Fuck pacifism, embrace your imperfections

In another post, Joker was talking about how are the only species that kills ourselves. I brought up the theory that our violent nature is a result from an unbelievably fast development of our brain which caused “imperfections”.

What do we do with imperfections?
A. Get plastic surgery
B. Learn to love them, or put up with them

I doubt there is any brain surgeon that can fix this “imperfection” without making one a vegetable.

So we go with answer B.

What does this mean?

YOU KILL THE BASTARD TRYING TO STEAL YOUR PRECIOUS CORN THAT FEEDS YOUR FAMILY.

It seems to o.k. for different species to kill each other, you don’t see any hippie trying to feed a lion tofu instead of having it kill a gazzle (yes that was a Futurama allusion).

Since our species seems to be so “unique” and “diverse” could we not consider each individual a different specie?

Not according to biologists.

Though, the human race is evolving exponentially faster than our bodies will let us.

in the rudementary sense we are all unique… but we are far more similar than different… that’s what makes us all human

Well, not according to the technical definition of a “species” (i.e. ability to mate and reproduce with its own kind), but I get what you’re saying. I agree that the human animal is unique in this regard. We have such an overly developped cerebrum that it seems to have surpassed our genes in diversifying our species. The cerebrum is so plastic and programmable that you can get almost any behavior, personality, conditioning history, mode of experiencing the world, etc. that you can imagine. The problem with this is that it makes communication within the species ever more difficult, and thus we end up seeing each other in more and more dehumanized, even alien, ways. The less human we seem to each other, the more “animal” we seem instead. Thus, interpersonal modes of interacting and communicating get replaced with interspecies modes. People from foreign cultures end up seeming so strange and distant that we feel more comfortable demonizing them (animalizing?) than humanizing them.

Does this make war and violence OK? Well, I don’t really see this as a moral issue. It makes it more natural - I’ll say that. It might even make it necessary - in the sense that it’s out of our control. But I’m careful not to equate necessity with moral permissability. You’ll never convince me that war and violence are “OK” in a moral sense, although I’ll concede that they are sometimes necessary. If it’s necessary, then perhaps we can get away with not worrying about it. Why worry if there’s nothing you can do about it? But it doesn’t make war and violence OK. If we ever had the option to do away with war and violence (without having to accept something worse in its place), then we should definitely take the opportunity. But if we don’t have the option, we might be better off just dealing with it the best we can. It sucks, yes, but if there’s nothing we can do about it, let’s not hit ourselves over the head for partaking in it. Let’s just always remember to stop partaking in it once, or if, it becomes feasible to do so.

8-[

This is quite a Nietzschean stance and seems to be a pretty reasonable argument. Hell, at one time I would’ve whole-heartedly agreed (in some ways, I still do). Your premise is quite valid: all humans are intrinsically born with brains built for self-sustenance and procreation which, clashing with a comfortable non-survivalist state, contributes to humanity’s exertion for power and control. Our brains are still telling us to survive when we don’t need to. Talk about paranoia schizophrenia. The problem is you offer an alternative, an option, the ‘then’ in the if-then statement. If human beings are slaves to their instincts, then they should embrace this. That little ‘then’ part is contentious simply because it is just as instinctual for us to use the same mental faculties that are counterintuitive to the more primordial impulses. That is, the brain doesn’t make a decision in one sweeping pass like it does for animals; instead, it argues with itself in all its parts, coming to a decision that is measured in terms of evolutionary success. The cavemen who made good decisions lived, the cavemen who made bad ones died. Such an evolutionary rubric no longer exists, causing our current predicament.

It at first seems reasonable to fully embrace what we were initially programmed for as a manual to life, but the issues stems from the fact that it is evolutionarily needed to feel secure. Our intelligence, logic skills, and imaginations are manifestations of this need to feel secure simply because the more we understand (i.e. the poisonousness of a mushroom) the safer we are (i.e. you don’t eat the mushroom). That’s why we yearn to know why. In order to take an action we must have a reason. Reasoning truly is the ability to develop and, to some extent, fabricate reasons to do things. The reasoning behind not gripping a hot stove is simply a safety matter and is rather instinctual, while the reasoning for cutting oneself in despair is rather complex. Either way, our deductive abilities and our reasoning abilities are opposing forces; the former always uncovers the latter. So the reasoning behind your assertion of embracing the primordial parts of our minds without question ends up being poked and probed by the very same primordial yearnings to understand and uncover. That is entropy; as soon as one assertion is made, it is destroyed, often times by itself.

Your argument is a cannibal.

This is very true, because we have developed this way, we are so different from each other. This results in animalizing/dehumanizing them allowing us to justify our violence. Looking at this through a biological perspective, specie vs specie is acceptable, which leads to wars among our own species because we see another country/race/whatever as a separate species. Excellent point gib.

I don’t exactly agree with my own theory, just wanted to discuss my thoughts.

Yes! We don’t need to survive in the primitive way that we used to. It seems to be ok if a human being has an urge to have sex. Obviously through evolution, the pleasure caused by sex/urge to have sex was necessary to keep our species alive. Like you said, our brains are still telling us to survive when we do not need to; my point is that we do not shun our desire for sex (ok, besides from the religious types) so we should not shun our desire to fight

An after thought:

Its a paradox sorta

it proves our thinking is flawed
general specie = x

  1. x kills other species to “survive” (lions beat the shit out hyenas when they try to jack food)
  2. x does not kill it own to “survive” (keep the specie x alive)
  3. humans, see there own species as a separate specie (because of some of our unique qualities, and like gib said the communication between our species is now more difficult)
  4. humans kill other humans as if x were to kill the other specie, to “survive” (we need a resource, we kill “the other” specie for our survival)
  5. humans should not kill each other because it hurts our survival (war, if we bombed each other… say goodbye to our species)

human x—kills–> human y (for “survival”)
but x does not realize y is of his or her own specie
by killing its own it harms its own species chance at survival (the paradox)

THIS ISN’T TRUE THE THEORY IS NONSENSE, ITS BOGUS, ABSURD.

Its not an imperfection, its an adaptation that was selected for over thousands and thousands of years. We spent 99%+ of our species time existing in hunter-gatherer groups, violent tendencies are an adaptation that passed along genes.

its super complicated specialized neuromachinery, to brush it off as some ‘imperfection’ is crazy.

…where did those violent tendencies originate from? When did we start to kill our own species? Your explanation is flawed just like our brains :smiley:

Humans never started killing our own species, that implies it originally was produced with ‘human’ it wasn’t. Our ancestors, long before we were ever human, were violent beasts in some situations.

For example, chimpanzee’s can be violent to the point of… well more violent/horrifying then most animal attacks you could ever think of. Chimpanzee’s normally the ‘peaceful’ bastards they are, will kill other chimps in such a brutal fashion that it is horrifying.

Twisting arms until they break, prying off fingernails/ripping off fingers, drinking blood, gouging/piercing skin with their nails, beating the other chimps chest so hard that its ribs pop out, eyegouging, ear-stealing, they’ll even fucking rip the ass cheeks right off another chimp (a human too if you’re unlucky enough to feel one’s rage). I seriously wouldn’t put tongue ripping out, or teeth removal above them either. This type of violence that chimp groups show against other chimp groups if they invade their space is brutal (even large groups that split into two, will attack old ‘friends’ with this ferocity).

This benefits chimps because they protect their food sources, they protect their mates and etc.

Humans work in big groups and work together well, just like chimps, humans have natural ‘in-groups’ families, close friends, etc. Where huumans spent 99% of our time as a species, we lived in small groups, the reason that we’re violent is because it benefited us to be violent. Its beneficial to fucking stab someone to death if you need his apple, its beneficial to cut someones heart out to gain access to his belongings, its not beneficial to do that to an ingroup your group of humans but its more then beneficial to do it to another group.

No seriously, think this through. Most of the time I discount people in a semi-rude manner, I won’t do that here. But what you’re saying, that our aggressive tendencies are the result of some kind of ‘mistake’ in human brain evolution is nutty. Violence exists in many many many animal species, we have every reason to believe the ancestors to human’s had the capability for some kind of violence, at least to a degree, like chimps or whatever.

How can we make this claim that it was a ‘mistake’ in our evolution? Except that it exists pretty much in all ape species to some extent and clearly benefits them in the area under which those adaptations evolved.

When did humans start becoming ‘aggressive’ well it wouldn’t be a human, it would be our long long long ancestor maybe, a monkey, that started becoming violent. Thats when ‘violence’ entered, when humans became humans, we already had some kind of violent tendencies towards one another at least under circumstance.

No, its specialized, complicated neuromachinery. A ‘imperfection’ in evolution is not likely to randomly produce a functional result. the term doesn’t even make any sense when applied to this conceptually. What the fuck is an ‘imperfection’ in evolution anyway? Is its somthing thats adapted but doesn’t work to solve a problem well, is it a mutation that gives a bad result to survival in X environment?

What?

I can’t see anyone looking at apes seriously asking when violence ‘came’ to humanity. It pre-exists us, obviously. I mean, we didn’t evolve from chimps, but theres no reason to believe that the common ancestor from which we both evolved could never act aggressively.

Even if it was the case, a thought experiment that we were humans before we were violent. When did violence enter humanity? We wouldn’t know, because as far back as we can check the evidence shows that yeah, humans were savages. Mass graves found from hunter-gatherer times with countless bodies with their skulls caved in, human muscle protein found in ancient human shit with the crushed bones of probable humans in refuse areas (theres some contention that these might be cat attacks, but seriously… I see no reason to suggest it).

The first human cities had massive walls to defend from outside…

As far back as we can look there is fucked up violence, and sure, it helps people survive where humans spent 99%+ of our time as a species. A random mistake doesn’t produce a functional result that increases survival in the area under which the species spent almost all of its time. That doens’t make any sense.

The only survival advantage I see for inter-human violence today is to curb the growing population who is depleting scarce resources at an exponentially growing rate… but even then, the lack of these resources could do the job just as well (i.e. starvation, poverty, no clean drinking water, no medicine, etc.). But in any case, this says nothing about why we are violent in the first place or how far back in our evolution it started.

I’d love to see the day when we come up with solutions to these seemingly insoluble problems. We need to keep a fair abundance of basic resources available, and we need to keep the population low. I have no idea how to do either. China seemed to be the only country making an attempt to curb the population growth, but the way it’s doing it is completely infeasible. How are you going to control how many children a family has? Ironically though, this solution, although extremely harsh, would solve the problem in a matter of three generations or thereabouts.

But even if we could get a handle on these problems, it wouldn’t stop the violence. It would only give a reason to say that violence isn’t solving any (survival) problems.

Man is far from alone in killing his own species. My first exposure to death was when a cat had a litter of kittens in our garage. For a few weeks we fed the mother and eventually she let us handle the kittens. One day I came home from kindergarten and a Tomcat had turned the kittens into hamburger.

Pigs turn on each other all the time. A friend of mine shot a feral pig and then had to flee when dozens of other pigs turned the coolies into a tornado as they ate the wounded animal.

Animals drive other animals out of the pack/herd all the time for all sorts of reasons. A herd animal on it’s own has been given a death sentence.

Violence is the way the world works. At the begining of this century we thought that we had become so fucking smart and enlightened that we were past things like that. After probably the most violent century in history (At least when you go by the raw numbers) It’s almost comical that we still think there is some intellectual explanation and therefor solution to violence. Violence isn’t a flaw in the system, it just is.

What exactly is okay about this?

Excellent point

Good point, but I meant species on species for basic survival. Of course, this can go back on me: “poachers need to eat too”.

My only counter is that our economic system is derived from our flaw.

I still stick to the theory that are brains are flawed.