[extropy-chat] 'a process of non-thinking called faith' 2 (2)

[Keith Henson]

At 12:10 AM 11/19/2006 -0600, you wrote:
> > >But I do not subscribe to your notion of a lower level gene driven
>program of genocide.
> >
> > Ok, though you might note that chimps practice genocide on neighbors.
> >
>Is it true genocide? Or is it something else entirely? Is the killing done
>for genetic reasons or are there cultural considerations? What genotypes do
>they seek to kill?

In spite of both germs sharing the related Greek roots genea and genos, 
genocide is not related to genes, at least not directly:

gene
     1911, from Ger. Gen, coined 1905 by Dan. scientist Wilhelm Ludvig 
Johannsen (1857-1927), from Gk. genea "generation, race" (see kin). De 
Vries had earlier called them pangenes.

genocide
Coined in 1944 from Greek genos ('race,' 'kind') and -cide, from Latin 
-cidere, 'to kill'.

    1. The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis 
of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other 
particularity.
    2. Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a 
national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

>Do they go after groups that are more genetically similar
>to themselves? Or do they seem those that are less similar?

Like human (before gene sequencing) they have no way to know.

>Or do they seek
>to destroy those that are closer by or further away?

Neighbors.

>Is it genocide when a
>chimp kills a bonobo?

Since genocide is only defined for humans it's a bit of a stretch to apply 
the term to one chimp group exterminating another.  But they are (along 
with the bonobos) our closest relatives.

>Or a baboon or monkey? Where exactly are those lines
>that trigger it? Is genocide even a real phenomenon? I'm sorry if I am not
>very clear in what I am saying. I have had a tough week and am having a
>difficult time focusing.

On line dictionaries are a good place to start.

> > >If anything it's a defense mechanism where they feel that if they do not
> > >kill, they will be killed.
> >
> > And that defense mechanism is *not* the result of genes that build brains?
>
>No. It would be similar to the fight or flee instinct.

Instincts are evolved, hardwired, nerve circuits.  The details of their 
construction comes from instructions provided by genes.

>Many animals have
>various defense mechanisms without any brain building going on.

I can't think of any ones based on behavior that don't involve a brain.

>This "brain
>building genocide" requires that  the more intelligent people are also the
>most violent.......And "genocide" could work just as easily to shrink the
>brain as it could to build a brain. Dumber, more violent and less rational
>minds could win over the slightly smarter but less violent people which
>allows their less sophisticated brains to reproduce more children. After
>all, it's the tough football players in high school that get the girls, not
>the geeks...........

It would take more time than I have to walk you through advanced 
evolutionary psychology.  For background, I suggest William Calvin's 
excellent web site.  His books are on line or you can pick them up at a 
library.

> > >I think that even if they were all genetic clones, after years of being
> > >taught different things, living in different cultures and experiencing
> > >different lives, they would still be killing each other.
> >
> > Oh.  I misunderstood your meaning.  What I guess you mean is a
> > disinclination to kill those closely related even when there is a massive
> > resource crunch.  Humans don't have genetic analyzers so we make do with
> > proxy information that was reliable enough when we lived in hunter gather
> > bands.  All those in the band could be considered related, family members
> > were close relatives.
> >
> > Easter Island was settled by about 20 people, probably already closely
> > related.  There followed about 400 years of peaceful population growth,
> > reaching perhaps as many as 20,000 people and grossly over exploiting the
> > resources of the island.  One day they downed the tools they had been
>using
> > to make the statues, and went at each other with rocks till 95% of the
> > population was dead.  At that point the wars ended.  A generation or two
> > later Europeans visited (a disaster in itself).
> >
> > The point here is that there was a *long* period with little or no
> > warfare.  What turned it on and what turned it off?
>
>Maybe a sudden loss of good quality women? Maybe through disease?

Easter Island is the most isolated human habitation on earth.

>Or maybe that sibling rivalry that grows into a family dispute splitting the
>family and then people take sides and after so many generations they are
>always suspicious of each other, then someone does something stupid or evil,
>or an accident occurs which is blamed on someone else.........Heck, the list
>goes on. Can you not think of any other reason than to say it's embedded in
>the genes? You need not assume that something was "turned on". People get
>angry about all sorts of stuff and they have the capacity to kill. Then as
>they become desensitized to it killing becomes easier and easier. Things
>escalate until such time that there are much fewer people and they look back
>and see what they did and go "maybe we should thing about peace". This
>process plays over and over throughout history. If you continue to add fuel
>and air, eventually a small spark sets off a big flame. Then when there is
>nothing left but rubble, people recognize how badly they need each other and
>start to play nice again.

More like the reduced load on the environment make the future look 
brighter.  In such times it is more rewarding for genes for people to quit 
fighting and raise kids.

>If genocide were truly embedded in our genes, then
>you could drop 10 people of various races with various skills on an island
>from a shipwreck and expect them to kill each other. I thnk they would
>choose to work together for their own survival.

You have a misunderstanding of what genocide is.  Rwanda is a fairly pure 
example of genocide.

Genocide (and war) are set off by perception of future conditions (mostly 
economic) that are worse than the current.  I make the case that the 
mechanisms evolved during the millions of years human ancestors lived as

Very often this is the result of population growth in excess of that the 
environment can support.  (For a given technology.)

Keith Hensom