From: Yan King Yin (y.k.y@lycos.com)
Date: Sat Mar 27 2004 - 03:07:03 MST
From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com>
>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
>effect.
>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
>choice?
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.
YKY
____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT