I will kill you all

[Denny Crane!]

Got your attention? Good, now be warned dry reading instead of a flame fest

Over at the darwin awards I had a debate, or rather I was involved in someone elses about Nazism. My contention was that not every nazi was an evil person as not every nazi person joined out of choice or to a lesser degree even knew what was happening. The same could be said of the population. This is besides the point as I have done it to death and heard all the counters as I am sure most civs will have at some point. The next thing to consider is though the people who knew and actually involved themselves in the final solution and wanton killing.

Now the Daily mail instinct is to lay it all at the feet of the German population but we must accept that genocide and brutality has been a significant point throughout our history. I must merely point to such examples as the Rwandan genocide, Bosnia, Germany and go back a little further and you realise we have only been civilised for the last 60-70 years give or take a decade here and there. The people we lambast as barbaric are no worse than us in the west up until extremely recent history.

The conversation a while back sparked this idea but the motivating factor for this post was when reading the spanish method of execution of gays during the early classical/renaissance late medieval period I think vaguely 15th century. The notion of sawing, a person is suspended by there feet and sawed from crotch to head remaining alive throughout the majority of the process. A practice so barbaric it defies belief, something which in scale is repeated in every country throughout the world and not so far back in history. The Dutch navy in the 18th century practiced keel hauling as a method of punishment rarely and execution frequently, the process of drawing a person by a rope from one side of the ship to the other through the water scraping the razor sharp barnacles and drowning the victim. Flogging to death was the practice of the British Navy in the 18th century. America has in its recent past over the last century had a frightful history (controversial opinion of mine don't focus on it please not relevant).

It seems El Guapo the drunken debator of twc meanders ever further from his point;

The point is that a human by nature is a predator and as such inherently violent. Physically and mentally to an extent we may have evolved beyond that point but at the same time those inherited instincts and behavioural patterns remain. Each culture throughout history has shown an incredible capacity for violence, cruelty and slaughter. In nazi Germany and Rwanda how many people who committed these crimes were ordinary people and neighbours.

It was considered during the vietnam war by psycologists the possibility that any human under a certain amount of conditions be capable of inhumane acts and gratuitous violence. Though this is dependant upon personality it can be considered that each person has in him that reachable level where brutality becomes an option.

Consider the point though where instinct and inherently violent behavior ends and the considered planned violence begins and try to reason for me the difference and the causes for this difference. Is this trait present in nature to such an extent or is it peculiar to man?

We are by nature a gregarious animal accustomed to packs or in a more evolved sense tribes. We can maintain to a certain standard peace within such areas peace but our nature lends itself to a certain amount of violence within and a massive amount without. While we do not kill inside our pack that abiliity and willingness is always there and in some ways we surpass that, now this may be our willingness to submit to the orders of our pack leader; our passivity and obedience of the alpha male. Yet I still feel in some ways we surpass that in terms of organisation. That in ways we have evolved beyond primitive pack instincts to a certain extent we have also evolved the capacity for killing and cruelty.

Now do me a favour and read this http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/killer-myth.html personally I feel in some ways he is on the right track but has an entirely to benevolent a perspective on the nature of man. Opinion?

So my question to you is how many of your friends and neighbours in that kind of situation could become the people we so despise, how many of you could become those people? Could your wife or husband or parents be that person.

My conclusion is thank God the majority of us will never have these answers.

Regards
Peter

[The Lacedaemonian]

man, you sure got my attention.

[Shigawire]

Rush (my favorite band) made a song about this issue.

Lock and Key

View musicvideo here, it's descriptive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9OvMTtBC0

[Visna]

Got your attention? Good, now be warned dry reading instead of a flame fest

Kinda sad. I was just in the mood for some biting, cynical flaming...

Over at the darwin awards I had a debate, or rather I was involved in someone elses about Nazism. My contention was that not every nazi was an evil person as not every nazi person joined out of choice or to a lesser degree even knew what was happening. The same could be said of the population. This is besides the point as I have done it to death and heard all the counters as I am sure most civs will have at some point. The next thing to consider is though the people who knew and actually involved themselves in the final solution and wanton killing.

Now the Daily mail instinct is to lay it all at the feet of the German population but we must accept that genocide and brutality has been a significant point throughout our history. I must merely point to such examples as the Rwandan genocide, Bosnia, Germany and go back a little further and you realise we have only been civilised for the last 60-70 years give or take a decade here and there. The people we lambast as barbaric are no worse than us in the west up until extremely recent history.

IMO that is one the things that make all those guilty of attrocities so terrifying. They are just humans. Had they all been monsters straight from Hell, it could have made some sense what they did.

The point is that a human by nature is a predator and as such inherently violent. Physically and mentally to an extent we may have evolved beyond that point but at the same time those inherited instincts and behavioural patterns remain. Each culture throughout history has shown an incredible capacity for violence, cruelty and slaughter. In nazi Germany and Rwanda how many people who committed these crimes were ordinary people and neighbours.

It was considered during the vietnam war by psycologists the possibility that any human under a certain amount of conditions be capable of inhumane acts and gratuitous violence. Though this is dependant upon personality it can be considered that each person has in him that reachable level where brutality becomes an option.

Consider the point though where instinct and inherently violent behavior ends and the considered planned violence begins and try to reason for me the difference and the causes for this difference. Is this trait present in nature to such an extent or is it peculiar to man?

We are by nature a gregarious animal accustomed to packs or in a more evolved sense tribes. We can maintain to a certain standard peace within such areas peace but our nature lends itself to a certain amount of violence within and a massive amount without. While we do not kill inside our pack that abiliity and willingness is always there and in some ways we surpass that, now this may be our willingness to submit to the orders of our pack leader; our passivity and obedience of the alpha male. Yet I still feel in some ways we surpass that in terms of organisation. That in ways we have evolved beyond primitive pack instincts to a certain extent we have also evolved the capacity for killing and cruelty.

Now do me a favour and read this http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/killer-myth.html personally I feel in some ways he is on the right track but has an entirely to benevolent a perspective on the nature of man. Opinion?

So my question to you is how many of your friends and neighbours in that kind of situation could become the people we so despise, how many of you could become those people? Could your wife or husband or parents be that person.

Human groups, societies etc. are much more peaceful and tranquil (is that a word?) within the group, than chimpansees for instance. The average level of violent incidents in a pack of apes is much, much higher 'per capita' so to speak than it is within human groups. They even 'wage wars', and some eat their victims. Although I think, that had they the capacity to explain their actions, they would probably call it 'hunting'. But that's not the point. The point is that they hunt, kill and eat fellow chimpansees.

As for human crimes. By far the most violent crime within human groups are 'crimes of passion'. The number of premeditated, carefully planned murders is actually quite low compared to those who fit my next point. Everybody have a breaking point. If that point is squeezed long and hard enough, everybody are potential murderers.

As for crimes directed 'outwards' as in towards another group. Within sociology some operate with two types of personalities. Leaders and followers. It has turned out, as should be painfully obvious by now, that as long as the leaders, alpha males, the authorities are able to uphold control the followers are capeable of almost anything, even if it involves violence or abuse of someone not within the group. Stanley Milgram's experiments come to mind.

Bottom line is for me that we all are capeable of committing horrible crimes. If the 'right' conditions are in place, we are all potentially violent. Either by blindly following orders (deathcamp personel for instance), in 'the heat of the moment' (typically one drunk male beating another drunk male, or the good old 'if I can't have her, no one shall have her and see my kids' etc), because we have been conditioned to (soldiers serving in warzones), and then there are a very small minority who do it because they enjoy it, and it's maybe the only way they know how to resolve conflicts. I have no doubt left some subgroups out, but it's getting late here.

[Denny Crane!]

Kinda sad. I was just in the mood for some biting, cynical flaming...

I know me to, believe me don't think I wasn't tempted!

IMO that is one the things that make all those guilty of attrocities so terrifying. They are just humans. Had they all been monsters straight from Hell, it could have made some sense what they did.

This is true. Your response is the reason why this didn't just go in the symposium for civs, why are you not a civ yet by the way?

Speaking of which:

Human groups, societies etc. are much more peaceful and tranquil (is that a word?) within the group, than chimpansees for instance. The average level of violent incidents in a pack of apes is much, much higher 'per capita' so to speak than it is within human groups. They even 'wage wars', and some eat their victims. Although I think, that had they the capacity to explain their actions, they would probably call it 'hunting'. But that's not the point. The point is that they hunt, kill and eat fellow chimpansees.

Cannabilism is not something unknown between humans but admittedly is unheard of. Are you sure about your thoughts on interpack violence or are you speculating? The reason I ask is I always assumed inter pack violence was something limited to a certain extent to alpha males and the contestants. The waging of wars is something practiced against rival tribes much like wars between countries.

The differences between us and them I put down to societal conditioning, the thing which prevents genocide from being commonplace just as it prevents cannabilism from being common.

This part of the arguement doesn't address the question between the difference between a war primarily concerned with resources both in nature and mankind and the methodology (word? who knows?) of genocide the premeditated nature of such (applicable to final solution though admittedly not Rwanden genocide) and the sheer organised nature and lack of need for such brutality. Is is merely a reflection of nature on a much larger scale?

