Are Humans Devolving?

[farmerjumperdon]

On a roll, and feeling like humanity needs a recall:

http://www.startribune.com/crime/story/1319002.html

Is it just that we are made aware of more and more of these kinds of things, or that the vast majority of us are ever more apalled by them, or are more and more humans unable to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy behavior?

[Paracelsus]

On a roll, and feeling like humanity needs a recall:

http://www.startribune.com/crime/story/1319002.html

Is it just that we are made aware of more and more of these kinds of things, or that the vast majority of us are ever more apalled by them, or are more and more humans unable to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy behavior?


GAH, both Jordan's father AND his trollop should have gotten death sentences!! :mad: Poor little kid!

The world definitely needs a cull.

[Mister Earl]

Humanity as a whole isn't getting better or worse, I think. The exchange of news and information is a lot better than it was before. In the old days, if there was something horrific like this, it would only be known locally. And you could forget about much info overseas! Nowadays, the internet makes it easy for news services to report every sociological infraction out there.

There isn't more violence out there, we just measure it better.

[Tucson_Tim]

There isn't more violence out there, we just measure it better.

Maybe. But, when I was younger, I never recall reading or seeing on TV incidents where armed kids went into schools and killed everyone they saw.

[Mister Earl]

Wasn't talking the violent types matching, so much as quantity. For example, in Portlan, Oregon, there used to be slavers operating out of there in the early 1900s, I think. They'd drug able-bodied men in bars, and smuggle them through tunnels and onto ships bound for Shanghai, China. That's where the term "Shanghied" came from.

[Mister Earl]

Also, factor in warfare actions in times past. Used to be that when you successfully defeated an enemy's army, you'd ransack the city, enslave the populace, loot everything, then burn it to the ground. Nowadays we use targeted munitions, and try to leave as many people unaffected as possible.

I guess what I'm meaning to say in this thread is, measuring whether or not humanity is getting better or worse depends entirely on the frame of reference involved.

[Fazor]

Just so you don't have to click the link, (for people like me who prefer the pictures to reading the articles ;))

Then District Judge Lawrence Johnson sentenced Meier to 221/2 years in prison, writing the final chapter in the story of the girl whose life ended a year ago last week in Blaine after being forced to spend at least seven minutes in a tub of scalding water.
And to clarify, not that it's much better, she was charged for aiding in the homicide. She's not the one that did the scalding, but she failed to call police or seek treatment.

I can't stand the whole, "My boyfriend/husband is killing my kid(s), but if I call the police they might ARREST him!" excuse.
Yes, that would be soo horrible if the police arrested an attempted murderer BEFORE he killed your kids, effectively saving their life.

I love my g/f. That's how we can live together without killing each other. But if she was killing my niece (I don't have kids) I wouldn't think twice about sending her to jail. Granted, I'd probably be in shock if she were the one doing it, because she's extreemely good natured and gentle. But the guy in this case had already sexually assaulted the kid (i'm sure multiple times) in the past. She should have had him arrested long before the scalding inncident. Blah!

[Argos]

I just fear our getting increasingly numb, overwhelmed by news of this kind.

[Fazor]

That's a concern; however we all like to act like we're exposed to more violence than in the past when really, we're not.

Unless, of course, bloodsports, witchhunts, crusaides, and holocausts are all going on unnoticed by me (to the extent they were in the past).

I think the real argument against Devolution of humanity is the climbing life-expectancy (overall, some short-term dips are to be expected), and the population growth. Evolution is all about the prosperity of a species, and as far as reproduction/growth, we're doing quite well at the moment. Granted, if violent trends lead to a overall decline in the species, hurting our chances at growth and survival, then violence will be a factor in our devolution. But until then, I think it's more a annoying problem with society and humanity, rather than an evolutionary problem.

[Argos]

Granted, if violent trends lead to a overall decline in the species, hurting our chances at growth and survival, then violence will be a factor in our devolution.

I think it does lead to decline. However, I think we´re increasingly less violent, despite apparent evidences on the contrary.

[Fazor]

Well, obviously if you kill someone the population declines by one. Or two, if they were schizophrenic (;)).

But I mean, overall, even after all the violence and murders, the population is still growing. I think it's a problem if the murder rate starts to exceede the growth rate, but barring some kind of nuclear wwIII apocolypse, I think we're more likely to see death from disease or environment exceede growth rate than ever seeing murder do it.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Evolution doesn't come into this at all. Evolution is biology. The depraved nature of humanity is sociology.

Every species is always evolving - humanity included - because it is simple biological adaption to circumstances.

The fact that people are, by and large, horrible creatures is just human nature. People are essentially greedy, violent, and stupid.

Call me Mr. Misanthrope.

[Tucson_Tim]

The fact that people are, by and large, horrible creatures is just human nature. People are essentially greedy, violent, and stupid.

Call me Mr. Misanthrope.

Call me one too! :)

[Swift]

Humanity as a whole isn't getting better or worse, I think. The exchange of news and information is a lot better than it was before. In the old days, if there was something horrific like this, it would only be known locally. And you could forget about much info overseas! Nowadays, the internet makes it easy for news services to report every sociological infraction out there.

There isn't more violence out there, we just measure it better.
That's my take on it. There was a case in Michigan or Ohio in the early 20th century (IIRC) of a man who burned down a school building with a bunch of kids inside. Got a lot of press at the time, but now is just a footnote in history.

I also think that some of it is a change in "definition" of what is violent/criminal behavior. Even 20 or 30 years ago, if, for example, a husband beat his wife or kids, it probably wouldn't have gotten reported, or might have been dealt with "quietly". I have heard stories from older women, of various "things" that happened to them in their younger days, that were hushed up or not talked about (and they still are shy about talking about) - things today that would probably lead to criminal charges of abuse or sexual battery.

And I agree with The Supreme Canuck, this is sociology, not evolution.

[Doodler]

Also, factor in warfare actions in times past. Used to be that when you successfully defeated an enemy's army, you'd ransack the city, enslave the populace, loot everything, then burn it to the ground. Nowadays we use targeted munitions, and try to leave as many people unaffected as possible.

That kind of thing is part of the problem. Too much effort is given to preserving cultures without the intrinsic ability to survive.

A nation that becomes an aggressor should be shattered completely. Even if the population is saved, it should be made brutally clear that the cultural choices made that resulted in their failure to win victory deem them unfit to continue it.

Cultures that cannot sustain their peoples' health should be left to fall too. Let Africa's population be decimated. People complain of poverty and overpopulation, yet when the time arrives that a population can contract to a stable level, we prevent it. They stay alive, they stay sick, and they stay hungry. Its stupid.

[Argos]

Well, obviously if you kill someone the population declines by one. Or two, if they were schizophrenic (;)).

But I mean, overall, even after all the violence and murders, the population is still growing.

I was talking about mass destruction, the ultimate violence, which can wipe out mankind. I don´t see it happening though, since I see evidences of progress. We are obviously heading to a non-violent future.

As for misanthropy, well, our presence in this board seems to indicate we like to be among other humans. :)

[Tucson_Tim]

We are obviously heading to a non-violent future.


I sincerely hope you're right.

[The Supreme Canuck]

As for misanthropy, well, our presence in this board seems to indicate we like to be among other humans.

Misanthropy does not necessarily indicate a hatred of all people. In my case, I'm disgusted by many of the prevalent and common traits of humanity - and by extension, those who display them. Those who overcome these unfortunate characteristics, I have no problem with.

I just don't believe that the vast majority of people are capable of doing so without coercion. Even then, many, if not most, will be unable to act decently.

[farmerjumperdon]

Evolution doesn't come into this at all. Evolution is biology. The depraved nature of humanity is sociology.

Every species is always evolving - humanity included - because it is simple biological adaption to circumstances.

The fact that people are, by and large, horrible creatures is just human nature. People are essentially greedy, violent, and stupid.

Call me Mr. Misanthrope.

Yeah, I was being facetious mentoning evolution. Just my mood coming thru in being so absolutely repulsed that adults could do such a thing to a child; much less their own child.

I agree with your correctly calling it social depraved. Socially we are a long way from being completely civilized (if compassion is part of civility).

[The Supreme Canuck]

I was talking about mass destruction, the ultimate violence, which can wipe out mankind. I don´t see it happening though, since I see evidences of progress. We are obviously heading to a non-violent future.

I disagree, vehemently.

Of the top 10 genocides (as ranked by deaths), 7 occurred in the last 200 years, and 5 in the last 100. Of the top 25 genocides, 19 occurred in the last 200 years, and 15 in the last 100.

This is not progress.

Yeah, I was being facetious mentoning evolution. Just my mood coming thru in being so absolutely repulsed that adults could do such a thing to a child; much less their own child.

I understand. Literary licence. That just seemed to be the way that the discussion was headed, so I decided to clarify.

[Noclevername]

Technically, there is no De-Evolution. (Devolution is a religious term, not related to biology at all, but it's a common misuse.) It's all evolution, even if we personally don't like its "direction"; evolution just means adapting to changing conditions, and right now our fairly luxurious living conditions happen to be able to support a lot of idiots.

EDIT: A century or two is not enough time to really measure our evolution. Evolution is a long-term process.

[Maksutov]

Of course humanity in general is becoming less intelligent in developed countries.

Watch their TV commercials.

Watch ten of them head on!

Watch ten of them head on!

