21 ms·

A new book argues that violence laid the foundation for virtue

47 points by Hooke 8y ago

koboll 8y ago
Human moral development seems to be a cycle of an outburst of violence, followed by a dramatic retrenchment of violence in response. Each iteration brings greater violence and then an even greater retrenchment. Eons ago we discovered through this cycle that rape and murder are wrong and should be met with cutting the offender off from society permanently. 75 years ago we discovered that systematic genocide and wars for land are wrong and should never be tolerated. We are still recovering from that retrenchment, I think. As it fades further into the mists of history, the next violent phase of the cycle looms closer. It's uncertain whether we'll be around to discover any more moral lessons after it passes.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  Human moral development is the outburst of violence and ultimately the victors defining virtue and morality and law. All one has to do is look at ww2 to see this. "Eons ago we discovered through this cycle that rape and murder are wrong and should be met with cutting the offender off from society permanently." When did we discover this? Our greatest heroes are murderers and rapists. "75 years ago we discovered that systematic genocide and wars for land are wrong and should never be tolerated." Or the countries that committed the most systematic genocide and stole the most land decided that such behavior shouldn't be tolerated since they have the most to lose now. Laws, virtue, morality, etc are all nonsense the victors created to protect their own self interests. The human experience is that of selfishness and hypocrisy and violence. There is no virtue, laws or morality without the threat of violence. The world order is buttressed by armies not by morality, laws or virtue. Always has been and always will be.
- boronine 8y ago
  The “solution” to rape and murder is to have a state strong enough to monopolize violence and eliminate offenders. The “solution” to wars for land is to have an empire effectively own all the land such that any attempt of conquest is a local conflict that will be pacified by the empire. Genocide is more complicated as it can often be in the interest of the state. The fact that we haven’t engaged in genocide in 75 years is indeed curious. Still, I question your theme of moral progress. History would suggest that it will go the other way as the empire inevitably starts to weaken.
hnuser355 8y ago
So I ain’t read the book from OP or Noetzsche but ain’t Nietzsche explicitly say this in Zarathustra or something. I’m sure I didn’t do a good reading but I thought I remember hearing him talk about the incredible violence of what the op article would call “human domestication”
ineedasername 8y ago
This sounds a lot like Nietzsche's Beyond Good & Evil. The entire book is arguably about this very thing, the genesis of, and inextricable link between Good, Bad, and Evil. And you don't need to look any further than the preface to find this thesis laid bare: It could even be possible that whatever gives value to those good and honorable things has an incriminating link, bond, or tie to the very things that look like their evil opposites[0] [0] https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Nietzsche-Beyond-Good-and-Evil.pdf https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Nietzsche-Beyon...
- daseiner1 8y ago
  There’re definite similarities and heavy amounts of overlap with Nietzche’s dueling dualities (heh) of Good/Bad (Master Morality) and Good/Evil (Slave Morality), but this is at a much more primitive level – primates and pre-language humans, while N spent significant time on the Classical eras. I was surprised to see neither Nietzsche nor, especially, Foucault name-checked in this article as the latter has written about similar ideas on the significance of capital punishment in Discipline and Punish.
ryanmarsh 8y ago
"Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" is a great book and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in human evolution or general diet. This article however, is sophomoric. Anyone interested in the origins of human society and violence should also read "The World Until Yesterday" by Jared Diamond, "The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl, "Tribe" by Sebastian by Junger and " Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland". One problem with TFA, male Bonobos exist and do not act like male Chimps. Why? Furthermore, human females are not that different from human males. How might this change the pretext of the article? Human males and females are more alike than different, except on the fringes where a tiny percentage of males are much more violent (think of the most violent criminals). Do male humans tolerate the most violent males? Also, do "alpha" males chimps, stay alpha for very long if they wield too much violence? Must alpha male chimps maintain the support of the females? Do some research. See for yourself. Also, what is the meaning of alpha in this article? The "arch-reactive aggressor"? In humans? So are alphas the most violent or the most respected? Could the alpha not be the most violent but instead have the respect of the most violent? How might that happen? Executioners? Try again. To add personal anecdote: Most of us live in such relatively peaceful environments that we've completely lost touch with how the power dynamics of physical violence work in humans. We have mostly a school-yard version of reality. A society where "words" are violence further obscures the mechanics of physical violence. Truly dealing in violence, absent of any law or government, is like eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once you taste it your eyes are opened to a whole world right within ours which no one understands. We in the west live in a total bubble, so much so that we don't understand simple danger. The typical "active shooter" drill is basic evidence of this fact. It's a ridiculous and dangerous model in the face of true unencumbered violence. It is designed to keep schools from getting sued, not keeping children alive. You didn't know that because you've never had to kick in a door and kill as many people as possible (sickening I know). Furthermore, once you understand violence truly, living in modern western society is like being an extraterrestrial in human skin. It is completely bizarre. This article is candy for those in the bubble.
