[ExI] Origin of Religions was Terrorist? Who can tell?

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Fri Sep 12 04:06:51 UTC 2008

BillK wrote (Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 1:44 PM)

> A new paper, here:
> <http://www.physorg.com/news140174454.html>
> Quote:
> Tribal war drove human evolution of aggression
> By Lisa Zyga,
> Wars are costly in terms of lives and resources – so why have we
> fought them throughout human history? In modern times, states may
> fight wars for a number of complex reasons. But in the past, most
> tribal wars were fought for the most basic resources: goods,
> territory, and women.
> These reproduction-enhancing resources prompted our ancestors to fight
> in order to pass down their family genes. With war as a driving force
> for survival, an interesting pattern occurred, according to a new
> study. People with certain warrior-like traits were more likely to
> engage in and win wars, and then passed their warrior genes down to
> their children, which – on an evolutionary timescale – made their
> tribe even more warrior-like. In short, humans seem to have become
> more aggressive over time due to war's essential benefits.
> ----------------

That seems right, though I'll bet that Scandanavians have far fewer
warlike genes than they did 1000 years ago. Much less agressive
genes paid off better in the 17th through 20th centuries.

> Basically saying that human males fight because in pre-history the
> males who were worse at fighting didn't pass their genes on.  But they
> are at a loss to explain why modern nations go to war.
> (Except for obvious economic reasons).

But modern nations do not go to war. There has been no recorded
instance of two democracies going at it. For quite a while I thought
that the War of 1812 was an exception, but that turned out to be
glaringly wrong.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list