picture a landscape where it would have taken a colossal effort to make a piece of ground productive, given the tools and technology available.
Having spent all that time and effort cutting, clearing and tilling, you'd be fairly cheesed off if someone else were to try to reap its rewards.
Widespread fortification in Ireland, for example, parallels the establishment of agriculture.
Bronowski's theory could be extended to hint at the possibility that there is indeed a selection process involved with war, at whatever level.
Populations rise dramatically along with the development of agriculture.
The higher the population; the greater the probability of conflict.
The higher the population; the greater the competition for resources.
Ultimately, war is competition.

goose2005

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In the BBC series The Ascent of Man Jacob Bronowski puts forward a very interesting theory on war which is definitely not an evolutionary one. He argues that until the development of agriculture and then the city the kind of conflict we would now characterize as "war" or "battle" didn't exist as it wouldn't have served a purpose. He says that the purpose of war is gain something without having to produce it. That is why war, as we now know it, developed after agriculture, as suddenly there was actually something to steal. Before that one would simply have cut to the chase and done the hunting first hand. Double-meaning intended.

But, of course, war of the kind he discusses isn't the only kind of conflict, and I also think that there are other factors at play when governments go to war.

Except hunter-gatherers do have boundary skirmishes, raids, kidnap women etc.

Scanlas The 2nd

From what I've read war didn't exist or was at most very rare before agriculture. Agriculture is what causes the turmoil and suffering for our species.

Before agriculture in our natural state we were peaceful. There was no reason for major conflict. Unlike the gorilla human sexual competition takes place in the vagina in the form of sperm competition. There was no need to fight over women, women were highly promiscuous, it was normal for women to have sex with numerous males one after the other to allow for sperm competition. Everyone in the tribe shared in duties such as looking after the kids or finding food. It was an egalitarian society. Property didn't exist, food was plentiful and most people got more sex than they could want. There was no need for war.

slowburner

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

From what I've read war didn't exist or was at most very rare before agriculture. Agriculture is what causes the turmoil and suffering for our species.

Before agriculture in our natural state we were peaceful. There was no reason for major conflict. Unlike the gorilla human sexual competition takes place in the vagina in the form of sperm competition. There was no need to fight over women, women were highly promiscuous, it was normal for women to have sex with numerous males one after the other to allow for sperm competition. Everyone in the tribe shared in duties such as looking after the kids or finding food. It was an egalitarian society. Property didn't exist, food was plentiful and most people got more sex than they could want. There was no need for war.

It's possible that your view of mesolithic culture is a little utopian, but good fun

Scanlas The 2nd

slowburner wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

From what I've read war didn't exist or was at most very rare before agriculture. Agriculture is what causes the turmoil and suffering for our species.

Before agriculture in our natural state we were peaceful. There was no reason for major conflict. Unlike the gorilla human sexual competition takes place in the vagina in the form of sperm competition. There was no need to fight over women, women were highly promiscuous, it was normal for women to have sex with numerous males one after the other to allow for sperm competition. Everyone in the tribe shared in duties such as looking after the kids or finding food. It was an egalitarian society. Property didn't exist, food was plentiful and most people got more sex than they could want. There was no need for war.

It's possible that your view of mesolithic culture is a little utopian, but good fun

If you look at the evidence that's what it points to. Why would hunter gatherers be at war?

Look at hunter gather societies in existence today, they are healthier than us and don't suffer from the likes of depression and cardiovascular disease and cancer like us. Their life is pretty good, it would seem they are happier than us.

Chuck Stone

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Before agriculture in our natural state we were peaceful.

Before agriculture we were so busy trying to stay alive that there was little time to be risking injury and death battering the shit out of one another.

Agriculture allowed people to produce an excess of food. In winter there was less work to do (stored food from the harvest) which allowed time for ideas and experimentation to flourish.

Civilisation as we know it has its heritage in agriculture.

Scanlas The 2nd

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Before agriculture in our natural state we were peaceful.

Before agriculture we were so busy trying to stay alive that there was little time to be risking injury and death battering the shit out of one another.

Agriculture allowed people to produce an excess of food. In winter there was less work to do (stored food from the harvest) which allowed time for ideas and experimentation to flourish.

Civilisation as we know it has its heritage in agriculture.

Before agriculture people had too much free time to know what to do with it. A few hours of hunting and gathering every day or two was enough. The rest of the time would be spent socialising, lazing around, having sex and fun. Just look at hunter gatherer societies in existence today for evidence. Agriculture is possibly the word thing to have happened for humans. As a result we are less healthy, more prone to disease, repressed sexually by being forced by social and religious conditioning into unnatural monogomous relationships and have lost countless lives as a result of war.

Chuck Stone

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Before agriculture people had too much free time to know what to do with it. A few hours of hunting and gathering every day or two was enough. The rest of the time would be spent socialising, lazing around, having sex and fun. Just look at hunter gatherer societies in existence today for evidence. Agriculture is possibly the word thing to have happened for humans. As a result we are less healthy, more prone to disease, repressed sexually by being forced by social and religious conditioning into unnatural monogomous relationships and have lost countless lives as a result of war.

Seriously, you have it upside down and back-to-front. If you're trolling me then I commend you on your expertise.

Before agriculture life was short and pretty brutal. Collecting ripe fruit and hunting live prey is energy intensive and a race against hunger, injury, disease and death.

I'm pulling this from memory but IIRC us humans life expectancy compared to most mammals based on the number of heart beats per average lifetime is something like 2½ times that of the other mammals.

Agriculture and the division of labour are the reason why we have such longer lives.



(Alcohol disclaimer, couldn't be bothered getting the sources)

Scanlas The 2nd

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Before agriculture people had too much free time to know what to do with it. A few hours of hunting and gathering every day or two was enough. The rest of the time would be spent socialising, lazing around, having sex and fun. Just look at hunter gatherer societies in existence today for evidence. Agriculture is possibly the word thing to have happened for humans. As a result we are less healthy, more prone to disease, repressed sexually by being forced by social and religious conditioning into unnatural monogomous relationships and have lost countless lives as a result of war.

Seriously, you have it upside down and back-to-front. If you're trolling me then I commend you on your expertise.

Before agriculture life was short and pretty brutal. Collecting ripe fruit and hunting live prey is energy intensive and a race against hunger, injury, disease and death.

I'm pulling this from memory but IIRC us humans life expectancy compared to most mammals based on the number of heart beats per average lifetime is something like 2½ times that of the other mammals.

Agriculture and the division of labour are the reason why we have such longer lives.



[SIZE="1"](Alcohol disclaimer, couldn't be bothered getting the sources)[/SIZE]

It's a myth that people lived short and brutish lives before agriculture, it was normal for an adult to live to 70 prevent 80 years of age. There was a higher rate of death at during birth but grown adults could expect to live until 70. They were much healthier than we are today, also bigger and stronger as they didn't eat grains and only ate lots of healthy food, populations were small so there was no shortage of food.

I reiterate in terms of the happiness and health of humans agriculture is the single worst invention. It has caused immense suffering.

Chuck Stone

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

it was normal for an adult to live to 70 prevent 80 years of age. There was a higher rate of death at during birth but grown adults could expect to live until 70.

You're moving the goal posts here. Life expectancy is life expectancy; the word 'adult' is a relatively new term. Would it be legitimate for me to say something like... 90% of 55 yr olds make it to 60 yrs old?

They were much healthier than we are today,

Source?

also bigger and stronger

Source?

as they didn't eat grains and only ate lots of healthy food

What is health food? Healthy food for a hungry person is any food you can get your hands on. Healthy food for an obese person is much less of what he's eating. 'Healthy food' is a pretty meaningless term.

populations were small so there was no shortage of food.

This is bass-ackwards. Populations were small because of a lack of food.

I reiterate in terms of the happiness and health of humans agriculture is the single worst invention. It has caused immense suffering.

Sir, the above statement is rubbish. Agriculture underpins civilisation as we know it.

slowburner

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's a myth that people lived short and brutish lives before agriculture, it was normal for an adult to live to 70 prevent 80 years of age. There was a higher rate of death at during birth but grown adults could expect to live until 70. They were much healthier than we are today, also bigger and stronger as they didn't eat grains and only ate lots of healthy food, populations were small so there was no shortage of food.

I reiterate in terms of the happiness and health of humans agriculture is the single worst invention. It has caused immense suffering.

You're not a member of the IFA, by any chance?

The success of a species is usually measured by the number of individuals in the population. Even though agriculture can be seen as the root of conflict, it still made humans the most successful species on the planet, in terms of the exponential growth of its population.

There are two claims about conditions in the Mesolithic in this post which need supporting with evidence.

That average life expectancy was around 70 years.
There is an interesting study here which shows that male life expectancy declined from 35.4 years in the Palaeolithic (30,000 - 9,000 BC) to 33.1 years in the late Neolithic (5,000 - 3,000 BC).
By the late Bronze Age (c.1,500 - 1,150 BC) life expectancy had reached 39.6 years.
A statistician will need to test the significance of this variation.

