Killer ape theory....

[Hexen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_ape_theory

Is this a another manifestation or extension of the "human nature" falsehood?

[Caj]

This is bullshit. War and interpersonal aggression was not the "driving force" behind human evolution.

Systematic warfare arose simultaneously with the emergence of the state and private property roughly 10,000 years ago. Humans have existed for 100,000 to 200,000 years. That means that for the first 90-95% of our evolutionary history, war did not exist. In fact, the moment when war came into existence, i.e., the emergence of "civilization", is when human evolution began to slow down, because technological advancements allowed us to adapt to new environments and in response to environmental changes, rendering natual selection unecessary.

As for the interpersonal aggression part, hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian and functioned according to mutual aid and cooperation.

[dodger]

This is bullshit. War and interpersonal aggression was not the "driving force" behind human evolution.

Systematic warfare arose simultaneously with the emergence of the state and private property roughly 10,000 years ago. Humans have existed for 100,000 to 200,000 years. That means that for the first 90-95% of our evolutionary history, war did not exist. In fact, the moment when war came into existence, i.e., the emergence of "civilization", is when human evolution began to slow down, because technological advancements allowed us to adapt to new environments and in response to environmental changes, rendering natual selection unecessary.

As for the interpersonal aggression part, hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian and functioned according to mutual aid and cooperation.


Interesting points Caj, infact we can observe Chimpanzees hunting today. I posted a clip from Youtube it showed the blood curdling aggression. But as Attenborogh pointed out the teamwork involved was what promised success. Older members of the family can anticipate what trees will fruit and remember where and of course the interactions of which we are all familiar with. We see in them a picture of ourselves, children see it too, they don't have to be told. All the kids here enjoy hunting and fishing, boys and girls. Lots to be learnt but also much is instinct, one of the few times they can remain silent. It is impossible to idealize the existence of the Lumad here hill farming, hunting and gathering combined with work on lowland plantations. Gold copper other minerals along with logging have perverted the normal course of life. As elsewhere. We have always felt comfortable in their company. The clan ties are strong, many customs and loyalties show everybody what their place is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is bullshit. War and interpersonal aggression was not the "driving force" behind human evolution.

Systematic warfare arose simultaneously with the emergence of the state and private property roughly 10,000 years ago. Humans have existed for 100,000 to 200,000 years. That means that for the first 90-95% of our evolutionary history, war did not exist.

That's because you pre-defined "war" to mean "systematic warfare". Chimps (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/science/22chimp.html) have been observed to form raiding parties to attack other chimps and steal their territory. That seems pretty damn close to "war", even if they aren't using weapons or a military structure.


In fact, the moment when war came into existence, i.e., the emergence of "civilization", is when human evolution began to slow down, because technological advancements allowed us to adapt to new environments and in response to environmental changes, rendering natual selection unecessary.

Natural selection is not "unnecessary". It is still ongoing, only the parameters have changed. I suspect that altruism and/or cooperation are the traits naturally selected for humans, since civilisations wouldn't last long without either.


As for the interpersonal aggression part, hunter-gatherer societies were egalitarian and functioned according to mutual aid and cooperation.

I hear this claimed a lot, but where's the evidence?

[Rafiq]

How come we're more closely related to the bonobo, then, whom basically just sit on their lazy asses, fuck, and eat?

There is a certain truth to this article, but it's only unique to the evolution of capitalism.

[Hexen]

How come we're more closely related to the bonobo, then, whom basically just sit on their lazy asses, fuck, and eat?

Or maybe humans is what happens if you combine both chimps and bonobos together into one species? Well I don't know...

[Ostrinski]

Or maybe humans is what happens if you combine chimps and bonobos together into one species? Well I don't know...Good point. My mother is a bonobo and I do believe my father is a chimp (unless my mother is lying).

[Hexen]

Good point. My mother is a bonobo and I do believe my father is a chimp (unless my mother is lying).

Nahh...maybe not.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How come we're more closely related to the bonobo, then, whom basically just sit on their lazy asses, fuck, and eat?

No we're not:


Recent DNA evidence suggests the bonobo and common chimpanzee species effectively separated from each other less than one million years ago.[20][21] The chimpanzee line split from the last common ancestor shared with humans approximately six to seven million years ago. Because no species other than Homo sapiens has survived from the human line of that branching, both Pan species are the closest living relatives of humans and cladistically are equally close to humans.

(from Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo)

Basically, the common ancestors of bonobos and chimps speciated from the common ancestors of humans first, and then that population split again into the two chimp species (paniscus and troglodytes) that we observe today.


There is a certain truth to this article, but it's only unique to the evolution of capitalism.

Huh? I don't know what you're saying here.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I prefer the "stoned ape theory" of evolution, lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_human_e volution

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I prefer the "stoned ape theory" of evolution, lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_human_e volution

I don't see how it is a matter of preference. They don't contradict each other, so it's entirely possible that both hypotheses have a measure of truth about them. Or they could both be completely wrong.

Science is based on that which is empirically verifiable, rather than that which is personally appealing. Or at least it should be. I find McKenna's hypothesis intriguing, but I've not seen much in the way of evidence.

[Rafiq]

No we're not:



Basically, the common ancestors of bonobos and chimps speciated from the common ancestors of humans first, and then that population split again into the two chimp species (paniscus and troglodytes) that we observe today.



Huh? I don't know what you're saying here.

I was wrong, my bad.

War is inherently economic. When you relinquish this economic need for war, war becomes unnecessary (though, mere cases of violence will always exist).

My point was that Capitalism's evolutionary history since the industrial revolution has been growth and innovation as a result of war.

But yes, human evolution was indeed a very violent one. That doesn't mean anything for how we behave today, though. In Scandandavian areas, the vikings were among the most barbaric of people. Now(those same vikings) it's one of the most "egilitarian" countries in contrast to Europe.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't see how it is a matter of preference. They don't contradict each other, so it's entirely possible that both hypotheses have a measure of truth about them. Or they could both be completely wrong.

Science is based on that which is empirically verifiable, rather than that which is personally appealing. Or at least it should be. I find McKenna's hypothesis intriguing, but I've not seen much in the way of evidence.

I was mostly just joking.

[ArrowLance]

Wouldn't that make vegetarianism a disorder?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

War is inherently economic. When you relinquish this economic need for war, war becomes unnecessary (though, mere cases of violence will always exist).

War, depending on how precisely one defines it, certainly predates capitalism and may even predate agriculture, let alone civilisation.

I'm not entirely convinced. What would you say is the difference between a violent feud between two or more groups, and a war between same?


My point was that Capitalism's evolutionary history since the industrial revolution has been growth and innovation as a result of war.

Certainly the need for an edge over the enemy and/or the need to break an economically costly stalemate spurs the development of new technology useful for warfare, but I think that would be the case in any economic system. People have different ideas about how society should be run, and I think even in a global communist society that would be the case. Whether that would lead to open warfare or not is another question, but the thought occurs that a war needs only one side to kick it off.

[ckaihatsu]

Systematic warfare arose simultaneously with the emergence of the state and private property roughly 10,000 years ago. Humans have existed for 100,000 to 200,000 years. That means that for the first 90-95% of our evolutionary history, war did not exist. In fact, the moment when war came into existence, i.e., the emergence of "civilization", is when human evolution began to slow down, because technological advancements allowed us to adapt to new environments and in response to environmental changes, rendering natual selection unecessary.


My understanding is that the rise of a material surplus was not indexed to biological evolution, but rather to environmental conditions. As naturally abundant food was used up the early peoples discovered grains and then organized agriculture followed soon thereafter.

I think it's also safe to say that much evolutionary change -- especially at the top of the food chain -- may just be incidental and not for 'natural selection' reasons. Consider that hominids and human beings have gone from being scavengers to gatherer-hunters and only recently to pastoralists and farmers. I'd doubt that much evolutionary change would be materially necessary for doing what hyenas, etc., do if scavenging was all that was required.

[Jimmie Higgins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_ape_theory

Is this a another manifestation or extension of the "human nature" falsehood?

Yes.

If conflict was just an inborn evolutionary drive, then I'd expect that we'd see a pretty predictable rate of conflicts possibly corresponding to population levels.

Instead, almost any conflict has a pretty obvious material and circumstantial origin (even when not the stated reason or when not all that obvious on the surface) once you look at it objectively.

If it was physical aggressiveness alone that allowed humans to thrive, then our species wouldn't have survived because we are weaker than most other apes. It seems much more likely that our ability to adapt our environments to suit us (unique to humans to the extent that we consciously do this - and our cooperation). Adaptions that are pronounced in humans are problem-solving abilities, adaptability, communication, rhythm (important for human communication and cooperative labor efforts) and a lot of other things that suggest that we adapted to be a cooperative-oriented species. If aggressiveness is what gave humans the edge, then we would have evolved towards strength and speed... humans evolved in a different trajectory.

Our only natural drive is survival and sometimes this means being aggressive and violent and so humans certainly have that ability. In modern society, the source of wars is economic and political in nature and for inter-personal violence it's often due to conflicts within society or due to people having to compete with each-other. Sometimes this kind of violence is manifested in a pretty obvious way like a mugging, but even someone getting into a fight over pride is caught up in a need to have a strong social position in society because of the way we are pitted together. If people act aggressively in prison, is it nature or due to not wanting to end up being pushed around and taken advantage of? If people fuck each-other over at work, is it nature or because people are competing for a few job positions?

