ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[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.