Dave Pollard's environmental philosophy, creative works, business papers and essays.
In search of a better way to live and make a living, and a better understanding of how the world really works.




 

  May 1, 2007


Bonobos2Jason Godesky at anthropik.com has taken issue with the 'violent chimps vs. peaceful bonobos' debate, pointing out that Jane Goodall's misbehaving chimps, for example, were coerced (with food bribes) into proximity with her research team over years of study and hence might no longer behave 'naturally' but rather in a 'civilized' manner. He's also pointed out research that suggests that orangutans, though genetically less similar to us than either chimps or bonobos, behave much more like humans than either.
 
What all this suggests to me is that:
  • Most creatures are peaceful whenever they can be (in natural environments of abundance and sustainable population density), but violent when they must be (in environments of scarcity and overcrowding). Hall's studies of mouse behaviour certainly bear this out.
  • We are a product of both genetics and culture. As Beamish's studies of whales have indicated, and the recent work on the pirahã people has substantiated, natural environments of abundance and sustainable population density favour 'now time' cultures of leisure and joy, in which instinctive and sensory forms of knowledge and learning (and hence of cultural evolution) prevail, whereas environments of scarcity and overcrowding favour civilized, frenzied 'clock time' cultures of intensity, stress and hierarchy, where emotional and intellectual forms of knowledge prevail. If one or the other type of environment prevails over long periods of time, the culture of the species in it will evolve accordingly. And culture evolves much faster than genetics.
So the answer to the question "Are We Violent By Nature" is yes and no: Genetically (so far) we are peaceful creatures (our bodies handle stress quite badly, especially when it is protracted), while culturally (for the last 30,000 years of scarcity and overcrowding, anyway) we have evolved, as we had to in order to survive, to be violent creatures.
 
I have hypothesized that our modern obsession with violence and crime is an instinctive attempt to make our bodies (including our minds) more resilient to stress by inuring (=habituating to something undesirable by prolonged subjection)  ourselves to it, so it doesn't hurt (as much) any more -- a kind of 'self-hazing' behaviour. Not very successfully, however -- our culture can never compensate for the weaknesses of our genes, which is perhaps why technophiles are so fond of trying to escape our bodies and their genetic codes entirely, into an artificial shell (which would nevertheless be subject to much different vulnerabilities, like rust).
 
We discharge stress and its complications (personal illness) by removing the cause of the stress, either peacefully or violently. Since stress was, until 30,000 years ago, rare and brief, our bodies have evolved to discharge it violently: fight or flight. Meditation, rationalization, chemical self-tranquilizing, 'turning the other cheek' and other modern vehicles of passively resolving more chronic stress are not intuitive. We are not, by nature, pacifists, because until 30,000 years ago we had no need to be, and so have not evolved genetically to be. It is not who we are. That doesn't mean we are violent by nature. It just means we are when we have to be. And alas, in our modern, horrifically overcrowded world of scarcity, most of the time, we have to be.
 
I think about this a lot now, when I lose my temper, when I feel depressed (which is, I think, a form of internalization of that natural propensity for violence by those who would like to be pacifists, if only it were in their nature). This is who I am. I can no sooner deny or sublimate my anger than flap my wings and fly. The fact that, in our terrible world, this violence no longer serves any useful purpose, is of no consequence. The fact that it makes us physically and mentally ill is tragic, but unavoidable. 
 
I take, reluctantly, some comfort in knowing that our civilization is in its last century, that the experiment with letting the apes run the laboratory for awhile will soon come to an abrupt (and unfortunately violent) conclusion. Because the alternative is even more horrifying: That we will find some way to escape our bodies in some sustainable manner (I can't and don't want to imagine how) so that the physical stress of our civilized world no longer cripples us; and find some way to escape our emotions so that an artificial, desolated world no longer causes us distress. If we could do that, we would no longer be human, we would be machines, unfeeling, immortal (at least until the shells into which we'd evolved broke down).
 
I can't conceive of such a disconnected life. I'm not sure it even meets the definition of life. I am sure I wouldn't want to experience it, even for a moment. I'll take this damaged and irrationally violent life, as a flawed part of the staggeringly wondrous all-life-on-Earth. I'll do what I must.

Category: Being Human

Update: Since a few people have been asking about Puc-Puc: She's back today after a month's absence (I thought she'd given up on me and left to find a mate), still running alongside me in my backyard track, and jumping up on my shoulder when I turn my back. I'm wondering: Does she think I'm running around trying to get up speed to fly, and therefore trying to show me, big clumsy slow learner with scrawny wings that I am, how to do it?

6:29:29 PM  trackback []  comment []


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2007 Dave Pollard.
Last update: 02/06/2007; 7:26:32 PM.

May 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Apr   Jun

SEARCH BLOG How to Save the World

Click to see the XML version of this web page.
Subscribe to this blog by
Email:
leafMADE IN CANADA leaf trust your instincts

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Subscribe to "How to Save the World" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.


I'm listening to:

Visit the David Suzuki Foundation




WHAT THE BLOGOSPHERE WANTS MORE OF

Blog readers want to see more:
- original research,surveys etc.
- original,well-crafted fiction
- great finds: resources,blogs,essays, artistic works
- news not found anywhere else
- category killers: aggregators that capture the best of many blogs/feeds, so they need not be read individually
- clever, concise political opinion consistent with their own views
- benchmarks,quantitative analysis
- personal stories,experiences,lessons learned
- first-hand accounts
- live reports from events
- insight:leading-edge thinking & novel perspectives
- short educational pieces
- relevant "aha" graphics
- great photos
- useful tools and checklists
- précis, summaries, reviews and other time-savers
- fun stuff: quizzes, self-evaluations, other interactive content

Blog writers want to see more:
- constructive criticism, reaction, feedback
- 'thank you' comments, and why readers liked their post
- requests for future posts on specific subjects
- foundation articles: posts that writers can build on, on their own blogs
- reading lists/aggregations of material on specific, leading-edge subjects that writers can use as resource material
- wonderful examples of writing of a particular genre, that they can learn from
- comments that engender lively discussion
- guidance on how to write in the strange world of weblogs


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.