That consumption of grains is unhealthy.
I'll leave this to someone who knows what they are talking about, but there may be a (grain) of truth in it.
See here.

Scanlas The 2nd

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/

Why is the amount of the population important?

Nothing is more important than happiness IMO, that's something which hunter gatherers evidently are much more successful at.

The Corinthian

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Nothing is more important than happiness IMO, that's something which hunter gatherers evidently are much more successful at.

That is questionable, not least of all because you've supplied precious little beyond your opinion, and the less said about your other claims the better.

Hunter gatherer societies have never been all that peaceful. If they are it is only down to low population densities, meaning that a tribe would cover an area that would sustain their low population, but changes in climate and food supply would see them periodically brush against other tribes, after which raiding and conflict would arise.

This behaviour was hardly limited to pre-historic man, but was evident in hunter gatherer societies that survived into the modern age; Amazonian tribes still constantly raid each other today.

Secondly, you appear to be pushing the idea that hunter gatherer societies are somehow anarchic utopias that promote free love. Setting aside your preoccupation with promiscuity for a moment, all such societies have displayed often rigid rules governing social interaction and conflict.

As to sex, just because people in hunter gatherer societies don't wear a lot of clothes, does not mean they're shagging like rabbits. Some, as used to exist in Polynesia, were very sexually permissive, however, others - such as in North America up to the 19th century - were not. Again resources are a major determinant in this, as sex leads to children and children need to be fed. And if your food supply is limited or inconsistent you'll want to control your birth rate - infanticide was also a means of doing this.

As to your claims of being healthier, living longer, etc. I'll grant you that much is probably true. Life expectancy in the Upper Paleolithic was just over 30, dropping to as low as 20 in the Neolithic and did not surpass 30 again until the late middle ages. Meat consumption dropped due to an increase in dependants on crops and this also had the curious effect of decreasing height - it is only as of the 20th century that we have returned to pre-Neolithic height averages.

The difference between hunter gatherer and post-Neolithic revolution societies is largely down to scale. The former never get beyond a few dozen, where everyone knows everyone else, and the latter composed of thousands or more (Jericho, one of the earliest permanent settlements is estimated to have had about 1,500 inhabitants around 9,000 BC). This led to a number of developments that differed from hunter gatherer societies:

• Hierarchies developed. Earlier societies were small enough that everyone knew everyone else, but as they grew structure developed so as to impose authority over people whom you did not know directly.
• Farming freed up a sizeable portion of the population to specialize in other areas. Prior to the Neolithic revolution, if you wanted to survive, you had to be a hunter or a gatherer. Now, you could be a potter, or a builder, or a scribe, or an artist.
• War became more organized. Migration was no longer viable due to the massive increase in population density. As a result, the old raiding culture of warfare was refined and better organized, so that your aim was no longer to grab some of your neighbours resources, but to subdue them and keep those resources indefinitely.

Nonetheless, your assessment of hunter gatherer societies is a little romantic, especially where it comes to war. Like it or not, on an evolutionary standpoint, we're a lot more like the common chimpanzee than the bonobo.

Scanlas The 2nd

The Corinthian wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Nothing is more important than happiness IMO, that's something which hunter gatherers evidently are much more successful at.

That is questionable, not least of all because you've supplied precious little beyond your opinion, and the less said about your other claims the better.

Hunter gatherer societies have never been all that peaceful. If they are it is only down to low population densities, meaning that a tribe would cover an area that would sustain their low population, but changes in climate and food supply would see them periodically brush against other tribes, after which raiding and conflict would arise.

This behaviour was hardly limited to pre-historic man, but was evident in hunter gatherer societies that survived into the modern age; Amazonian tribes still constantly raid each other today.

Secondly, you appear to be pushing the idea that hunter gatherer societies are somehow anarchic utopias that promote free love. Setting aside your preoccupation with promiscuity for a moment, all such societies have displayed often rigid rules governing social interaction and conflict.

As to sex, just because people in hunter gatherer societies don't wear a lot of clothes, does not mean they're shagging like rabbits. Some, as used to exist in Polynesia, were very sexually permissive, however, others - such as in North America up to the 19th century - were not. Again resources are a major determinant in this, as sex leads to children and children need to be fed. And if your food supply is limited or inconsistent you'll want to control your birth rate - infanticide was also a means of doing this.