- jvanderbot 8y ago
  ok. You've convinced me of the antecedent of the article and book: that we've found ourselves deliberately or accidentally in a society without true violence, and even largely without capacity for violence. Yet there is no alternative consequent, just some disdain for the fact that we have peaceful overtones in our culture. But do we? I get it, to a certain extent. I find deep connection when I fight in the gym, and it scratches an itch that I can't explain. We still have war, and still play at war in sports, video games, and TV/movies. We still idolize the scene in the Christmas Story where the bully gets his nose bloodied by reactive violence. We love to commit genocide against aliens, as long as they punch first. I think we subconsciously teach (in all these) violent response to aggressors. But we've decided that violence is a tool for retribution against aggressors (them), not a tool for dealing with in-group disputes (us). TFA equated capital punishment with ostracism. One of us becomes an outside. (We don't do that, on penalty of prison or death). That's the point, to me. Preservation of the groups members by minimizing in-group competition makes the group more resilient against attacks by other groups. In a purely game-theoretic sense, This seems like an optimal strategy.
trabant00 8y ago
As I grow older I found myself questioning more and more the absolute position against any form of physical violence in modern society. Before you get angry I really do mean questioning as in I don't know, not that I have a pro stance on violence. There are obvious and known problems with violence. But do we know that there are no problems with the complete lack of violence as a way to impose rule/discipline or to settle disputes? And what if (as with many other things) the mode in which you apply violence is more important that the presence of lack of it? And what I mean by that, when I was a child it was normal for parents to slap children - a type of violence that does not harm but was quite effective in settling some situations. Maybe I could explain this better but I want to keep it short. And in general it seems to me society is changing so fast that I ask myself if in some cases we go against known negatives without really knowing the alternative negatives. Even asking questions about some of those issues it not really socially acceptable any more.
- derp_dee_derp 8y ago
  our society has thrown out the baby with the bathwater with our modern hatred of organized religion. this question and related questions about when violence and war are morally acceptable has been thoroughly discussed for thousands of years in multiple religions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    >our society has thrown out the baby with the bathwater with our modern hatred of organized religion. How?
    - camelNotation 8y ago
      A lot of modern people think of religion as some combination of fairy tales that provide meaning and comfort paired with some moral principles to follow. That is a very poor assessment of what it actually does, though. Religion is better understood as a form of long-term, multi-generational communication. I would call it "tradition", but tradition is too broad of a word to really capture what is happening in religion. The first and most foundational thing that religion does through multi-generational communication is organize and unite a group of people. It gives them a shared story and a shared identity tied to that story. This is very, very important for more reasons than just the obvious one of "we do better when we get along." The main reason this matters is that it takes many singular, physical organisms and it transforms them into a single, social organism that, at least in the context of the story, act as a singular entity. This is critical because what it does is facilitate the evolution of the social group. You can't really identify what drives a group of people forward by testing them one by one. You have to test them in as a single unit. And by combining them into a singular, united organism and bringing them into conflict with other, similar organisms, you can establish fitness. So let's take an example: let's say you have group A and group A has a religion that teaches first and foremost that the greatest good a person can accomplish is to achieve some sort of personal, spiritual enlightenment. Now let's say we have group B and group B has a religion that teaches first and foremost that the greatest good a person can accomplish is to become powerful enough to challenge the gods and obtain glory. Then let's say we have group C and group C has a religion that teaches first and foremost that the greatest good a person can accomplish is to truly, deeply love their neighbor as themselves. So we have these three groups and let's say they come into conflict over the finite resources available in their region of the world (as people groups tend to do). Their foundational religious beliefs about where they fit as people and as a group into the universe is going to affect every aspect of how they organize their society. One of them is going to organize in a strict hierarchy and that will carry benefits and drawbacks. Another will organize in less centralized fashion, also carrying benefits and drawbacks. So on and so forth. When they meet and come into conflict, the organizational structures they built based on these religious ideas are going to determine who wins and loses. One is more efficient than another. One is stronger. One is weaker. Invariably, what we have is a massive test of fitness between not