Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Is War Just Evolution at Work?

  1. #1 Is War Just Evolution at Work? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,879
    In true war, and I believe it was Heinrich Himmler that said it, there is a duty for one race to completely annihilate(exterminate) the other. I can't remember the exact quote, so I'm only paraphrasing. I'm of the opinion that most wars are racially motivated. Perhaps not totally but in somewhat varying degrees.

    I don't have any proof but it appears to me as if there is some inborn need for the race you were born into to survive, spread its seed, culture, or whatever. Maybe to the point of world domination.

    Is evolution the driving force behind an effort to have the strongest race survive? Will it eventually come to a battle between two races to see who gets to rule the planet? Along the way there have been some close calls, European Jews and native Americans were hit hard and maybe Neanderthal was the first to go in the new era(bit of a stretch there).

    Now with globalization it may never happen. The world's races are not nearly as isolated from each other so that may dictate a new natural selection process where loyalty to country, causes or religion replaces race as the war motivator. One way or another nature may be trying to sort things out.

    If I may I'll use the African bee- North American bee as an example of nature attempting to assure that one will survive to dominate. They're both bees, can't co-exist, go to war and one ends up destroying the other. Maybe its a bad analogy but its all I can think of at the moment


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    No. War and evolution have nothing to do with each other. The concept of there being any difference among human populations is a weak one, essentially there is no race. It seems as though you may be one of the unfortunate souls that took "survival of the fittest" the wrong way. War is dramatic and generally fought for pointless, imaginary economic or religous reasons, evolution is thoughtless and has no intentions, thus no drama only nature.


    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    No. War and evolution have nothing to do with each other. The concept of there being any difference among human populations is a weak one, essentially there is no race. It seems as though you may be one of the unfortunate souls that took "survival of the fittest" the wrong way. War is dramatic and generally fought for pointless, imaginary economic or religous reasons, evolution is thoughtless and has no intentions, thus no drama only nature.
    Strongest was a bad choice of words, I didn't mean it that way. If I had an army of 100 pound weaklings but equipped with the most devastating weapon imaginable, totally indefenseable, I don't care if you throw an army of Goliaths out there against me. All I'm intimating is that one side will win, could win, maybe win, stalemate or as you say the whole thing is totally pointless. Just trying to make some sense out of why we kill ech other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Okay, making sense of why we kill each other is a good thing to ponder (especially when not in defense) because we're obviously not eating each other. I heard recently that a primatology studied revealed that when chimps have enough food they start organizing to attack other chimps, just like we do in wars. If I can find a reference for it I'll post it, and I'm pretty sure I heard it on a recent podcast, possibly Nature.
    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,879
    Evolution has bestowed upon us an apparent intellect that is superior to the other creatures we share this Earth. With it we have established our dominance over them. So where do we go from here? Have we evolved into the perfect toolmaking machine, equipped with manual dexterity, a brain and a mind? Is the fact that we tend to utilise the whole package to wage war surprising?

    We are wary of each other. Races, cultures, religions seem to have developed a mutual distrust of each other. It's as if groups of people live in fear of being dominated by another probably ranking against our nature. We need to be dominant, so it may be that people take umbrage if another group threatens their dominance.

    Are we heading in a direction where eventually one race will destroy all the others? Is it necessary as a step in our evolution? Part of evolution may involve protecting the race so instead of developing armor plates we have evolved in a manner not yet seen before. It seems as if our minds are making huge advancements daily and that would mean our brain is evolving to cope. We improve our killing technique for our group's protection and survival, as strange as that may sound.

    I know this is totally farfetched. I don't necessarily believe it but occasionally I like to throw an awkward slant in there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    No. War and evolution have nothing to do with each other.
    And I have yet a third opinion. I think it quite clear that war and evolution have much to do with each other, as war is and has always been an important part of the evolution of our species.

