Competition,Jealousy and Violence are Innate

Competition, Jealousy and Violence are innate human characteristics … inescapable.

If true for the individual … true for the nation … since nations are simply a collection of individuals.

If true … behaviour resulting from these characteristics is natural and is not bad or evil.

If true … these characteristics are the fuel that propel human evolution.

For me … the question that begs to be asked … are we moving in a predetermined direction?

I wouldn’t say we’re moving in a predetermined direction. Nor that we are evolving (I presume you use this word in a “progressive” sense?) toward a predetermined point.
One thing for sure though is that conflict is inevitable. Human beings form groups and have ideas ruling the behaviour of those groups; conflict between groups is inevitable. Even those “peace lovers” need to fight a war to enact their ideas. And, inevitably, another group with contrary ideas on what constitutes peace will battle them. This cycle continues ad infinitum.

Even though I don’t believe in free will, i know that the mental qualities of humans are one of the most flexible qualities we have.
Certain behaviors can be stopped and are not inescapable. We are products of our environment. It is possible to make, for example,
a very non-violent environment, and it can be enjoyable, to the point where people buy into it fully.
Violence isn’t some inexcapable force, it’s finite. It’s a pattern. It’s information.
Information can be rewritten or erased.

You and Fent should know better.

I agree … there is certainly no evidence supporting the notion of predetermination. Yet … a pattern seems self-evident. The only thing that has changed since the beginning of time … the beginning of the human species … is the scope and scale of ‘conflict’ … conflict being the natural outcome of our innate characteristics Competition, Jealousy and Violence … cause and effect. (Scope referring to the number of individuals and scale referring to the extent of violence.)

If we start with the Biblical story of Cain and Abel … the scope is limited to 2 individuals and the scale of violence is limited to one death. While the Biblical story is certainly fiction … a cave man clubbing his neighbour tells the same story.

Over time the ‘scope’ expanded to family … clan … tribe … village … walled city … kingdom … nation … and today … the globe. Since there is a direct correlation between scope and scale of violence … the number of deaths would be expected to grow at the same pace … seems it has. The end result seems obvious.

The curtailing of violence (which ironically is often done by the threat of violence) often only leads to aggressive instincts being pushed back inward toward the self.
Instincts deemed immoral by society are repressed thus causing self-castigation, depression, shame, and guilt.

Outward violence or inward violence, it’s still violence.

Dear Tom,

Please enjoy this obsessively worked out scientific hypothesis that is the exact opposite of yours:
orgonelab.org/saharasia_en.htm

That as late as 4000BC most humans were absolutely peaceful, non-competetive, loving life-forms without care and no notion of warfare; and how it came to be that psychosocial disturbance perverted this basic goodness into a psychotic self-perpetuating cult of violence.

-WL

DeMeo’s thesis is very interesting and informative … but please don’t confuse me with the facts. :slight_smile: Although, knowing that my supposition is only valid for the past 6,000 years doesn’t hurt too much. :slight_smile:
I still struggle with the image of newborn twins nursing at their mothers’ breasts … with the bigger twin happily allowing the smaller one his share of mother’s milk … even 6,000 years ago. :slight_smile:
DeMeo’s findings and arguments that tie the genesis of ‘patrism’ to the Old World Desiccation may shed some light on the current ‘buzz’ around 2012 … the ‘Age of Aquarius’ … the Mayan Prophecies … all suggesting a transformation to a higher consciousness.
Krishnamurti constantly stressed the need for a revolution in the consciousness of every human being and emphasized that such revolution cannot be brought about by any external entity, be it religious, political or social.
Perhaps we need to wait for some serious cosmic disruption of our environment??

Simply because something is natural doesn’t mean we can’t ascribe the judgment of bad or evil to it, nor does it allow you to ascribe it as not bad or evil.

I found DeMeo’s theory interesting, as well, and wonder if there are later studies along the same lines.

Neanderthals and Sapiens co-existed for an as yet undetermined number of years; however, since we have scraps of Neanderthal DNA, they obviously intermingled during the over-lap. At the time, were both species peaceful? It would seem the Neanderthals were, based on funerary rites. Archeological evidence shows that Neanderthals probably followed certain burial rites that could be mean a symbolic belief in an after-life. Artifacts don’t necessarily support an ‘armored’ species; rather a hunter-gatherer species. Neanderthals lived prior to Sapiens, did they both come out of Africa as a result of the dessication and deforestation of the areas shown in DeMeo’s maps? Or did Neanderthals leave first, while Saharasia was still a fertile savannah?

