It's quite clear that our brutality as humans extends well beyond the brutality of animals: "With the exception of rodents, no other vertebrates so consistently and wantonly kill members of their own kind." What forces us to such extreme violence and aggression? Is aggression inborn? Can it be modified? How does society play into this? Thomas Hobbes is known as saying that humans are naturally brutes and society is the only thing that can curb this aggression. Contrary to this, Rousseau says that we are naturally gentle people and society forces us toward brutality. Do either of these offer a resolution to the debate, or do they oversimplify an inherently complex issue? To further complicate matters, there are studies which prove that aggression is neither learned nor instinctual...so where does this put us?

Personality and diffferent aspects of the human psyche are all very much affected by society, although society is also affected by the human psyche and our collective personalities. If you look at isolated societies, theres a large difference in newarly everything except violence. So perhaps it isn't so much affected by society as we think. Maybe other emotions like greed affect our belligerance more than society. I presonally think we can't really understand this unless we view human without society. A lot could be learned about society by trapping a few newborns in an area free of other humans, as inhumane as it may be. We could tell what parts of our general personality are from society and what parts are from our own chemistry.

Are you sure of this?

Chimps have shown this as well I believe, it's part of nature as far as I see it.

It's pretty much horribly inaccurate.

Yep, it's a stated fact. Can't say i've seen a chimp using napalm. I'm not saying primates have no aggressive tendencies, but think about it: there really are no comparisons to Hiroshima, the Holocaust, the genocide in Sudan, etc of killing within your species that you can find in nature. It's just mass, ruthless killing, and I dont think survival of the fittest is exactly applicable to this situation.

Well, aggression like most behavior has a strong genetic component:

Aggression-related Gene Weakens Brain’s Impulse Control Circuits

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2006/nimh-20.htm




IIRC, when pack animals fight they will kill off all the males and male children of the losing pack ensure their genetic dominance in the future (similar to the nazi idea of elminating the Jews). I also believe that ants, bees, and other insects wage "elimination" wars to wipe out rival colonies.

It's not that animals lack the capacity for war as your describe it, they just lack the technology.

I would tend t agree more with Hobbes than Rousseau. I think that we are naturally violent and it is only society that makes us less so. The better the society, the less violence, and that I think is an excellent measure of any society's relative worth.

That's an interesting thought. But wouldn't a police state receive the highest marking under this system?

Depends how violent the police are.

And how often crimes are reported. Can someone corraborate my theory that violent crimes in totalitarian states are simply carried out by the government instead of the civilian populace? Its overcompensation baby.

Chicken egg, nature nurture, eat me.

We are talking about the nature of violence.

Meat is murder. Delicous murder.

That was the point of my comment, so I'd agree with you.