Time to Evolve?

TruthSeeker

Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey
Valued Senior Member
In past discussions about sin, one of the most common remarks of people was that violence is part of human nature. It seems that we inherited the taste for blood from the other animals, as we needed to survive and to eat everyday. But we don't hunt anymore. We don't need to be violent anymore. So... isn't it time to change?

Are we programmed in our genes to be violent so that we can hunt for food? Shouldn't we have evolved already? Why our genes never change on that respect?

Also, another thing to consider is sex in the male point of view. I mean... we live in a monogamic society. It is "sorta" against the law to have poligamy. But it is still on our male genes to have lots of partners. So why don't those genes simply evolve? Would it take more millions of years until those genes evolve to match out present situation?

What I'm seeing is that society evolve as a whole, but ourselves as individuals and "animals" don't seem to evolve in the same speed. That, in turn, is the root of all our problems.

Any thoughts...? :confused:
 
i agree with you, but from what i know, evolution tends to happen out of necessity. now if polygamy became punishable by death and loads of fear and death was running around rampant because of it, i can see a chance, a very very slight chance that some kind of change might happen that could be perceived as something to help the survival of the fittest
 
xeth said:
i agree with you, but from what i know, evolution tends to happen out of necessity. now if polygamy became punishable by death and loads of fear and death was running around rampant because of it, i can see a chance, a very very slight chance that some kind of change might happen that could be perceived as something to help the survival of the fittest
I don't think poligamy is a really big issue in our society. Violence is tought. Besides, there's more people cheating then actually marrying more then one person at the same time.

Besides, our evolution does indeed depend very much on our necessity of survival, and that is what would changing our genes be all about. What I mean with the original post is that if we don't change we might very well not survive. Remember that it only takes presing a button to kill everyone. The key is not to impose that change, but to make the change within ourselves. If we don't change, we won't even need to be in danger because of punishment, we would simply finish destroying ourselves!
 
Good question Truthseeker. I suggest reading the first few pages of my thread How we behave in the General Philosophy section. The theory is that our behaviour is solely governed by past selection pressures and also questions the validity of free will.
 
TruthSeeker said:
In past discussions about sin, one of the most common remarks of people was that violence is part of human nature. It seems that we inherited the taste for blood from the other animals, as we needed to survive and to eat everyday. But we don't hunt anymore. We don't need to be violent anymore. So... isn't it time to change? Are we programmed in our genes to be violent so that we can hunt for food? Shouldn't we have evolved already? Why our genes never change on that respect?
Intra-specific violence has different biological reasons than the violence needed for hunting.
I've read in some text in UNESCO site or something, and in Desmond Morris' "The naked ape", that humans evolved a quite fast to a predator, which did not give enough time to the evolution of instinctive mechanisms for blocking intra-specific violence, differently of what happened to the majority of other social predators.

I think that culture plays an important role in human behavior, not at the point of supressing biological tendencies easily (which was very unlikely to happens, since culture must have started from pretty natural behaviors), but maybe that's the main thing keepig mankind from being "savage", not our genes. In fact, culture is possibly reducing the pressure against genetic negative behavior of any type. Any genes that express a "good" behavior would need to have major fecundity than those with "bad" behavior, but our "good" and "bad" cultural values has, if some, no much significant difference in means of fecundity. It's even possible that "bad" behavior has a advantage by killing individuals of "good" behavior. The only way I can imagine to humans have only genes for being "good" is eugeny, which ironically isn't generally considered as a good thing. But I think that not even this way, since it is pretty hard to determine whether the bad behavior is genetic or cultural, and to find out which genes cause bad behavior. Considering the possibility of gene interactions, maybe erradicating a gene for a bad behavior we would be simultaneously erradicating a gene that in another genome would make a genius.


TruthSeeker said:
Also, another thing to consider is sex in the male point of view. I mean... we live in a monogamic society. It is "sorta" against the law to have poligamy. But it is still on our male genes to have lots of partners. So why don't those genes simply evolve?
I supose we have a mainly monogamic genetic behavior, highly endorsed by the mainstream of the majority of cultures, but at the same time promiscuous tendences generally common in the gender less responsible for the parental caring. Not that it makes anything easier, anyway.
These genes for non-promiscuous behavior doesn't evolve the same way that the non-agressive genes doesn't. They would need to reflect more offspring, and they don't.