Watch ten of them head on!

Watch ten of them head on!

[The Supreme Canuck]

Of the top 10 genocides (as ranked by deaths), 7 occurred in the last 200 years, and 5 in the last 100. Of the top 25 genocides, 19 occurred in the last 200 years, and 15 in the last 100.

I tried to edit my post to insert a link to the numbers I used, but the board software wouldn't let me.

Here's the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Genocide_ and_Democide).

[mike alexander]

Well, sure, compassion is part of civility. In its most general meaning, compassion is part of empathy, essential for a social species. The problem, as usual, is how you define it. The ability to imagine oneself as another allows for time to reflect, to examine other viewpoints, before acting (or not acting). Empathy does not, in my view, mean "to understand all is to forgive all". But a complete lack of empathy is inconsistent with social interaction (I might argue that it IS social interaction).

Doodler, I have to disagree with you on one point.

Cultures that cannot sustain their peoples' health should be left to fall too. Let Africa's population be decimated. People complain of poverty and overpopulation, yet when the time arrives that a population can contract to a stable level, we prevent it. They stay alive, they stay sick, and they stay hungry. Its stupid.

While this is one answer to the problem, another is to attempt to steer the culture (itself a reified concept, 'culture' can't exist outside of a population practicing it, I think) toward a better goal. If we all throw in the towel every time things get bad, we will never get anywhere. The disadvantage of this approach is that it usually takes a long time and there is no assurance of success.

[Argos]

Socially we are a long way from being completely civilized (if compassion is part of civility).

That´s true. But we´re doing well, if you consider that we killed one another for peanuts a few thousands of years ago.

I also think that, when it comes to humans, there´s no dichotomy between sociology and evolution.

[EricM407]

But the guy in this case had already sexually assaulted the kid (i'm sure multiple times) in the past. She should have had him arrested long before the scalding inncident. Blah!

Maybe my reading of the article was incorrect, but I think it was the mother's boyfriend who sexually assaulted the girl. That's presumably why she was staying with her father and his girlfriend. Real nice set of parents this poor kid had...

[Argos]

@ TSC:

If you consider the population growth, less and less people die in genocide episodes through time [in relative terms].

I think the individual murder rate is a better parameter for evaluating the overall human aggresiveness, since only one crazy dictator can cause a genocide, and it would be inaccurate to measure overall tendencies based on only one sample.

[Doodler]

Well, sure, compassion is part of civility.

Compassion can be taken to extremity. Consider the Schiavo case.

While this is one answer to the problem, another is to attempt to steer the culture (itself a reified concept, 'culture' can't exist outside of a population practicing it, I think) toward a better goal. If we all throw in the towel every time things get bad, we will never get anywhere. The disadvantage of this approach is that it usually takes a long time and there is no assurance of success.

As far as cultural survival, where is it written that all cultures MUST survive? When was the cut off date when we said, "This is the last to fall, no more will be allowed!"?

Not saying its not tragic to lose them, on the other hand, are we sustaining tragedy by going to ridiculous lengths to preserve them?

I look at countries like Botswana, Ghana and Swaziland and how their dealing with the AIDS epidemic and I've got to ask just how moribund a culture has to be before you just throw your hands in the air and let them tradition themselves into oblivion.

For a doctor to save a patient, the patient first has to recognize 1) there's a problem and 2) if you don't make some SERIOUS accomodations to treat it, you're not going to get better. So far, some of these countries haven't even recognized just how screwed they are, so what point are efforts to save a patient that won't even recognize the source of the illness to let it be treated?

I'm not sitting here saying "Enough! Pull the plug on all of it!", but for cryin' out loud, we don't have bottomless resources, no matter what Bono and his ilk think, we cannot save everyone, everywhere. There has to be some room for triage here.

[The Supreme Canuck]

@ TSC:

If you consider the population growth, less and less people die in genocide episodes through time [in relative terms].

Fair point. I don't have the numbers to verify or discount this, so we'll leave it as "possible."

I think the individual murder rate is a better parameter for evaluating the overall human aggresiveness, since only one crazy dictator can cause a genocide, and it would be inaccurate to measure overall tendencies based on only one sample.

Again, I disagree. One man does not a genocide make. For a genocide to occur, the active involvement of a large group of people is required. Look at the stages of genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages_of_genocide_and_efforts_to_prevent _it). Genocide is a group activity, and is far more indicative of social and societal trends in human nature than murder (which can be an individual act) is.

"I was only following orders"? Sorry, no.

[Delvo]

Of the top 10 genocides (as ranked by deaths), 7 occurred in the last 200 years, and 5 in the last 100. Of the top 25 genocides, 19 occurred in the last 200 years, and 15 in the last 100.

This is not progress.The population is much larger now, and the technology is more advanced.

[Swift]

I disagree, vehemently.

Of the top 10 genocides (as ranked by deaths), 7 occurred in the last 200 years, and 5 in the last 100. Of the top 25 genocides, 19 occurred in the last 200 years, and 15 in the last 100.

This is not progress.

It is interesting, looking at the linked page, that this is not true for wars. If you look at the "top" 10 wars (as ranked by deaths), only 4 have occurred in the last 200 years, and that is even with the increase in world population. I'm not sure what the significance of that is.

There also seemed to be a problem with the link, so I'll give another one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll).

By the way, if you are easily depressed, I would not recommend looking at that page. There are no pictures, but the numbers are staggering.

In spite of that, I tend to lean towards Argos' thinking. I think humans are getting better, on both the small scale and the largers. It is sort of like a twelve step program, and we are on the first step - recognizing the problem...
"Hi, I'm Homo Sapien and I tend to be violent and self-destructive".
"Hi, HS".

[The Supreme Canuck]

The population is much larger now, and the technology is more advanced.

Fine. Since my argument is not that we are getting worse, but that humanity has always been fundamentally and disastrously flawed, this doesn't matter. I was simply objecting to the statement that we're getting better, that there is progress. I seriously doubt that technology and population can make up for any deaths avoided by human nature getting less depraved. Besides, who thought up that technology? The atom bomb, gas chambers, and death camps are not the product of healthy minds. That in itself indicates we aren't "getting better."

[Delvo]

Yeah, I was being facetious mentoning evolution.But there's no reason to think that evolution isn't also happening on this issue. All it would take is for violent tendencies or pacifist tendencies, or something else that's even associated with them, to affect one's likelihood of surviving and/or reproducing... or even for such a trait's prevalence within a population to affect that population's odds of surviving and growing. There's a thread here in which I brought up a few lines of evidence that this is actually happening, and it's making us less violent, not more so...

[Doodler]

The population is much larger now, and the technology is more advanced.
Information more readily available.

[Noclevername]

The population is much larger now, and the technology is more advanced. And because of that technology, more people have the ability to reach their "enemies" more easily. Distance no longer separates the way it once did.

[Ilya]

That's a concern; however we all like to act like we're exposed to more violence than in the past when really, we're not.

Unless, of course, bloodsports, witchhunts, crusaides, and holocausts are all going on unnoticed by me (to the extent they were in the past).

Wasn't it LEGAL in 17th Century Britain and its colonies for a father to kill his child if he chose to? And it was certainly legal in Ancient Rome.

So, I would say we are improving as a species.

[Noclevername]

Less slavery, less starvation, less illiteracy. Those things still exist, but now they're the minority instead of the status quo.

[Argos]

Again, I disagree. One man does not a genocide make. For a genocide to occur, the active involvement of a large group of people is required. (...)
"I was only following orders"? Sorry, no.

Still, a limited group. One of the reasons why I prefer to think in terms of homicide rates to measure social violence is that genocide is a complex, rational [therefore cortical], activity. I think it´s barely related to aggressiveness, which stems from primitive structures of the brain.

[Doodler]

Another aspect to consider is the widening definition of genocide. Its been expanded from a deliberate systematic act of extermination to one where even indirectly creating conditions of hardship that result in large numbers of deaths falls under the definition.

People aren't being taken out and executed en masse in Darfur, but the massive displacement of people has resulted in significant casualties to the point where its considered genocidal because of its so specifically targeted nature.

[Fazor]

Technically, there is no De-Evolution. (Devolution is a religious term, not related to biology at all, but it's a common misuse.)

It's also a term used in political science, at least in my last class, talking about the decline of conditions in the U.S. major metro areas. Every other word out of my prof's mouth seemed to be "devolution".

It bugged me, because she said it like devil'ution. Which, I think, is right, considering there's only one e. But when I read it or say it, it's de-evolution, because that's what it is. Even if there's no seperation in the spelling. It bugged me (and I mean really, really bugged me) even though my way is probably wrong.

[Larry Jacks]

The atom bomb, gas chambers, and death camps are not the product of healthy minds.

Actually, the atom bomb was invented by some of the most best physicists on Earth. Likewise, the gas chambers (I assume you're talking about the Holocaust) were designed by engineers and so were the crematoria at the camps like Auschwitz. The camps themselves didn't happen by accident. Sure, they were ordered built by depraved human monsters like Hitler and Himmler, but they were designed by educated architects. It's easy to blame the monsters of the world but, as a friend of mine (who survived Buchenwald) pointed out, we also need to look critically at those who designed and built the technology of genocide.

Like most things in life, I suspect that human nature follows a bell curve. If you could somehow measure good verses evil (and yes, I believe there are evil people), you'd probably find that the truly good (e.g. Mother Thersa) and the truly evil (e.g. Pol Pot) are both probably miniscule percentages of the population. However, it seems the truly evil have the ability to harm more people than the truly good can save.

[Van Rijn]

Of course humanity in general is becoming less intelligent in developed countries.

Watch their TV commercials.

Watch ten of them head on! [snip]


There may be something to that. When I see that commercial I become almost homicidally angry, and often yell at the TV what worthless . . . garbage . . . it is.

[Van Rijn]

The atom bomb, gas chambers, and death camps are not the product of healthy minds. That in itself indicates we aren't "getting better."

Gas chanbers and death camps are (at most) applications of technology.

As for atom bombs, I disagree strongly. There was a very good reason to build them, and in WWII, the death toll due to them was actually pretty small.

I also think the atom bomb is the reason we haven't had another world war since then. I don't know if that can last, but a world without nukes could have easily been worse.

[Noclevername]

As for atom bombs, I disagree strongly. There was a very good reason to build them, and in WWII, the death toll due to them was actually pretty small.

I also think the atom bomb is the reason we haven't had another world war since then. I don't know if that can last, but a world without nukes could have easily been worse.

We don't know what a world without them would have been like. Certainly growing up under the fear of nuclear war was't good for me personally.

[Van Rijn]

We don't know what a world without them would have been like.

No, but we can make some guesses based on preceding history. One can make a pretty good case that nuclear weapons kept down the level of war, and it is also true that non-nuclear war can be plenty devastating.


Certainly growing up under the fear of nuclear war was't good for me personally.

Oh, I had my bad dreams, and I am certainly happy that the cold war ended. But that would have been much worse if there had been a hot war, even without nukes.

[greenfeather]

Is it just that we are made aware of more and more of these kinds of things, or that the vast majority of us are ever more apalled by them, or are more and more humans unable to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy behavior?

Two words for you: "Spanish Inquisition".

[Occam]

The problem, as I see it, is this:
Social order, whether that of humans, ants or bees, is a collective survival response. Rules and laws are made by the social order to maintain integrity and prevent their dissolution by anachronistic individuals. In nature, the rules are quite clear and rigidly enforced by punishments ranging from a change in the "pecking order" to banishment or death. In human society, the rules have become so blurred and perverted that the punishment rarely fits the crime any more. High profile child molesters and murderers walk free on legal technicalities that have nothing to do with justice and often based on nothing more than how much legal representation they can afford. Children are treated as possessions and those that abuse them are released to commit their crimes again. All over the world criminal trials have been reduced to point-scoring with legal technicalities until they have become meaningless.

The concept of evil has been lost. I don't mean fundamentalist pointy-tail-and-pitchfork evil but the recognition that there are elements of society that cannot be described in any other way. It doesn't matter what label you stick on them - sociopaths, psychopaths, etc - we need to drop the ridiculous notion that these vermin are sick, that they are excused by reason of insanity, or that they may be cured. They are a cancer on society and should be eradicated. Their crime is a burden on society and that burden should not be exacerbated by keeping them alive and carefree for another thirty years by a legal system that hasn't got the guts or the intelligence to deal with them in a way that bees have figured out.

[Swift]

Two words for you: "Spanish Inquisition".
Funny response - I wasn't expecting that.

Serious response - Those two words were not enough, I don't understand exactly how that relates to farmerjumperdon's comment.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Wasn't it LEGAL in 17th Century Britain and its colonies for a father to kill his child if he chose to? And it was certainly legal in Ancient Rome.

So, I would say we are improving as a species.

I disagree. We are not improving as a species. We simply have better laws. Like I said, we need coercion to curb our baser impulses.

Still, a limited group. One of the reasons why I prefer to think in terms of homicide rates to measure social violence is that genocide is a complex, rational [therefore cortical], activity. I think it´s barely related to aggressiveness, which stems from primitive structures of the brain.

I agree, genocide is not closely related to aggression - it is indeed a course of action that takes careful thought and consideration. That makes it worse. You need to think about and accept the consequences of your actions. It's worse than a crime of passion by several orders of magnitude.

Gas chanbers and death camps are (at most) applications of technology.

As for atom bombs, I disagree strongly. There was a very good reason to build them, and in WWII, the death toll due to them was actually pretty small.

I also think the atom bomb is the reason we haven't had another world war since then. I don't know if that can last, but a world without nukes could have easily been worse.

I agree - gas chambers and camps are particular manifestations of technology. And not very nice ones, at that. That doesn't change my argument.

As for nukes, I (perhaps surprisingly) tend to agree with you. Bombing Japan was the right decision, and NATO/Warsaw Pact strategy was to escalate any European conflict to a strategic nuclear exchange - which doubtless was a big deterrent.

Bringing them up was a mistake - bad example.

[Gillianren]

Like most things in life, I suspect that human nature follows a bell curve. If you could somehow measure good verses evil (and yes, I believe there are evil people), you'd probably find that the truly good (e.g. Mother Thersa) and the truly evil (e.g. Pol Pot) are both probably miniscule percentages of the population. However, it seems the truly evil have the ability to harm more people than the truly good can save.

Actually, Mother Theresa was pretty evil, too, if you look at what she was really like. Not, like, Pol Pot evil by any stretch, but certainly nowhere near sainthood.

[Stuart van Onselen]

It's sad that the most common example of a "good person" is based on a self-promoted falsehood.

If we don't have Mother Teresa as an obvious example to use in situations like this, who do we have?

We certainly have a surfeit of examples of evil - dictators, serial-killers, and the like.

[Disinfo Agent]

I disagree, vehemently.

Of the top 10 genocides (as ranked by deaths), 7 occurred in the last 200 years, and 5 in the last 100. Of the top 25 genocides, 19 occurred in the last 200 years, and 15 in the last 100.

This is not progress. From what I remember hearing in the media (quoting official reports) the number of armed conflicts has decreased in recent years. There are always exceptions, of course.

P.S. Damn, Swift beat me to it. :D

[Ilya]

It's sad that the most common example of a "good person" is based on a self-promoted falsehood.

If we don't have Mother Teresa as an obvious example to use in situations like this, who do we have?


No one who achieved any real power in the world -- which includes Gandhi. Any "good person" whose goodness propels him into position of power, even power by influence only (so-called "spiritual leaders") is tainted. But examples you seek do exist. Raoul Wallenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Wallenberg) is one. Andrey Sakharov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakharov) is another.

[Disinfo Agent]

It is sort of like a twelve step program, and we are on the first step - recognizing the problem...
"Hi, I'm Homo Sapiens and I tend to be violent and self-destructive".
"Hi, HS"."Any... sexual problems?"

[Disinfo Agent]

Seriously, though...

As far as cultural survival, where is it written that all cultures MUST survive? When was the cut off date when we said, "This is the last to fall, no more will be allowed!"?

Not saying its not tragic to lose them, on the other hand, are we sustaining tragedy by going to ridiculous lengths to preserve them?

I look at countries like Botswana, Ghana and Swaziland and how their dealing with the AIDS epidemic and I've got to ask just how moribund a culture has to be before you just throw your hands in the air and let them tradition themselves into oblivion.And if they keep at it long enough you will get your wish: their culture will be extinguished. One can only hope that they stop themselves and turn around to a better course as soon as possible.

Again, I disagree. One man does not a genocide make. For a genocide to occur, the active involvement of a large group of people is required.Not too large, provided they have superior armament and the society is sufficiently weakened.

I was simply objecting to the statement that we're getting better, that there is progress. I seriously doubt that technology and population can make up for any deaths avoided by human nature getting less depraved. Besides, who thought up that technology? The atom bomb, gas chambers, and death camps are not the product of healthy minds.Indeed, on the contrary: technology only amplifies human faults, because it makes it possible to do harm on a larger scale.

But the progress that I think Argos is talking about (and I agree with him) is not essentially technological. It's a social, moral kind of progress.

But there's no reason to think that evolution isn't also happening on this issue. All it would take is for violent tendencies or pacifist tendencies, or something else that's even associated with them, to affect one's likelihood of surviving and/or reproducing...On the flip side, there's also no reason to assume that violent tendencies are genetic.

The concept of evil has been lost. I don't mean fundamentalist pointy-tail-and-pitchfork evil but the recognition that there are elements of society that cannot be described in any other way. It doesn't matter what label you stick on them - sociopaths, psychopaths, etc - we need to drop the ridiculous notion that these vermin are sick, that they are excused by reason of insanity, or that they may be cured. They are a cancer on society and should be eradicated. Their crime is a burden on society and that burden should not be exacerbated by keeping them alive and carefree for another thirty years by a legal system that hasn't got the guts or the intelligence to deal with them in a way that bees have figured out.I think you're confusing "evil people" with the death penalty somewhat. Not a topic for this forum.

Anyway, I don't like the good/bad dichotomy (or "meme", if you will ;) :p). It sounds sophisticated and pious, but is often only half-civilized and propagandistic, in practice. In my opinion, one of the progresses that mankind has been making is to move away from the good/bad labels, towards a more legalistic approach to wrongdoing.

[Tucson_Tim]

EDIT: A century or two is not enough time to really measure our evolution. Evolution is a long-term process.

Evolution via Natural Selection is a slow process but evolution via unnatural selection, ie. artificial gene manipulation, may not be so slow.

[Delvo]

But the progress that I think Argos is talking about (and I agree with him) is not essentially technological. It's a social, moral kind of progress.And it becomes biological too, if the culture causes there to be a selective pressure.

On the flip side, there's also no reason to assume that violent tendencies are genetic.It's not an assumption; it's a solidly established fact. Different degrees of violence are already known to exist among different kinds of animals that not only lack anything like human culture to influence their behavior, but in many cases aren't even raised by their mothers.

[F14Dude]

Link removed by moderator. Off Topic, and spam to promote a personal website. F14Dude, this is a warning.

[Disinfo Agent]

And it become biological too, if the culture causes there to be a selective pressure.Big "if" there.

It's not an assumption; it's a solidly established fact. Different degrees of violence are already known to exist among different kinds of animals that not only lack anything like human culture to influence their behavior, but in many cases aren't even raised by their mothers.That violence exists in animals proves nothing about whether it is genetic, in the sense that your previous post suggested, that is, heritable through genes.

Consider, for example, that some wild animals can be tamed, yet if you tame one but release its offspring into the wild, the offspring will grow up to be wild, not tamed like its parents.

[Fazor]

Consider, for example, that some wild animals can be tamed, yet if you tame one but release its offspring into the wild, the offspring will grow up to be wild, not tamed like its parents.
Our favorite hotel heiress, por ejemplo.

[greenfeather]

Funny response - I wasn't expecting that.

Serious response - Those two words were not enough, I don't understand exactly how that relates to farmerjumperdon's comment.

The OP thinks humans are devolving because of all the horrible crimes he sees in the news nowadays. UM... humans were doing HORRIBLE things all thru history. And in many cases with the instigation of the people in charge. Way worse than the isolated cases of evil that he sees in the paper. Oh yeah and it was also done in the name of GOD.

If humans no longer tolerate such institutional evil, they may actually be getting BETTER.

[John Mendenhall]

Of course humanity in general is becoming less intelligent in developed countries.



Actually, there seems to be a slow but steady increase in IQ. The statisticians had a fit, but it withstood analysis. I think it was in New Scientist. Try not to throw up, but there was some attempt to attribute it to the pervasive high tech toys, including (ugh!) video games.

Greeny, you missed a good ATM on the three particle theory. Probably just as well, might have given you a stroke.

[Delvo]

Consider, for example, that some wild animals can be tamed, yet if you tame one but release its offspring into the wild, the offspring will grow up to be wild, not tamed like its parents.Of course not; if lamarckian evolution doesn't work for physical traits, it would be silly to claim that it works for instinctive ones, which nobody has. But the inapplicability of lamarckism to evolution doesn't disprove genetic basis of instincts any more than it disproves genetic basis of anatomy. The whole question of lamarckism is an irrelevantly-colored herring.

[Disinfo Agent]

Who said anything about Lamarckism? :confused:

Perhaps my example was not the best in the world, I will concede to that. But, since you're being demanding with the arguments, I'll be demanding, too. Please present me the evidence which proves that "violence" (how on Earth do you pigeonhole that elusive concept in science, anyway?) is genetic. So far, all I've seen is an empty, faith based claim and a half-baked, unconvincing argument that "animals have it in nature". :rolleyes:

[mugaliens]

Actually, there seems to be a slow but steady increase in IQ. The statisticians had a fit, but it withstood analysis. I think it was in New Scientist. Try not to throw up, but there was some attempt to attribute it to the pervasive high tech toys, including (ugh!) video games.

Greeny, you missed a good ATM on the three particle theory. Probably just as well, might have given you a stroke.

IQ translates to potential capability. There are far more people with lesser IQs throughout the world who've demonstrated that IQ is but a fuzzy predictor of future success.

[Delvo]

Editing around the pointless insults and sniping...
Please present me the evidence which proves that "violence" (how on Earth do you pigeonhole that elusive concept in science, anyway?) is genetic. So far, all I've seen is an... argument that "animals have it in nature". :rolleyes:It's not that animals have violence in nature. It's that animals come with different degrees of it in nature. Give members of two species of animals the same stimulus that could provoke a violent reaction, and you'll often find that one does react violently and one does not. To a lesser extent, you'd get different likelihoods of a violent response to a given situation even from different individuals of the same species who've been raised the same way.

I don't even understand what the problem is here. Given the variety of different behaviors of animals seen in nature, and between members of a single species (like dogs or humans) even when raised similarly, how could there possibly be any doubt that animals are physiologically programmed with distinct general built-in tendencies to be more violent or less violent compared to others? It seems so obvious and unquestionable that I don't have a clue where any objection could come from. Animal wranglers and such routinely make a living using this kind of specific knowledge of how their subjects will predictably behave. This is like being told to provide proof that arthropods have more legs than vertebrates and trees can burn.

To challenge someone for proof of something is usually to assert its opposite. Can you seriously be asserting that a bear and a sheep, or a crocodile and a turtle, are equally prone to violence (or equally not prone to it)? It seems too patently absurd to imagine you're really doing that, but I don't know what else to make of this bizarreness, so where are you going with this?

[Disinfo Agent]

It's not that animals have violence in nature. It's that animals come with different degrees of it in nature. Give members of two species of animals the same stimulus that could provoke a violent reaction, and you'll often find that one does react violently and one does not. To a lesser extent, you'd get different likelihoods of a violent response to a given situation even from different individuals of the same species who've been raised the same way.So what? That proves exactly zero about whether the degree of violence is genetic.

I don't even understand what the problem is here. Given the variety of different behaviors of animals seen in nature, and between members of a single species (like dogs or humans) even when raised similarly, how could there possibly be any doubt that animals are physiologically programmed with distinct general built-in tendencies to be more violent or less violent compared to others?Given how many human and animal traits are not genetic, how could there not be a doubt?!

Prove it or zip it.

[Delvo]

"Zip it"?

So now you not only won't apply the simple common sense that all causes of difference must be either built-in or environmental and thus built-in is the only option left when you eliminate differences in upbringing... and try to cover up your lack of reasoning with a stream of insults and personal sniping in every single post... but now have even deemed yourself to be in a position to give me orders (in, of course, the most disrespectful form you can, to be consistent with the habit of tossing off insults at every opportunity).

Ya, that totally proves that you're worth the bother of listening to or speaking to from now on. :rolleyes:

Time to check for whether or not this site has an Ignore List feature...

[The Supreme Canuck]

From what I remember hearing in the media (quoting official reports) the number of armed conflicts has decreased in recent years. There are always exceptions, of course.

Quite true. But this isn't any indication that humanity is "getting better." We've finally drifted into my area of expertise. The number of conflicts (both inter- and intra-state) has indeed been declining since the early- to mid-nineties. But the reason is the end of the Cold War. Not only did the superpower-supported proxy wars end, the creation of a unipolar international landscape removed many limitations that were imposed on the UN. In other words, the UN, and especially the Security Council, got teeth. Coercion became possible, and wars became harder to sustain. Especially indicative of this was the trend toward UN economic sanction over intervention.

Source: Human Security Report 2005.

My thesis is this: humanity's negative impulses have not been curbed, we are simply finding ways to force people to behave. Left to their own devices, people are horrible, foul creatures. We can't be trusted to play nice.

[Disinfo Agent]

Be that as it may, the fact that fewer human lives (and limbs) are being wasted in wars is a plus, wouldn't you agree?

[Tucson_Tim]

My thesis is this: humanity's negative impulses have not been curbed, we are simply finding ways to force people to behave. Left to their own devices, people are horrible, foul creatures. We can't be trusted to play nice.

I'm afraid I would have to agree with that. The Lord of the Flies syndrome.

[Disinfo Agent]

Yadda, yadda, yadda......And still no solid evidence. No surprise there.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Not too large, provided they have superior armament and the society is sufficiently weakened.

You don't need a large group to actually kill the people, no. But you need the support, or at least indifference, of a very significant portion of the population - likely a majority. If, for example, the entire government apparatus of the United States became bent on eliminating everyone with green eyes and the populace was not on board, the genocide either could not occur, or would be very much reduced in scope.

Indeed, on the contrary: technology only amplifies human faults, because it makes it possible to do harm on a larger scale.

But the progress that I think Argos is talking about (and I agree with him) is not essentially technological. It's a social, moral kind of progress.

I'm also talking about that kind of progress - I was responding to the argument that technology and population increases account for the large scale of genocides in the past 200 years. I agree that this is a large factor, but I do not agree that these changes are masking an improvement in human nature. That is to say, if there had not been these developments, I do not believe that there would be a downward trend in violence and genocide over time.

The only social progress that I accept has occurred over time is coercive in nature - people being forced not to be violent.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Be that as it may, the fact that fewer human lives (and limbs) are being wasted in wars is a plus, wouldn't you agree?

Oh, heaven's yes! I'm no fan of the fact that people cause so much misery for others. It's a horrible, disgusting thing.

I'm afraid I would have to agree with that. The Lord of the Flies syndrome.

Precisely - Hobbesian socio/political theory.

[Disinfo Agent]

You don't need a large group to actually kill the people, no. But you need the support, or at least indifference, of a very significant portion of the population - likely a majority.I do not agree with that. There are plenty of examples in history of small* but well armed groups taking over a country against the will of the majority, and committing genocide. In fact, that's how genocide normally happens.