As to your claims of being healthier, living longer, etc. I'll grant you that much is probably true. Life expectancy in the Upper Paleolithic was just over 30, dropping to as low as 20 in the Neolithic and did not surpass 30 again until the late middle ages. Meat consumption dropped due to an increase in dependants on crops and this also had the curious effect of decreasing height - it is only as of the 20th century that we have returned to pre-Neolithic height averages.

The difference between hunter gatherer and post-Neolithic revolution societies is largely down to scale. The former never get beyond a few dozen, where everyone knows everyone else, and the latter composed of thousands or more (Jericho, one of the earliest permanent settlements is estimated to have had about 1,500 inhabitants around 9,000 BC). This led to a number of developments that differed from hunter gatherer societies:

• Hierarchies developed. Earlier societies were small enough that everyone knew everyone else, but as they grew structure developed so as to impose authority over people whom you did not know directly.
• Farming freed up a sizeable portion of the population to specialize in other areas. Prior to the Neolithic revolution, if you wanted to survive, you had to be a hunter or a gatherer. Now, you could be a potter, or a builder, or a scribe, or an artist.
• War became more organized. Migration was no longer viable due to the massive increase in population density. As a result, the old raiding culture of warfare was refined and better organized, so that your aim was no longer to grab some of your neighbours resources, but to subdue them and keep those resources indefinitely.

Nonetheless, your assessment of hunter gatherer societies is a little romantic, especially where it comes to war. Like it or not, on an evolutionary standpoint, we're a lot more like the common chimpanzee than the bonobo.

I disagree on a lot of what you say. Palaeolithic people routinely lived to 70 assuming they didn't die at birth and I think the evidence suggests we are more similar to bonobos than chimpanzees. Also chimpanzees are thought to be much more aggressive than they actually are due to the unnatural circumstances they are usually studied.There are many modern societies that arent peaceful which are thought to be hunter gatherers but actually aren't as they farm and claim land as property. I'll don't have time at the moment to write a detailed reply with back up right now but i will when I get a chance.

The Corinthian

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Palaeolithic people routinely lived to 70 assuming they didn't die at birth

That is incorrect. Life expectancy, including infant mortality, was about 33 years - I took this as a baseline for all the comparisons. If you survived to 15, and not just post-partum, then that average went up to about 54. Please note, that all the other averages would also have increased substantially in the event of surviving childhood.

If you have evidence that supports your claim of 70, please feel free to share it with us. Otherwise I will conclude that you are incorrect.

and I think the evidence suggests we are more similar to bonobos than chimpanzees.

What evidence. Please supply. Otherwise I will conclude that you are incorrect.

Also chimpanzees are thought to be much more aggressive than they actually are due to the unnatural circumstances they are usually studied.

Who thinks so (other than you)? Please supply sources. Otherwise I will conclude that you are incorrect.

There are many modern societies that arent peaceful which are thought to be hunter gatherers but actually aren't as they farm and claim land as property.

Again, please supply sources - I did so in my previous post, citing an anthropological study that refutes what you have said. Otherwise I will conclude that you are incorrect.

I'll don't have time at the moment to write a detailed reply with back up right now but i will when I get a chance.

TBH, if you want to include detail in your replay, I would suggest you do so in the form of sources and evidence from accredited third parties or other credible sources. If you want to simply write a large slab of argument backed up by nothing, then you will not be convincing me or anyone else.

Scanlas The 2nd

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/05/do_huntergatherers_have_it_rig.html

Humans and bonobos are very similar. Bonobos are peaceful just like we are in our natural environment. Both humans ( in natural environbent, not force fed agriculture and monogamy) and bonobos are sex crazy where females and males are receptive to sex all through the menstrual cycle. Females encourage makes to mate with ten one after the other. There isn't much need for conflict between males as sex and food is plentiful so long as the climate is stable and no natural disasters. Why do women scream during orgasm and more capable of having multiple orgasms? Why are men turned on by women orgasming? Because its part of the dynamic where the warfare takes place amongst sperm not humans. Men didn't need to compete over women or food.

The Corinthian

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/05/do_huntergatherers_have_it_rig.html

All that article points to is that human health and diet suffered with the advent of agriculture, something that I already conceded in my first point. However it makes no attempt to support your claim that hunter gatherers "routinely lived to 70", let alone your other claims.

As an aside, I also note that in the interview associated with the article a claim is made that hunter gatherers protected their environment was also made; something that has been refuted by recent evidence.

Humans and bonobos are very similar. Bonobos are peaceful just like we are in our natural environment.