As for human crimes. By far the most violent crime within human groups are 'crimes of passion'. The number of premeditated, carefully planned murders is actually quite low compared to those who fit my next point. Everybody have a breaking point. If that point is squeezed long and hard enough, everybody are potential murderers.

Granted. This is actually the gist of my post at least in part, I guess I am making that point but at the same time trying to address the idea of genocide and how much of our nature is reflected in nature and how much is our own.

Really makes it harder to despise the German people, while not condoning there actions and being as disgusted as ever I cannot call them evil really, I can call them human. This has strong implications to how you form your views on morals, ethics and the view of eternal judgement etc. Now it is 4 in the morning and I am just rambling.....

As for crimes directed 'outwards' as in towards another group. Within sociology some operate with two types of personalities. Leaders and followers. It has turned out, as should be painfully obvious by now, that as long as the leaders, alpha males, the authorities are able to uphold control the followers are capeable of almost anything, even if it involves violence or abuse of someone not within the group. Stanley Milgram's experiments come to mind.

I was trying to remember that for a long time, milgrams experiments. I really couldn't think of the name, but yes very relevant.

Bottom line is for me that we all are capeable of committing horrible crimes. If the 'right' conditions are in place, we are all potentially violent. Either by blindly following orders (deathcamp personel for instance), in 'the heat of the moment' (typically one drunk male beating another drunk male, or the good old 'if I can't have her, no one shall have her and see my kids' etc), because we have been conditioned to (soldiers serving in warzones), and then there are a very small minority who do it because they enjoy it, and it's maybe the only way they know how to resolve conflicts. I have no doubt left some subgroups out, but it's getting late here.

I will come back to this I think the idea of sleep has ended my ability to read any more or even think I cannot type another response, good response though. Later

Peter

[Nihil]

Human groups, societies etc. are much more peaceful and tranquil (is that a word?) within the group, than chimpansees for instance. The average level of violent incidents in a pack of apes is much, much higher 'per capita' so to speak than it is within human groups. They even 'wage wars', and some eat their victims. Although I think, that had they the capacity to explain their actions, they would probably call it 'hunting'. But that's not the point. The point is that they hunt, kill and eat fellow chimpansees.

But what about bonobos? Some anthropologists think we have as much in common (or more) with these peace loving and good natured primates as we do with the nasty chimps.





From wikipedia:

The Bonobo is more gracile than the Common Chimpanzee. Its head is smaller than that of the Common Chimpanzee but has a higher forehead. It has a black face with pink lips, small ears, wide nostrils, and long hair on its head. Females have slightly prominent breasts in contrast to the flat breasts of other female apes, though not as prominent as those of humans. The Bonobo also have slim upper bodies, narrow shoulders, thin necks, and long legs compared to the Common Chimpanzee. These characteristics, and their posture, give Bonobos a more human-like appearance than that of Common Chimpanzees.

They are more interested in lovin' than fightin':

Bonobos are the only non-human apes to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (most frequently female-female, then male-female and male-male), tongue kissing, and oral sex.

Bonobo society is matriarchal:

Females are much smaller than males but can be considered to have a higher social status. Aggressive encounters between males and females are rare, and males are tolerant of infants and juveniles. The male's status reflects the status of his mother, and the son-mother bond often stays strong and continues throughout life. While social hierarchies do exist, rank does not play as prominent a role as it does in other primate societies.

I'd rather be a bonobo than a chimp any day.

[Visna]

This is true. Your response is the reason why this didn't just go in the symposium for civs, why are you not a civ yet by the way?

Uumm.... I don't know. Up until recently I had absolutely no idea what "a civ" even was...

Cannabilism is not something unknown between humans but admittedly is unheard of. Are you sure about your thoughts on interpack violence or are you speculating? The reason I ask is I always assumed inter pack violence was something limited to a certain extent to alpha males and the contestants. The waging of wars is something practiced against rival tribes much like wars between countries.

The differences between us and them I put down to societal conditioning, the thing which prevents genocide from being commonplace just as it prevents cannabilism from being common.

This part of the arguement doesn't address the question between the difference between a war primarily concerned with resources both in nature and mankind and the methodology (word? who knows?) of genocide the premeditated nature of such (applicable to final solution though admittedly not Rwanden genocide) and the sheer organised nature and lack of need for such brutality. Is is merely a reflection of nature on a much larger scale?