I'm also talking about that kind of progress - I was responding to the argument that technology and population increases account for the large scale of genocides in the past 200 years. I agree that this is a large factor, but I do not agree that these changes are masking an improvement in human nature. That is to say, if there had not been these developments, I do not believe that there would be a downward trend in violence and genocide over time.

The only social progress that I accept has occurred over time is coercive in nature - people being forced not to be violent.I disagree entirely with your last sentence. It's much more often the case that people need to be coerced (or manipulated) into being violent, than the the opposite.

Honestly, I think your dim view of mankind, while justified in many ways, is too pessimistic. Overall, people are not that bad, and since the Industrial Revolution there have been positive, if often highly ambivalent and hesitating, changes in human behaviour.

* I should have written "relatively small". I agree that some amount of social support has to be there. But it doesn't need to be the majority.

[Argos]

I disagree entirely with your last sentence. It's much more often the case that people need to be coerced (or manipulated) into being violent, than the the opposite.

I agree with your disagreement. :)

By 'progress' I was talking of the big picture. We´ve made an enormous progress in the ethical field in the last 1000 years. Begining with the Carta Magna, I see a continuum of improvement. Think of the individual Rights and Warrants, the Enlightment... and how mankind has changed in this interim. [now people are concerned about animal rights!]. There´s a clear trend towards the taming of our most primitive instincts.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I do not agree with that. There are plenty of examples in history of small* but well armed groups taking over a country against the will of the majority, and committing genocide. In fact, that's how genocide normally happens.

But why didn't the silent majority do anything? They we're afraid they'd be next - their own desire for survival outweighed any moral concerns they had. I consider this to be silent approval - kill them so long as you don't kill me - and morally reprehensible. It is, in my view, no different than actively supporting, but not actually participating in, the genocide.

I disagree entirely with your last sentence. It's much more often the case that people need to be coerced (or manipulated) into being violent, than the the opposite.

I suppose we'll just have to disagree on this one. One last thought, though. We have laws. Have you ever witnessed the total breakdown of social order? I haven't and I desperately hope I never do. Without the constant coercive force of law, things get ugly. While it's true that for most people under this influence that further coercion is needed to induce violence and other bad behaviour, man in his (hypothetical) natural state would likely not.

Honestly, I think your dim view of mankind, while justified in many ways, is too pessimistic. Overall, people are not that bad, and since the Industrial Revolution there have been positive, if often highly ambivalent and hesitating, changes in human behaviour.

I agree there have been advances - but in human institutions, not human nature. Take the elimination of slavery and child labour in the West. Laws changed. What about human nature did? Without these practices being made illegal, they would persist. One need only look at China, in recent months. They have inadequate child labour and anti-slavery laws, and it came back to bite them. The authorities recently raided a number of businesses (brick-makers come to mind) and freed child slaves from captivity. What stops thing like that from happening here? Laws. Institutions. People are not fundamentally different in this part of the world, and would certainly not balk at exploiting such weaknesses in law to their own benefit. (Obviously there are exceptions, but by and large, people are motivated largely - if not entirely - by self-interest).

[The Supreme Canuck]

By 'progress' I was talking of the big picture. We´ve made an enormous progress in the ethical field in the last 1000 years. Begining with the Carta Magna, I see a continuum of improvement. Think of the individual Rights and Warrants, the Enlightment... and how mankind has changed in this interim. [now people are concerned about animal rights!]. There´s a clear trend towards the taming of our most primitive instincts.

Again, coercive institutions, not actual changes in human nature.

[Disinfo Agent]

But why didn't the silent majority do anything? They we're afraid they'd be next - their own desire for survival outweighed any moral concerns they had. I consider this to be silent approval - kill them so long as you don't kill me - and morally reprehensible. It is, in my view, no different than actively supporting, but not actually participating in, the genocide.From a purely legalistic point of view, the silent majority is an accomplice, but I prefer to judge those situations with compassion. Yes, they are afraid, or deluded. They comply out of their weakness.

Mind you, often it's not so much the fear that they will be hurt as the fear of seeing their loved ones be punished for them. They are trapped by their kindness. So I've come to think that the silent majority is not intrinsically perverse. It needs to be guided and helped to do the right thing.

We have laws. Have you ever witnessed the total breakdown of social order? I haven't and I desperately hope I never do. Without the constant coercive force of law, things get ugly. While it's true that for most people under this influence that further coercion is needed to induce violence and other bad behaviour, man in his (hypothetical) natural state would likely not.

[...]

I agree there have been advances - but in human institutions, not human nature. Take the elimination of slavery and child labour in the West. Laws changed. What about human nature did? Without these practices being made illegal, they would persist. One need only look at China, in recent months. They have inadequate child labour and anti-slavery laws, and it came back to bite them. The authorities recently raided a number of businesses (brick-makers come to mind) and freed child slaves from captivity. What stops thing like that from happening here? Laws. Institutions. People are not fundamentally different in this part of the world, and would certainly not balk at exploiting such weaknesses in law to their own benefit. (Obviously there are exceptions, but by and large, people are motivated largely - if not entirely - by self-interest).Laws are not self-sustaining. They are social creations. You were talking about the complicity of silent majorities... well, the law only works because by and large the majority agrees to accept it. If the people is not ready for a given law, you can legislate all you want, and use coertion, but too many people will simply refuse to obey. And conversely, when a law becomes obsolete it can be there in print but it makes no difference, because people will forget that it even existed.

[Argos]

Again, coercive institutions, not actual changes in human nature.

I wouldn´t call the Carta Magna exactly a 'coercive' institution. It actually represents the opposite of coercion. The Enlightment, a broad and complex process rather than an institution, can´t be defined so shortly and simply. It does reflect some kind of change; a new 'meme' if you will, that will ultimately spread all over.

[Ronald Brak]

I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that discussees on this thread probably need to define terms in order to have a productive discussion.

[The Supreme Canuck]

They comply out of their weakness.

...

So I've come to think that the silent majority is not intrinsically perverse. It needs to be guided and helped to do the right thing.

Exactly. People tend to be too weak to stand up for what is right, and need to be made to act morally. They need to be coerced in some way to act correctly, because they are incapable of doing it themselves. You may not see this weakness as a moral failing, but I do. Failing to speak out against injustice is as bad as speaking for it.

... the law only works because by and large the majority agrees to accept it. If the people is not ready for a given law, you can legislate all you want, and use coertion, but too many people will simply refuse to obey. And conversely, when a law becomes obsolete it can be there in print but it makes no difference, because people will forget that it even existed.

So then why do genocides happen, if it is just small groups of people behind them? Can't people simply refuse to obey rulers who implement genocidal policies? Can't they try to stop them? Can't they rebel? They can, but don't. They are coerced into inaction, despite any moral misgivings they may have. This trait can be harnessed for good, rather than evil. Instead of forcing people to accept genocide (which you freely admit happens - "There are plenty of examples in history of small* but well armed groups taking over a country against the will of the majority, and committing genocide."), force them to accept just laws and institutions. For the most part, people will do as told - it is essential to tell them the right thing. And when they aren't told anything, when they are left to their own devices, you get anarchy. Self-interest rules, and ethics are left by the wayside.

[Disinfo Agent]

I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that discussees on this thread probably need to define terms in order to have a productive discussion.Don't be so Aristotelian. :p
I think we're understanding each other fine (with one or two minor exceptions).

[Delvo]

Again, coercive institutions, not actual changes in human nature.How can a species create institutions that are against its own true nature? How can the institutions that a species creates be anything else but a codification of the general nature of the species that created them?

Nature shows us what it's like when critters' primary instinctive behavior really, truly is to be selfish and aggressive. You don't get civilizations or even large groups living together as a unit that way. You get bears or scorpions or such. The existence of group conflict proves at least sufficient inherent peacefulness and even compassion and supportiveness for the groups to form in the first place and remain intact.

[Delvo]

And when they aren't told anything, when they are left to their own devices, you get anarchy. Self-interest rules, and ethics are left by the wayside.No, they just establish a new organized system for managing themselves. It might not be quite immediate and it might be flawed when it first gets started, but that's why they'll keep working on it.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I wouldn´t call the Carta Magna exactly a 'coercive' institution. It actually represents the opposite of coercion. The Enlightment, a broad and complex process rather than an institution, can´t be defined so shortly and simply. It does reflect some kind of change; a new 'meme' if you will, that will ultimately spread all over.

Not strictly true. The Magna Carta is extremely coercive. It forced concessions from the king, and was the beginning of the end of feudalism and absolute monarchy - the height of unrestricted self-interest.

I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that discussees on this thread probably need to define terms in order to have a productive discussion.

Give me a list of what you'd like defined, and I'll define away!

Don't be so Aristotelian. :p

What can I possibly say, but, "Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all"?

I think we're understanding each other fine (with one or two minor exceptions).

I think so, too. We just don't agree. :lol:

[Disinfo Agent]

People tend to be too weak to stand up for what is right, and need to be made to act morally. They need to be coerced in some way to act correctly, because they are incapable of doing it themselves.No, they don't need to be made to do it. What kind of morality would that be?

Under the right circumstances, I believe that most people will spontaneously do their best to be moral (with all the restrictions imposed by their personal failings, ignorance, etc.) You have to find a way to create the right conditions to allow them to act freely. The whole problem I see with societies that went wrong is that people lost the ability to decide for themselves what they should do.