In any case, I think what DeMeo calls patristic came later. Iow, it didn’t start out as innate but became a part of the human psyche over thousands of years, as a part of evolution as the result of circumstances outside our control.

I only read the beginning of the article, but the 4000 BC mark is exactly heads on, I’ve been noticing that for a while myself, and locked on to the exact same age in tracing the evolution of statecraft. The civilization of Caral in Peru is a good indicator of this, no known evidence that warfare EVER existed in it’s formation and maintenance, it was a civilization of peaceful, mutual trade and getting high.

youtube.com/watch?v=UZCmPb8dt_g

This theory focuses on the thesis some shit happened after 4000 BC, focusing on the lack of war in Caral prior to it, and the chaos after it.

Statecraft and record keeping went into a brutal overdrive about 2500 years ago. That’s when most of my strategic works I started studying came into existence, and this is also the period of the perhaps twilight of ‘high antiquity’… a period that I think may be less it’s twilight and more it’s golden age as that’s when it’s myths and cultures most rapidly expanded- from Ireland to India. There was a rapid build up of fortifications, the saraswarti river system militarized, as did the agean and mesopotamia. There is increasing evidence many of the inland cities in places such as Issyk kul, as well as along the fertile ocean areas, were flooded over a second time. This suggests:

The first complex civilizations were not agriculturally based upon our methodology of fully organized, denaturalized agricultural systems, they had simple forms of agriculture, exploiting the fertility of marshlands with the simplest forms of irrigation, AT BEST. Issak Kul screams this- they literally flooded, farming the easiest place, and built up city states to control the feral yet high produce farmlands that managed to grow on their own. Marsh land ended, they fucking up and left. The origins of the Aryan synthesis would begin in this era, and the proto-Zoroastrian and proto-Vedic religion would split and head south, labeling one another’s dieties as the devils of the other after leaving central asia. Their steppe culture (and oh yes, Issyk kul was well on the steppe, always has been right smack on the main silk road trade route) was clearly chariot based. India was taken first in 1600 BC, and the west collapsed four hundred years later- undoubtedly due to Hittite resistence to them, and Egyptian outright routing them, in 1200 BC. We note them as the sea people, chariot based warriors who traveled though without much cultural influence, india glorifies them. It lets you appreciate how much more complex western civilization was to indic civilization of that period, as we can’t even remember who they were and only noted the catastrophe mysteriously before the old civilizations reasserted themselves later on, but india now outright identifies with them!

Typically, chariot tactics require ten men holding pikes or spears per chariot to function, in a escort fashion- as due tanks today- even in Iraq, in order to not be overtaken- as it’s just too damn easy for someone to sneak up on the ancient or modern version with a hammer and swiftly disable the war machine. This isn’t too far off from the size of a family unit in antiquity, with varying ages and sex. We were basically dealing with a refugge/migration crisis. It collapsed international civilization for several hundred years, only a few states survived- though in a deeply ignorant fashion such as Sparta preserving elements of it’s precollapse society. These chariots were likely wagons.

The oldest outright fortified and continuously occupied city in the western world would be Jericho. It was a pioneer of the concept of poliorcetics, and the discreption of the seige of it, when it’s walls collapsed, suggests to me that it had a inner and outer wall… but purely by accident. It was people’s houses… as people LIVED in the walls, as the Jews sent in scouts to talk to people… and somehow when the horns were blown, the walls miraculously fell down… which suggests to me not all the jews left the walls. I am left to assume… Jericho was less a walled city as a small few acre encampment with a city village commons in the center, using the edges of the houses to keep the cattle in, building up the walls overtime on the outer side of it larger and large to hold off invaders, without any concept of a city code to maintaining the wall, on how to exand the city in relationship to population pressure, etc. They fell easy as fuck, and had to have inside help in pulling that off from a fifth column. Later on, inner and outer walls would become a default characteristic of cities, incase one was breached, the inner would hold. In this era, it was a accident of it’s evolution.

