| |
|
On a less thread-rotty note:
Two things to consider in the sociobiological construction of violence amongst humans. I'm not sure if I agree with the implicit argument, which falls into the Dawkins-ish school of thought, but figured I'd lay it out anyway.
Amongst other animals, and specifically amongt vertebrates, ethologists classify violent behavior (aggressive posturing, attacking, hurting, killing)into two types: predatory and territorial.
The first type ties in with my big-cat description upstairs--stalking, killing and eating "prey." Descriptively, this type of violence can be roughly characterized as highly functional and efficient. The subject of violence is selected for strategic weakness [immaturity, illness, immobility], is killed as quickly as possible, and consumed.
The second type is territorial, and covers much much more intellectual ground. It covers everything between a dog growling at you from its porch, to an mating-combat between caribou, to chimpanzees declaring "war" on a local baboon troupe. In most of the animal kingdom, territorial violence is directly linked to personal space, ie the defensive structures of baboon troupes, and/or living/resource space, such as a tiger's hunting territory. The competition for mates and the protection of offspring can be considered subsets of the former. Attacks as counteraction to surprise, such a snake's bite, also fall in this category.
Territorial violence is characterized by threat displays prior to action...think male gorillas and rattlesnakes...attempts to frighten away the other subject, followed by actual violent action that is typically nonfatal, nor sustained. Finally, if continually provoked, the violence will result in an attack with deadly intent. Interestingly, violent behavior grounded in self-preservation, etc., tends to be much more...er, messy...on the whole.
Now, let us throw humans into the pot. Very rarely does human behavior in this modern age necessitate the display of predatory violence in its most literal ethological sense.
Thus most, if not all, human violence, is grounded in terms of self-preservation and territorial preservation.
Now consider this: with that additional pile of fat-circuitry on top of our lizard-brain, our constructions of "self" and "territory" are extrapolated far beyond physical integrity and what we pee on...
hence out unique crossings into the realm of violence grounded in concept.
[ 14-02-2002: Message edited by: [monkeys violating the temple] ] |
|
|
you could go back & see how people lived rather than relying on 100th hand information... I tend to think, however, that we've always been violent simply because it aided our survival.