ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
I think certain aspects could be the result of evolution. For instance, a small tribe/group where murder was rampant would not survive very long. While selfishness benefits an individual in the short term, in the long run groups with more cooperation would have worked better. Of course, you could argue it was a form of 'society' at work at that point too.

Well-reasoned, but slightly flawed. What actually happens is that the aggression is turned outwards towards other tribes. Evolution selects for the violent ones, as it is their genes that tend to survive while the "weak" get killed off by those more violent and capable, be it in a bid for power as to who'll rule the tribe, or when tribes war against one another.

It's true that cooperation is the better strategy, but it almost always takes a back seat to the exercise of sheer unbridled power. (The U.S. invasion of Iraq is the latest example of this, and on the largest possible scale. However noble the intentions may have been, and there's a lot of room to doubt even that, it was still morally wrong.) Historically, people have cooperated only so long as they are getting what they want. If they cannot, or cannot get it fast enough, they'll resort to violence in spite of what that violence may invoke in the way of repercussions. Criminals, dictators, and even some ostensibly-elected officials all do this.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

Well-reasoned, but slightly flawed. What actually happens is that the aggression is turned outwards towards other tribes. Evolution selects for the violent ones, as it is their genes that tend to survive while the "weak" get killed off by those more violent and capable, be it in a bid for power as to who'll rule the tribe, or when tribes war against one another.

It's true that cooperation is the better strategy, but it almost always takes a back seat to the exercise of sheer unbridled power. (The U.S. invasion of Iraq is the latest example of this, and on the largest possible scale. However noble the intentions may have been, and there's a lot of room to doubt even that, it was still morally wrong.) Historically, people have cooperated only so long as they are getting what they want. If they cannot, or cannot get it fast enough, they'll resort to violence in spite of what that violence may invoke in the way of repercussions. Criminals, dictators, and even some ostensibly-elected officials all do this.

You can always take it to a higher level, and say that a species that on the whole does not kill each other does better. And even if your theory of strong tribes killing weak tribes is true, our aversion to murder would seem a good way of deterring tribe-internal killing.

[Arryn]

quantum_mechani said:
You can always take it to a higher level, and say that a species that on the whole does not kill each other does better.

I sincerely wish I could agree, but there are many species for which this is simply not true, and those species do just fine. It all depends on their ecological niche and how well adapted the species is to its environment. The best I can say is that humanity, via evolving sociology, is adapting (albeit very slowly) away from such behavior, and mainly because we've created weapons that are so lethal that we can no longer tolerate our own aggression and stand much of a chance at not becoming extinct. But we've a long ways to go. We are still, AFAIK, the only species that kills its own *for sport*.

quantum_mechani said:
And even if your theory of strong tribes killing weak tribes is true, our aversion to murder would seem a good way of deterring tribe-internal killing.

Alas, "good" and "flawless" are a ways apart. Also, not to be overly cynical, but the main thing which stops even more killing from taking place is a fear of punishment, not a moral or inherent aversion to the act. If we as rational beings had a greater sense of community and responsibility for self and for others there'd be far fewer problems in the world. Society, through various means (of which religion is the most popular, but arguably not the best or most effective) attempts to correct our innate lack of such values by trying to instill them in us, preferably at a young age. That there is still a significant percentage for which such indoctrination fails only highlights just how ingrained our innate (bestial some say) nature really is.

[quantum_mechani]

Arryn said:

I sincerely wish I could agree, but there are many species for which this is simply not true, and those species do just fine. It all depends on their ecological niche and how well adapted the species is to its environment. The best I can say is that humanity, via evolving sociology, is adapting (albeit very slowly) away from such behavior, and mainly because we've created weapons that are so lethal that we can no longer tolerate our own aggression and stand much of a chance at not becoming extinct. But we've a long ways to go. We are still, AFAIK, the only species that kills its own *for sport*.

Alas, "good" and "flawless" are a ways apart. Also, not to be overly cynical, but the main thing which stops even more killing from taking place is a fear of punishment, not a moral or inherent aversion to the act. If we as rational beings had a greater sense of community and responsibility for self and for others there'd be far fewer problems in the world. Society, through various means (of which religion is the most popular, but arguably not the best or most effective) attempts to correct our innate lack of such values by trying to instill them in us, preferably at a young age. That there is still a significant percentage for which such indoctrination fails only highlights just how ingrained our innate (bestial some say) nature really is.

As you say, whether or not such a mechanism is necessary depends on ecological niche and environment. Nonetheless, I can certainly see the advantage of such built in inhibitions for humans (and in fact many social animals).
It is quite obvious, that whatever causes such aversions, they are not flawless. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is not necessary that they be. Even if they stopped less than 50% of tribe-internal killing, it could still be an advantage.

It does become rather hard to say if it is the sociology evolving, or an actual biological change.