Mankind learned the art of going into battle much later than previously thought, a new academic study
I read somewhere once, and I think I even posted it here, that years ago human groups got no larger than about a hundred people and so everyone knew who the psychopath was. Only a few people needed to be conned by the lying, cheating, toe rag for everyone to know who he was, and after that, he had to behave himself or he would get thrown out of the group.
But in modern society, though, psychopaths can move from group to group and start all over again wrecking people's lives.. They can also rise up in companies as modern capitalism seem to reward psychopathic behavior, like extreme greed and selfishness. And the clever, intelligent ones can use their ruthlessness to rise up in society sometimes becoming leaders of countries. These people are often pro war because they don't expect they will ever fight in one, but they think they can gain from it. There seems to be a lot of them in the Ukraine right now, sponsored by the psychopaths in the US. They are all after the money.
But in modern society, though, psychopaths can move from group to group and start all over again wrecking people's lives.. They can also rise up in companies as modern capitalism seem to reward psychopathic behavior, like extreme greed and selfishness. And the clever, intelligent ones can use their ruthlessness to rise up in society sometimes becoming leaders of countries. These people are often pro war because they don't expect they will ever fight in one, but they think they can gain from it. There seems to be a lot of them in the Ukraine right now, sponsored by the psychopaths in the US. They are all after the money.
Is it natural for humans to make war? Is organised violence between rival political groups an inevitable outcome of the human condition? Some scholars believe the answer is yes, but new research suggests not.
A study of tribal societies that live by hunting and foraging has found that war is an alien concept and not, as some academics have suggested, an innate feature of so-called “primitive people”.
he findings have re-opened a bitter academic dispute over whether war is a relatively recent phenomenon invented by “civilised” societies over the past few thousand years, or a much older part of human nature. In other words, is war an ancient and chronic condition that helped to shape humanity over many hundreds of thousands of years?
The idea is that war is the result of an evolutionary ancient predisposition that humans may have inherited in their genetic makeup as long ago as about 7 million years, when we last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees – who also wage a kind of war between themselves.
However, two anthropologists believe this is a myth and have now produced evidence to show it. Douglas Fry and Patrik Soderberg [umlaut over o] of Abo Akademi University in Vasa, Finland, studied 148 violently lethal incidents documented by anthropologists working among 21 mobile bands of hunter-gatherer societies, which some scholars have suggested as a template for studying how humans lived for more than 99.9 per cent of human history, before the invention of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.
They found that only a tiny minority of violent deaths come close to being defined as acts of war. Most the violence was perpetrated by one individual against another and usually involved personal grudges involving women or stealing.
About 85 per cent of the deaths involved killers and victims who belonged to the same social group, and about two thirds of all the violent deaths could be attributed to family feuds, disputes over wives, accidents or “legal” executions, the researchers found.
The Independent
Libertarianism has only one principle: The total prohibition on the initiation of violence. Hearing a proposal that strictly prohibits violence seems to make everyone even more violent.
ReplyDelete“I read somewhere once, and I think I even posted it here, that years ago human groups for no bigger than about a hundred people and so everyone knew who the psychopath was. Only a few people needed to be conned by the lying, cheating, toe rag for everyone to know who he was, and after that, he had to behave himself or he would get thrown out of the group.”
ReplyDeleteYes. In connection with this, Mexico has federal, state, and municipal governments (there are no counties). Municipal governments oversee cities and towns that range in population from a few thousand to a few million. A municipal district is called a “municipio.” A “municipio’s formal town limits are typically thirty miles wide, inside of which, most of the land is empty, or is farmland, but there are also some five to thirty rural villages called “ranchos,” each of whose populations range from a hundred to a couple of thousand.
I visited many, many “ranchos” in Mexico. Each “rancho” had at least one psychopath. That is, each village had at least one a__hole who was continually robbing and burglarizing other people in the village.
Often these a__holes spent much of their lives in jail, but as soon as they got out, they resumed their evil ways.
Each village also had a village idiot, a village drunk, and so on. It sounds clichéd, but it was true.
This pattern was so universal in Mexico (and India too) that whenever I entered a new village and I started talking to the people, I would always ask, “Who’s your town chapuza? (Who’s your town a__hole?) Everyone instantly identified him (the a__holes were always males) because everyone knew who he was. In this way I knew who to avoid.
Like I said, every rancho had at least one chapuza. If one of them got thrown into prison (not merely jail) a new one would soon take his place. Usually there was only one per village, because if there were two or more, they would compete with one another until one of them drove out the other one.
“But in modern society, psychopaths can move from group to group and start all over again wrecking people's lives.”
Yes, because not many Anglo-Americans live in small villages these days.
“They can also rise up in companies as modern capitalism seem to reward psychopathic behavior, like extreme greed and selfishness.”
Yes, capitalism rewards psychopathic behavior. However capitalism does not reward idiots (which is why Franko continues to live in his Mommy’s basement).
“And the clever, intelligent ones can use their ruthlessness to rise up in society sometimes becoming leaders of countries. These people are often pro war because they don't expect they will ever fight in one, but they think they can gain from it. There seems to be a lot of them in the Ukraine right now, sponsored by the psychopaths in the US. They are all after the money.”
Regarding war, in the video below, Sir David Attenborough discuss a species of Swiss wood ant. For reasons unknown, these wood ants have split into two groups. One group is territorial. Its members in their ant mound kill outsiders, and the ant mounds routinely go to war with each other, with extreme casualties. Each ant mound is a world unto itself.
A second group of wood ants (same species) welcomes outsiders, never goes to war, and is not territorial. This group’s ant mounds are linked up in a gigantic underground network of ant mounds.
Why this division into two groups? Scientists do not know, but they are fairly certain that the sheer growth of the cooperative ants is gradually eliminating the warlike ants. Could something like this be in man’s future?
As with all of Attenborough’s videos, this one is outstanding…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdPsVpD6b08
“The notion of the "noble savage" living in peace with one another and in harmony with nature is a fantasy. In Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage, LeBlanc contends that warfare and violent conflict have existed throughout human history, and that humans have never lived in ecological balance with nature.”
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amazon.com/Constant-Battles-Why-We-Fight/dp/0312310900
Let's revel in war and slavery, not condemn it. Let's have a global nuclear war. After all, humans have always been killing each other.
ReplyDeleteArt major!
Get yer munnie back!
Art major!
Wretched little maggot.
Well you have the guy Kaivey posts Conner says we’re not war oriented (thesis) then this guy I post here LeBlanc says we are (anti-thesis) in a classic dialectical situation...
ReplyDeleteYou Liberal Arts guys should not have a problem with this...
The synthesis is that some are pro war biased and some are anti war biased like we see.... sometimes we’re at war and sometimes not at war...