just people, but social orders and the religions that structure them. So now let's back up and look at this over time. You have millions or even billions of people that are born, live, and die throughout history as part of all these different people groups. The context of their conflicts and the resources they fight over are going to shape who wins to some extent, but in the long term, you are going to start seeing winners and losers. The fitness of one belief system is going to repeatedly win out over another until what you are left with are what we call "world religions", i.e. religions that have tested their fitness against multiple other models and found some measure of fitness. So what is happening when someone tosses out their religious context? They are essentially saying "I understand this organism perfectly, I know its strengths and weaknesses, and I know better than the process of natural selection as to what is a better way of living." That's a pretty bold claim. And if you consider the complexity of social organisms, how sociology as a field has barely even scratched the surface of what it means to understand people in groups, it's a stupid claim as well. It's not a simple matter of reverse engineering religion and replacing it with reason or some bullshit like that anymore than it's a simple matter of replacing a human brain with a computer. You're dealing with a complex, evolved system that has proven fitness. So when we say something like "our society has thrown the baby out with the bathwater" we are referring to things like understanding a balanced position on violence. But we are also referring to a million other nuanced things about religion that provide untold advantages to the social order. Hope that answers your question. Also, go to church. Humanity needs you to go and God loves you.
RobertoG 8y ago
I find the theory compelling but I also think the way is expressed strange. Maybe I'm missing something. More than a "violence and virtue" history, it seems to me that the main point is cooperation brings a positive feedback of more cooperation. In my view, the killing of the "alpha males" is actually the killing of the people unable to cooperate. The moment organized collaboration is possible, the individuals that can cooperate will be stronger than the individual that is unable to cooperate. Not sure why this is not the stressed point in the explanation. Maybe it doesn't make good titles.
- treis 8y ago
  >I find the theory compelling but I also think the way is expressed strange. Maybe I'm missing something. There's an odd usage of alpha male. An alpha male is the one in charge and with high status not the guy with a propensity towards reactive violence. I hate the phrase, but "toxic masculinity" is a better way of phrasing what he describes. You can see how it's useful for the Alpha male(s) and a group at large. They can send them to war against neighbors and reap the spoils. It's also convenient that their aggression drops off a cliff as they get older. This ensures enough old men to control the younger ones and direct their violence towards appropriate targets. >In my view, the killing of the "alpha males" is actually the killing of the people unable to cooperate. The moment organized collaboration is possible, the individuals that can cooperate will be stronger than the individual that is unable to cooperate. I'm not so sure about this. Basically every human group throughout history has one single person in charge. Whether that be the Holy Roman Empire, a ship at sea, a hunter-gather tribe, or a old ladies knitting group. The trait selected for is the ability to seize power when you can, cooperate when you can't, and the wisdom to know if you can.
  - RobertoG 8y ago
    "There's an odd usage of alpha male" I think you are right. How can be a male be the alpha without the group collaboration? By definition, the alpha is the one in the top of the hierarchy in a given moment. "I'm not so sure about this.[..]" I think we basically agree, the ability to seize power is impossible without cooperation with others.
Nasrudith 8y ago
"Virtue" itself seems to largely be a tautology backed by the status quo and inertia as opposed to outcomes or impact on how others are treated. The gladiatorial colloseiums, hunting hellots as a rite of passage, and human sacrifice and flower wars were all "to promote virtue". All it needs to do is be sustainable and self-perpetuate - not be optimal or righteous in any way.
RickS 8y ago
Any Rene Girard readers want to weigh in here? I see some similarities to the themes in his work but am not well versed enough to comment.
motohagiography 8y ago
Popular work in evolutionary psychology would suggest the premise humans have selected against the "reactive aggression," of "alpha males" perhaps overlooks whose children those civilized "proactively aggressive," men were actually raising for all those centuries. The article seems like a proxy for some culture war themes that would be laughable if it were not so insidious. I assure you, we're still here.
mhuffman 8y ago
Doesn't violence emerge naturally as soon as the concept arise of property ownership, protecting the safety of oneself (or one's family or one's community), and trade of any sort? Because all of those beget law or government and those require violence if they are to be enforced at all. If not, then the incentive arises for individuals to be violent because then you can just "have" whatever you desire if you are willing to be violent and no one else is.
astazangasta 8y ago
While I understand that some people have done a lot of good work here, my problem with this work and the author's previous one, is his use of myth making. The story told about mass execution is just that, a story. This is how the author imagines selection operating, but it seems a pure work of fiction. Just by way of argument, no such cull is imagined for bonobos - is it possible in their long evolutionary history humans experienced similar forces? At least as possible as a mass execution of aggressive males.

