[MSM Hobbes]

Comments regarding the following?

http://www.killology.com/article_agress&viol.htm

http://www.killology.com/art_trained_killing.htm

[redivivus]

When i read the topic i thought it was "Humans and Mulder" for a second.

As for killing, i dont know he can state that it is "unnatural" at the top of the second link. All animals kill other organisms for food, and many kill for other reasons.

The need to kill each other applies to humans as we split a world between 6.5 billion and it cannot support us all. Just wait till we reach 12 billion in 40 years or so.

[linskyjack]

Obviously, you didn't read the article linked. Now I did, and lots of what he says makes sense. We do have a powerful resistance to killing ones own kind----Excellent article that I am going to book mark. By the way, from my experience in the Army, I think the analysis is right on.

[sy2]

Well I didn't read the entire articles, but my first reaction from skimming is that I don't really buy that all people - and all animals, according to the first article - have a "built-in" aversion to killing members of their own species.

The article mentions horned-animals and piranha, and how they fight but don't kill each other, but plenty of other species of animals kill members of their own species. Off of the top of my head: male hippos, I know for a fact, kill previous alpha-males' offspring when they take over the pack to ensure that their DNA gets passed on (I believe this also happens with lions and other big cats, but I don't know for sure). Chimps, or apes, or one of the monkey family, has actually been observed murdering members of their own species - they wouldn't even eat it; the commentator on the show I saw (probably Animal Planet) said that the entire episode puzzled scientists because they couldn't puzzle out the motivation for the beating and killing of the chimp in question.

As far as humans are concerned, I think our species has only recently really started valuing human life. People used to turn out by the hundreds or thousands for public hangings. Think of the Roman gladiators and the thirst for killing that took place back then. And before that were the human sacrifices, sometimes taking place on the order of hundreds of people being killed at onces, that were popular among South American (not exactly sure on who did what) tribes. And who knows how necessary it was for members of our species to kill each other before recorded history.

[linskyjack]

Well I wouldn't call it a thirst for killing----Remember, in the two examples you gave, people are watching others either being put to death or killing another person. I don't know if we are hard-wired to enjoy that----maybe people enjoy that kind of stuff because they aren't involved in the proceedings. Other then that, you make some good points.

[sy2]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Well I wouldn't call it a thirst for killing----Remember, in the two examples you gave, people are watching others either being put to death or killing another person. I don't know if we are hard-wired to enjoy that----maybe people enjoy that kind of stuff because they aren't involved in the proceedings. Other then that, you make some good points.

Well, you're right, and I thought about that after I made the post. There's a distinction to be made between playing the spectator and the executioner, but it still shows that this aversion to violence/killing is something that changes with time.

Sure we have the UFC today, but if anyone actually tried to sell tickets to an event where the point was to kill the other guy, society would surely condemn them.

[linskyjack]

Have you read the book, I forget the title (darn!) about man being hunted in the primordial wilderness and natural selection seeing to it that those with better functioning brains survived to procreate. Its a theory that is being thrown around for our brain development.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by sy2

Sure we have the UFC today, but if anyone actually tried to sell tickets to an event where the point was to kill the other guy, society would surely condemn them.

UFC's record is safer than Pro Boxing. I really don't know why people cite that as an example of violence. It's nothing more than a martial sport like boxing, Tae Kwon Do or Judo.

And you make an important distinction - one of the limit - the limit is death. Most higher animals will eagerly engage in intra-specific violence, but will not kill unless they are left in cirumstances outside what they would face in the wild(I'm leaving out things like infanticide for now, which is a behavior male Gorillas typically practice against their "step-children").

Originally Posted by sy2

Well I didn't read the entire articles, but my first reaction from skimming is that I don't really buy that all people - and all animals, according to the first article - have a "built-in" aversion to killing members of their own species.

The article mentions horned-animals and piranha, and how they fight but don't kill each other, but plenty of other species of animals kill members of their own species.

Horned animals and piranha will kill members of their own species also. But they rarely do it in the wild. Many species of fish will kill members of their own species if they don't have enough "space". They will fight to maintain their territory.

Konrad Lorenz wrote a very interesting book on the topic that one of the articles Hobbes posted actually mentioned, On Agression. In it he goes into detail on how intra-specific aggresion works. When a member of a species is violent toward other members of it's own species, that behavior is very distinct from killing prey that it feeds on. For example, a lion will kill a gazelle silently, with eyes wide open and no visible display of fear or anger. But when fighting against another lion, it will make as much noise as possible, display fear and anger, and attempt to frighten(terrorize? ) rather than kill. Lorenz points to this as an example of the aversion to killing members of it's own species.

