4 ms·
I'm always disappointed when I see violence being celebrated in our culture. I understand it's been a part of human history from the beginning but I think human
by aedocw 11y ago
I'm always disappointed when I see violence being celebrated in our culture. I understand it's been a part of human history from the beginning but I think humanity at large has a lot to gain by being less violent.
If there is going to be violence at least moving from kill-at-a-distance weapons to fists is a step in the right direction. I read a really good book on this subject[1] and realized I identified with a lot of what he had to say. Though I didn't grow up in a neighborhood where I had to fight anyone to prove myself, I certainly saw those attitudes around me (you're only a man if you're always ready to hurt another man) and it always struck me as sad. I see the same thing happening with the popularity of MMA - sure ancient cultures used to watch gladiators fight to the death, but is watching and cheering that on a good thing for any culture?
[1]: Fist Stick Knife Gun: A Personal History of Violence by Geoffrey Canada
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoThe urge to violence is built into our DNA. Not everyone expresses it fully, but it will always be a part of our culture. Anything that redirects that urge in pro-social ways is a good thing, in my opinion.
- danbruc 11y agoThe urge to violence is built into our DNA. Citation needed.
- zepto 11y agoNot really. Given the prevalence of it, the burden of proof is on the claim that it is not.
- danharaj 11y agoThat's absurd. Yes, humans are violent. Men are especially violent. The null hypothesis isn't that it is caused by DNA of all things.
- CamperBob2 11y agoIf it's not caused by genetics that direct the production of aggression-related hormones, then what?
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoWhere else would it come from? Nature and nurture are the only options; culture can certainly encourage (or suppress) violence, but it's pretty obvious that it isn't the sole cause of violence. Maybe I should clarify. I'm not saying that every human being secretly yearns to smash and kill. I'm saying that most of the human race has an instinctive drive to respond to certain setbacks with violence, and some people (whether through nature, nurture, or both) find it more difficult to suppress that than others.
- thwarted 11y agoIf there is going to be violence at least moving from kill-at-a-distance weapons to fists is a step in the right direction. Kill-at-a-distance weapons are often considered to be an equalizer, since it is possible for people with wildly different body types to weild a gun with similar stopping power effectively. Using fists is the bare definition of "might makes right", which isn't desirable either. The value in fist fighting is that there isn't a proxy for the damage done, you are literally hurting someone with your own hands, which is arguably less humane because it can take longer and perhaps more brutal. Compared to long distance weapons, a gun is impersonal. A nuclear weapon even more so.