47 points by Hooke 8y ago

Human moral development seems to be a cycle of an outburst of violence, followed by a dramatic retrenchment of violence in response. Each iteration brings greater violence and then an even greater retrenchment. Eons ago we discovered through this cycle that rape and murder are wrong and should be met with cutting the offender off from society permanently. 75 years ago we discovered that systematic genocide and wars for land are wrong and should never be tolerated. We are still recovering from that retrenchment, I think. As it fades further into the mists of history, the next violent phase of the cycle looms closer. It's uncertain whether we'll be around to discover any more moral lessons after it passes.

porpoisely 8y ago
Human moral development is the outburst of violence and ultimately the victors defining virtue and morality and law. All one has to do is look at ww2 to see this. "Eons ago we discovered through this cycle that rape and murder are wrong and should be met with cutting the offender off from society permanently." When did we discover this? Our greatest heroes are murderers and rapists. "75 years ago we discovered that systematic genocide and wars for land are wrong and should never be tolerated." Or the countries that committed the most systematic genocide and stole the most land decided that such behavior shouldn't be tolerated since they have the most to lose now. Laws, virtue, morality, etc are all nonsense the victors created to protect their own self interests. The human experience is that of selfishness and hypocrisy and violence. There is no virtue, laws or morality without the threat of violence. The world order is buttressed by armies not by morality, laws or virtue. Always has been and always will be.
boronine 8y ago
The “solution” to rape and murder is to have a state strong enough to monopolize violence and eliminate offenders. The “solution” to wars for land is to have an empire effectively own all the land such that any attempt of conquest is a local conflict that will be pacified by the empire. Genocide is more complicated as it can often be in the interest of the state. The fact that we haven’t engaged in genocide in 75 years is indeed curious. Still, I question your theme of moral progress. History would suggest that it will go the other way as the empire inevitably starts to weaken.

hnuser355 8y ago

So I ain’t read the book from OP or Noetzsche but ain’t Nietzsche explicitly say this in Zarathustra or something. I’m sure I didn’t do a good reading but I thought I remember hearing him talk about the incredible violence of what the op article would call “human domestication”

ineedasername 8y ago

This sounds a lot like Nietzsche's Beyond Good & Evil. The entire book is arguably about this very thing, the genesis of, and inextricable link between Good, Bad, and Evil. And you don't need to look any further than the preface to find this thesis laid bare: It could even be possible that whatever gives value to those good and honorable things has an incriminating link, bond, or tie to the very things that look like their evil opposites[0] [0] https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Nietzsche-Beyond-Good-and-Evil.pdf https://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Nietzsche-Beyon...

daseiner1 8y ago
There’re definite similarities and heavy amounts of overlap with Nietzche’s dueling dualities (heh) of Good/Bad (Master Morality) and Good/Evil (Slave Morality), but this is at a much more primitive level – primates and pre-language humans, while N spent significant time on the Classical eras. I was surprised to see neither Nietzsche nor, especially, Foucault name-checked in this article as the latter has written about similar ideas on the significance of capital punishment in Discipline and Punish.

ryanmarsh 8y ago

"Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human" is a great book and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in human evolution or general diet. This article however, is sophomoric. Anyone interested in the origins of human society and violence should also read "The World Until Yesterday" by Jared Diamond, "The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl, "Tribe" by Sebastian by Junger and " Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland". One problem with TFA, male Bonobos exist and do not act like male Chimps. Why? Furthermore, human females are not that different from human males. How might this change the pretext of the article? Human males and females are more alike than different, except on the fringes where a tiny percentage of males are much more violent (think of the most violent criminals). Do male humans tolerate the most violent males? Also, do "alpha" males chimps, stay alpha for very long if they wield too much violence? Must alpha male chimps maintain the support of the females? Do some research. See for yourself. Also, what is the meaning of alpha in this article? The "arch-reactive aggressor"? In humans? So are alphas the most violent or the most respected? Could the alpha not be the most violent but instead have the respect of the most violent? How might that happen? Executioners? Try again. To add personal anecdote: Most of us live in such relatively peaceful environments that we've completely lost touch with how the power dynamics of physical violence work in humans. We have mostly a school-yard version of reality. A society where "words" are violence further obscures the mechanics of physical violence. Truly dealing in violence, absent of any law or government, is like eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once you taste it your eyes are opened to a whole world right within ours which no one understands. We in the west live in a total bubble, so much so that we don't understand simple danger. The typical "active shooter" drill is basic evidence of this fact. It's a ridiculous and dangerous model in the face of true unencumbered violence. It is designed to keep schools from getting sued, not keeping children alive. You didn't know that because you've never had to kick in a door and kill as many people as possible (sickening I know). Furthermore, once you understand violence truly, living in modern western society is like being an extraterrestrial in human skin. It is completely bizarre. This article is candy for those in the bubble.

