Are we as human prone to violence and find ways around it to achieve peace? Or are we prone to peace and slip when circumstances allow such acts? I know I am asking a half full/half empty question here, but I just wonder what others think. It sometimes seems to me that violence is so easy, yet it carries such a weight, which at first makes it seem what we as humans would be more prone to violence, but the weight, or rather the aftermath tells a different story.

How can we so easily give into violence if it isn't a part of our make-up? Sometimes violence seems like sex, something we want yet something we deny ourselves because sex with that person is wrong or sex without this, whatever this maybe, is wrong, so on. So, we justify when, how and why we have sex, and we always say in those, I really shouldn't have slept with them, cases that we couldn't help. That is sometimes the same excuse used for violence. Sometimes it seems that we deny ourselves violence and when we slip from the moral rules that tell us no violence, we have to find a way to justify it. Does it need to justified if it is our narture? Is there a time and place for violence? What is place does violence have in human society, and it must have one for it is there, everyday.

I think the main thing that creates violence & self destructiveness in man is ambition.

I also think it is in our genes. For some reason man gets just as much satisfaction from destroying something as he does from procreation.

It is often said that the most basic human reaction to any threatening situation is fight or flight.

Sitting down, holding hands and talking things through never gets a mention.

An English man's home is his castle !! Not an open house for the benefit of the community.

I think we evolved into clans and then countries to survive. Violence became inbred as a means of ensuring that survival. It will take many more years yet, to change these most basic instincts I think a great deal of violence stems from fear. Fear of loosing what you have. Or fear of loosing the opportunity to take something new. We as a species can think on a higher plain than the rest of the animal kingdom. But never forget at heart we are still very much members of it and the rational thought process only goes so far until Mr. Animal kicks back in.

Nature doesn't make people what they are....people make themselves what they are.

However, people can not divorce themselves from being part of nature with all the evolutionary baggage that comes with that heritage.

It is often said that the most basic human reaction to any threatening situation is fight or flight.

Sitting down, holding hands and talking things through never gets a mention.

An English man's home is his castle !! Not an open house for the benefit of the community.

I think we evolved into clans and then countries to survive. Violence became inbred as a means of ensuring that survival. It will take many more years yet, to change these most basic instincts I think a great deal of violence stems from fear. Fear of loosing what you have. Or fear of loosing the opportunity to take something new. We as a species can think on a higher plain than the rest of the animal kingdom. But never forget at heart we are still very much members of it and the rational thought process only goes so far until Mr. Animal kicks back in.

Very good post and very good point. Genetic baggage, something that troubles me greatly.

Watch animals... and what else are we? They fight over territory, sex and food. The worst disputes in our history have been over territory, the rest will be over food and water as we run out of those commodities. Religious wars were always to do with territory as much as religion.

Fights over sex in the animal world rarely end fatally, the loser runs away and is removed from the gene pool by being unable to mate.

Humans will fight over a woman but it's relatively rare, the womans ability to choose (attract) a certain mate will usually make the loser give up and go else where even if he's capable of winning. Why waste time over a woman who loves someone else? Yes I know great literature has been written about it but we're talking real world here.

One of the worst things about humans is the capability of violence to smaller and weaker members of their own species. What causes this? Frustration? Fear? Sheer bastardry? It can't be genetic baggage although it's stronger in some societies than others. Poverty and drugs like alcohol trigger it. May be that's the solution, did domestic violence drop during prohibition? I'll bet it did.

There's a lot of issues not addressed here I know, but these are the major ones.

It is often said that the most basic human reaction to any threatening situation is fight or flight.

Socialanthropologists suggest four:

Feed - was the single most important occupation of primitive people. Finding sufficient food was a fulltime occupation and without it survival was not possible. As a result we got to stand upright, learned how to identify fruit and berries, developed colour vision to discerne between ripe and unripe. We developed opposable thumbs and dextrous fingers. We became omniverous and our diet changed from vegetarion to opportunism ie anything that came along that we could eat.

Fight - as an animal with minimal natural defences ie claws and large canines we didn't have much chance against larger predatory animals and also no chance against large animals that we could eat. Small clans or social familial groups evolved and that gave us better chance to survive against predators. With the developlment of tools and hunting techniques in packs humans moved up the predatory list until eventually we have become a top predator. It should be understood that we are not a natural top predator because on our own or without our tools (weapons) we cannot survive an attack from a true top predator such as a large shark, bear, cat etc. Most of us would be unlikely to withstand the attack of anything bigger than a mouse. Don't believe me - try catching with your bare hands a wild rodent.

Flight - the prudent option and used whenever a bigger animal ie more dangerous or a larger group of animals including humans present a threat. The Fight/Flight pairing is very close. If we as humans detect that we have a sufficient advantage over the other group we will take them on. The size of that advantage can vary from very large to very small depending on the circumstances. It is the foundation of military planning and makes very interesting study because it is often not as obvious as people think. A small, very disciplined, highly trained and motivated group can withhold and overcome a large group even if they are better equiped. Examples such as Vietnam, Afganistan, and the current situation in Iraq make good examples. The first and second world war make excellent examples of large forces and the significant differences they make.

<deleted>#k - the need to procreate and pass on genetic material is prime, however humans are one of the very few animals that use sex as a passtime and a means of binding pairs together. This component of our nature is very important and without it, social interaction would not exist for us nor would familial clanning. In many animals species the female is the better hunter (lions are a classic example) and the male is protected and fed for the purpose of propogation of the clan. He will have a clan of females and juvenile males only as long as he can hold them. When he is defeated he loses the clan, all young are killed, and the male impregnates the females with his progeny. Male lions normally only keep a clan for a couple of years until he loses them and is banished to the savanna to take care of himself. Humans are normally bigger and stronger than females and are the prime hunters. This means that he must feed his female partner and his offspring. If he sets up a clan of females he must hunt more and better to feed all of them, consequently the standard group has evolved to one male and one female with offspring. He provides for her with food (meat) she cares for the offspring and supplements the diet with berries and vegetation etc. As a way of keeping him with her she uses sex.

These four characteristics are indellibly stamped on our psyche and make us what and who we are. Humans are inherently violent because we had to be to survive against huge odds. Since we evolved from wandering the african plains to living in cities our basic instincts still act. We fight to get better jobs and make money. We complete with eachother to have bigger houses, better cars, attract a better mate. In confrontation we will fight to protect our home/partner/possessions but must consider the option of flight if we are likely to lose. Our instinct to procreate and use sex for leasure remains one of our great motivators.

I think that humans are inherently flawed and while individuals may strive to reach perfection and rise above our animal instincts I doubt that we can achieve it as a species. Anyone who manages will be a very special person and almost definitely attract followers who wish to emulate them but also enemies who will wish to destroy them for the same reason.

just my thoughts

I am going to get something to eat but hey the girlfriend just came back from the market so may delay the food thing for a while

CB

Watch animals... and what else are we? They fight over territory, sex and food. The worst disputes in our history have been over territory, the rest will be over food and water

I saw nice Canadians punching each other in Walmart last year over bottled water supplies when our tap water was deemed unpotable after heavy rains. Believe it: when the Mad Max world evolves, it will be pandemonium, anarchy, chaos. Thai dwellers, consider yourselves blessed to be away from the terrorist target cities in the West.

Yes, good post, Cawbie. You sneaked in before I pushed the send button.

I would add one more to the list: jettison. Get rid of the deadbeats.

Good post Crowie, similar to my theory but a lot more detailed and far better presented.

What's this girlfriend bit? Last time we spoke you'd forsworn women for all time.

A new one here or have you recycled an old one?

It is often said that the most basic human reaction to any threatening situation is fight or flight.

Socialanthropologists suggest four:

Feed - was the single most important occupation of primitive people. Finding sufficient food was a fulltime occupation and without it survival was not possible. As a result we got to stand upright, learned how to identify fruit and berries, developed colour vision to discerne between ripe and unripe. We developed opposable thumbs and dextrous fingers. We became omniverous and our diet changed from vegetarion to opportunism ie anything that came along that we could eat.

Fight - as an animal with minimal natural defences ie claws and large canines we didn't have much chance against larger predatory animals and also no chance against large animals that we could eat. Small clans or social familial groups evolved and that gave us better chance to survive against predators. With the developlment of tools and hunting techniques in packs humans moved up the predatory list until eventually we have become a top predator. It should be understood that we are not a natural top predator because on our own or without our tools (weapons) we cannot survive an attack from a true top predator such as a large shark, bear, cat etc. Most of us would be unlikely to withstand the attack of anything bigger than a mouse. Don't believe me - try catching with your bare hands a wild rodent.

Flight - the prudent option and used whenever a bigger animal ie more dangerous or a larger group of animals including humans present a threat. The Fight/Flight pairing is very close. If we as humans detect that we have a sufficient advantage over the other group we will take them on. The size of that advantage can vary from very large to very small depending on the circumstances. It is the foundation of military planning and makes very interesting study because it is often not as obvious as people think. A small, very disciplined, highly trained and motivated group can withhold and overcome a large group even if they are better equiped. Examples such as Vietnam, Afganistan, and the current situation in Iraq make good examples. The first and second world war make excellent examples of large forces and the significant differences they make.

<deleted>#k - the need to procreate and pass on genetic material is prime, however humans are one of the very few animals that use sex as a passtime and a means of binding pairs together. This component of our nature is very important and without it, social interaction would not exist for us nor would familial clanning. In many animals species the female is the better hunter (lions are a classic example) and the male is protected and fed for the purpose of propogation of the clan. He will have a clan of females and juvenile males only as long as he can hold them. When he is defeated he loses the clan, all young are killed, and the male impregnates the females with his progeny. Male lions normally only keep a clan for a couple of years until he loses them and is banished to the savanna to take care of himself. Humans are normally bigger and stronger than females and are the prime hunters. This means that he must feed his female partner and his offspring. If he sets up a clan of females he must hunt more and better to feed all of them, consequently the standard group has evolved to one male and one female with offspring. He provides for her with food (meat) she cares for the offspring and supplements the diet with berries and vegetation etc. As a way of keeping him with her she uses sex.

These four characteristics are indellibly stamped on our psyche and make us what and who we are. Humans are inherently violent because we had to be to survive against huge odds. Since we evolved from wandering the african plains to living in cities our basic instincts still act. We fight to get better jobs and make money. We complete with eachother to have bigger houses, better cars, attract a better mate. In confrontation we will fight to protect our home/partner/possessions but must consider the option of flight if we are likely to lose. Our instinct to procreate and use sex for leasure remains one of our great motivators.

I think that humans are inherently flawed and while individuals may strive to reach perfection and rise above our animal instincts I doubt that we can achieve it as a species. Anyone who manages will be a very special person and almost definitely attract followers who wish to emulate them but also enemies who will wish to destroy them for the same reason.

just my thoughts

I am going to get something to eat but hey the girlfriend just came back from the market so may delay the food thing for a while

CB

Wow, great post!!

Nature doesn't make people what they are....people make themselves what they are.

Nature versus nurture eh, would you like a link for that?

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

I would add one more to the list: jettison. Get rid of the deadbeats.

Undesirable elements eh, would you like a final solution for that?

And what exactly would have been your stance as you saw your fellow human beings being pushed onto the railcars?

Would you have fought for their, and your right to exist ?

Or would you have raised a plakard saying " I say this is wrong ".

Both definately. There is a certain inevitability about our own deaths so why not lend it to a worthy cause.

And what would be Jet's solution, to 'get rid of the deadbeats'?

Both definately. There is a certain inevitability about our own deaths so why not lend it to a worthy cause.

And what would be Jet's solution, to 'get rid of the deadbeats'?

Sure it's inevitable, nice to put it off for a while though. It's easy to look at history and say "I'd have done this, I'd have done that" but when you're part of it you can only hope you'll do the right thing.

Deadbeats are created by the society they live in. when I grew up there were no deadbeats, everybody worked, then jobs got hard to get and there were the deadbeats. Some people just give up easier than others.

Interesting.

In my youth I visited the sites of such atrocities. I told myself I would never allow myself to go quietly and I would have fought. But would I ?

To fight, you have to overcome the strongest instinct of all which is survival. This is not happening to me. It will all be over soon. These thoughts must have passed through the minds of every poor sod as they were led away.

The strength to resist these basic instincts is and was truly remarkable. The men and ladies who actually fought back, to my mind will always be the greatest of heroes.

Respect.

I think wether you view yourself as a deadbeat or you others as deadbeat, your views are both products of social engineering and for those that despise others it makes them no smarter than those they despise.

It is hate that connects both those people and makes them no better than each other, self hate or hate for others.

Hate can so easily be used as a reason for to disregard peoples rights, even their right to life, surely the most extreme form of violence.

In the West advances in healthcare, law and social inclusion have made natural selection a thing of the past, so because some elements that have benefitted from this do not or are unable to aspire to the acceptable standards of others, should we remove the benefits of modern society from them or more to the point remove them from society?

Isn't the hatred of these undesirable elements being misdirected by others to further their own interests.

Should we hate them or should we hate society for creating inequality and division, or is hate within us looking for a viable prescribed outlet?

Bloody hel_l.

Slow down mate.

Baby steps. Make a difference yourself by your attitude and the way you treat others. Not much use blaming society as an ethereal concept.

Live your life by your own sound moral code. Fight for the right to vote for who you wish to be " the man ". And accept that shit happens.

Interesting.

In my youth I visited the sites of such atrocities. I told myself I would never allow myself to go quietly and I would have fought. But would I ?

To fight, you have to overcome the strongest instinct of all which is survival. This is not happening to me. It will all be over soon. These thoughts must have passed through the minds of every poor sod as they were led away.

The strength to resist these basic instincts is and was truly remarkable. The men and ladies who actually fought back, to my mind will always be the greatest of heroes.

Respect.

I agree absolutely.

It is amazing how people can come to terms with the inevitability of their death at the hands of others and go quietly, for most of those that do resist their death will only come sooner.

People give up their life for a cause that they see is right, wether or not we may agree and wether that is misguided or not, the motivating factor I think is a sense of injustice on a massive scale.

Bloody hel_l.

Slow down mate.

Baby steps. Make a difference yourself by your attitude and the way you treat others.

I do whenever possible and it's a very commendable attitude to have, but it doesn't really take into account the vagaries of human interaction

Not much use blaming society as an ethereal concept.

Society is not an etheral concept, it is probably the most definable and influential percept in all our lives.

Without being facetious, it wasn't an etheral concept that led to Treblinka, Aushwitz, the Khmer Rouge or Rawanda, it was the choices laid out by those that control society.

Live your life by your own sound moral code. Fight for the right to vote for who you wish to be " the man ". And accept that shit happens.

Assuming that your moral code is actually sound and there is somebody worth voting for.

I can always accept that shit happens as invariably it does. Peace.

So, then is an individual's violence a product of society like some say? Whether or not someone turns to violence is this a societal influence as well? Would high stress American turn to violence quicker than Thais?

Ok .... here's another little Thaddy story.

My brother came over to Thailand a while back and as he thought that I live in the jungle he plonked himself and is girlfriend down in Hua Hin...... anything less than the Sofitel he considers 'roughing it'

Of course, not having seen him for a couple of years, we drove over there to see them.

After a few nights out on the lash he said something that at first surprised me.

"What's happened to you Col? you used to be a bad drunk, now you're a good one"

It took me a few seconds to respond.

The amount of times I have conducted acts of physical violence in the last 46 years I can count on one hand, heck, I would only need a couple of fingers. But, I could get verbally abusive at will, beer fuelled or not, but beer definitely helped.

My reply was this........

"Bro', in the UK I had a lot to get angry about, things used to piss me off on a daily basis, hourly sometimes. I've got a long fuse, but when it blows, it really blows...... over here, some things still piss me off, but one has usually fizzled out before the next one comes along"

Is man naturally violent? yes, of course he is, it's a basic requirement for survival, if we weren't we wouldn't be here now.

The big difference in the modern age is that we shouldn't really have anything to get violent about.

Has anybody in here ever heard about eradicating the bullies.

When man first started to clump together in social groups, he would gang up on any element within that group that was showing signs of damaging it i.e. if one man in that group became violent against members of the group, he would get clubbed to death by the rest, again, a basic requirement for the survival of that group. Once the bully element had been bred out, that group would only show signs of violence against another group over territorial issues.

But the basic, intrinsic, element of violence has never been bred out of us, I doubt that it ever will be....... take any dyed in the wool pacifist, prod them with a pointed stick for long enough and it will get taken off you and wrapped around your neck.

The question shouldn't be if man is naturally violent or not, it should be, how long will it take him to learn how to restrain it?

Ok .... here's another little Thaddy story.

My brother came over to Thailand a while back and as he thought that I live in the jungle he plonked himself and is girlfriend down in Hua Hin...... anything less than the Sofitel he considers 'roughing it'

Of course, not having seen him for a couple of years, we drove over there to see them.

After a few nights out on the lash he said something that at first surprised me.

"What's happened to you Col? you used to be a bad drunk, now you're a good one"

It took me a few seconds to respond.

The amount of times I have conducted acts of physical violence in the last 46 years I can count on one hand, heck, I would only need a couple of fingers. But, I could get verbally abusive at will, beer fuelled or not, but beer definitely helped.

My reply was this........

"Bro', in the UK I had a lot to get angry about, things used to piss me off on a daily basis, hourly sometimes. I've got a long fuse, but when it blows, it really blows...... over here, some things still piss me off, but one has usually fizzled out before the next one comes along"

Is man naturally violent? yes, of course he is, it's a basic requirement for survival, if we weren't we wouldn't be here now.

The big difference in the modern age is that we shouldn't really have anything to get violent about.

Has anybody in here ever heard about eradicating the bullies.

When man first started to clump together in social groups, he would gang up on any element within that group that was showing signs of damaging it i.e. if one man in that group became violent against members of the group, he would get clubbed to death by the rest, again, a basic requirement for the survival of that group. Once the bully element had been bred out, that group would only show signs of violence against another group over territorial issues.

But the basic, intrinsic, element of violence has never been bred out of us, I doubt that it ever will be....... take any dyed in the wool pacifist, prod them with a pointed stick for long enough and it will get taken off you and wrapped around your neck.

The question shouldn't be if man is naturally violent or not, it should be, how long will it take him to learn how to restrain it?

Great post and yes, very good question.

The idea that people are naturally violent is a mechanism to justify war and other forms of violence. Best if we stop spreading this myth and instead start spreading the myth that people become what they make of themselves....at least this myth will help to develop the myth of responsibility.

Chownah