Gobekli Tepe was the oldest civilization we know of- it’s like 12,000 years old, pre agriculture and pre animal husbandry, right on the edge of the collapse of the ice lakes that flooded the fuck out of everything- quite literally the age of the biblical genesis of the persian gulf and Bahrain, or Krishna’s Dwarka of India. They never knew of or solved Dido’s Problem of circular circumference to max area in her founding of Carthage- in all honesty, we still haven’t fully solved it, as we still struggle with squaring the circle… and once one building overgrew itself, they built a new one, then another, then another, then another, much like Bedouin storage shelters of the Maghrib or the classical largescale communes in china a few hundred years ago, though both used to the present… were established in the pre-modern era. Jericho couldn’t pull this off, most early mesopotamian solves this issue by using rectangular city structures- as we still due today- which is costly to maintain during a defense as compared to a circular city, but rather simple to expand and fortify- which suggests Jericho remarkably didn’t know crap about other societies, and lived happily ignorant and set in their ways, as most societies of that era did. The greeks used circular cities with a grid, and when they expanded, they just built a new, larger wall… with the arcropolis, the older, naturally fortified site of it’s dark age refugees, becoming the seat of government and religion. The cities of asia minor usually didn’t have this option, as they were stuck way the fuck up in the mountains on peaks (many of the greek cities have been located, as of 2004, in rather improbably mountain top spots- they really were scared of invasion and never left the acropolis stage- as their mountains were much larger and more steppe, though they did build marinas and have small port settlements concurrent with their eagle’s nest).

Greece suffered a agriculture and building boom, much as modern china is today importing food from America, and had to import most of it’s food from Scythia. They continued their silly classical feuds, and their warfare matched the increase of their wealth, without the great strategic concerns of a total conquest of a major city state by another- most they had to worry about was a embarrassing ass whopping from another state. It was mostly prestige issues, and the greek religion developed the concept of the trophy and battlefield memorial. Their armies developed heavy infanty, as cities could afford increase armor so people wouldn’t die so quickly in pointless battle, and they mostly wore one another out in fighting on the scarce few plane areas that existed in very mountainous greece. Missle technology was known and frowned upon- the Spartans were awesome in exploiting the tactical synthesis when it was fought on the plains, but sucked balls when pressed against a opponent that desired very much to live and broke with tradition in choosing hit and run attack, missile attacks, and a scorch earth policy. The spartans also sucked at siege warfare- a good wall could confound them… not a people known for their masonry, therefor their anti-masonry skills suffered considerably. They were known to encamp beneath the walls of Athens for years at a time without knowing what to do. Athens eventually said screw that and started isolating the spartans and shooting them with arrows. Persians walked in with a 100,000 large army, and overran the mainland, and found the greeks had no ports large enough to sustain the very large Phoenician fleet- storms eventually ended up killing it off- and found it’s infantry, though similarly armed to the greek- were all poor conscripts, and couldn’t afford the Save-My-Ass armor the greek heavy infantry had. Greeks fought dirty compared to their normal way of fighting, and never looked back, never really turning back to it after expelling the persians the final time. Macedonians benefited from this hugely, as did carthage, and eventually Rome. The Alexandian empire rose and fell, leaving behind it’s standardization of political power via conscription from newly formed fortified city states, which all too often were for the next thousand years just tribes forced to pick a stop and live with a few others, forming voting blocks and internal representation, as well as a tax base- much as indians in the west were forced on reservations in the west- but in this case over a thousand of years, in a quite fluid and rather random fashion as per needs of the regional rulers of the period.

This is the era that the methodology of modern statecraft began to crystalize. You can see echoes of Hobbes and Machiavelli in this era, from Egypt to China. 1500 BC is it’s high point classically, to 500 BC. The birth of Christ is it’s widest eclectic scope, while the tenth to eleventh century shows a Renaissance of interest. 1400 to the present is the modern scope, originating during the Ottoman weakening of the aegean and reconquest, as well as the final collapse of Constantinople. Many of the Byzantines experimented during this era- the intellectual left for Italy, while the locals, especially on the Islands, just got crazy inventive in building complex mazes in the city to disorient the turkish pirates, while building mountaintop agoras as their ancestors did during the first greek darkage. Many on mainland anatolia returned to digging underground, leading the turks into the most complex and devious complex of underground fortifications developed in history- save for the latter half of the twentieth century in states such as North Korea… more advanced in my opinion than the French fortifictions.

Modern notions of warfare in the west of the western world intensified as the manorial system that turned into the early Fuedal system evolved in it’s scope… increased hydrolics lead to increase mechanization, the threat of Avar and Viking attacks lead to fortification under Frankish strongment, the reestablishment of learning, ADVANCED over the ad hoc, randomized and largely neglected Roman system of write a book and maybe someone will keep it around, perhaps even read it. Books during this era were not status symbols, what was written was considered important, expensive relics from another age valued by the illiterate aristocracy that wanted to preserve something civilized, perhaps read outloud for their enjoyment, or read on the rare occasion they could read. Clergy and monks mostly were the ones who could read, and had a corner of the understanding of legal concepts, and so unsurprisingly the old testiment concepts of just wars were pressed WHEN wars happened. Ask a Friar what was right or wrong about the conduct of this or that war… friar is gonna crack open a bible and take a ganger at the old testiment, and repeat what was written then prohibition wise! Europe went by bible, until it industrialized and experienced a population explosion of the likes the levant was never able to sustain, and had to gradually chuck it. The longer range of complex, ever more powerful ballistics, be it in seige warfare or on the battlefield, as well as increase mobility of highly complex calvary and eventually infantry capable of holding against calvary lead to a emphasis on investment in cultivating instead of the greek concept of natural fortifications, geometrically complex masonry coupled with specially prepared land, as was the celtic and germanic tradition- but this time abandoning the emphasis on circular defense, and designing it to counter ballastics and seige assaults with as few men in holding as possible. This lead to as few as 6 men holding off for a entire fighting season a entire siege army! Eventually, in the 12th century, the English Exchequer under Dubois said fuck that, and recommended just burning all the fields around the cities, and starving them into submission. The freedom of the nobility to reject the king shrank dramatically. Likewise, roughly the same time, still given their greater numbers and the importance of the free towns that both the crown and nobility looked at as a source of funding, military strength as well as a point of choas and rebellion, had to get together from time to time to put the freetown rebellions down… and the nobles would grab the king and make him sign random shit, like the Magna Carta. King would forget it, they would remind them of it… it was a back and forth drama, and many townspeople died in their feuds. This was also the age when Vegetius came back into vogue, and roman style militarization increased, as opposed to the celtic-norman system. English royalty became much more dynamic, visiting various parts of their hereditary realm within England and outside of it, taking it’s court along with it. Circuit court judges did much the same. Navy expanded, as did customs, and picking on the Irish and French.

Europe on a whole expanded, unless you were byzantine… and all was good for a few hundred years, excess fighters sent on crusades in spain, north africa, greece, and the middle east, banking flourish under the knights, and learning prospered under the nobility. The church enforced secularism to break the power of the princes and the kings over the church, trusting in the religious strongholds of towns to offer republicanized resistence. Church also expanded it’s territorial claims, as well as claimed it’s political indifference as being above such mundane matters and also claimed it had the right to crown kinds an revoke rights to land, and to mediate disputes. None of this sat well with everyone, and some kept better records than others and knew various claims were bullshit, and a good many people died over the semantics. With the collapse of the byzantine empire- both times, we see a sudden increase in pogroms of locals- be it heretics, foreigners, or jews, and counter crusades. Alot of these techniques were not christian, but learned from the Muslims in Spain and the holy land- who were well practiced in the art of inquisition, but being related religions with similar concepts, adopted them with enthusiasm. Schlasticism expanded during this era, as inquisition and scholasticism have similar roots and are but opposite sides of the same coin- you won’t find one without the other in any society, as both deiverge from truths derived from authority and revelation to the easily lead and easily impressed masses, both use complex systems of reasoning and arcane logical methodology. With the merger of this tradition with cannon law, the pathway to modern civil lawcourts as well as international law opened up, though in England with it’s natural and common law traditions with a deeper antiquity, it developed differently, with more psychological depth and emphasis on the community’s and individual’s concept of right and wrong, be it a jury trial or trial by combat.

All these confluences lead to the renaissance, and the particularized fighting styles of the states in the ethnographic analysis of guys like Machiavelli. The swiss canton structure with it’s independent, capital minded mercanary armies who none the less had high esprite corps and long traditions of technical expertise passed down from one generation to the next (dido
s problem was a none issue for the swiss, as they were naturally fortified and living and tilling simple land, much as Issyk Kul- from Hannibal to the middle ages they didn’t change much save in religion and accepting their nook in the tactical synthesis). The power of the princes and the power of the pope went all out, all over the holy roman empire and outside of it wherever there was a catholic prince who wanted local control over the church or it’s lands and wealth. Marsislius and Padua and Occam lead a revolution in revolting against the political power of the papacy and heading to Saxony… Nietzsche’s conceptualization of power, positive and negative law, and organization of society largely, and the redundency of power in religious hands over that of the state (marsilius prefered religion submit to the state, not vice versa- nietzsche said both- which revels how uninspiring Netzsche was as a thinker) (but not in total as his sources were concerned- I’ve pointed out several other thinkers from the past) largely comes from Marsilus and his revolt, which as well had a massive influence on the later protestant revolution.

Okay- I am tired, it’s late, and I gotta go grab my crap and set up a encampment. I think I did enough to lead everyone to a gradual point in their understanding of the development of the state from pre 4000 BC to the gradual increases of violence- I haven’t touch India after Alexander or China after 500 BC… not have I gone into south america, north america, as well as islamic and central asia. I don’t know enough about australia period prior to colonialism, but can speak volumns on Polynesian and oceanic nationalities, such as the history of Indonesia and malaysia and the thai and khemer kingdoms.

I’ll reconstitute this later on if it’s all gibbeerish. I have a theory of rank and form listing the psychological states society used in well prior to 4000 bc that underlined the first evidence of militacy, that is a far cry from a Rawlisan system of contract theory, or much less anyone else’s. I’ve paid attention to alot of thinkers, expecially Jared Diamond, but also rejected alot in them in searching out new ideas. But I like, really gotta go- starbucks not to thrilled with me still being here at closing, so no time to look this over to make it clearer or more orderly. But everyone should get the point how civilization gradually evolved into it’s current military-political complex, and how little of it was innate and natural in it’s immediacy- the modern nation state is hardly a expected occurrence, and many Hobbesian notions of a state of war are simply incorrect in low population areas, though with asudden migration or shift in technology it can indeed become just that, where only the strong and paranoid who deeply entrench themselves and evade capture can indeed survive, and reestablish a continuation of civilization. I would love to sometime talk about the genocide in early 20th century turkey, how the greeks and armenians fought it out and followed ancient patterns of resistence and survival in places while dying off inmass in others, and then the greek civil war, and the vietnam and korean wars, as well as the two Afghanistan wars, coupled with a history of the chinese form the Tang dynastry to the present, but I gotta run.

A brief comment … yet … perhaps a comment with profound implications.

Initially I felt compelled to engage in ‘competition’ … to defend my choice of the adjectives … “good” and “evil” … in describing human activities grounded in ‘nature’.

On serious reflection I realized your perspective is likely more accurate … or maybe I’m simply a wimp! :slight_smile:

Nature is nature … a product of the universe … who are we … mere mortals … to pass judgment on the universe?

Lead me to pose the following question … to myself. 

Why did I share my ‘supposition’ in the first place? … a spontaneous decision … an impulsive act … although most certainly grounded in the events and experiences of my life … the degree of influence directly proportional to time. Obviously, the most recent events being most influential … I think. :slight_smile:

The notion ‘time’ is an interesting mystery. As St Augustine writes in his book Confessions … “What then is time? Provided that no one asks me, I know. If I want to explain it to an inquirer, I do not know.”

Most people fear death … prefer life to death … seems the ‘choice’ is hardwired into our psyche … our survival instinct. Our knowledge of time is perhaps most closely associated with our knowledge of life and death. What if some part of our ‘existence’ retains cognition of self and ‘time’ after death?

Seems it’s not right to say ‘fear of death’ is good or bad eh? … natural or learned?

Wow! … now I have much more information … yet the ‘big picture’ remains fuzzy. :slight_smile:

If we could place all human knowledge … all human history … all human experience … inside a single box …

While the ‘box’ continues to expand and grow over time … when compared to the ‘universe’ … the ‘box’ remains infinitesimally small!

That’s right. It’s our limitation. Understanding and accepting that, brings you into consonance with natural intelligence.

It’s similar to how, in the intellect, your thoughts compare the state of your present life with counter thoughts of a better and grander state for your life simply because you believe there is something way more interesting and meaningful to do. That’s simply boredom and you think it’s a problem when actually it’s not. Everything is as it is for that moment in the natural scheme of things. There is no problem with life as it is; and there is no other life. Whatever it is that prevents us from coming to terms with the reality as it is IS the problem. Coming to terms with your life as it is in harmony with the things around you in the world takes you out of a ‘box’ and eliminates the comparisons.

Thank you … absolutely agree!

I’m so tired of being in the ‘box’ :slight_smile: … why is climbing out of the ‘box’ … even when you are consciously aware of the discomforts associated with staying in the ‘box’ … so so difficult?

We all leave our ‘footprint’ on the landscape of human history … some leave small footprints … and some leave huge footprints … such is life. Yet … as Mother Teresa once said … something to the effect … “My life is like a drop of water in the ocean … yet the ocean would be that much smaller without this single drop.”

Seems to me that struggle is the ‘fuel’ that propels humanity in a predetermined direction … I suggest ‘predetermined’ … to state otherwise is to suggest the universe is in a perpetual chaotic state … a condition I refuse to accept.

Struggle for survival … struggle for dominance … struggle with our changing environment … weather patterns, growing populations etc … struggle for answers to our questions … science, faith, religion, philosophy etc … struggle for acceptance and affection

The above struggles … and many more not mentioned … permeate all recorded human history. The notion ‘struggle’ infers outcome … win … lose … or stalemate … always an outcome.

The overriding struggle … the ‘archetype’ of all struggles … as yet undefined … that stretches over all human history … must some day produce an outcome.

Seems to me that humanity is approaching an important milestone … a particular point in time … where both the ‘archetype’ struggle will be known and the outcome will be known.

I don’t see this as a once and for all situation … simply a ‘watershed moment’ … a moment where humanity leaves behind the ‘torrent of human custom’ we all know and enters into a new stage of development … new circumstances … new rules. The new humanity … the transformed humanity … is centered much more on LOVE … CHARITY … KINDNESS … GENTLENESS etc

First, let me apologize. I was responding to DeMeo’s paper. My response, perhaps, sent CN off on his spout.

I think competition, jealousy and violence are learned, rather than innate. What do I mean by innate? Let me answer my question with a question. Are animals born with aggression to the point where they actively seek out aggression? Or is fear the innate motivator?

I found your earlier post helpful … as I have all other posts. CN’s lengthy narrative encouraged me to harden my view that … more information = more confusion. :slight_smile:

In your earlier post … the words …” Archeological evidence shows that Neanderthals probably followed certain burial rites that could be mean a symbolic belief in an after-life.“ were particularly encouraging. As you can glean from my posts … I’m inclined to support the belief in some form of ‘life’ after death. It’s reassuring for me to know that my feeling may have it’s genesis in Neanderthals … long before any substantial organized form of religion.

To your question … I believe ‘aggression’ is innate in all animals … human beings included. If for no other reason than self preservation or preservation of other members of the species … for example … a mother protecting her offspring.

That being said … I believe every species has some ‘discretion’ concerning the degree to which any particular innate characteristic dominates the species’ behaviour … over time. Seems some innate characteristics are comfortably left dormant in some species and the same characteristic is nurtured to the extreme in others … eg … aggression in the human species.

The predominance of ‘competition’ in our daily lives nurtures aggressive behavioural responses.

I’ve spent a lot of time in China during the past 6 years. Last year I learned about Lao Tsu … not sure he is a real person … legend or myth. He is considered the father of Taoism(Daoism) and is believed to have had a significant influence on Chinese culture for the past 2,500 years.

One of the pillars of Lao Tsu’s philosophy is “avoid competition” … perhaps he understood the downside risks of pervasive competition?