jvanderbot 8y ago
ok. You've convinced me of the antecedent of the article and book: that we've found ourselves deliberately or accidentally in a society without true violence, and even largely without capacity for violence. Yet there is no alternative consequent, just some disdain for the fact that we have peaceful overtones in our culture. But do we? I get it, to a certain extent. I find deep connection when I fight in the gym, and it scratches an itch that I can't explain. We still have war, and still play at war in sports, video games, and TV/movies. We still idolize the scene in the Christmas Story where the bully gets his nose bloodied by reactive violence. We love to commit genocide against aliens, as long as they punch first. I think we subconsciously teach (in all these) violent response to aggressors. But we've decided that violence is a tool for retribution against aggressors (them), not a tool for dealing with in-group disputes (us). TFA equated capital punishment with ostracism. One of us becomes an outside. (We don't do that, on penalty of prison or death). That's the point, to me. Preservation of the groups members by minimizing in-group competition makes the group more resilient against attacks by other groups. In a purely game-theoretic sense, This seems like an optimal strategy.

trabant00 8y ago

As I grow older I found myself questioning more and more the absolute position against any form of physical violence in modern society. Before you get angry I really do mean questioning as in I don't know, not that I have a pro stance on violence. There are obvious and known problems with violence. But do we know that there are no problems with the complete lack of violence as a way to impose rule/discipline or to settle disputes? And what if (as with many other things) the mode in which you apply violence is more important that the presence of lack of it? And what I mean by that, when I was a child it was normal for parents to slap children - a type of violence that does not harm but was quite effective in settling some situations. Maybe I could explain this better but I want to keep it short. And in general it seems to me society is changing so fast that I ask myself if in some cases we go against known negatives without really knowing the alternative negatives. Even asking questions about some of those issues it not really socially acceptable any more.

derp_dee_derp 8y ago
our society has thrown out the baby with the bathwater with our modern hatred of organized religion. this question and related questions about when violence and war are morally acceptable has been thoroughly discussed for thousands of years in multiple religions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >our society has thrown out the baby with the bathwater with our modern hatred of organized religion. How?
  - camelNotation 8y ago
    A lot of modern people think of religion as some combination of fairy tales that provide meaning and comfort paired with some moral principles to follow. That is a very poor assessment of what it actually does, though. Religion is better understood as a form of long-term, multi-generational communication. I would call it "tradition", but tradition is too broad of a word to really capture what is happening in religion. The first and most foundational thing that religion does through multi-generational communication is organize and unite a group of people. It gives them a shared story and a shared identity tied to that story. This is very, very important for more reasons than just the obvious one of "we do better when we get along." The main reason this matters is that it takes many singular, physical organisms and it transforms them into a single, social organism that, at least in the context of the story, act as a singular entity. This is critical because what it does is facilitate the evolution of the social group. You can't really identify what drives a group of people forward by testing them one by one. You have to test them in as a single unit. And by combining them into a singular, united organism and bringing them into conflict with other, similar organisms, you can establish fitness. So let's take an example: let's say you have group A and group A has a religion that teaches first and foremost that the greatest good a person can accomplish is to achieve some sort of personal, spiritual enlightenment. Now let's say we have group B and group B has a religion that teaches first and foremost that the greatest good a person can accomplish is to become powerful enough to challenge the gods and obtain glory. Then let's say we have group C and group C has a religion that teaches first and foremost that the greatest good a person can accomplish is to truly, deeply love their neighbor as themselves. So we have these three groups and let's say they come into conflict over the finite resources available in their region of the world (as people groups tend to do). Their foundational religious beliefs about where they fit as people and as a group into the universe is going to affect every aspect of how they organize their society. One of them is going to organize in a strict hierarchy and that will carry benefits and drawbacks. Another will organize in less centralized fashion, also carrying benefits and drawbacks. So on and so forth. When they meet and come into conflict, the organizational structures they built based on these religious ideas are going to determine who wins and loses. One is more efficient than another. One is stronger. One is weaker. Invariably, what we have is a massive test of fitness between not just people, but social orders and the religions that structure them. So now let's back up and look at this over time. You have millions or even billions of people that are born, live, and die throughout history as part of all these different people groups. The context of their conflicts and the resources they fight over are going to shape who wins to some extent, but in the long term, you are going to start seeing winners and losers. The fitness of one belief system is going to repeatedly win out over another until what you are left with are what we call "world religions", i.e. religions that have tested their fitness against multiple other models and found some measure of fitness. So what is happening when someone tosses out their religious context? They are essentially saying "I understand this organism perfectly, I know its strengths and weaknesses, and I know better than the process of natural selection as to what is a better way of living." That's a pretty bold claim. And if you consider the complexity of social organisms, how sociology as a field has barely even scratched the surface of what it means to understand people in groups, it's a stupid claim as well. It's not a simple matter of reverse engineering religion and replacing it with reason or some bullshit like that anymore than it's a simple matter of replacing a human brain with a computer. You're dealing with a complex, evolved system that has proven fitness. So when we say something like "our society has thrown the baby out with the bathwater" we are referring to things like understanding a balanced position on violence. But we are also referring to a million other nuanced things about religion that provide untold advantages to the social order. Hope that answers your question. Also, go to church. Humanity needs you to go and God loves you.