    The concept of there being any difference among human populations is a weak one, essentially there is no race.
    I understand that you believe this way, but I consider this to be quite meaningless. By meaningless, I believe that you have some PC definition of race that defines the word out of existence or usefulness. If you look around at the various groups of our species, it is quite obvious, even at a very superficial level, that there are numerous signifiacnt physical differences. I would find it quite surprising, and I think that you might as well. were 2 black people to have offspring physically more similar to Chinese people. What might you possibly mean when you say that there is no race?

    It seems as though you may be one of the unfortunate souls that took "survival of the fittest" the wrong way.
    One of the poor souls? I agree that he took it the wrong way. However, you and I and everyone else also has an incomplete understanding, and so takes it the wrong way.

    War is dramatic and generally fought for pointless, imaginary economic or religous reasons,
    Huh? War is always fought for a point. The point is rarely imaginary. Population explosion is one of the primary motivations for war. Greed and hate are two other valid and recurring motivations.

    evolution is thoughtless and has no intentions, thus no drama only nature.
    Regardless of the thoughtlessness or intent, the effect of war on evolution is extremely profound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    And I have yet a third opinion. I think it quite clear that war and evolution have much to do with each other, as war is and has always been an important part of the evolution of our species.
    If you mean cultural evolution I'd agree entirely, if you mean biological evolution and the distribution of traits, it would have to be one hell of a war with a huge amount of genetic drift in order for it to have a significant affect. It's true that "World War 3" would have a significant effect on our evolution.

    I understand that you believe this way, but I consider this to be quite meaningless. By meaningless, I believe that you have some PC definition of race that defines the word out of existence or usefulness. If you look around at the various groups of our species, it is quite obvious, even at a very superficial level, that there are numerous signifiacnt physical differences. I would find it quite surprising, and I think that you might as well. were 2 black people to have offspring physically more similar to Chinese people. What might you possibly mean when you say that there is no race?
    I mean that we are all Africans, and the variations between members of the same "race" are greater than members of different "races," to the extent that there is no significant difference between "races" meaning that the concept of race is mythical and not actual. There are very slight differences between the races morphologically, etc., but no greater than the differences of any two families. And your point that 2 black people having offspring similar to that of a chinese person is exceptionally weak. Of couse the offspring will be black, he/she has 2 black parents, genetically he/she is very set up for being black, it's just his/her exhibition of traits will not be significantly more different between another black child and a chinese one.

    One of the poor souls? I agree that he took it the wrong way. However, you and I and everyone else also has an incomplete understanding, and so takes it the wrong way.
    No, I understand what "survival of the fittest" means. I've actually studied it, and I didn't learn everything I know about it off of tv, my pastor, or my stoned ex-gf.

    Huh? War is always fought for a point. The point is rarely imaginary. Population explosion is one of the primary motivations for war. Greed and hate are two other valid and recurring motivations.
    Population explosion is generally the result of a war, not a primary motivation. An ECONOMIC jumpstart has been a motivation for a war several times in the past. While the distribution of resources on this planet is a valid consideration, you'd have to agree that money only exists because we imagine together that it does, and that killing other people for the glory of your personal imaginary friend, that neither one of those reasons, which are the overwhelming basis for wars, are valid reasons to take human life - or really even to mow a lawn.

    Regardless of the thoughtlessness or intent, the effect of war on evolution is extremely profound.
    You have yet to show that, and judging by your other statements I'm not sure you could. I'll be rooting for you though.

    Thanks for the response.
    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Evolution has bestowed upon us an apparent intellect that is superior to the other creatures we share this Earth. With it we have established our dominance over them. So where do we go from here? Have we evolved into the perfect toolmaking machine, equipped with manual dexterity, a brain and a mind? Is the fact that we tend to utilise the whole package to wage war surprising?

    We are wary of each other. Races, cultures, religions seem to have developed a mutual distrust of each other. It's as if groups of people live in fear of being dominated by another probably ranking against our nature. We need to be dominant, so it may be that people take umbrage if another group threatens their dominance.

    Are we heading in a direction where eventually one race will destroy all the others? Is it necessary as a step in our evolution? Part of evolution may involve protecting the race so instead of developing armor plates we have evolved in a manner not yet seen before. It seems as if our minds are making huge advancements daily and that would mean our brain is evolving to cope. We improve our killing technique for our group's protection and survival, as strange as that may sound.

    I know this is totally farfetched. I don't necessarily believe it but occasionally I like to throw an awkward slant in there.
    I like the free association here. I'm still looking for the artical about primates at war which I think can steer this discussion in a profound direction.
    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    I mean that we are all Africans, and the variations between members of the same "race" are greater than members of different "races," to the extent that there is no significant difference between "races" meaning that the concept of race is mythical and not actual.
    I do not follow your logic or reach your conclusion.

    There are very slight differences between the races morphologically, etc., but no greater than the differences of any two families.
    So you think that if all kids within a family die of a disease such as cancer, the cousins should have no greater fear of getting cancer with any different degree of probability than any other member of the human race?

    And your point that 2 black people having offspring similar to that of a chinese person is exceptionally weak.
    Do you mean just exceptionaly weak, or do you mean very exceptionally weak? I just wonder how weak you consider it to be. Can you quantify the weakness in an objective manner, or just subjectively?

    Of couse the offspring will be black, he/she has 2 black parents, genetically he/she is very set up for being black, it's just his/her exhibition of traits will not be significantly more different between another black child and a chinese one.
    I wonder how you can claim this.

    [quote]
    One of the poor souls? I agree that he took it the wrong way. However, you and I and everyone else also has an incomplete understanding, and so takes it the wrong way.
    No, I understand what "survival of the fittest" means. I've actually studied it, and I didn't learn everything I know about it off of tv, my pastor, or my stoned ex-gf.
    I see. So, you are claiming that it is not possible that any of your understanding of this could possibly contain any error whatsoever? If so, then I consider that it would not be meaningful for anyone to enter into a discussion with you. If not, then my statement stands.

    [quote]
    Huh? War is always fought for a point. The point is rarely imaginary. Population explosion is one of the primary motivations for war. Greed and hate are two other valid and recurring motivations.
    Population explosion is generally the result of a war, not a primary motivation.
    I don't agree. Populations increase in size. When the population density is too large, the population must distribute itself over greater amounts of land. This entails war. I think that this is untimately the primary underlying cause of war throughout history.

    [quote]
    Regardless of the thoughtlessness or intent, the effect of war on evolution is extremely profound.
    You have yet to show that, and judging by your other statements I'm not sure you could. I'll be rooting for you though.
    This is an easy statement for you to make. It is quite simple to say that no matter what I might say, you expect that you will not be swayed by it. Your comment here is not conducive to discussion. Anyway, wars cause death and a shift in populations. As well, as you yourself stated, this leads to a higher birth rate of the survivors. Can you claim that this has zero impact on evolution? If not, then are only arguing over the degree. You certainly have the right to interpret the meaning of "extremely profound" as you wish, but then so do I.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Hermes, I can't respond to equivocation. I'll simply have to ask you to either study or revisit evolutionary theory, and history. There's plenty of data supporting my statements about the myth of race and war, and your statement about population density leading to war is bizarre and unqualified. I do agree though that in the past, and currently, cultures have merged due to a similar phenomenon.
    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    Hermes, I can't respond to equivocation. I'll simply have to ask you to either study or revisit evolutionary theory, and history. There's plenty of data supporting my statements about the myth of race and war, and your statement about population density leading to war is bizarre and unqualified.
    I consider this post a cop-out. I hope that it makes you happy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    zinjanthropos, this is not the specific study I was referring to (I can't find it, podcasts are impossible to search), but this is the idea. Anyway, I thought you may find interest in it.

    http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/...46?cookieSet=1
    "I would as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger."-Ophiolite about Richard Dawkins

    Read my blog about my experiences defending science here!http://silkworm.wordpress.com/

    http://www.sciencechatforum.comScience/Philosophy Chat Forum Moderator
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    zinjanthropos, this is not the specific study I was referring to (I can't find it, podcasts are impossible to search), but this is the idea. Anyway, I thought you may find interest in it.

    http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/...46?cookieSet=1
    Sorry Silkworm, my hard drive crashed a couple weeks ago. I had a friend install a new one and set it up. I'm not computer saavy so I can't say what he did. I'm sure that site is interesting but my computer won't accept it.