You're just repeating your claim, still with no evidence or sources to back this up. You've also failed to address, let alone rebut, the sources I have supplied. I think, as I said, we need to conclude that you are incorrect on much of what you said.

If you have nothing further of value to add, perhaps we can finally take your rather romantic utopian picture as wishful thinking and get back to a more reasoned discussion?

slowburner

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/05/do_huntergatherers_have_it_rig.html

Humans and bonobos are very similar. Bonobos are peaceful just like we are in our natural environment. Both humans ( in natural environbent, not force fed agriculture and monogamy) and bonobos are sex crazy where females and males are receptive to sex all through the menstrual cycle. Females encourage makes to mate with ten one after the other. There isn't much need for conflict between males as sex and food is plentiful so long as the climate is stable and no natural disasters. Why do women scream during orgasm and more capable of having multiple orgasms? Why are men turned on by women orgasming? Because its part of the dynamic where the warfare takes place amongst sperm not humans. Men didn't need to compete over women or food.

I am having difficulty trying to understand where this fits in to this discussion.
Perhaps you could enlighten me - I try very hard to be open to new and interesting theories, especially when they are as challenging as this.

Scanlas The 2nd

slowburner wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/2009/05/do_huntergatherers_have_it_rig.html

Humans and bonobos are very similar. Bonobos are peaceful just like we are in our natural environment. Both humans ( in natural environbent, not force fed agriculture and monogamy) and bonobos are sex crazy where females and males are receptive to sex all through the menstrual cycle. Females encourage makes to mate with ten one after the other. There isn't much need for conflict between males as sex and food is plentiful so long as the climate is stable and no natural disasters. Why do women scream during orgasm and more capable of having multiple orgasms? Why are men turned on by women orgasming? Because its part of the dynamic where the warfare takes place amongst sperm not humans. Men didn't need to compete over women or food.

I am having difficulty trying to understand where this fits in to this discussion.
Perhaps you could enlighten me - I try very hard to be open to new and interesting theories, especially when they are as challenging as this.

The reason I mentioned that is it shows the males of our species aren't built to be competing with each other physically nearly as much as people think. Which I believe adds evidence to the idea we aren't evolutionarily built for war. Conflict among males ( who cause the wars since agriculture was invented) was minimal as there was wasn't a huge need to compete sexually on that level, that's why I think we are relatively peaceful in our natural palaeolithic environment. Gorillas are highly aggressive and designed for conflict as they compete sexually by fighting. That's why they are so much bigger than female gorillas, human males are only 10 - 20 percent bigger than females which suggests the males haven't needed to adapt for fighting much which suggests we are relatively peaceful in our evolved environment.

The Corinthian

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The reason I mentioned that is it shows the males of our species aren't built to be competing with each other physically nearly as much as people think.

How so? Women orgasm, ergo we are not naturally violent? Bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Which I believe adds evidence to the idea we aren't evolutionarily built for war.

That's not evidence; it's a theory, or opinion, nothing more.

human males are only 10 - 20 percent bigger than females

That's something else you appear to be misinformed on.

Any reason you are ignoring the call made by me and others to you, to supply evidence and/or sources for your claims?

slowburner

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The reason I mentioned that is it shows the males of our species aren't built to be competing with each other physically nearly as much as people think. Which I believe adds evidence to the idea we aren't evolutionarily built for war. Conflict among males ( who cause the wars since agriculture was invented) was minimal as there was wasn't a huge need to compete sexually on that level, that's why I think we are relatively peaceful in our natural palaeolithic environment. Gorillas are highly aggressive and designed for conflict as they compete sexually by fighting. That's why they are so much bigger than female gorillas, human males are only 10 - 20 percent bigger than females which suggests the males haven't needed to adapt for fighting much which suggests we are relatively peaceful in our evolved environment.

Are you saying that all conflict is the product of sexual competition?

Zombrex

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's a myth that people lived short and brutish lives before agriculture, it was normal for an adult to live to 70 prevent 80 years of age. There was a higher rate of death at during birth but grown adults could expect to live until 70. They were much healthier than we are today, also bigger and stronger as they didn't eat grains and only ate lots of healthy food, populations were small so there was no shortage of food.

I reiterate in terms of the happiness and health of humans agriculture is the single worst invention. It has caused immense suffering.

That is a view that was popular among some anthropologist such as Marshall Sahlins for a while but has been largely debunked.

Violent death was a much higher risk in H/G societies, and the way it was working out that they spend a lot of time socializing and relaxing has been shown to be flawed (if you consider the time to not only gather food but also to prepare it they worked much longer than modern humans).