[extropy-chat] ray gun

[Keith Henson]

At 02:50 PM 2/4/2006 +0000, you wrote:

Found this unsent in my out buffer. Keith

>On 2/4/06, Keith Henson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> 
>wrote:
>>The original (stone age) evolved purpose of war was to kill a lot of
>>warriors.  Modern wars are less discriminating.
>
>It's the other way around: the evolved function of war is to eliminate 
>competitors. Sometimes women and children would be kept alive, but often 
>they would be killed off. The idea that noncombatants are sacrosanct is a 
>modern one.

I think history, especially that of primitive peoples, would support women 
(if not children) usually being booty in tribal wars.

The logic of my model for stone age wars is *really* twisted, but I think 
there is a case for it.

First, humans have had no significant predators besides other humans for a 
*long* time.  Certainly back to fire and probably back to the first chipped 
rocks 2 plus million years ago.

Second, our line has always been able to over fill our ecological 
niche.  We know war has been a major population control mode for people 
living close to the stone age.

Excellent background material here:

http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf

Published in Anthropological Quarterly, 73.1 (2000), 20-34.

THE HUMAN MOTIVATIONAL COMPLEX: EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND THE CAUSES OF 
HUNTER-GATHERER FIGHTING

"For instance, one critic (McCauley 1990: 3) queried why, if fighting was 
beneficial for inclusive fitness, was it not continuous and ubiquitous.

"He failed to realize that fighting, like any other behaviour, could be 
only one possible tactic for inclusive fitness, depending for its success, 
and activation, on the presence of specific conditions."

Fighting neighbors with similar technology (rocks) was a risky business

Because (iFighting wn the stone age fighting other humans wasumans fight 
when the ecological outlook is bad. and the risk of