    Is it similar to idle apes plotting a killing spree?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    here's an interesting article about the 'roots' of warfare: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4167.html

    They argue that in ancient Mexico people first started organised war when there were plenty resources for all, completely in line with Silkworm's finding about chimps starting to fight once there's enough food:

    Quote Originally Posted by Silkworm
    I heard recently that a primatology studied revealed that when chimps have enough food they start organizing to attack other chimps, just like we do in wars.
    Apparently we don't fight to gain something, because we only start fighting once we allready have enough of what we need. Maybe ancient Mexicans just tried to gain a comparative advantage over others, fearing their competitors may do the same if they'd allow them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    Apparently we don't fight to gain something, because we only start fighting once we allready have enough of what we need.
    I don't understand this. Let me pick a war. How about the revolutionary war, or the Hundred Year war. I don't see how either of these, for example, had to do with already having too much of something, but rather with wanting what someone else had.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Well, I agree that there must be some (percieved) gain before a country enters a war, but not something vital. The point of the article is that as long as groups or countries lack vital resources (like food), they won't initiate a war. Only when all vital needs are fulfilled they'll start attacking other countries.

    In the example of the article a region with scarce food supplies was relatively peacefull (while one would expect fierce competition for available food supplies), and only when food supplies became sufficient did some villages start raiding others. Or take the 100years war for example: both France or England were doing quite well when the war started in 1337. When England attacked, it didn't do so because otherwise the country would face starvation or would lack some vital resource. I think England attacked to increase it's relative power by diminishing that of France, making it impossible for France to do the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    The point of the article is that as long as groups or countries lack vital resources (like food), they won't initiate a war. Only when all vital needs are fulfilled they'll start attacking other countries.
    Why did Japan enter world war 2 when it did? Because of a LACK of a consistent oil supply.

    In the example of the article a region with scarce food supplies was relatively peacefull
    Perhaps he means to suggest that starving people are not capable of waging war as effectively as people with adequate food.

    Or take the 100years war for example: both France or England were doing quite well when the war started in 1337. When England attacked, it didn't do so because otherwise the country would face starvation or would lack some vital resource.
    True. It did so because Edward III felt entited to the throne of France based on English laws of inheritance, even though French laws were not so accomodating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    War: Reasons for war vary, but since the industrial revolution IMO it sometimes works like this;

    Bankers and industrial complex front for the election of a military friendly(peace through war, invasion is the best defense) puppet governement and influence the media to paint the target nation as a security menace. These two profit massively even if the war is a quagmire, as does the media/newspaper that sells fear. The pillaging industry (oil/ressource/reconstruction) climb abord the gravy train and also cry for war, if the war succeeds they pillage/privatize/rebuild&own the target and make a fortune. Other intersts groups with vested interest in the target world region, local enemies of the target, and expatriate nationals that want to profit from being selected to play the puppet regime role also push for war behind closed doors.

    So a handfull of people from a few factions that want war because they hope to profit massively will of course hide the true reasons for war from the poor ignorant masses that will do the dying and the paying, they wave flags and come up with fantastic lies, patriotic nonesense or factual but total decoy reasons for going to war (vital space, bad guy, WMD, bring freedom, liberation,domino menace). The funny part is that these various groups take such effort to bulshit reasons for going to war and on how under control the situation is that some of them beleive the others guy's spin which eventually causes misperceptions that hurt the chances of military victory(if you use bullshit about yourself/the enemi/the situation to convince others, its vital to seperate the bullshit you and others seed from facts).

    When war is launched, taxpayers are robed of a collossal fortune they dont even have by means of a national debt, happily facilitated by the people's puppet governement in which they are blindly loyal to in this time of crisis. They and their children will pay for years to come for a direct giant transfer to a few rich people.