TruthSeeker said:
Would it take more millions of years until those genes evolve to match out present situation?
In my opinion, they will never evolve... in fact I believe that the conflict between the monogamic culture and the natural promiscuity/poligamic tendencies will grow... and because of the monogamic culture...
Seems paradoxical, but if the genetic monogamy once in human evolution was important, or in other words, just accepting that we have or we had genes for a monogamic tendence or at least acceptance, these genes are not under selective pressure with the arrival of the monogamic culture wich somewhat replaces it, removing the major part of its advantages in relation to poligamic behavior, setting these genes free to spread randomly, or even with a sightly advantage... :rolleyes: but that's only my random thoughts...


TruthSeeker said:
What I'm seeing is that society evolve as a whole, but ourselves as individuals and "animals" don't seem to evolve in the same speed. That, in turn, is the root of all our problems.

Any thoughts...? :confused:
Yeah, I agree... unfortunately, I think that's no easy solution for that, our genes will not collaborate with our intentions. Fortunatelly, our culture is somewhat more under our control, and evolve quicker enough to we see good changes in the near future, what would not be possible if we depended only of our genes to determining our behavior.

But unfortunatey again, I don't know if the "short-term advantages allways win" rule will be broken even so...
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker said:
Are we programmed in our genes to be violent so that we can hunt for food? Shouldn't we have evolved already? Why our genes never change on that respect?


There are also some people out there who think that violence has evolved 'mainly' to deal with social interactions in complex groups. That aspect of living in social groups is still with us.

We would first have to ask why violence has involved in the first place before we could start answering why it hasn't evolved 'out' of our system.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
There are also some people out there who think that violence has evolved 'mainly' to deal with social interactions in complex groups. That aspect of living in social groups is still with us.

We would first have to ask why violence has involved in the first place before we could start answering why it hasn't evolved 'out' of our system.
Maybe part of the survival in the "jungle" of capitalism requires a competitive behaviour, which in turn encourages a violent behaviour.
 
You got me kinda lost there... :D
Danniel said:
Yeah, I agree... unfortunately, I think that's no easy solution for that, our genes will not collaborate with our intentions. Fortunatelly, our culture is somewhat more under our control, and evolve quicker enough to we see good changes in the near future, what would not be possible if we depended only of our genes to determining our behavior.
Our culture only imposes behaviour. It only tries to retract our "nature" and control us in order to maintain order. That is not even healthy. Psychologically, having a part of your personality blocked by whathever, can have pretty bad consequences. Just like Freud said (about the only thing I agree with him), we used to condemn sex and now we condemn death. Not healthy.

So what? Millions of years have already passed. We have been social animals for quite a long time. Shouldn't we be a little bit better right now?
 
I was reading the book "Why big fierce animals are rare" and i think it relates to this. In that many animals, birds to deer, etc, appear to fight, but its more ritual, the utility being the establishment of territories conducive to successful breeding. Yet with humans, we frequently manage to exterminate each other. Which bears on
'which did not give enough time to the evolution of instinctive mechanisms for blocking intra-specific violence, differently of what happened to the majority of other social predators."

That Danniel posted. So, I think it makes sense, but would like to add that the examples drawn from the animal kingdom dont quite fit, because humans can effectively create their own niche, and shift niches, ie be vegetarian or carnivorous, or both. This makes us extremely flexible, and helps us in taking over the world. But there is hope in the use of culture. AS far as I can see just now, its not as simple as genes for bad behaviour, I think we are too complex for that now. What you have is genes for behavioural patterns that are useful in certain situations, ie the Savanna, or New york, or living at sea. Now, this is when i get a bit far out. I wonder about the variety of people and heritability, and think that firstly, these positive or negative behavioural patterns are not selected for, since it is easy enough to have children before or during when these behaviour patters prove to be negative. Secondly, that these patterns are also a variety that, speaking for the species as a whole, helps ensure its survival if anything untowards happens, eg massive natural disaster. ie, those with the heretofore reviled behaviour patterns will actually be more useful in the current situation. But culturally speaking, its possible to funnel even the negative behavioural patterns into positive functions, such that most people can be integrated within society, and problems suppressed. which also makes it easier to survive and breed.

HHmm, i might have paraphrased Danniels reply above. Oh well. But I would caution people in using "good" and "bad" in indeterminate contexts.
 