Also, with large mammals such as deer and buffalo, injuries are rare among fights and deaths are even more rare. The fight is a contest. The goal is to show superiority over the enemy, not to kill the enemy. Lorenz mentions this and compares it to human aggression. He says that he cannot imagine a non-psychopathic human wishing death to his enemy(remember the phrase , "That's a fate I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy"?).

But if you happen to have a knife or other weapon at hand, in the "heat of the moment" you may kill the person you only intended to "school". Again, anyone but a psychopath would experience extreme remorse for such an action.

Very interesting links Hobbes. Thanks!

[redivivus]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Obviously, you didn't read the article linked. Now I did, and lots of what he says makes sense. We do have a powerful resistance to killing ones own kind----Excellent article that I am going to book mark. By the way, from my experience in the Army, I think the analysis is right on.

I read the first 2 paragraphs of each page and got bored. It is obvious that as we are raised in a society that is anti-killing and taught from children that it is wrong and that human beings are valuable, we are going to resist killing each other. I dont need a book to tell me that.

[linskyjack]

I am not talking about that article---I am talking about the Christopher Buckley piece.

[sy2]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Have you read the book, I forget the title (darn!) about man being hunted in the primordial wilderness and natural selection seeing to it that those with better functioning brains survived to procreate. Its a theory that is being thrown around for our brain development.

No I haven't, but if you remember the title let me know - sounds interesting

[sy2]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

UFC's record is safer than Pro Boxing. I really don't know why people cite that as an example of violence. It's nothing more than a martial sport like boxing, Tae Kwon Do or Judo.

And you make an important distinction - one of the limit - the limit is death. Most higher animals will eagerly engage in intra-specific violence, but will not kill unless they are left in cirumstances outside what they would face in the wild(I'm leaving out things like infanticide for now, which is a behavior male Gorillas typically practice against their "step-children").

Horned animals and piranha will kill members of their own species also. But they rarely do it in the wild. Many species of fish will kill members of their own species if they don't have enough "space". They will fight to maintain their territory.

Konrad Lorenz wrote a very interesting book on the topic that one of the articles Hobbes posted actually mentioned, On Agression. In it he goes into detail on how intra-specific aggresion works. When a member of a species is violent toward other members of it's own species, that behavior is very distinct from killing prey that it feeds on. For example, a lion will kill a gazelle silently, with eyes wide open and no visible display of fear or anger. But when fighting against another lion, it will make as much noise as possible, display fear and anger, and attempt to frighten(terrorize? ) rather than kill. Lorenz points to this as an example of the aversion to killing members of it's own species.

Also, with large mammals such as deer and buffalo, injuries are rare among fights and deaths are even more rare. The fight is a contest. The goal is to show superiority over the enemy, not to kill the enemy. Lorenz mentions this and compares it to human aggression. He says that he cannot imagine a non-psychopathic human wishing death to his enemy(remember the phrase , "That's a fate I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy"?).

But if you happen to have a knife or other weapon at hand, in the "heat of the moment" you may kill the person you only intended to "school". Again, anyone but a psychopath would experience extreme remorse for such an action.

Very interesting links Hobbes. Thanks!

Interesting stuff BF, thanks for that info

That's a particularly interesting note about the lions. I wonder if many or all species of animals that "kill their own" do it in a distinctive manner compared to when they hunt prey. I'll have to look into that book. Thanks again.

[LuckyStrike]

Originally Posted by redivivus

When i read the topic i thought it was "Humans and Mulder" for a second.

Ha! Me too. In fact whenever I see the word "Murder" in a thread title, I always read it as "Mulder" for a split second. I think it has something to do with the brain's tendency to see the first two letters and last two letters of a word and infer the word?

[redivivus]

Originally Posted by LuckyStrike

Ha! Me too. In fact whenever I see the word "Murder" in a thread title, I always read it as "Mulder" for a split second. I think it has something to do with the brain's tendency to see the first two letters and last two letters of a word and infer the word?

Yes i think we should force Mulder to change his screenname before he causes us all permanent damage.

[valley]

Originally Posted by redivivus

When i read the topic i thought it was "Humans and Mulder" for a second.

You're lucky....at first glance, I thought it said "Harems and Mulder"

I'm not sure which topic is more disturbing...either way I wouldnt want to dwell on one or the other for too long.