    The money goes directly into the pockets of the industrial complex for abusively overpriced products and services. Millionaires are made by the hundreds, millionaires become billionaires, none of whom go to war. Some of the puppet government that herded the populace also make millions.

    Now idealy only the children of the poor and ignorantly patriotic are send to do the killing and the dying, this way the middle class feels the cost (other peoples kids) is well worth it. Of course, even if the middle class doesnt die in the war, it's still being robed blind through the debt.

    If the war is successful, the Pludering industry (oil, reconstruction) gets grants payed for by their own citizens to take over control of the targets ressources and infrastructure. The target's population will want local puppets leaders to forget they are being plundered by the elite of another country and to put a positive spin on the reconstruction.
    The fantastic part is that bankers make a double whamy, they rob both their countrymen and the targets people through national debts.

    The magic is this, when all is said and done, people from where the invading army came from will have died and will pay interest to the bankers for the destruction and mass murder that profits the industrial military complex, while the people of the target country will have died and will pay interest to the bankers to finance the plundering/ownership grabing of their own country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 The War Of It All 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    As gathered from and within the preceding contributions, the causes of war vary, though a biological imperative is ruled out in the Seveille Statement. Re: The causes, effects and possible remedies for warfare, you may read http://forums.delphiforums.com/subedai (NOMADS, CIVILIZATION & WAR: A Brief History of the EuroAsian HorsePeople). A timely thread. Thank you. (If there's a translatable message in warfare at large, it may translate as something like 'Turn. Or burn'. Pivot. Or divot'.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Is War Just Evolution at Work? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    In true war, and I believe it was Heinrich Himmler that said it, there is a duty for one race to completely annihilate(exterminate) the other. I can't remember the exact quote, so I'm only paraphrasing. I'm of the opinion that most wars are racially motivated. Perhaps not totally but in somewhat varying degrees.

    I don't have any proof but it appears to me as if there is some inborn need for the race you were born into to survive, spread its seed, culture, or whatever. Maybe to the point of world domination.

    Is evolution the driving force behind an effort to have the strongest race survive? Will it eventually come to a battle between two races to see who gets to rule the planet? Along the way there have been some close calls, European Jews and native Americans were hit hard and maybe Neanderthal was the first to go in the new era(bit of a stretch there).

    Now with globalization it may never happen. The world's races are not nearly as isolated from each other so that may dictate a new natural selection process where loyalty to country, causes or religion replaces race as the war motivator. One way or another nature may be trying to sort things out.

    If I may I'll use the African bee- North American bee as an example of nature attempting to assure that one will survive to dominate. They're both bees, can't co-exist, go to war and one ends up destroying the other. Maybe its a bad analogy but its all I can think of at the moment
    Your theory has several fundamental errors:
    1. there are no biological races in the human species.
    2. Evolution avoids competition whenever possible. That is why there are so many species. Diversity rules.
    3. Species/race selection does not exist in the theory of evolution.

    The answer is therefore.....(drumroll)...no, war is not just evolution at work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,632
    some species of organised hive animals try to exterminate other species..

    like ants attacking other ants, or wasps attacking hornets.

    i've also seen wolves attacking bears..

    warr is no evolution, warr is REvolution.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver
    some species of organised hive animals try to exterminate other species..
    Let me correct your sloppy sentence:
    Some species of organised hive animals try to exterminate a local population of other species.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver
    like ants attacking other ants, or wasps attacking hornets.

    i've also seen wolves attacking bears..

    warr is no evolution, warr is REvolution.
    I actually ate chicken yesterday. Am I out there to exterminate chickens?

    Will a wolf travel across the globe to exterminate the very last member of the bear species (providing she is pregnant, otherwise there is no point in killing the last bear)?

    No.

    I'm sorry, did you mistake local competition for resources for the concept of species selection?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    I agree with spuriousmonkey, the link between War and evolution is totally Bogus.