About interpack violence in chimp-packs. I'm as sure about it as a program on the subject on National Geographic can make me. I think it was called "The truth about killing". Don't know if it's accessible online, though.
I think you're right about conditioning, but I believe this conditioning takes a long time. If you take casualty number in WW2 for instance, the longer the war went on, the more embittered all the parties involved became, and the casualties rates rised accordingly. IIRC the highest number of dead per year was actually in 1945 closely followed by 1944. Even though the war ended in August 1945...
To my knowledge, humans are the only animals which carries out planned wars of annihilation. This is one of the key things which sets up apart from all other animals. And even that is extremely rare. But again it comes down to conditioning. The social inhibitors that we by and large possess, prevent us from following our instincts, and thereby make us civilized. One of the problems arise when those inhibitors are broken down. After WW2 it was discovered that a lot of the soldiers at first didn't shoot to kill, but mainly 'to scare'. And it goes on. During the American civil war, rifles were found with maybe 10 bullets in the barrel, but the weapon had not been fired. It takes long and hard training to make soldiers shoot each other.

But what about bonobos? Some anthropologists think we have as much in common (or more) with these peaceving and good natured primates as we do with the nasty chimps.
I'd rather be a bonobo than a chimp any day.

Lol, trust me, I too would pick a bonobo any day. But I think it's fair to say that humans have something in common with them both. And since the topic being discussed is violence and not imitated or real sex to relieve tension in the pack, (sounds like a really good idea, btw... *makes a note of it*) I think chimps are the most relevant.

[Nihil]

Lol, trust me, I too would pick a bonobo any day. But I think it's fair to say that humans have something in common with them both. And since the topic being discussed is violence and not imitated or real sex to relieve tension in the pack, (sounds like a really good idea, btw... *makes a note of it*) I think chimps are the most relevant.

Agreed, but the bonobo angle makes an interesting counter-balance, IMO, to the often cited argument that we're supposed to be like chimps, and the Hobbesian view of our nature as fundamentally ruthless and aggressive. The fact that there is another intelligent primate with a very different personality takes some of the punch out of that argument. That we have much in common with both species is a significant point that we shouldn't overlook.

[Lee1026]

Over at the darwin awards I had a debate

Hmm... Are you running with a different name there?

Anyway, I will stop being off topic and come back to the topic at hand:

One of most popular ways of analysising human behavior is to look at whether that behavior have evolutionary benefits or not, this method is highly practiceble in this case.
If a small group of cavemen were to live in a completely isolated society, it would be benefical for each cave man to have a "every man for himself" mentality. It would do well for him to kill his fellows, as that means that there is more resources for him to consume. That might mean that we are evolved to be highly blood thirsty beings.
But, as we very well know, we humans are really highly social animals, we work well in groups, and we tend to not to kill our fellow group members, even when we are given the chance. This can be explained by having several groups of cavemen running around.
If there is several groups, then the groups who help each other out would do far better then the groups who are too busy killing each other, which means that the group that help each other out have a far bigger advantage. Which would reasonablely mean that we are highly friendly animals.
But evolutionarily, there is a huge incentive for various groups to attack those who are from another group. As most of the interbreeding is in their own group, the genes that they share with the other groups would be nearly non-existent. In addition, the group have next to no incentives to let them live. On the other hand, if they attack and kill the other group, then there would be more resources for the group itself. This model, I believe, best defines human relations.
We are mostly very nice people when we are dealing with people that we know very well, because we identify them as being part of our group. However, when we identify someone as being outside of our group (whether they are gay, Jewish, or whatever), the kill other group genes kick in, and this can generally explain most of the wars and the such in the world.

[Hub'ite]

The title got my attention but once I saw how long the post was I lost interest.

[carl-the-conqueror]

a study showed that if we were asked to torturture somone we would do it (as long as it wasnt there responsibility)

the study was done with actors, and the participants thought that they were electrocuting them, when they got a question wrong.

[Tom Paine]

a study showed that if we were asked to torturture somone we would do it (as long as it wasnt there responsibility)

the study was done with actors, and the participants thought that they were electrocuting them, when they got a question wrong.

I know the study you mean, though I cannot name it. The circumstances were actually that there was a separate room; in this were the actors. Participants were ordered by the scientist running the experiment to eletrocute them with increasing voltage and results demonstrated that most people would do it, and even turned it up when the actor stoppedscreaming simulating death.

[Visna]

I know the study you mean, though I cannot name it. The circumstances were actually that there was a separate room; in this were the actors. Participants were ordered by the scientist running the experiment to eletrocute them with increasing voltage and results demonstrated that most people would do it, and even turned it up when the actor stoppedscreaming simulating death.