Today a Chinese axiom popped on to centre stage of my mind … dated from about 600AD … “Pi Fu Han Shu” … translated literally means … an ant trying to push over a large tree.

The popular Chinese interpretation of this axiom is … don’t over estimate your abilities.

I’ve never embraced the Chinese interpretation … although the axiom and the image portraying it has always appealed to me. Today I found a cartoon that better reflects my interpretation of the axiom. The cartoon language is Chinese … yet the intended message is clearly ‘philosophical’ … the words are not important.

56.com/u23/v_NDIxNjA5MDA.html

That was a lovely cartoon on many different levels, PT, thank you. I’ll have to think about it more before I can comment on its theme.

As for the rest of your reply, It’s instinctive for a mother to protect her child–but isn’t she simply using ‘aggression’ to fight aggression? And doesn’t she do that because she fears for her child’s life? She isn’t going out actively looking for a fight, which is what aggression is, to me. As for competition, I think that grew as a result of a dwindling food supply and an increase in population. There’s also what could be called competition among animals in ensure that the stronger will prevail in order to assure survival of the group. That’s instinctual, but I don’t think that survival of the group is anything other than a vestigial memory as a prime mover in humans who really don’t give a damn about survival of the group.

I can’t think of any way jealousy could be innate. Do you have any ideas or examples?

Btw, did I welcome you the ilp? I apologize if I didn’t; if I did, welcome again. :smiley:

Had too much caffeine in me at the time.

Basically, there is a population fluctuation that was asymetrical and increasingly unstable, centering around the Lake Issyk Kul civilization 2500 years ago that set in motion the final stage of the migrations of high antiquity, reacting to the flooding there… it was a silk road civilization, and they were very much Scythian, and lived a hybrid sedentary-nomadic lifestyle. They were the major pusher that allowed the proto religions to the vedic and Zoroastrian religion to expand south and south west. It within a thousand years inundated the area we now know as persia and india. However, I know there was already urbanization in central asia before this- it was a highly civilized push of refugees into a similarly urbanzed but not as nomadic steppe society that within a thousand years of mixed living continued the waves push south. They appear to of pushed into the backside of the Hittite territory, settling south of the Caucasus Mountains, and that’s how they became the sea people… using the water routes around asia minor as well as straight down through asia minor in their wagons/chariots. The Hittites likely used them as mercenaries, as is the eternal custom in asia minor in using people who are new juxtapositioned in a far corner of your realm on the other side, but this shit always malfunctions in the end, and they made a mad rush south for whatever reason. It looks like famine might be the reason, but who knows. Greece, the levant, and the Hittites were smashed. Egypt routed them. 400 years previously, a chariot based group of people invaded india, and their are known as the Aryan today. Persian religion very similar.

There was already a downhill slide prior to Issyk though. The very fact it had walls is signicant. The fact civilizations BEFORE 4000 BC don’t usually have walls is telling too. Issyk controlled a vital transportation route, in a very small area, it was bound to militarize early, and set the cultural norms for later steppe hierarchy, including the celts and the germans and the huns and the avars, in each successive wave.

What’s important to know is, we know- thanks to the intialian iceman who was murdered, and signs of cannabalism and sacrifice stretching pretty far back in the family trees, killing has old roots. But it’s formulation in civilization isn’t as concrete as you would expect it to be. We’ve undergone several massive cognitive revolutions. 4000 BC, 2500BC, 1600-1200, 500BC, Alexander, the first century, and the tenth century, and the 14th century. Many can be linked to climate change, and the resulting collapse of the technological responsiveness and incapacity of some society to adapt, sending ripples throughout civilization.

However, a simple explanation is usually wrong, and blaming just this is incorrect. It’s considerably more complex than just this- however, this is it’s Macroformat that the other themes of the story needs to respond to as a narrative. The social expression of violence has a wide valiance, and even today many of the best educated amongst us don’t quite grasp just how wide the range is. It’s why we’ve accidentally created a cult of generalship in the west in modern times quite different from the WW2-Korean War version. No one quite understands their art anymore, and why they say this or that… we only know they are mostly technically competent, and have a reserved and yet deep depth to the subject matter, and are not too quick to advocate it… which makes us just trust them and go along with it when it’s complicated with the hopes they can solve a seemingly impossible situation.