    A race is a subjective(artifical) concept in the first palce. If I'm "white" with A type blood, I'd rather have A Type blood from a "black" person than blood from a "white" person with Type B blood. A race as the very same ancestors as other race if you go back far enough, and if you look forward to 200 years from now races will be even more meaningless. Individals from a population also mutate over generations.

    As for the "survival of the fitest" spin on evolution, when a mass extinction event occurs, the fitest have as much if not more chances of getting whacked than other organisms, organisms with a greater variation in their offspring (even if they produce occasional offsprings that are unfit for the current environment) have a greater chance of adapting to the new environment and multiply into a multitude of new species to fill the vacuum in the various ecological niches.


    Ideology is often used by the ruling class to justify their position and their actions/policies. Seeing the therory of evolution being used to explain or justify wars and discrimination is revolting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    from my understanding of survival of the fittest, it comes down to suitability to the surroundings eg slight physical differences that help that particular sub species have an advantage in a particular habitat


    The race thing always interest me from what ive read im sure there are 5 races that can be seen in an anomatical way

    cant remember the names exactly and the spellings probably way off, thinks theres two races of african one being negroid(heavier built)and second slighter built khoisanoid(eg kenyan, hottentot), mongoloid which i think covers china, japan, pacific island, native americans and inuits(something to do with extra piece of eye skin and skull shape and straight black hair),caucasoid, which is white european, meditteranean, arab, indian etc and the one on its own which is australoid, which covers just the race of aboriginies

    wish i could remember where i read it but pretty sure its accurate

    As with war, could this be down to purely tribal instincts? i mean that doesnt just cover race, religion or country, you see it, in modern life even happening between two groups of sports fans from the same town
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    I think war[traditionally] can be put down to two things, Greed and/or Power.

    If it's not for some natural resources, wealth or land the opponents have, its down to 'power' over them.

    War spreads because of treaties or opportunism.

    There are known to be wars between certain species [ie where the opponent is not killed for food], these are essentially territorial. If war was driven by evolution I think we'd see a lot more of it in nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    sometimes its seen in chimps, where two boundarys cross but never seen it in binobos in the same situation
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    sometimes its seen in chimps, where two boundarys cross but never seen it in binobos in the same situation
    The curious thing is, in the chimp wars, they ignore territiorial boundaries, when they do stray over and are 'caught' that's when the fighting starts. Very 'gang-like'. Other animals seem to just 'square-up' once, decide who is superior then 'honour it', not fight to the death as it is 'bad for the survival of the species'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    i always wonder what caused the binobos to go down a different route, eg mainly vegitarian, none of the social violence and less time on the ground, especially for such close species
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    i always wonder what caused the binobos to go down a different route, eg mainly vegitarian, none of the social violence and less time on the ground, especially for such close species
    I think they may have developed a 'superior' strategy - 'Live and let live'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    i always wonder what caused the binobos to go down a different route, eg mainly vegitarian, none of the social violence and less time on the ground, especially for such close species
    I think they may have developed a 'superior' strategy - 'Live and let live'

    very true, humans must have evolved down the same violent path as the chimps
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    War against each other is for power
    War against me is a futile atempt to resist me from bringing order to this chaotic world
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Guest
    Yes I have seen a film where the chimps actually went 'hunting' into the other groups territory. They 'trapped' one of the opposition and ripped it to shreds, I don't even think they ate it, just kept throwing it around like a rag doll. This suggests that they have a perception, like a map and know (other than by scent) where the opposition is. Perhaps one of the first signs of 'intelligence'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Yes I have seen a film where the chimps actually went 'hunting' into the other groups territory. They 'trapped' one of the opposition and ripped it to shreds, I don't even think they ate it, just kept throwing it around like a rag doll. This suggests that they have a perception, like a map and know (other than by scent) where the opposition is. Perhaps one of the first signs of 'intelligence'.
    damn i saw that too..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    320
    damn i just saw another one too. these were chinese macaques though. It was called "Romeo and Juliet."