So then why do genocides happen, if it is just small groups of people behind them? Can't people simply refuse to obey rulers who implement genocidal policies? Can't they try to stop them? Can't they rebel? They can, but don't."Simply"? These are never simple decisions...

Try acting morally with a gun pointed at your head.

I hope you can see that the crucial difference between us is that you see freedom of choice as a hindrance to morality, whereas I see it as a basic precondition of morality.

[Ronald Brak]

Give me a list of what you'd like defined, and I'll define away!

I'm not getting into this, just thought my suggestion might be helpful to those who are in it.

[Disinfo Agent]

I think so, too. We just don't agree. :lol:As they say, so long as we understand each other... :D

[The Supreme Canuck]

How can a species create institutions that are against its own true nature? How can the institutions that a species creates be anything else but a codification of the general nature of the species that created them?

Nature shows us what it's like when critters' primary instinctive behavior really, truly is to be selfish and aggressive. You don't get civilizations or even large groups living together as a unit that way.

In humanity's case, reason is the answer. I submit to you, Hobbes' social contract theory.

In the (strictly hypothetical) beginning, there were no laws. No society, no civilization, nothing. People took what they wanted, and only kept what they could keep other people away from. There were no rights of any kind - basically, your scorpions and bears. But man has reason. He can think. He can communicate. So, one person gets a group together and says, "Enough! Lets agree not to kill each other any more. Lets agree to property rights."

"Fine," the group says, "but how do we ensure that no one violates this agreement?"

"We create a sovereign, one person or institution that is charged with enforcing these laws, and has the powers of coercion to be able to do that - he or it will not be restricted by these laws."

Boom. Instant society brought about by self-interest. Everyone sees they would be better off outside of the state of nature, and agree to being coerced out of it.

No, they just establish a new organized system for managing themselves. It might not be quite immediate and it might be flawed when it first gets started, but that's why they'll keep working on it.

Quite true. But it isn't pleasant, and all institutional progress that has been made since the beginning of history is lost (assuming, as we do in this hypothetical, total societal collapse). Without governance, people fall back into the state of nature, and need to start over.

[The Supreme Canuck]

No, they don't need to be made to do it. What kind of morality would that be?

A very acceptable kind - see below.

I hope you can see that the crucial difference between us is that you see freedom of choice as a hindrance to morality, whereas I see it as a basic precondition of morality.That is one of the crucial differences, yes. I just do not believe for an instant that people will act morally unless forced to.

The second crucial difference is a big one - deontology versus consequentialism. You're saying that an act is not moral unless people choose freely to do the right thing. I disagree. To me, and act of moral if the outcome of that act can reasonably be expected to produce a good result - a form of utilitarianism. Now, since I do not think that the vast majority of people can be trusted to choose the course of action that produces the most utility, they need to be coerced into choosing correctly. That is perfectly moral and acceptable, since it is the outcome that matters, not the process of deciding.

As they say, so long as we understand each other... :D

... that's good enough! ;)

[Argos]

Not strictly true. The Magna Carta is extremely coercive. It forced concessions from the king

It forced the King to grant some liberties to his subjects. It is different than previous government customs. At this point concepts start to get fuzzy...

[The Supreme Canuck]

Yes, it forced the king to grant liberties... by limiting his rights.

[Disinfo Agent]

That is one of the crucial differences, yes. I just do not believe for an instant that people will act morally unless forced to.

The second crucial difference is a big one - deontology versus consequentialism. You're saying that an act is not moral unless people choose freely to do the right thing. I disagree. To me, and act of moral if the outcome of that act can reasonably be expected to produce a good result - a form of utilitarianism. Now, since I do not think that the vast majority of people can be trusted to choose the course of action that produces the most utility, they need to be coerced into choosing correctly. That is perfectly moral and acceptable, since it is the outcome that matters, not the process of deciding.
We clearly have a strong and probably unsurmountable difference of opinion, but I will write one more reply, only because I want to point out some issues we haven't touched on yet.

First, you state categorically that you "do not believe for an instant that people will act morally unless forced to". Is this belief based on any evidence, or just on your life philosophy? As difficult as assessing these things objectively always is, in my view the evidence points in the opposite direction.

Secondly, you are a utilitarian who only cares about outcomes... I have never bothered to learn much about utilitarianism, and am personally distrustful of big monolithic systems as far as morality is concerned, but I'll play by your rules for a while. Let us look at the likely outcomes.

You say the world is depressing and full of immorality because of all the senseless violence in it. You think the solution is to coerce people into behaving better. But in order to get the whole of mankind (or just a state, if you wish) to behave as you believe is right, you will have to coerce them quite strongly -- in fact, you will in all likelihood need to be very violent. And since you cannot coerce so many people by yourself, you'll need some collaborators to assist you. Who's to say that those collaborators will act exactly as you would like them to? And what will you do if they instead use their powers for different goals than you had envisioned (say, for personal gain)?

Speaking purely in terms of outcomes, I think your approach/attitude has a high risk of backfiring and creating more harm and immorality than it set out to so away with.


By the way, I agree with Argos about the Magna Carta: it reduced the amount of absolute power, that is, it diminuished the maximum amount of coertion.

[Argos]

Yes, it forced the king to grant liberties... by limiting his rights.

Well, It could have been a Minuta Carta, obliging the people to make human sacrifices to the King.

[The Supreme Canuck]

We clearly have a strong and probably unsurmountable difference of opinion...

Yes, it seems that way. No problem, there. I wasn't out to convince anyone, just to express my views.

First, you state categorically that you "do not believe for an instant that people will act morally unless forced to". Is this belief based on any evidence, or just on your life philosophy? As difficult as assessing these things objectively always is, in my view the evidence points in the opposite direction.

And, well, I see the evidence supporting my view. It is very difficult to get anything concrete out of such a complex system, though. As much as it pains me, it looks like the evidence here will never be conclusive either way. The motivations for behaviour are... complicated. Did he help that man out of altruism, or because he likes how it feels to help someone, deep down? Reasonable people will disagree.

...in order to get the whole of mankind (or just a state, if you wish) to behave as you believe is right, you will have to coerce them quite strongly -- in fact, you will in all likelihood need to be very violent. And since you cannot coerce so many people by yourself, you'll need some collaborators to assist you.

Totally correct. And you hit on my solution below - so long as the benefit is greater than the harm, it is the course of action dictated by morality. Your hand is forced and you must do it.

Who's to say that those collaborators will act exactly as you would like them to? And what will you do if they instead use their powers for different goals than you had envisioned (say, for personal gain)?

Speaking purely in terms of outcomes, I think your approach/attitude has a high risk of backfiring and creating more harm and immorality than it set out to so away with.

Yes, it does have risks. Big ones. You need to construct your system carefully in order to avoid them. What such a system would look like, I have no idea. Absolutism is out - it never works, and for the reasons you've stated. Democracy is better, but it isn't a solution. Maybe a form of modified democracy - again, I don't know. But here's where there is hope. As I've been saying all along, human institutions do improve, while people do not. So, hopefully we'll stumble onto it one day.

By the way, I agree with Argos about the Magna Carta: it reduced the amount of absolute power, that is, it diminuished the maximum amount of coertion.

No, it transferred where the coercion was going. It was a devolution of powers - feudal lords gained what powers the king lost. While the Magna Carta is often held up as the Bill of Rights of the Middle Ages, this is a myth. It was meant to wrest control from the king and place it in the hands of the lords.

[Argos]

No, it transferred where the coercion was going. It was a devolution of powers - feudal lords gained what powers the king lost. While the Magna Carta is often held up as the Bill of Rights of the Middle Ages, this is a myth. It was meant to wrest control from the king and place it in the hands of the lords.

Well, my intention with bringing up the MC is that it represented a tipping point in relation to previous uses. It was significant for that. Disinfo puts the question pretty well, by saying that it reduced the amount of coercion, and thus violence. That´s what matters to the debate for now. That humans are still mean violent beasts we all know. We are only talking about trends, small ones, with a great significance. Those trends are what we´re resorting to in hopes of finding some empirical base.

[The Supreme Canuck]

I still maintain that it is a trend in human institutions, not human behaviour, and thus has no significance in relation to human nature except that institutions can force people to act differently - human nature is not changing, merely responding.

[Delvo]

I still maintain that it is a trend in human institutions, not human behaviourThe catch is that institutions come FROM human behavior. You say we can use logic to overcome instinct, but really, if something were not within our instincts, we'd never find it logical.

And that's the problem with the whole idea of a "natural state" or what we'd do from a starting point of no regulations: there's no such starting point because we've always made sure we had regulations, because a regulated community IS the human "natural state".

[The Supreme Canuck]

The catch is that institutions come FROM human behavior. You say we can use logic to overcome instinct, but really, if something were not within our instincts, we'd never find it logical.

Right. Which is why the Hobbes example I gives works. These hypothetical people were smart enough to figure out a way to manipulate human shortcomings (namely self-interest) into a workable structure - self-interest is, paradoxically, used to limit self-interest. So, while these institutions do indeed come from human nature, they are designed in such a way that they directly oppose it.

And that's the problem with the whole idea of a "natural state" or what we'd do from a starting point of no regulations: there's no such starting point because we've always made sure we had regulations, because a regulated community IS the human "natural state".

Of course the state of nature is hypothetical. It is basically a thought experiment that aims to explain the dynamic at work. It is not an attempt at history, but at social psychology.