I don’t think Jealousy presumes Competition however. A their is more than willing to go without competition, as well as violence, and a violent man may not want anything in terms of material wealth when he kills… and you can be competitive without the other two. The neurological networking of these terms is slushy at best.

Thank you for the warm ‘welcome’. I’ve almost completed my self-indoctrination … to recluse-hood … if I disappear it won’t be because I didn’t feel welcome. 
I find myself completely ‘spent’ on the topic I recently introduced. Let me share with you the images that came to me as my interest faded away … I’m not suggesting these images have any significance.

First image … someone pulling the trigger on a gun. In this image we need to set aside the requirement for motivation. The gun will have no effect unless it is ‘loaded’ and ‘functional’. Seems to me a healthy mind comes fully equipped with the entire range of human characteristics … and in the right circumstances … we will all pull the trigger … and when the trigger is pulled … the gun will fire. 

Second image … a doctor holding a newborn child … immediately after birth … upside down by the feet and slapping the infant on the ass. A nice “welcome to humanity” eh! My thoughts focused on the newborn’s reaction … perhaps the newborn’s reaction was his or her only way of saying to the doctor … something to the effect … Hey asshole! Back off or I’ll hurt you! 

While I’m ‘spent’ on the topic I introduced … the comments(collectively) seemed to nudge my mind into a new direction … to a subject that I find more interesting even if it is more esoteric.

Let me start with another image … a single drop of water is ridiculously insignificant when compared to an ocean.… yet an ocean is simply a large community … collection … of individual drops of water. Likewise … a single drop of water has no ‘power’ … yet the ‘power’ of a tsunami (again simply a large community of individual drops of water) is enormous.

In my view, the individual and humanity(on both a physical and psychic level) … have the same attributes ie the individual is virtually powerless … the collective is unstoppable. St Augustine expressed this phenomenon with these words … “Woe you torrent of human custom! Who can stand against you?” Who can stand against a tsunami?

Where is the connection to the comments on the topic of competition et al? While all comments made a contribution … the following are ‘top of mind’at the moment:

     DeMayo’s work is the most direct … his research suggests the dessication 6,000 years ago had a ‘tsunami’ effect on the future direction of humanity.

    Your comments and interest in the connections between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens. What triggered the changes?

    CN’s research suggesting a similar ‘tsunami’ … with serious and lasting effects … that happened about 2,500 years ago. I often mused about the timing    of the lives of Socrates/Plato … the original Buddha … Lao Tsu here in China … the revered Biblical prophet Isaiah … and I’m sure several others. All lived about 2,500 years ago. Any connection with CV’s comments? Who knows eh?

    CN’s last comment “[i]The neurological networking of these terms is slushy at best"[/i].

   CN’s signature tag “[i]But blind to former as to future fate, what mortal knows his pre-existant state?"[/i] Alexander Pope

The common denominator for me is in the metaphor of a tsunami … ‘collective human psychic tsunami’ … what triggers them and is the ‘after shock’ on human behaviour intentional? Is the trigger always environmental? … as DeMayo’s research indicates?

Many people believe that ‘history’ repeats itself … are we on the ‘cusp’ of another ‘psychic tsunami’ in collective human awareness?

Where do we go from here? Do I return to my ‘cave’ and ruminate? :slight_smile:

This is an aside. Doctors don’t hold newborns by their heels and smack them on their bottoms to get them to expel amniotic fluid and get them to breathe on their own. That sort of treatment has been shown to cause injury. Nurses aspirate the babies. But that’s, as I’ve said, an aside.

What triggered the slow transition between homo neanderthalensis and homo sapien sapien. We really don’t know, yet. But we really don’t know the exact workings of evolution yet, either.

I like cn’s analogy of a tsunami–a groundswell of the migration of peoples. I just think he started his history lesson at a later point in time than either DeMeo or I did. If the groundswell of protohumans began in Saharasia, then it would have to have included the many (sub) species that settled and evolved in different ways according to the environment, wouldn’t it? And many of those sub-sub species developed light skin, hair, and eyes–three recessive genes. Where did they come from?

You may go back into your recluse-hood and ruminate, if that’s what you want to do. I’ll miss you…