[ExI] Reason for religions, was riots (Stefano Vaj)
hkeithhenson at gmail.com
Thu Oct 4 23:29:30 UTC 2012
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 October 2012 21:31, Mirco Romanato <painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
>> The problem with these example, IMO, is they are predictable,
>> repetitive, uniform on all individuals. They biologically evolved in
>> this way. When it become cold bird start to migrate; bird migrating too
>> early or to late migrate alone and are more probable to die.
Bird migration is switched on length of day, not temperature.
>> If human biologically evolved this behavior, they would be unable to
>> control it in any way. It would act inside any and all individuals
>> indifferently from the others.
That would be very strange and unlike other animal behaviors. For
example, why would you think that small children would be affected by
a "war mode" switch?
>>They would be unable to go in war mode
>> before being compelled by the switch and unable to prevent it after.
I have stated, if you have read "Evolutionary psychology, memes and
the origin of war", that there are multiple ways to get into "war
mode." The fastest is to be attacked. Think Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
>> There would be no reason to develop something like religion to
>> justifying it.
There is good reason for going into war mode as an aggressor to be a
slow process. It would be stupid to go into war mode just because the
hunters didn't kill anything today. The model is that perception of a
bleak future turns up the gain on the spread of xenophobic memes. The
memes (in the stone age) eventually synchronized the warriors for a do
or die attack on neighbors.
The same psychological mechanisms in an "idle" state give humans the
ability to be "infected" by religions.
It is common for religions, especially new ones like scientology, to
invoke a great deal of xenophobia against non members. In the case of
that cult, they enforce "disconnection" against family members who
> I have two slightly different approaches to the subject, namely:
> ii) Be it as it may, "war-mode" is simply a restrictive view of what can be
> more accurately and broadly defined as "aggression".
I don't think so. Aggression is mainly an individual behavior. War
is a group on group affair.
More information about the extropy-chat