"We have been bred for conflict by natural selection" and its associated belief in genetic determinism is refuted by modern biology, especially neurobiology. It is a shining example of how science has been co-opted by the despotic hard right separatists that Caitlin challenges so eloquently. See 'The Biological Mind' by Justin Garson for more enlightened contemporary thinking.
You seem to need black and white. Actually I am a neuroscientist, now retired. After 45 years at it, it became clear how complex even the simplest human behaviour is. I did not mention genetic determinism , indeed I made it clear it could be supervened. Just that opportunities have been lost. I find your post offensively doctrinaire, if you don’t mind me saying. Are you trying to drive down the price of straw?
You posited a theory of human behavior that was genetic in origin and driven by a competitive model of natural selection. That's a totally discredited project known as "Social Darwinism".
Huh? Your reading comprehension is dodgy at best. You're conflating several things and are so far off what I said, I hope you don’t mind my leaving it at that.
Thank you for offering a more full explanation, George. I like your emphasis on the possibility that what is sometimes called genetic determinism can be supervened.
But it can't be overcome by not facing the problem squarely. As far as we know, for millennia humans lived in small groups in settings often involving combat. Those who were better at combat tended to survive. Hence, through evolution, the obvious human tendency toward aggressive violence which dominates our culture and our history (not just the West -- almost all of it). To deal with the problem we must recognize and acknowledge the depth of the problem.
Combat depends on cooperation and collaboration. Can you imagine each soldier doing whatever the fuck they wanted in a battle? Any tribe that did such a thing were likely the first to disappear. Soldiers who cooperated and organized (the Roman Legion anyone?) survived and were the most effective for centuries on end. Still true today.
Certainly. One of the paradoxes of warfare. Indeed, the most noble and unselfish emotions of the people are drafted into the service of death and destruction.
Yes, it is a cultural choice. Cultural evolution either supports real favorable evolution or not. Supporting conflict and the less evolutionarily positive forces of our primate behavior and evolution leads to death, devolution, and insanity.
"We have been bred for conflict by natural selection" and its associated belief in genetic determinism is refuted by modern biology, especially neurobiology. It is a shining example of how science has been co-opted by the despotic hard right separatists that Caitlin challenges so eloquently. See 'The Biological Mind' by Justin Garson for more enlightened contemporary thinking.
You seem to need black and white. Actually I am a neuroscientist, now retired. After 45 years at it, it became clear how complex even the simplest human behaviour is. I did not mention genetic determinism , indeed I made it clear it could be supervened. Just that opportunities have been lost. I find your post offensively doctrinaire, if you don’t mind me saying. Are you trying to drive down the price of straw?
You posited a theory of human behavior that was genetic in origin and driven by a competitive model of natural selection. That's a totally discredited project known as "Social Darwinism".
Own it.
Huh? Your reading comprehension is dodgy at best. You're conflating several things and are so far off what I said, I hope you don’t mind my leaving it at that.
Two people read what you wrote and came to a different conclusion than the one you believed was clear. Maybe the issue is your post and not them.
Thanks for the input. I’ve gone back and looked and find what I said ( to me) irreducible. I thought the subsequent thread clarified.
Thank you for offering a more full explanation, George. I like your emphasis on the possibility that what is sometimes called genetic determinism can be supervened.
But it can't be overcome by not facing the problem squarely. As far as we know, for millennia humans lived in small groups in settings often involving combat. Those who were better at combat tended to survive. Hence, through evolution, the obvious human tendency toward aggressive violence which dominates our culture and our history (not just the West -- almost all of it). To deal with the problem we must recognize and acknowledge the depth of the problem.
Combat depends on cooperation and collaboration. Can you imagine each soldier doing whatever the fuck they wanted in a battle? Any tribe that did such a thing were likely the first to disappear. Soldiers who cooperated and organized (the Roman Legion anyone?) survived and were the most effective for centuries on end. Still true today.
Certainly. One of the paradoxes of warfare. Indeed, the most noble and unselfish emotions of the people are drafted into the service of death and destruction.
That's the key isn't it.
Pay grade? I said I was retired.
Yes, it is a cultural choice. Cultural evolution either supports real favorable evolution or not. Supporting conflict and the less evolutionarily positive forces of our primate behavior and evolution leads to death, devolution, and insanity.