[Delvo]

These hypothetical people were smart enough to figure out a way...What's their motivation? That's Hobbes's problem. In order to avoid and get around the idea of a natural inclination for peaceful, friendly coexistence, it must first presuppose a natural inclination for peaceful, friendly coexistence, because people without one wouldn't have come up with the idea of trying to do so and, even if told of the idea by aliens or something like that, wouldn't have found it a good one. Another facet of the motivation problem Hobbes's idea has is the fact that not all animals are like bears & scorpions; plenty of them form groups in nature without our capacity for logic, so instinct is the only explanation.

Also, even aside from the problem of why Hobbes's people would want to do something like that even if they technically were capable of it, it also goes against several established principles of individual-level psychology that are consistent only with a species in which individuals are inherently inclined to make friends and get along, such as altruism, the importance of positive socialization with others to one's own psyche and even cognitive development and physical health, and the inclination to follow leaders.

And then even without that, the idea still has another problem in elementary logic: it adds steps that are not necessary to explain the facts it explains, thus violating Occam's Razor. It also violates an emotional version of OR at the same time: it adds emotionalism that isn't necessary either. One gains nothing from this idea but an opportunity to depict humanity in a negative and supercynical way.

[The Supreme Canuck]

What's their motivation? That's Hobbes's problem. In order to avoid and get around the idea of a natural inclination for peaceful, friendly coexistence, it must first presuppose a natural inclination for peaceful, friendly coexistence, because people without one wouldn't have come up with the idea of trying to do so and, even if told of the idea by aliens or something like that, wouldn't have found it a good one. Another facet of the motivation problem Hobbes's idea has is the fact that not all animals are like bears & scorpions; plenty of them form groups in nature without our capacity for logic, so instinct is the only explanation.

The motivation is self-interest. Think of it this way - Hobbes posits no natural inclination to peaceful behaviour (we are scorpions, not sheep. One day, though, a group gets the bright idea that their individual self-interests can be best served by forfeiting some of their freedoms to ensure security. Natural inclination = selfishness. Best way to mollify selfishness = protection from unlimited freedom.

Also, even aside from the problem of why Hobbes's people would want to do something like that even if they technically were capable of it, it also goes against several established principles of individual-level psychology that are consistent only with a species in which individuals are inherently inclined to make friends and get along, such as altruistism, the importance of positive socialization with others to one's own psyche and even cognitive development and physical health, and the inclination to follow leaders.

And that works in relatively small groups. In big ones, though, problems emerge. This is why small communes (like a kibbutz) work, while large-scale communism does not. In the first case, you can put a name and personality to every face, while in the second you cannot. In the kibbutz, your altruism kicks in because you know everyone. In the communist society, your self-interest takes over as you do not know everyone.

And then even without that, the idea still has another problem in elementary logic: it adds steps that are not necessary to explain the facts it explains, thus violating Occam's Razor. It also violates an emotional version of OR at the same time: it adds emotionalism that isn't necessary either. One gains nothing from this idea but an opportunity to depict humanity in a negative and supercynical way.

Which steps, specifically, are superfluous?

Man lives in the state of nature with absolute freedom and is ruled by self-interest. Perhaps he can form small groups naturally and live within them.

Individuals (or small groups, if you prefer) come into conflict.

A sovereign is imposed either by agreement between individuals/groups or by conquest.

[Delvo]

The motivation is self-interest.You can only decide something is in your interests if you imagine doing it in the first place. But people without a social nature wouldn't have any reason to, any more than bears do.

We only use our logic to solve problems we have and streamline the way we live our current idea of a life. Going from anarchy to archy is a major paradigm shift, and those don't happen by decision; they happen by accumulation. Cultures in the early stages of agriculture or pre-agriculture, like clearing and dropping seeds at a certain point on a migration route to pick the fruits the next time they're back, don't talk about their big plans to replace their curernt way of life with a farms-&-villages culture and invent fancy new technology; they say they put the seeds there because they get more fruit that way. The first writing was barely sufficient to record how many of certain items had been produced, transported, or traded, and couldn't be used to write down all things that could be spoken in language, because the goal was just that and nobody had any plans for making a writing system flexible enough to represent the whole language.

And we not only invent new practices gradually like that, but even adopt them in gradual stages even when introduced to much more advanced and revolutionary stuff all at once. Once the natives of North & South America knew about Spanish technology, the thing they took the quickest and most intense interest in getting more of at first wasn't steel or gunpowder; it was red and other bright-colored cloth. Cloth was something they were familiar with and already had established uses for.

So these hypothetical asocial people would apply their logic to the efficiency of their solitary lifestyle, not to an unprecedented revolutionary unnatural notion that would completely replace it by forcing them to do something they didn't like doing (hanging around together and helping each other).

Hobbes posits no natural inclination to peaceful behaviour... One day, though, a group gets the bright idea...If groups are already there at the starting point, then the force that creates them must be, so this story can't be used to explain where that came from. And in that case, they don't need to imagine and apply logic to anything new and outside of or contradictory to their nature; they'll just take what's already there in their nature and apply it to a larger scale if the population grows.

Which steps, specifically, are superfluous?If your starting point is individuals, then the premise that they won't naturally just want to come together creates the superfluous elements of them deciding to go against their nature anyway and do it for logical reasons. The alternate premise that coming together as a group is already in their nature gets to the same end result without the need for either of those two elements; they go straight to forming the group without having to ponder its advantages, and without having to go against their own nature. That makes it at least two notches better on the Occam scale.

However, now that we're also talking about a different story where there already are groups at the starting point, nothing's superfluous and Occam is silent because there are no longer two separate alternatives to choose between; the existence of groups in the first place in the "natural state" already eliminates one of them as impossible because they wouldn't be there in the natural state of a species that wasn't already naturally inclined to live in that state.

[The Supreme Canuck]

However, now that we're also talking about a different story where there already are groups at the starting point, nothing's superfluous and Occam is silent because there are no longer two separate alternatives to choose between; the existence of groups in the first place in the "natural state" already eliminates one of them as impossible because they wouldn't be there in the natural state of a species that wasn't already naturally inclined to live in that state.

And now I see where the misunderstanding came from. I've been mixing my views with Hobbes' views, which I was using for support. Hobbes can say what he wants - I was using his SoN as a simplified demonstration of my argument. From a strictly natural-sciences point of view, Rousseau's SoN is more factually accurate, but more complex (which is one of the reasons I didn't use it, the other being that the conclusions he comes to - which are not the only logical outcomes of the his starting premises - are not the conclusions I reach and so would be confusing).

Anyway, I accept that it is human nature, likely driven by biological imperative, to form small groups naturally. Larger groups are the issue - they take reasoned will to create, and can only be made stable by some form of coercion. Laws, force, etc. The Hobbes example was clearly confusing at best.

[eugenek]

If I may interrupt with something very important.




Two words for you: "Spanish Inquisition".


Funny response - I wasn't expecting that.



That's okay. Nobody does. Their two weapons are surprise, fear and ruthless efficiency.

[Van Rijn]

So what? That proves exactly zero about whether the degree of violence is genetic.

Given how many human and animal traits are not genetic, how could there not be a doubt?!

Prove it or zip it.

Wow. He can't even give his opinion on "Nature versus Nurture" in BABBling without having you jump all over him? And, given the difference between, say, lions and sheep, it does seem pretty obvious that violence does have a genetic component.

[Disinfo Agent]

He can't even give his opinion on "Nature versus Nurture" in BABBling without having you jump all over him?I have had it with would-be social Darwinists. This is the 21st century, not the 19th. If you want to claim that genes determine everything in a public forum, then be prepared to present some evidence, or be laughed out of it.

And, given the difference between, say, lions and sheep, it does seem pretty obvious that violence does have a genetic component.We're not talking about lions and sheep, are we? We're talking within species.

[Van Rijn]

I have had it with would-be social Darwinists. This is the 21st century, not the 19th. If you want to claim that genes determine everything in a public forum, then be prepared to present some evidence, or be laughed out of it.


I've done a quick scan of the previous posts, and I don't see where Delvo suggests that "genes determine everything." Can you point out where he said that?


We're not talking about lions and sheep, are we? We're talking within species.

We are? Humm, then I guess I didn't see this:


That violence exists in animals proves nothing about whether it is genetic, in the sense that your previous post suggested, that is, heritable through genes.


In any event, are you suggesting there are no genetic differences within a species, and no connection between genes and behavior? If so, I say, prove it!

[Disinfo Agent]

Delvo's idea that the "degree of violence" is determined by genetics within the human species is an extraordinary claim in this day and age. Where's your extraordinary evidence to support it?

[Van Rijn]

Disinfo, are you going to answer my questions in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/62538-humans-devolving-3.html#post1038618)?

Delvo's idea that the "degree of violence" is determined by genetics within the human species is an extraordinary claim in this day and age.


That is his idea? Where did he say that violence was completely determined by genetics?

I don't want to speak for Delvo, but my take on his argument is that there are genetic factors which predispose some species and some individuals to act in more violent ways than others. I don't see where he is saying that genetics is the only factor in violence, just that it is a factor.

My position is that we can debate on the balance of "nature versus nurture" but it is clear that both genetics and environment play a part in our behavior.


Where's your extraordinary evidence to support it?

Why would I want to support a strawman argument?

[Delvo]

I don't want to speak for Delvo, but my take on his argument is that there are genetic factors which predispose some species and some individuals to act in more violent ways than others.This began when I posted that the human species can still be evolving to become more violent or less violent if there's a natural-selection pressure against those who are either more or less predisposed to violence than others. That has built in to it the idea that different humans have different levels genetic predisposition for violence. The way other animal species came up was to illustrate that genetics must influence how violent behavior will be because that's a context in which upbringing can be ruled out and the behavioral differences remain.

[Van Rijn]

This began when I posted that the human species can still be evolving to become more violent or less violent if there's a natural-selection pressure against those who are either more or less predisposed to violence than others. That has built in to it the idea that different humans have different levels genetic predisposition for violence. The way other animal species came up was to illustrate that genetics must influence how violent behavior will be because that's a context in which upbringing can be ruled out and the behavioral differences remain.

Okay, but let's clear this up completely:

Do you think that genetics is the only factor in violence?

Do you think that environment also plays a role?

[Delvo]

No to the first, yes to the second. That's why I used the word "predisposition", so there'd be no question about it. :rolleyes:

[Van Rijn]

No to the first, yes to the second. That's why I used the word "predisposition", so there'd be no question about it. :rolleyes:

I understood that, but I thought it would be a good idea if it was made crystal clear. :)

[mugaliens]

I think we're evolving to expand to the confines of our environment, including a larger degree of diversity, so that when the next cataclysmic event occurs, at least some of us will be more likely to survive (likely the fat ones, provided sources of fresh water are present).

[ASEI]

I don't think evolution plays much of a role in the timescales in which civilization and culture have become dominant. Given an environment where there are no selective pressures for physical fitness, mutations will accumulate which will serve to degrade it over time. (blind cave fish, for example)

100,000 years from now, assuming some absurdly static state of current levels of prosperity and technology, we would probably lose a great deal of physical ability. But probably 200 years from now we'll be messing around with our own DNA, creating AIs, ect, and natural selection won't have much to say about it.

What is important over the timescales within which human civilization has developed is not genetics, but culture, economics, and technology.

(Furthermore theres no reason to think that a certain willingness to be violent when circumstances require it is maladaptive, even in the modern world. Pacifists can't exist independent of a protector.)

[ASEI]

Ah, since the OP seems to be about violence:

Violence, properly applied, is a necessary survival trait. Given any scenario where there is some resource and it is not defended by one party, it becomes the best response for another party to prey on it. He gets the resource, the original owner gets screwed. If the owner can make it more trouble for the other parties to attack than any benifit they would derive from the stolen resource, then it is no longer a best response to prey on them.

Basically, there can't be any undefended wealth. If you don't defend what you need to survive, someone/thing will take it from you by force. This goes for all of nature:

Cacti (plural sp?) sticking spikes out to defend their hard won water in the desert

Warthogs deterring predators with teeth and tusks

Scam charity organizations preying on the undefended (insufficiently skeptical) generosity of the public (and the publics defensive response: charity monitoring and rating organizations).

This isn't a specific flaw of mankind, it is a logically necessary consequence of the nature of interaction for all life from the smallest bacteria to the largest nations.

As for violence insanely or maladaptively applied ... it happens. Any aspect of human nature (or nature in general) can be screwed up, as long as it is not so often as to render the original trait maladaptive.

[IrenicRetral]

On a roll, and feeling like humanity needs a recall:

http://www.startribune.com/crime/story/1319002.html

Is it just that we are made aware of more and more of these kinds of things, or that the vast majority of us are ever more apalled by them, or are more and more humans unable to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy behavior?

It is impossible to "devolve" on fundamental terms atleast. After reading the article I'm not much astonished. Humans have always been "stupid" we will continue to be.

[rebel]

Okay, but let's clear this up completely:

Do you think that genetics is the only factor in violence?

Do you think that environment also plays a role?

Not only environment but leadership including churches and the government. Churches lead the government into wars, they are the #1 financial provider for violence. People can't even turn to their church for moral guidance anymore. The reason for our devolution is because of our change in Social Norms. Since 1914 our government has allowed "killing" in the form of wars. That's the feather that broke the camels back, starting an avalanche effect of peoples moral or our devolution. Definition 3 from below.

Inflected Form(s): de·volved ; de·volv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin devolvere, from de- + volvere to roll -- more at VOLUBLE
transitive senses
: to pass on (as responsibility, rights, or powers) from one person or entity to another <devolving to western Europe full responsibility for its own defense -- Christopher Lane>
intransitive senses 1 a : to pass by transmission or succession <the estate devolved on a distant cousin> b : to fall or be passed usually as a responsibility or obligation <the responsibility for breadwinning has devolved increasingly upon women -- Barbara Ehrenreich>
2 : to come by or as if by flowing down <his allegedly subversive campaigns ... devolve from his belief in basic American rights -- Frank Deford>
3 : to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution <where order devolves into chaos -- Johns Hopkins Magazine>

[mugaliens]

I don't think evolution plays much of a role in the timescales in which civilization and culture have become dominant. Given an environment where there are no selective pressures for physical fitness, mutations will accumulate which will serve to degrade it over time. (blind cave fish, for example)

100,000 years from now...

Yet all versions of domesticated dogs and house cats have evolved from the evolutionary pressure exerted by humans on the very few natural breeds of dog.

In all, during the last 2-3 thousand years, but primarily over the last thousand.

Let's not forget laboratory mice and rats evolved over the last few decades...

[Disinfo Agent]

This began when I posted that the human species can still be evolving to become more violent or less violent if there's a natural-selection pressure against those who are either more or less predisposed to violence than others. That has built in to it the idea that different humans have different levels genetic predisposition for violence. The way other animal species came up was to illustrate that genetics must influence how violent behavior will be because that's a context in which upbringing can be ruled out and the behavioral differences remain.What Delvo clearly still doesn't get is that there is no hard evidence whatsoever to suggest that natural selection pressures could affect a (supposed) human predisposition towards violence at all.

Moreover, upbringing cannot be ruled out of animal behaviour. We all know that the same animal can act more or less aggressively, depending on whether it was brought up in the wild, or in captivity.

[Maksutov]

No devolution.

Humans are just evolving into cyborgians.

As anyone who reads this must realize.

[Van Rijn]

What Delvo clearly still doesn't get is that there is no hard evidence whatsoever to suggest that natural selection pressures could affect a (supposed) human predisposition towards violence at all.


There is no evidence that genetics has a connection to behavior? Are you serious?


Moreover, upbringing cannot be ruled out of animal behaviour. We all know that the same animal can act more or less aggressively, depending on whether it was brought up in the wild, or in captivity.

If you bother to look back at the posts, I specifically asked if environment played a role in behavior, and he answered "yes." Are you actually reading this thread?

[Disinfo Agent]

There is no evidence that genetics has a connection to behavior? Are you serious?Are you spinning? That's a straw man. I never wrote such a thing. Delvo's claim was about violent behaviour.

If you bother to look back at the posts, I specifically asked if environment played a role in behavior, and he answered "yes." Are you actually reading this thread?Are you actually reading what Delvo wrote? It doesn't seem like it.

[Delvo]

Everyone, please stop arguing with Disinfo Agent. It's obvious he won't let go of his conviction that environment is the sole determinor of behavior (or at least human behavior) and there are no genetic factors, no matter what, at least not unless and until a specific "violence gene" is found in humans. And it means I end up seeing his posts (or parts of them) in your quotes. And in this case, it even means I need to defend him on one point...

If you bother to look back at the posts, I specifically asked if environment played a role in behavior, and he answered "yes." Are you actually reading this thread?He could easily see your question and my answer as relating only to humans, in which case it's possible for my comments on animals to be interpretted as meaning that they are not environment-influenced.

What it actually meant was that, although both kinds of factors are real, you can eliminate one from consideration in some circumstances. That's what twin studies are about: eliminating genetics as a possible cause of difference, leaving only environment. Their counterpart is to watch non-social animals, animals that have too little brain power to respond to environment very complexly, and animals that are raised in the same surroundings, or by using statistics to pick out the ones that happen to be equal in some way already so that at least that trait is eliminated as a possible cause of other differences (like comparing humans with the same level of education to each other and not to anyone else with more or less education, so you know that any difference you find can't be a result of educational differences because there are none in your comparison).

[Disinfo Agent]

It's obvious he won't let go of his conviction that environment is the sole determinor of behavior (or at least human behavior) and there are no genetic factors, no matter what, at least not unless and until a specific "violence gene" is found in humans.I want to clarify that I have no such conviction. I am agnostic about the importance of genetics in human behaviour. He is the one who seems to have an unwavering faith in the fantastic importance of natural selection in human affairs.

In this day and age, I say that people with such pseudoscientific faiths need to be challenged to prove it or zip it.

[Van Rijn]

Last comment, and then I'm done:

Genetics plays a key role in determining brain structure, initial brain chemistry, hormone levels and so forth. These, in turn, affect behavior.

It would take faith to deny that, as Disinfo seems to be doing.

[Disinfo Agent]

Van Rijn has shifted the goal posts, softening Delvo's claim to genetic determinism. It started off as "violence levels" being selected by natural selection; now it's been watered down to trivialities like "brain structure, initial brain chemistry, hormone levels and so forth" being genetic, as though the latter were unquestionably the same as the former.
It would take me some evidence to buy into that equation.