[hatzel]

If it was physical aggressiveness alone that allowed humans to thrive, then our species wouldn't have survived because we are weaker than most other apes. It seems much more likely that our ability to adapt our environments to suit us (unique to humans to the extent that we consciously do this - and our cooperation). Adaptions that are pronounced in humans are problem-solving abilities, adaptability, communication, rhythm (important for human communication and cooperative labor efforts) and a lot of other things that suggest that we adapted to be a cooperative-oriented species. If aggressiveness is what gave humans the edge, then we would have evolved towards strength and speed... humans evolved in a different trajectory.

But cooperation also works to make us much better at being aggressive. You can be as fast and strong as you like, but you'll have a much more devastating impact - either during hunting or during conflict with other groups - if you can put together a party with spears and some advanced teamwork strategy thing. We're far better aggressors for our cognitive skills than brute strength could ever make us...

Not saying that cooperation only came about so that we could make up for our not-so-bulging biceps or anything like that, but cooperation and aggression shouldn't be put at opposite ends of the spectrum. Wolves could be considered masters of both, for example, using their cooperative abilities and 'ganging up' to take down prey far larger and stronger than they are themselves, whilst a polar bear needn't. Many such pack animals (as well as the solitary hunters) will also use group aggression to defend their territories and repel intruders of the same species or otherwise. Our cooperative tendencies and their importance in evolution certainly don't rule out the possibility of...killer ape shizzle...

[Jimmie Higgins]

But cooperation also works to make us much better at being aggressive.Not arguing that it doesn't. I'm arguing what is the decisive advantage of humans and the main factor in our evolution.

Other apes are also aggressive and have better physical adaptations for individual aggressiveness. I'm not sure about chimps, but gorillas whole social structure is based around who is the strongest, human societies varry much more, suggesting that aggression alone isn't the main factor in our social groups and therfore wouldn't be the primary way our species developed. Our adaptations seem much more about more complex communication and social abilities but these adaptations seem like an indirect way to favor aggressiveness since they help us in a whole range of activities necessary for survival and passing on our genes.

If aggressiveness is the motor of human evolution, why would adaptations happen which, only down the road, help us to be better in aggressiveness? It seems logical to me that we developed as social animals with very specialized abilities for cooperation which in turn helped us in a whole range of behaviors, aggressive or not, and allowed us to thrive. It doesn't make evolutionary sense to me for us to have developed language and cooperative abilities in order to be better at being aggressive.

[ckaihatsu]

No one's mentioned tool-usage, especially in socially organized ways....

[Blake's Baby]

OK... tool-use might have evolved in primates before the seperation between Asian and African apes (humans are just one species of African ape) about 14 million years or so ago.

It used to be thought that tool-use was what made us human, becasue there was evidence of stone tools that were 2.6 million years old or thereabouts in the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, but how much further back tool use go without any surviving evidence?

Certainly both African and Asian apes (orang utans, not sure it's behaviour that's ever been seen in gibbons) use tools. I think it's very likely that there was a tool-using ancestral ape that predates the seperation. That pushes what we'd consider to be 'human-like behaviour' back before the pongids seperated from the ancestors of humans, gorillas and chimps/bonobos - as I say that's about 14million years ago.

[Rafiq]

War, depending on how precisely one defines it, certainly predates capitalism and may even predate agriculture, let alone civilisation.

Yes, of course, but I'm talking about in modern times, it's over all usage.


I'm not entirely convinced. What would you say is the difference between a violent feud between two or more groups, and a war between same?


I'd be vulgur enough to suggest that violent feuds between two or more groups could be a direct result of the mode of production. Take two groups fighting about a football game. The Football game itself still necessitates the mode of production in order to exist. Even among the apes, the warfare that they engage in could be interpreted as very economic.


Certainly the need for an edge over the enemy and/or the need to break an economically costly stalemate spurs the development of new technology useful for warfare, but I think that would be the case in any economic system.

I agree, but remember, the economic system itself must be the base. It is, after all, still a production process.



People have different ideas about how society should be run, and I think even in a global communist society that would be the case. Whether that would lead to open warfare or not is another question, but the thought occurs that a war needs only one side to kick it off.


I don't know, I think this would relatively have the same result about the Bourgeois classes after capitalism. When the Proletariat itself rises to class power, by that time, I don't think there would be any remaining factions that are proletarian based that would oppose them. Several "Tendencies" would dissapear as a result of having no class basis and history itself would wash them away.