    One group lived on one side of the street in a temple. about 100+ The other group lived on the other side of the street in the market area. about 100+ Romeo and Juliet were apparantly spending too much unwanted time together according to both monkey groups. One thing led to another and then the next thing you know Juliet's side is rushing over to the market side and they fight and scratch and slap at each other and their is a lot of screaming and yelling.

    In the end, Romeo is kicked out of his market group and so he is forced to go where?? well he gets on the train and is never seen again. Juliet still lived with the temple group but looked really upset about the whole thing.

    -Animal Planet
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    never seen that one, it seems the more recognizable human behaviour is more prominant in the apes, more so than the monkeys. Theres also alot of bizarre behaviour in dolphins thats been seen, eg gang rape and bullying etc so could the behaviour come with increase of intellect?
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by SealOtter
    damn i just saw another one too. these were chinese macaques though. It was called "Romeo and Juliet."

    One group lived on one side of the street in a temple. about 100+ The other group lived on the other side of the street in the market area. about 100+ Romeo and Juliet were apparantly spending too much unwanted time together according to both monkey groups. One thing led to another and then the next thing you know Juliet's side is rushing over to the market side and they fight and scratch and slap at each other and their is a lot of screaming and yelling.

    In the end, Romeo is kicked out of his market group and so he is forced to go where?? well he gets on the train and is never seen again. Juliet still lived with the temple group but looked really upset about the whole thing.

    -Animal Planet
    Does anyone know you are growing that stuff in your garden?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Quote Originally Posted by SealOtter
    damn i just saw another one too. these were chinese macaques though. It was called "Romeo and Juliet."

    One group lived on one side of the street in a temple. about 100+ The other group lived on the other side of the street in the market area. about 100+ Romeo and Juliet were apparantly spending too much unwanted time together according to both monkey groups. One thing led to another and then the next thing you know Juliet's side is rushing over to the market side and they fight and scratch and slap at each other and their is a lot of screaming and yelling.

    In the end, Romeo is kicked out of his market group and so he is forced to go where?? well he gets on the train and is never seen again. Juliet still lived with the temple group but looked really upset about the whole thing.

    -Animal Planet
    Does anyone know you are growing that stuff in your garden?

    http://animal.discovery.com/tvlistin...=0&channel=APL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Guest
    It's the way they dress it up, I don't much care for programs that try to show a human face to animal activity, that's the job of cartoons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    It's the way they dress it up, I don't much care for programs that try to show a human face to animal activity, that's the job of cartoons.
    awww i really like that stuff.. :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    China
    Posts
    3
    the wars is always wrong! no matter in what reasons.

    It is easy to find thousands of reasons to start a war. In history, the war is started in varies reasons, and in that time it seems that it is reasonable, but we look back the history, which war is right?

    the people is the supplier of money and life. They lose money,lose son,lose husband,and got nothing.
    a proffesinal supplier of grape seed extract.
    High quality and low price
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by lythgjmy
    the wars is always wrong! no matter in what reasons.

    It is easy to find thousands of reasons to start a war. In history, the war is started in varies reasons, and in that time it seems that it is reasonable, but we look back the history, which war is right?

    the people is the supplier of money and life. They lose money,lose son,lose husband,and got nothing.
    If the people in the next city over are coming to kill all the people in your city, you will have a very hard time convincing people that fighting back is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    If the people in the next city over are coming to kill all the people in your city, you will have a very hard time convincing people that fighting back is wrong.
    If the other guy has advanced weaponry then running away may be the best adaptive choice one can make. A lot of us owe our existence to the fact our ancestors stayed alive long enough to have children. We may be here only because of some bad shooting by the enemy or the fact our forefathers ran like scared rabbits.

    Makes me wonder if our ancestry is ripe with cowards. Or is it more intelligent to stay and fight or run away? Which of those two choices is more like adaptation if keeping your genes alive is more important?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    I don't much care for programs that try to show a human face to animal activity, that's the job of cartoons.
    This approach is used since it is more palatable to most than showing the same things, but presenting them as the animal face of human activity.

