Thank you for the link, and for debating me in a civilized an thought-provoking fashion. I tire of forum line-by-line refutation, so allow me to post my thoughts in paragraph form once again.
I find the the idea that a nomadic lifestyle makes intergroup violence unnecessary to be far-fetched. First, being nomads does not mean that hunter-gatherers never stayed in the same place, or returned to somewhere they'd been. It is much more consistent with animal behavior and that of modern nomads to stay in an area for a few days, weeks, or even a whole season, often cycling seasonally in a local area. Territorialism can be found in nomadic animals, such as wolves, and I do not believe it to be a learned trait in humans, but rather an evolved one; as such, 10,000 years of agriculture would not be enough to change that. It takes up to 100X the land to feed hunter-gatherers than it does to feed agrarian people, and moving people are infinitely more likely to run into each other than non-moving people. Given all the above, it seems rather likely that violence between groups over resources or land would be common. Steven Pinker lists several reasons for violence among humans in The Better Angels of Our Nature, all of which would be just as valid for nomadic hunter-gatherers:
Pinker rejects what he calls the "Hydraulic Theory of Violence" – the idea "that humans harbor an inner drive toward aggression (a death instinct or thirst for blood), which builds up inside us and must periodically be discharged. Nothing could be further from contemporary scientific understanding of the psychology of violence." Instead, he argues, research suggests that "aggression is not a single motive, let alone a mounting urge. It is the output of several psychological systems that differ in their environmental triggers, their internal, their neurological basis, and their social distribution." He examines five such systems:
1. Predatory or Practical Violence: violence "deployed as a practical means to an end"[2]:613
2. Dominance: the "urge for authority, prestige, glory, and power." Pinker argues that dominance motivations can occur within individuals and coalitions of "racial, ethnic, religious, or national groups"[2]:631
3. Revenge: the "moralistic urge toward retribution, punishment, and justice"[2]:639
4. Sadism: the "deliberate infliction of pain for no purpose but to enjoy a person's suffering..."[2]:660
5. Ideology: a "shared belief system, usually involving a vision of utopia, that justifies unlimited violence in pursuit of unlimited good."[2]
I also find it hard to believe that hunters (trained killers), armed with weapons, with no laws or doctrines telling them otherwise, would hesitate in the least to use their skills and weapons against other humans if they felt threatened or offended or that they had something to gain from doing so.
Concerning Chimpanzees: Given the complex cognitive mechanisms involved in organized warfare, we could not have taught war to them. While we may have caused the scarcity that led to chimp wars in recent times, they either developed war on their own or received it from this guy.
Overkill hypothesis: The theories of human over-predation and extinction by climate change are not mutually exclusive. There are several extinctions that are not adequately explained by changing climate alone, but do line up perfectly with human arrival. In all likelihood, both were significant contributors to the extinction of many species.
You might find this article interesting. It's a pseudo-review of Steven Pinker's Better Angels, which makes the case that violence in all forms has steadily declined in all forms (form war to slavery to spankings) since the beginning of history (and pre-history).
No problem, I can stick to this format if you prefer. Usually I find breaking a post up makes it easier to clearly respond to specific points, but as my last post shows, that's not always the case.
First off, I have to question the line of reasoning that goes from "wolves and other nomadic animals display territorial behavior" to "I don't think this is a learned trait in humans." Why do you assume it isn't a learned trait in wolves as well?
We seem to be getting into the "nature vs nurture" debate here, which is a thorny and deeply contested issue in scientific circles--partially because many scientists tend to divide up along "party lines" based on their fields of study.
I recall my sociology professor in college calling out the field of genetics as "unscientific" during his introductory lecture, because of it's claims that people can have genetic predispositions to certain diseases and behaviors. I responded with a scathing critique of sociology on the class' online discussion board. We ended up getting along quite well.
My personal position on the matter is that while animals (including humans) might have some natural inclinations, social and environmental factors play a much bigger role in determining behavior.
Regarding your claim that it takes significantly more land to support a hunter-gatherer tribe than an agrarian society, does this statistic assume
exclusive use--or is it merely stating the obvious fact that you have to range a lot farther when your food sources aren't all clumped into one place? What about other species that compete for similar foods? How could our ancestors have survived if it really takes all that just to feed a single tribe, with nothing left for any other organisms with a similar diet?
That said, I really doubt that nomadic societies would be particularly territorial except in times of scarcity--because they would have no incentive to try and claim resources beyond what they could use and carry with them. Territorial behavior is counterproductive when you have neither the need nor the ability to utilize that territory.
Even allowing for the creation of temporary camps and settlements, the fact that you need to be able to pack up and go discourages accumulating anything beyond what you can travel with. What's the point of stockpiling if you're just going to have to leave it behind? I'm not sure "stockpiling" as a concept would even occur to such people, or seem beneficial if it did.
Similar to the discussion of chimp behavior, I'm not contending that warfare or territorialism were unknown. Rather, I see it as a tool in our ancestors' tool box that only got pulled out when conditions favored it--and that prior to the neolithic revolution those conditions were not particularly common.
Granted, humans have a long, proud history of making stupid, sub-optimal decisions--but I doubt we would have been so successful as a species if we were continually flipping the bird at natural selection.
Also, bear in mind that a stateless society does not necessarily mean a
lawless society. It's totally possible for an anarchistic tribe of hunter-gatherers to still have laws and social doctrines that they've agreed upon. The difference is in how those rules are enforced. Instead of doing something silly like making a law that says "no violence" and then using violence to enforce it, you simply rely on social pressures and sanctions to address problematic behavior.
If Ogg is being a violent dick to the other members of the tribe, they just stop helping him. In a group that interdependent, even a subtle snub is likely to get the message across. If he keeps it up, pretty soon he's going to be fending for himself. Sure, he could try using violence to bully them or steal the food they're no longer sharing, but there's many more of them and as you pointed out they
are trained killers. They should be capable of defending themselves, and if this plays out enough times it will start to reinforce a tendency to cooperate.
Note that nowhere in this scenario is aggression required to uphold these laws. Refusing to help or cooperate with someone is a purely passive action. Violence may be required to
defend against aggression, but maintaining the social order does not require the
initiation of force.
By comparison, hierarchical societies reward aggression--whether tacitly or openly. A child raised in such a society learns on a very basic level that violence and intimidation are
the legitimate means of getting what you want and becoming successful. Sure, we may
tell kids to use their words, but every single authority figure in their life--parents, teachers, police, etc--uses physical aggression, the threat of physical aggression, and social dominance
based on the threat of physical aggression to enforce* their will on others.
*
Notice the root term
force in there? Aggression is so ingrained in our culture that it's hard-coded into our
language. That's right up there with the sexist implications of our pronoun usage.
Of course, because of this upbringing, we tend to see this behavior as normal and inherent--especially since we're taught (brainwashed really) that violence is bad and our societies are more peaceful now that we have (violently enforced) laws to keep us safe and well behaved. Arguably, the sheer epic-level bluff check involved in flinging that degree of BS constitutes aggression in and of itself. It's a clear violation of the "attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained" clause of the NAP.
Trying to claim that modern societies are less violent when
everything we do is rooted in violence and rewards further violence is just laughably ridiculous. Of course, a lot of people do make those claims--similar to the way many racists and homophobes vehemently deny being such. My pet hypothesis is that the cognitive dissonance involved in holding irrational beliefs which so directly contradict observable reality messes up one's ability to reason, but I don't pretend to be an expert on psychology and I've never attempted to test it in any rigorous manner.
What our society
has done is to partially supplant overt violence with threatened or implied violence, so on the surface our cultures appear less aggressive. For instance, if you get stopped for speeding, an officer may write you a ticket. (Or he might shoot you a bunch of times, it really depends.) Now, on the surface that ticket looks nice and peaceful--but in reality, that ticket is a threat that force will be used against you if you don't comply with the officer's demand for money. Functionally, it's no different than being robbed at gun point--the ticket stands in for the gun the same way paper money is supposed to symbolically stand in for the value of goods and services. Try deciding not to pay the ticket, and see how long it takes for an actual gun to be brought out.
Also, an aside regarding statistics: there are a lot of overt forms of violence that go under-reported for various reasons. Whether it's cases where the victims are hesitant to come forward, such as with rape or domestic abuse, or situations where the violence is not adequately tracked or recorded--such as with police violence against citizens--there is a lot more direct physical harm going on in modern societies than is apparent on the surface.
In short, I think Steven Pinker is mistaking as inherent various modes of behavior which are conditioned into us by the structure of our present society. I also think he's overlooking a lot of subtle but widespread violence in modern cultures, as well as some not-so subtle violence that gets swept under the rug. Even if it were to be proven that these mechanisms are an inborn part of our neurology, I still contend that hierarchical societies reinforce and amplify these tendencies in a way that stateless societies do not.
This comes after a speech to Congress in which the Pope warned against the changing nature of marriage, and the need to preserve religious freedom.
2+2=4
At the end of the day, the Pope is Catholic and believes that birth control is an abomination because the purpose of sex is for procreation, homosexuality is sin, and marriage is between one man and one woman.
Did it really? I haven't listened to the speech myself. Is it publicly available, or are we relying on reporters to tell us what was said and what he meant by it? Because it
really isn't hard to take someone's words out of context and project your own biases or assumptions on to them. The few quotes I saw in articles could have been interpreted a lot of different ways, but were often accompanied by bold declarations of what he "obviously meant."
Granted, my own biases make me inclined to agree with you, but this pope has been consistently surprising me and I don't want to assume I know what he believes based solely on
my opinions of his religion or his predecessors.
Besides, it's a little silly to say "Look, the Pope had a meeting with Kim Davis, that
proves he's anti-gay!" and then try to support that conclusion with "Well of course he's anti-gay, he's Catholic!" That's just engaging in confirmation bias.