Stanley Milgram's experiments.
There is also the Stanford Prison experiment, that might be relevant to the topic at hand.

[ENSAIS]

Amazing that it seems like the point of El Guapo's post is that without God we can basically behave like animals.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Hey, you posted this Opus but nothing in the Christian schools thread?

[Tom Paine]

Amazing that it seems like the point of El Guapo's post is that without God we can basically behave like animals.

Hardly without God. The Crusades were hardly without God, for instance. If anything we are worse with God; he gives us an excuse to behave like animals. El G is just expressing a very Hobbesian view...

[ENSAIS]

Funny how learned people will justify statements about "religion causing all wars" etc by focusing on such a Eurocentric view of history.. the Crusades.
2 things:
The Mongul invasions, Roman empire subjugation of the Mediteranean, feudal Japan clashes etc, etc... were a ton of wars about power, subjugation, greed. As were many elements of the Crusades. Even if we say for the Crusades that religion was "the" dominant factor in western and muslim societies of the time where hypocrisy (playing a role, saying one thing but living otherwise, having different rules for your own behavior and that of others, etc) and so feuled the wars of the times...
one still cannot maintain that the other motivating factors for greed, subjugation, conquest, power, etc played no role..

And like I said before, those "other factors" appear to me to be much more dominant than faith in nearly all other non-Eurocentric wars.

Causality is a tenuous thing... and if you blend all the causes of the world down to just religion, you're missing quite a few other contributors.


On to El Guapo's original post topic.

I think if one looks at human populations under any kind of pressure at all you end up with a model like he is talking about. Like this thread would support, I believe at base we are depraved killers. Look at the power politics in max prisons.

Look at the outbursts of genocides in nearly all protracted wars.

Look how most crime involves some element of greed or power, and how over time crimes usually escalate for more power or greed to violence...

Society has a thin veneer of social order and civility really. That is why secular humanist beliefs that we can be educated out of a naturally base state seem to me to be misplaces.

Heck even in good old Louisiana, just put a population under pressure and out comes some base actions... and I bet it wasn't just the socio enconomically deprived doing those base actions either.

[Tom Paine]

Note what I said. Not religion causes wars, but rather that it gives us an excuse for wars; a very different prospect, is it not?

Society has a thin veneer of social order and civility really. That is why secular humanist beliefs that we can be educated out of a naturally base state seem to me to be misplaces.

However mankind is able to be educated out of it. think of how we view it such evil actions; with repugnance. Was that our natural reaction we would not be committing such acts so it must have been educated into us. Look at the recent Israeli-Lebanon conflict; some pilots were imprisoned for refusing to bomb Lebanese civilian areas. Again, were violence our natural reaction, this would not happen.

[Denny Crane!]

Yes it is very Hobbes isn't it.

Religion in our culture is an entirely different prospect. Nihil I believe our history and obvious nature proves that if anything we are not related to the chimp you mention the bonobo or if we were we evolved into a more violent form. Yes our inter tribal relations are on the main peaceful but there is always that primal instinctive reaction to violence if neccessary and sometimes when there is not. The obvious differences are where it is an instinctive reaction and when it is premeditated like TGS it becomes a problem.

This is where the conditioning ordinary society kicks in and we start to consider our actions and the consequences, whether that conditioning comes from religion or from education. Have you ever heard the saying that civilisation is three hot meals away from barbarism?

So my point is that society is a thin veneer masking our true natures, supressing it for the most part but not totally.

ENSAS my replies on all subjects are thin today, first day off in a long time I am playing games, sitting around in little to no clothing and generally being a slob.

Peter

[ENSAIS]

Yeah, I gotta go test SPQR 6.2... but I find this forum a fun place to trade the stray thumb in the eye... ciao.

[caratacus]

Whist I have been reading this thread, I have observed someone who regularly feeds bread to a group of sheep in the field next to my garden. In order to get to the bread first they always jostle and butt one another, and its always the smaller one that comes off the worst. Even Ewes butt their own partly grown lambs to get to the bread.

Aggresion between members of the same species is not uncommon in the animal kingdom and especially occurs when food is scarce. Ever wondered why your more bad tempered when your hungry, well its down to your ancestors fighting over who has the last Mammoth bone. Cooperation only occurs when it is imperative to survival, when it is not competition occurs. Anyone observed a peaceful roadside verge in Summer covered with wild pretty flowers and thought it was the picture of peace and tranquility, Well its not, each plant is jostling and strangling the others to obtain more light and space to flower and produce seed. Its Total War amongst the hedgerows!.

Humans are however alone in actually enjoying adminstering violence on both their own species and that of others and in that they are truly Gods wonderous creatures.