TruthSeeker said:
Maybe part of the survival in the "jungle" of capitalism requires a competitive behaviour, which in turn encourages a violent behaviour.
Capitalism? :confused:
We are a predatory social mammal from africa, and you're surprised that we are violent with eachother? :rolleyes:
We are very much supposed to be violent, lets just get that straight right away, the animal we are is a combative tribal one. Human cooperative tendencies were only ever supposed to apply to the imediate clan. Human anger and violent tendencies were only ever supposed to apply to other humans outside the clan. The human being is equipped with anger for the sole purpose of outletting it on other human beings.
You want to "evolve" "past" it? Are you willing to cull all those who still have this instinct in tact?
Thats the only way its ever going to happen.

You know, if inter-human violence bothers you, that might mean you have evolved past it. But guess what? Thats not a compliment.
It means you were allowed to evolve because the human species lost its way. You're akin to someone with down syndrome, people with down syndrome would have been taken out of the gene pool fast back in the day, and people who were squeamish about hurting another person would have similarly been quickly taken out of the gene pool. Frankly from natures perspective you're spear fodder, but for some reason you remain.

It might seem like we have no need for combative tendencies anymore. The original purpose of it was to compete for resources in our eco-system and thus reserve them for the fittest. Tribes would hold down territory and then be challenged by tribes without territory and so on. Making sure only the toughest and most efficiently violent tribes held down territory and those less adept at combat were cleansed from the species' gene pool.
Now it seems we have ample resources. But do we?
We do today, and we will tomorrow, but they're eventually going to run out.
The human species being global means tribal combat needs to be on a greater scale. Countries now need to compete with other countries.
I would say there isn't anywhere near enough conflict for how many people there are and how fast resources are disappearing. The violence is backing up but it will eventually have to be released, and it will be far more severe than if we just kept fighting at the normal rate, keeping the population stable in the process.
We're setting up for violence and destruction on an unprecedented scale. And the reason actually has alot to do with people like you.
The human species can only avoid conflict for so long, while it is avoiding violence the rest of the planet suffers, we have the responsibility of keeping ourselves in check being at the top of the food chain, and we aren't. The rest of the world will degrade more and more untill eventually it will affect us substantially and I guarantee political correctness will go out the window in favour of survival.
Which will mean one hell of a war. As we go along we'll naturally make sure there are only as many people as the earth can support. Right now we can support heaps so we're all like "why fight? there is plenty for all:)" but the amount of humans earth can support will eventually start decreasing. And where deers would merely starve to death, humans will go the combat route, we're equipped with a way to deal with depleted resources/overpopulation. We aquired it in africa millions of years ago, before we were even humans. And that is killing eachother.
When we need to, we'll quickly forget 'jesus' teachings'.
And people like you, truthseeker, who would rather starve then harm another human being, will be the first to go. Thats just the way it is.

There's this wierd misconception that species aren't supposed to harm members of their own species, only other species.
I don't know where this misconception came from, but its a complete load.
Especially for an animal like humans, we are supposed to occassionally hunt other animals for food(not even regularly) but kill humans all the time. Traditionally humans would have killed far more humans than they killed any other animal.
 
>> In past discussions about sin,

There is no 'sin', only health and ill health... the consequences of mental ill health is 'sin'.( unkind action against a fellow)

>> one of the most common remarks of people was that violence is part of human nature.

The human race is metal pois-oned, violence is the consequence..... humans are MAD. (mental ill health)

>> Shouldn't we have evolved already? Why our genes never change on that respect?

All LIFE is one organism, genetics are within a fixed framework.... social evolution reflects the mental health of the community..... only a non poi-soned community can be considered saintly, with all people obeying their common direct conscience to look after each other.

>> we live in a monogamic society. It is "sorta" against the law to have poligamy.

Polygomy is practiced by some enlightened non pois-oned people.

all in my considered opinion.
 
When you look at how groups of people came to be distributed where they are today, there are alot of cases where it was by fairly violent expulsion of a previous group. In this light, it wouldn't be surprising or maladaptive for people to be predisposed towards violence.
 
>> it wouldn't be surprising or maladaptive for people to be predisposed towards violence.