    Quote Originally Posted by zjinanthropus
    Or is it more intelligent to stay and fight or run away?
    This is context dependent. Natural selection favoured those with the higher intelligence, who were more effective at discerning the context and making the appropriate decision.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,879
    I was just wondering ..... if in the early days of man there were separate isolated micro-societies dotting the landscape then would it be possible that some were passive and some aggressive or prone to killing other humans for gain. It doesn't even have to be many aggressive tribes if you will, just one. That one tribe would have a distinct advantage over the others when it came to settling disputes.

    Let's say one violent, murderous tribe of humans could in fact have carried and passed on a killing gene. I'll suggest that such a tribe could kill all the men of one tribe, steal the women and and pass on their genes to the offspring sure to follow. Over a long period of time the killing gene may have become dominant in human society and could explain our apparent aggressiveness and penchant for violence. But the passive genes of our murdered forefathers still exists, since not everyone is prone to violence.

    If this killing gene exists then it could be one of those genes that has us earmarked for extinction albeit at our own hands. Or we will continue to become more and more violent until we're something akin to the Klingon Empire of sci-fi fame. Just means a lot more wars and death... human evolution at work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    As a variation on this theme I recommend you read Robert Ardrey's work African Genesis.

    Here is a quote from the wikipedia article on Ardrey:

    Ardrey believed that early African pre-humans (precursors of Australopithecus) survived the long dry periods (millions of years in the Miocene and Pliocene) by adapting the hunting ways of the carnivorous animals, which distinguished them from other primates.

    The killer ape theory posits that aggression was a fundamental characteristic distinguishing human ancestors from other primates and the urge to do violence is retained in modern humans.


    Edited for a typographical error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    As a variation on this them I recommend you read Robert Ardrey's work African Genesis.

    Here is a quote from the wikipedia article on Ardrey:

    Ardrey believed that early African pre-humans (precursors of Australopithecus) survived the long dry periods (millions of years in the Miocene and Pliocene) by adapting the hunting ways of the carnivorous animals, which distinguished them from other primates.

    The killer ape theory posits that aggression was a fundamental characteristic distinguishing human ancestors from other primates and the urge to do violence is retained in modern humans.
    I don't know if the world is ready to accept that we are who we are because we've inherited a bad trait, which as it may turn out, was the trait that allowed the human race to eventually dominate the planet. Some have enough trouble accepting human evolution as it is. I did a little googling and I see that there are people who are working on finding a violence gene. I wonder how they propose to deal with it if it turns out that it is reality?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Definitely 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8
    Reacting to your initial assertion on evolution in war, I agree. And the Neanderthal, Homo-sapien conflict, I believe that is the quintessence of examples. We are mammals.
    Mammals react to a threat with a flight or flight response, and so do we...add logic, reason and complex emotion, and here's modern warfare. If we are threatened by another group or belief structure, we react violently; dominate, or be dominated. Sure, it is more complicated, but this is the essence of war and strife.
    Caesar's assasination is a small example; the social structure of any primate group, and the social structure of any human group in any epoch revolves around the strong dominating the weak. Then, the strong lead the weak to conquer their rivals.
    "Delight is to him, who gives no quarter in the truth, and kills, and burns, and destroys all sin though he pluck it out from under the robes of Senators and Judges," Herman Melville, The Confidence Man, pg.. We unconsciously advocate war, in judgement, disdain and in fear. We may evolve, but our animal nature may not be diluted; I don't know if it should be.
    The propensity of humanity to seek verity and knowledge is centered around an arrogance that places us outside of nature. The only truth I know (and this is certainly recapitulation of Nietzsche's "Genealogy...") is that of emotional reaction. All else is subject to fallibility. We can only humble our egos and hope, through discussion, to reach common understanding through liberated sciences. God might have space...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman okamido's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    37
    Sorry to be a thread necromancer, but this very subject was recently brought up with archaeological examinations in Peru. War is considered as one of three moving factors of civilization, along with regional trade and specialized labor.

    You can take a look at one of the articles here..if interested: 2500 year old Peruvian fire was war! | Past Horizons
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •