Did those barbarians actually get it right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thats quite profound Frag.

The counter question is "Do you want to be a man, or a man."

Genocide and racism are perfectly logical from a survivalist point of view, but should we view the world from a survivalist point of view.

I have no problem with killing men if they try to kill me, or if they hurt my family, yet I can't imagine laying hands on a woman.

Weird, huh?

Whats even stranger is that actually makes me a chauvanist.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Survive in which world, the one that was already there or the reality we created? One of the two doesn't really exist, it just looks like it does sometimes. When it does seem to exist, it is us that are really going against our instincts, isn't genocide a completily natural thing, thinking as a species? We are living in two worlds it seems, the one we know and the one we know very well.

Well genocide is neither rational nor natural in a situation where there isn't a resource crisis or otherwise the survival of someone conflicts with the survival of another. Most genocides have indeed happened at times of resource crisis, and most lethal violent behaviors (as opposed to mostly but not exclusively non-lethal violence that animals sometimes use to fight over partners) in animals occur only in times of similar crisis. Basically: from an evolutionary perspective, violence is good for the individual's survival when nothing else works for survival, but when there's no reason to use violence, the best thing is to not use it. That's why instincts tend to call forth violence almost only in times of crisis as seen from the perspective of the individual that uses it.

If we make sure the triggers for violence never appear, by making sure there's never a Malthusian disaster (resource crisis), or badly distributed power or other dangerous crisis, we will make sure that it doesn't occur as often that people will emotionally consider genocide an option. It would of course be unrealistic to expect total lack of genocide, war and crime in such a setting for many reasons, but at least a very dramatic decrease, and our closest animal relatives prove that it isn't unrealistic to expect that if the correct society form is chosen, violence can decrease quite dramatically down to the levels they show, because they have almost the same instincts set as we have.

And would we really have to change society that much to achieve it? I don't think so. All we would need would be birth control in most countries, and trade blockades etc. on all countries that don't adopt it, and have western countries increase their agriculture by a few percent.

But that's where the problem lies. It's easier for a politician to win an election with the message "more aid for the families and children in society so you can buy Christmas presents today!" than "introduce a taxation on children and strict birth control, so that we don't get a resource crisis in around 20-80 years from now". The first politician can pick some easy propaganda points, and accuse the second politician of "spreading fear and chaos", or "advoctating violence" and even blaming "people like him" for causing the violence of genocides etc., when in reality he's trying to do the opposite by making sure the crisis never takes place. In order to be able to have politicians in a democracy win an election with the latter message, the average citizen must be educated in the dangers of resource crisis, and learn to resist the temptation of having too many children, and know the necessity of voting through birth control. But people seem too ruled by instincts to accept such a regulation, they have a too strong desire to have much offspring. That desire is natural, because pre civilization not all of the offspring would survive to reproductive age. But in the modern society form it doesn't work as intended. That's one example of the core problem I mentioned: that the instincts aren't adapted to the modern society but to a precivilization setting, but that we still can't resist to act by these instincts, even though they don't work well. The question is: is it society or humans that should change?

[macsen rufus]

"introduce a taxation on children and strict birth control, so that we don't get a resource crisis in around 20-80 years from now".

This guy gets my vote! I'm fed up of all the breeders putting strain on resources AND getting all the tax breaks....

Sorry, I'll shut up and let the rest of you get back on topic.....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Here's an interesting question:

How many of our current "murderers" who have say, killed their sister's rapist would still be out and about if we had the death penalty for such a crime?

Capital punishement is fairly final and it probably does away with a lot of personnal vengance.

Another question. How many angry young men who go out and kill people would be better off in the army, restrained and only let loose to do the hacking and slashing on behalf of the state. We fought Napoleon with such men.

[Keba]

A fair few, despite capital punishment. A quick death is not for them ... they must suffer. That kind of mentality, so yes, you'd have such cases and a lot of them. Though, to be honest, rape isn't a very reported crime and a lot of cases would slip through unnoticed, in which case a brother or father or relative or even friend would get involved, in a rather nasty, bloody way.

Another question. How many angry young men who go out and kill people would be better off in the army, restrained and only let loose to do the hacking and slashing on behalf of the state. We fought Napoleon with such men.

Those would be a one-shot weapon these days. Send them off to war, and as soon as they're back it's time for war crime trials. Back in those days, when such people were used, rape and pillage were considered basic parts of being a soldier. These days not so much.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll take your first point but I'll not take your second. There's a difference between psycho's and naturally violent people. I am not the peacable type myself, I don't go around killing people but I can understand, and have no problem with, a man who finds his wife in bed with another man and kills the adulterer.

A lot of the soldiers I know are very scary people. As nice as they may be they have an air of supressed violence about them and if you upset them they might just kill you. That doesn't mean they're bad people but they have a different set of values to you.

These days it's very hard to get into the army. Back then it was very easy.