RobertoG 8y ago

I find the theory compelling but I also think the way is expressed strange. Maybe I'm missing something. More than a "violence and virtue" history, it seems to me that the main point is cooperation brings a positive feedback of more cooperation. In my view, the killing of the "alpha males" is actually the killing of the people unable to cooperate. The moment organized collaboration is possible, the individuals that can cooperate will be stronger than the individual that is unable to cooperate. Not sure why this is not the stressed point in the explanation. Maybe it doesn't make good titles.

treis 8y ago
>I find the theory compelling but I also think the way is expressed strange. Maybe I'm missing something. There's an odd usage of alpha male. An alpha male is the one in charge and with high status not the guy with a propensity towards reactive violence. I hate the phrase, but "toxic masculinity" is a better way of phrasing what he describes. You can see how it's useful for the Alpha male(s) and a group at large. They can send them to war against neighbors and reap the spoils. It's also convenient that their aggression drops off a cliff as they get older. This ensures enough old men to control the younger ones and direct their violence towards appropriate targets. >In my view, the killing of the "alpha males" is actually the killing of the people unable to cooperate. The moment organized collaboration is possible, the individuals that can cooperate will be stronger than the individual that is unable to cooperate. I'm not so sure about this. Basically every human group throughout history has one single person in charge. Whether that be the Holy Roman Empire, a ship at sea, a hunter-gather tribe, or a old ladies knitting group. The trait selected for is the ability to seize power when you can, cooperate when you can't, and the wisdom to know if you can.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  "There's an odd usage of alpha male" I think you are right. How can be a male be the alpha without the group collaboration? By definition, the alpha is the one in the top of the hierarchy in a given moment. "I'm not so sure about this.[..]" I think we basically agree, the ability to seize power is impossible without cooperation with others.

Nasrudith 8y ago

"Virtue" itself seems to largely be a tautology backed by the status quo and inertia as opposed to outcomes or impact on how others are treated. The gladiatorial colloseiums, hunting hellots as a rite of passage, and human sacrifice and flower wars were all "to promote virtue". All it needs to do is be sustainable and self-perpetuate - not be optimal or righteous in any way.

RickS 8y ago

Any Rene Girard readers want to weigh in here? I see some similarities to the themes in his work but am not well versed enough to comment.

motohagiography 8y ago

Popular work in evolutionary psychology would suggest the premise humans have selected against the "reactive aggression," of "alpha males" perhaps overlooks whose children those civilized "proactively aggressive," men were actually raising for all those centuries. The article seems like a proxy for some culture war themes that would be laughable if it were not so insidious. I assure you, we're still here.

mhuffman 8y ago

Doesn't violence emerge naturally as soon as the concept arise of property ownership, protecting the safety of oneself (or one's family or one's community), and trade of any sort? Because all of those beget law or government and those require violence if they are to be enforced at all. If not, then the incentive arises for individuals to be violent because then you can just "have" whatever you desire if you are willing to be violent and no one else is.

astazangasta 8y ago

While I understand that some people have done a lot of good work here, my problem with this work and the author's previous one, is his use of myth making. The story told about mass execution is just that, a story. This is how the author imagines selection operating, but it seems a pure work of fiction. Just by way of argument, no such cull is imagined for bonobos - is it possible in their long evolutionary history humans experienced similar forces? At least as possible as a mass execution of aggressive males.