Thread: LOOKING FOR VALID ANSWERS

IS CONFLICT INHERENT OR GENETIC TO HUMANKIND?

If it is inherent, because of an external factor such as survival of the fitist, Social or economical, or anything that has to do with living, then their is hope.


If its genetic, it is thereby unavailable to cease or change, and we are doomed. Nature need not step in, we will handle our kinds destruction ourselves.[/tex]

All organisms engage and exploit their environments. A challenge facing the human species is that our amazing success builds a human environment, which as individuals we'll want to engage and exploit. The concrete jungle.

So the competition paradox is inherent to all life. However humans do have genetic graces and homoeostatic social structures that save the species from self-destruction.

Beginning with the individual, each of us has an instinctive desire for self preservation. No mystery here. We express this as “dog eat dog” and “looking out for number one”. It’s extremely simplistic, and it’s easy to implement.

However, hand in hand with producing a small number of helpless offspring, humans (and other advanced animals) have developed the instinctive need for preservation of our societies in which to raise them. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. One must not rob, rape, etc for the sake of society, and violators must be punished. But even here the dividing lines blur. It’s easy to distinguish self from others, but it’s not so easy to distinguish “us” from “them” — plus ... multiple us’s and them’s exist. Let me explain by paraphrasing an old saying: I’ll fight my brothers, but I’ll join my brothers to fight my cousins, and I’ll join my cousins to fight against strangers.

Today’s world sees the ultimate in conflict for various basic reasons.

Every livable square inch of the planet is possessed by someone or some government. Even Antarctica is divided up among countries. I know of no land in America that’s open to homesteading. It is technically against the law not to own/rent space for sleeping (ie, vagrancy) or to lack a private/public convenience to relieve yourself bodily (ie, lewdness, indecent exposure, etc).

Whether what we know is true or not, most of us at least “seriously believe” that many of our natural resources are limited. Petroleum. Minerals. Oceanic fish. Affordable food. Drinkable water. Clean air. And, although some resources aren’t owned directly, such as oceanic fish or clean air, we are still in serious competition for them, and conflicts arise. Never in the history of the world has conflict arisen throughout the entire planet for so many essentials to life.

Add to this the technology of warfare. In ancient times, if you didn’t see any enemies, there weren’t any, and you weren’t in any danger. You only needed to fight who you could see attacking you. Life was simple back then. Then came projectile weapons (more than just a thrown stone or stick). Clouds of arrows could be shot from distances by archers hiding behind trees or hills. They were there, but you couldn’t see them or know about them until they attacked. Then came firearms and cannonry with which, almost paradoxically, the distances and the dangers increased. Next came guided munitions, first buzz bombs (early cruise missiles), and then V2’s (early ballistic missiles), which greatly extended the distance of the enemy. Next were nuclear weapons with a destructive power never before imaginable. And now we have the ultimate: nuclear weapons as intercontinental guided munitions. An entire nation on the other side of the world could all be snuggled in their beds fast asleep, but because one of its soldiers has a finger on the launch button, the end of the world hovers all around us. Safety stopped being a certain thing a long time ago, and has become relative — very relative ... and so has the future. The figure of Death with its night-black cloak and vicious scythe looms large over everyone's heads. (I’m being a bit dramatic here, but not much.)

It’s no wonder we haven’t all gone crazy. Or have we?

We do possess innate traits that lead as individuals and as groups to violence but we don’t have to be ruled by them. We have brains that allow us to evaluate and, as necessary, overrule our instincts. Social and political organization is surely our ongoing project to formalize this effort.

Originally Posted by curious1

IS CONFLICT INHERENT OR GENETIC TO HUMANKIND?

If it is inherent, because of an external factor such as survival of the fitist, Social or economical, or anything that has to do with living, then their is hope.


If its genetic, it is thereby unavailable to cease or change, and we are doomed. Nature need not step in, we will handle our kinds destruction ourselves.[/tex]

You seem a little confused. If conflict is inherent then the only way it can be inherited is through our genes and is consequently genetic. It is survival of the fittest, acting upon organisms that causes selection of some genes preferentially over others.

I think you meant to ask is conflict the results of our genes or our environment. This is the old nature versus nurture debate. The truth is it is a combination of the two.

Inherent, adj, belonging intrinsically; innate.

Inhherit, acquire by gift or succession, receive from progenitors.



Perhaps the question was misunderstood.

Originally Posted by curious1

Inherent, adj, belonging intrinsically; innate.

Inhherit, acquire by gift or succession, receive from progenitors.

Perhaps the question was misunderstood.

On a science forum the word inherent will be understood to relate to genetics. Thus the third, highlighted definition is the one that will be understood.

As I noted, and I trust you accept, our aggression is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. As others have pointed out, our intellect and reasoning power offer us the potential to constrain reactive and proactive agression, so that despite the genetic aspect of violence there is most certainly hope.

And that is without considering the genetic counterbalance of a predilection for cooperation and mutual support.

I do not understand the logic of the author asking this question.
but I wonder what do will think of some of these?

1) are there conflicts between animals
2) do they inherit them from someone?
3) suppose a killer A who wants nothing but kill people since he was born,
will what ever he does considered conflict between others?
since you assume conflict may come from "anything to do with living".

Conflict, in my use of the word automatically entailed a human condition spurned by want, need, greed etc etc, so perhaps that answers your three questions in one.

If we assume that our sense of self or higher brain functions prevent us from destrying our selves, then why hasnt it worked as of yet. a genectic componet of conflict would not be subjected to a higher brain function nor more then the chromosone in the gene that makes my hand a hand can out of the blue make my hand lets say a extra heart, genectics as i understand them are hardwired as opposed to software.