I thought that humanity was its own predator though. The big thing about how it's in our nature to kill each other and all that jazz.

 

 

If it's in our nature to kill each other, why does our population insist on growing so quickly?

I thought that humanity was its own predator though.  The big thing about how it's in our nature to kill each other and all that jazz.

 

 

If it's in our nature to kill each other, why does our population insist on growing so quickly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well it's certainly in our nature to kill each other. Just not on a large enough scale to keep pace with the population growth.

 

That desire for conflict must be driven by something as well.

If it was in our nature to just outright kill each other, wouldn't you have more murders that mimic'd those of serial killers and whatnot?

 

Wouldn't you and I have an inherent bloodlust to kill each other?

If it was in our nature to just outright kill each other, wouldn't you have more murders that mimic'd those of serial killers and whatnot?

 

Wouldn't you and I have an inherent bloodlust to kill each other?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Take away social control and what happens.

How do you take away social control though? Aren't we also social by nature?

 

Are you saying that if we didn't have social control, we'd just kill each other for the fun of it?

More like there's nothing to punish the dark side.

How do you take away social control though?  Aren't we also social by nature?

 

Are you saying that if we didn't have social control, we'd just kill each other for the fun of it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lots of ways. Blackouts, floods , earthquakes.

 

No. But people would be more likely to kill each other. People are driven by need just the same as animals are.

Lots of ways. Blackouts, floods , earthquakes.

 

That would explain the drastic increase in homicides after Katrina hit!

 

It doesn't get rid of social control. If there is one thing that people inherently are, it's that they are social beings. If social control did disappear, then everyone would be doing the looting, and acting in their own best interests (because I do believe that people are inherently selfish...it's a survival trait).

 

Why would we be more likely to kill each other compared to other animals if, as you say, we are driven by need just the same as animals.

 

I don't believe that it's because it is part of our nature to kill. If you could point me in the direction of some academic research to indicate that we are, I'd love to read up on it. Based purely on introspection, I would be willing to concede that people inherently desire power (which is because people are inherently social...more on this later). I do believe that people are inherently aggressive.

 

But if it was truly in our nature to kill ourselves, I'd suspect somebody somewhere would have already pushed the button to thermonuclear destruction. Probably during a blackout when social control has disappeared.

If it were really in our nature to kill, then military training would not have to be so rigorous nor so intensive. The overwhelming majority of human beings find it extremely difficult to take life. That is our nature.

 

I would also ask how you can condemn muslims for being bigoted, which is in itself a form of bigotry! Irony at a basic level, chaps. I should also point out that not only was it illegal in many Western countries to be gay last century, but there are still plenty of places you can get kicked to death for it.

 

Surely the whole point of this story should be to inspire tolerance, not hatred for those different to us.

Are you asking for tolerance towards religious fundamentalists? Not on your life.

If it were really in our nature to kill, then military training would not have to be so rigorous nor so intensive. The overwhelming majority of human beings find it extremely difficult to take life. That is our nature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is nurture. We are raised to believe killing is wrong. The millitary training then has to overcome that conditioning.

 

Part of the reason they started to use realistic targets is to blur that line between shooting a target and shooting a person.

 

It's threat - response.

Not threat - think about morality of killing - response.

That would explain the drastic increase in homicides after Katrina hit! 

 

It doesn't get rid of social control.  If there is one thing that people inherently are, it's that they are social beings.  If social control did disappear, then everyone would be doing the looting, and acting in their own best interests (because I do believe that people are inherently selfish...it's a survival trait).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It wasnt a total breakdown in social control. Otherwise people would not have gathered waiting to be rescued. It was however an indication in what would happen if people did have to compete for limited supplies.

 

Why do you thing nukes have so many failsafes in place.

Edited May 10, 200619 yr by ShadowPaladin V1.0

The whole point of military training is to get someone to engineer and provoke situations where the other fellah dies for his country. So it's very rarely the case that you get the direct fight or flight. Even when it is, the mk 1 human mind can't understand firearms very well, and rarely grasps that it needs to fight to save its skin.

 

If it was nurture then why did British infantry, coming from a largely peaceable democratic nation outperform Italians coming from a Fascist nation?

The whole point of military training is to get someone to engineer and provoke situations where the other fellah dies for his country. So it's very rarely the case that you get the direct fight or flight. Even when it is, the mk 1 human mind can't understand firearms very well, and rarely grasps that it needs to fight to save its skin.

 

If it was nurture then why did British infantry, coming from a largely peaceable democratic nation outperform Italians coming from a Fascist nation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That makes no sense.

 

Britains always produced good soldiers. Quite an established record of conflict too.

I mean the 18-20 years prior to ww2 when squaddies would be nurturing. Not some vague notion of 'national character'.

It wasnt a total breakdown in social control. Otherwise people would not have gathered waiting to be rescued. It was however an indication in what would happen if people did have to compete for limited supplies.

 

All that says is that it's in our nature to look out for ourselves. It doesn't say that it's in our nature to kill each other.

 

Why do you thing nukes have so many failsafes in place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Irrelevant. If it was in our nature to kill each other, then people would have gone through the proper protocol to launch said nuclear missiles. If it's in our nature, it wouldn't have to rely on one man, because it'd be inherent to all of us.

How do you take away social control though?  Aren't we also social by nature?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The British government's estimate is four meals ... once order is disrupted for longer than that, the society begins to break down ...

Actually, the nukes have been ordered fired (mistakenly) on several occasions, and the human operators in the silos concerned have refused. At least according to a friend of the family who worked for NORAD. He was furious.

That's comforting.

And it's quite disturbing too.

LAUNCH ZEE MISSILES!

 

NUKE THE PLANET!

 

I would survive. I took a quiz that told me so.

Edited May 11, 200619 yr by Judge Hades

I'm surprised nobody's suggested sodomizing with guns, obviously phallic symbols, then firing.

 

It would be poetic justice!

They should just round up those police officers and cap them back of the head with a .45.

Add the guy who issued the fathwa to the list.

Well, in light of these constructive suggestions I am going to draw this to a close.