Why don't we kill those guys?

[Tero]

There was a lot of discussion of guns and racism in the Zimmerman topic.

Guys do not need a reason to kill:
http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2012/01/ ... ntion.html

It is often very trivial. It is in our genes that killing impresses the guys in your tribe. There is a book about primitive man
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recov ... 1594200793

There they look at S American primitive tribes. The men get bored. The jungle provides all the food they need. To get some excitement in their life the men go and kill a few men, or all, in the neighboring village. They may do some hunting for extra protein but essentially the men are useless. They are only needed for mating. So they amuse themselves and make it seem like they are needed for "protection." In that case, there is no racism, the villages are of the same race, sometimes speaking slightly different dialects. But essentially the same people.

[Blind groper]

An alternative view on this comes from prof. Stephen Pinker. He has written a book on the history of violence, showing clearly that it is reducing very dramatically over time.

Pinker delivers this in a short lecture on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

[Tero]

Aw, he's just some kind of socialist.

[Pappa]

Tero, which tribes are mentioned in the book? There is/was a huge amount of variability among Amazonian tribes. The Shuar/Jivaro were probably the most violent recorded, but they're not representative of Amazonian cultures as a whole.

[Tero]

Yanomamo, p. 139
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomamo

[Blind groper]

Stephen Pinker also mentions the Yanomamo. They represent the high level of violence that characterises primitive man.

Tero
I suggest you view the youtube. I think you will find it slots into your views, but will give you a broader understanding.

[Tero]

Yeah I watched 10 minutes of it. Gotta go to Chili Peppers now. I see a rock concert every decade. Next time I'll need a hearing aid.

[FBM]

Primitive society rulebook:

Rule 1: Wipe your feet off before coming inside the cave. Were you raised in the bushes?

Rule 2: Throw the bones in the pit. Your mother doesn't work here.

Rule 3: Do your killin' outside the tribe. We don't need no in-fightin'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Primitive society rulebook:

Rule 1: Wipe your feet off before coming inside the cave. Were you raised in the bushes?

Rule 2: Throw the bones in the pit. Your mother doesn't work here.

Rule 3: Do your killin' outside the tribe. We don't need no in-fightin'.

Rule 4: What happens in Lascaux, stays in Lascaux.

[Warren Dew]

Tero, which tribes are mentioned in the book? There is/was a huge amount of variability among Amazonian tribes. The Shuar/Jivaro were probably the most violent recorded, but they're not representative of Amazonian cultures as a whole.

Polynesian studies done decades after the first studies showed that tribes that had been peaceful were often now very violent, and perhaps vice versa. The variation may be over time rather than tribe dependent: when there are enough people that resources are stretched, the violence begins; when the population drops, you get peace for a few decades as people focus on sex instead of violence.

I wonder if peak oil is marking the start of a period of rising violence worldwide.

[Blind groper]

That conclusion, Warren, is based on a short time frame. Over a longer time frame, in which genuine trends are acting, there is a clear cut change towards lower levels of violence.

Even in wars, we have fewer deaths today than any time in history, if measured as a percentage of the total male population. Wars today boil down to two types.
1. Conflicts in which the USA is instigator.
2. "Brush" wars. Basically small scale internal civil wars, mainly in Africa.

Hopefully, both kinds will become rarer as the level of 'civilised' behaviour grows in affected nations.

[Warren Dew]

That conclusion, Warren, is based on a short time frame. Over a longer time frame, in which genuine trends are acting, there is a clear cut change towards lower levels of violence.

Pinker is also looking at too short a time frame. Recent improvements have been due to the industrial revolution rapidly increasing the population carrying capacity of the earth through the use of fossil fuels; the reduced resource competition is likely what led to a reduction in violence. Over the previous few millenia, there was likewise an increase in carrying capacity due to agriculture.

Population just hasn't caught up to our newer limits yet. If and when it does - such as if peak oil drops resources faster than population drops - violence will make a comeback.

[Hermit]

Pinker is also looking at too short a time frame.

I have not read his book on the subject, but in his TED talk he looks at three scales of time: millennia, centuries and decades. I find his angle plausible, not to say convincing.

Also, I cannot recall any point at which he prognosticated about the future. All he says, is that people who believe in the notion of the noble savage and more primitive societies being less violent are wrong. Unlike those people he has underpinned his stance with statistics, concrete evidence and educated estimates.

[Ian]

Pinker looks back several millenia. I just finished reading his (very long and very well researched) book. It was thoroughly convincing.

[Atheist-Lite]

The rest of the world will become a frighteningly violent place without the US and its military. That is why everyone is re-arming or planning on re-arming as America goes finanacially kaput and can no longer maintain a standing army in the bleaker places of the world, like America to come.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y4vIzEk ... re=related[/youtube]