I guess we have come a long way; we're less violent now.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Ask Dr. Universe

Having little experience in a primative society [unless you count Redmond], I couldn't say. What do you think?

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 09, 2000


Are these the same guys that wear the wicker baskets on their weenies? No wonder they're violent; those things are scratchy.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 09, 2000.


If you are talking about the folks in Redmond, I don't know :o) And I am not going to investigate.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 09, 2000.

"Let's think about a few basic ideas about evolution and violence. What seems to make all living things tick is the desire to reproduce and pass on their genes. Whether you're a flower or a salamander or a human, you are driven by your wish to pass along your genetic traits to the next generation.

So, our goal is to pass along our genes. Simple enough. But if that's the case, why would a soldier go to war and be willing to die for his country? And there you have it - one of the main contradictions of human evolution and behavior. How does this make sense?

Patton believes young men will risk getting killed to gain status, to be important in the society and to have more children to give genes to. Patton bases this idea on his research and on earlier studies. "

Interesting. I wonder how Patton would explain large "civilized" societies and nuclear war. Seems to me men have become more deadly, and no less violent.

How would he explain the behavior of the fighter pilots and the "surgical bombings"? How would he explain country leaders of "super-powers"? Could it be that men and leaders of such countries want to give "genetic traits to the next generation..." and by the same token take control of the world with their philosophies?

Tribal men might be violent, but at least their egos are in check. "Civilized" men are civily violent and out of control.

IMHO, ofcourse.

-- (y@x.x), May 10, 2000.

Since standard reproduction techniques have been replaced by cloning, isn't this a moot issue? If testosterone were eliminated, wouldn't all violence eventually be eliminated? Were men only needed in an evolutionary sense to get us to the point where women could function on their own in orderly societies?

[Hold on there, son. I'll be with ya in a minute. I'm busy right now posting how your gender is no longer required.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

And there you have it - one of the main contradictions of human evolution and behavior. How does this make sense?

"If the world were a logical place, men would ride side-saddle." -Rita Mae Brown.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 10, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