From: Yan King Yin (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Mar 27 2004 - 03:07:03 MST
From: Keith Henson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>The problem is that win or lose war was adaptive for your genes when we
>lived as hunter-gatherers. Thus we have evolved psychological mechanisms
>that lead to tribes (or nations) going to war based on economic
>issues--currently income per capita though the origin of the mechanism was
>game and berries.
Aggressiveness probably evolved much earlier in phylogeny.
I'm not sure how much new genetic traits have accumulated
specific to primates or hominids.
>Humans who are not facing looming privation/starvation don't start wars,
>though they can still be attacked by those with the root cause.
Then how do you account for imperialism where it's the
powerful nations that initiate wars?
>The economic connection to wars is *very old* information. But it is the
>first time I know about that the evolutionary psychology origin of wars has
>been understood. It leads to obvious solutions, but they are slow to take
>Here's a question for you. If the population simply *had* to be cut way
>back (say due to an ice age starting) would war or disease be the better
I don't understand what you're trying to imply, but if I die
of disease then my 'kinsman' (people genetically related to me)
would be most likely to inherit what I've left over. Whereas
in a war and if I lose then my assets will be taken by the
enemy, resulting in loss of territory. It would be a very
strange theory if you're saying people start wars unconsciously
hoping to lose and to have their women marry off the winners.
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT