Jason 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 HumanUpdate: 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?
|