Of course.... fear brings out the need for self preservation... enlightened people should be able to have a common fate and share resources....

my hope :)
 
TruthSeeker said:
You got me kinda lost there... :D

Our culture only imposes behaviour. It only tries to retract our "nature" and control us in order to maintain order. That is not even healthy. Psychologically, having a part of your personality blocked by whathever, can have pretty bad consequences. Just like Freud said (about the only thing I agree with him), we used to condemn sex and now we condemn death. Not healthy.
Anti-natural behavior isn't necessarily unhealthy. Medicine, maybe the best example, since it's not natural, and it's what gave us our actual longevity. Culture is pretty much like dog training. You can train a dog to be docile, not by means of traumatizing him, and then keeping him healthy, yet that his natural behavior as a wolf descendent would be to be agressive.


TruthSeeker said:
So what? Millions of years have already passed. We have been social animals for quite a long time. Shouldn't we be a little bit better right now?
I think that everyone, or most of us, would like if it we was, but that's not so easy. Our biologic evolution had not drove our to it, yet gave us the capability of drive our culture into it... yet that the effortlessly (and the more natural) way probably will not take us there....
 
guthrie said:
AS far as I can see just now, its not as simple as genes for bad behaviour, I think we are too complex for that now. What you have is genes for behavioural patterns that are useful in certain situations, ie the Savanna, or New york, or living at sea.
That's the main point when thinking why we can't evolve to something instinctively "good". We are extremly generalists, and capable of a large set of behaviors keeping the same genes.

guthrie said:
HHmm, i might have paraphrased Danniels reply above. Oh well. But I would caution people in using "good" and "bad" in indeterminate contexts.
Yeah, really..... because of the subjectiveness I used the quotation marks, but maybe would had been better to state this about our generalism and the subjectiveness of "good" and "bad". What we'd consider a "bad" instinct today, was once responsible for our survival... the same way being "good" certainly led many to death. And eventually (or maybe frequently) still does.
 
Violence and anger in general have evolved because we are social animals and as long as we are, it should never evolve out of the population. Steven Pinker in his book 'How the mind works' explains the origins of anger very well. Apparently social creatures must (from time to time) get angry because we are animals that share resources such as food or information etc. We often share in the knowledge that the favour will be returned in the future. To stop any would-be cheaters in this system, we have evolved anger mechanisms (which are very hard to control consciously) thereby having a preventative effect on cheaters. Its a very good theory in my mind. He explains the theory in much more detail in the book.
 
Dr Lou Natic ,

The rate of increase of populations obey a certain rule.
Let me try to remember it...
dP/dT= k(limit-P)
integral of dP/(limit-P)= integral of kdT
ln(limit-P)=kt+c
e<sup>kt+c</sup>=limit-P

P=limit-ce<sup>kt</sup>
where the variable "limit" is the number of people that the planet can hold

All right... So the rate of increase of the population slows down until it gets to a limit. I've heard some reports that it is already slowing down. So the P'' is already... negative I believe... :bugeye:

Anyhow... my point is that there is no necessity of war. The rate of growth of the human population is already slowing down.
 
You're looking at it from a wierd perspective.
Humans are already extremely overpopulated, and this is largely because they stopped quarreling with eachother. Yes there is still the odd conflict, but nothing compared to how humans are supposed to behave.
Human population doesn't need to slow down, it needs to have 9 tenths of it cut away.
I'm not interested in how many people the planet can hold per square metre. That supposed limit wouldn't take biodiversity into account. Right now there are already way too many people. Its not even a matter of opinion.

For humans to be in harmony with nature, they need to be fighting over territory. Not letting everyone survive and cramming into small amounts of territory. We need to be culling large numbers of human beings with war, reserving the space for humans for only the best humans.
Thats just how nature works, if you don't like it you don't like nature, and what we have done, and what you're proposing to do on an even greater scale, is declaring war on nature. Rebelling against the system that created us. By being non-violent with humans we are being violent wuth the earth.
Ever heard of "environmental problems" ? Yeah? Chock ALL of them up to an unnatural lacking of conflict within the human species over the past thousand+ years.
I don't think its "time to evolve(sic)" into a less combatant species, I think its "time to evolve" for real. Which implies MORE human deaths.
 
TruthSeeker,

Look up selfish genetics or "the selfish gene", a fascinating theory on how greed and selfishness is programmed into all life. The violence we commonly see is a result of this greed and selfishness.
 
Back
Top