This is it.Rex Fallout said:
To be honest OP, I've got no idea what you're on about.
Humans are angry and violent as fuck, but they generally aren't depicted that way in Sci-Fi, or even any form of fiction.
Poll: What is it with people automatically assuming humanity is a violent race?
- Thread starter Connor Mulhern
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To be honest OP, I've got no idea what you're on about.
Humans are angry and violent as fuck, but they generally aren't depicted that way in Sci-Fi, or even any form of fiction.
We are violent. As technology has moved further and further ahead we've had to fight less and less, but when push comes to shove, as it would in a post apocalyptic world, we would fight tooth and nail for simple things. We did fight tooth and nail for simple things. We fought and scraped and bled until we didn't need to, and we still fight and scrape and bleed. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's like saying having to eat is a bad thing. It's just part of being human. In order to survive, and thrive, we have to be violent.
So far as "no more violent than anythin else in the universe" it's hard to say. We haven't met them.
So far as "no more violent than anythin else in the universe" it's hard to say. We haven't met them.
As of right now, I have yet to kill any human beings for any reason, and I would venture to say that, likewise, the majority of all humans that have ever lived have never killed anyone. Meanwhile, spiders, lions, sharks, you name it, on average are probably expected to have killed at least one member of their own species by the time they have reached my age.
Ergo, we aren't too violent.
However I do find it fascinating that we were able to kill over 3% of our population in the span of 6 years during ww2.
Ergo, we aren't too violent.
However I do find it fascinating that we were able to kill over 3% of our population in the span of 6 years during ww2.
True, nature demands survival of the fittest but humans are unique in that very few other animals kill with no reason. We are an extremely violent species, fighting wars over asinine disagreements relating to superstitions, and we're so mentally fragile even someone who is clearly insane can lead an army if he has traces of charisma.
But on the more ethical side of things, some people can note that this behavior tends to be less prevalent in the educated. Maybe if we can avoid killing ourselves long enough for the education systems of the world to become really effective, we can set out amongst the stars with fewer violent tendencies.
...hopefully religion will have been forgotten by that point or theistic beliefs will have been replaced with philosophical ones so we don't wind up making alien species extinct in the name of some imaginary friend in the center of the galaxy.
But on the more ethical side of things, some people can note that this behavior tends to be less prevalent in the educated. Maybe if we can avoid killing ourselves long enough for the education systems of the world to become really effective, we can set out amongst the stars with fewer violent tendencies.
...hopefully religion will have been forgotten by that point or theistic beliefs will have been replaced with philosophical ones so we don't wind up making alien species extinct in the name of some imaginary friend in the center of the galaxy.
What makes people think humanity is violent?
Oh I don't know... Maybe it's all the murder, and wars, and feeble justifications for pointless killing and maiming. Maybe it's the fact that thousands of years after we started talking to each other, we still revert to murder as easily as a child throws an angry fit. Might also be our tendency to "shoot first ask questions later".
...Might be that. Maybe.
Oh I don't know... Maybe it's all the murder, and wars, and feeble justifications for pointless killing and maiming. Maybe it's the fact that thousands of years after we started talking to each other, we still revert to murder as easily as a child throws an angry fit. Might also be our tendency to "shoot first ask questions later".
...Might be that. Maybe.
You only need to glance at Human history to understand that Humanity is a horrible and violent race.
Whether or not other alien species are just as, not as, or more violent that Humanity doesn't change the fact that Humanity is still a violent and corrupt civilisation.
The question in the topic title is highly redundant.
Whether or not other alien species are just as, not as, or more violent that Humanity doesn't change the fact that Humanity is still a violent and corrupt civilisation.
The question in the topic title is highly redundant.
Knowledge is a huge incentive to be peace-loving. You don't find good critical thinkers in war zones, you find good survivors. Maybe extreme leaps in war technology occur in times of conflict, but not in places afflicted by war. Otherwise, technology flourishes best in stable societies where repositories of knowledge (in the various forms of humans, libraries, and digital media) are unlikely to be carelessly destroyed. Maybe this is not true of other species, maybe it is. Going off of humans, if the have the technology to make it from whatever solar system they hail from to our own, alive no less, there is a distinct possibility they are less warlike.
Also, to everyone who says humans are an extremely violent species, look at how high population density gets in some cities and tell me it's not mind-boggling that there isn't MORE violent crime and/or war. Taking the amount of required living space into account, humans are pretty much the most peace loving, non-violent species we have ever witnessed.
Other animals, especially non-domesticated ones, are at least marginally territorial, because they NEED a certain amount of food to survive, and that certain amount of food often translates into a certain amount of land. Humans, as yet, are the only species capable of altering the land to better support increased numbers, leading to a drastic decrease in territorialism.
To further specify, some animals are naturally group animals, humans being among them. A fair number of other primate species are also group animals, and a correlation has been found between primate brain size and group numbers. Long story short, predicting human group size by average brain size leads to a number around 100 ([a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number"]This explains the origin of the theory, and gives some hypotheses why humans tend to live in larger settlements[/a]. Consider how many MORE people than 100 live in the average city ([a href="http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/10mostdense.htm"] These are some of the highest population density cities[/a]), and how few actual territorial disputes occur in the average city.
That being said, why would THE MOST VIOLENT SPECIES EVAR consider being said species a BAD thing? I'm pretty sure with the capability to wipe everything off the face of the earth, the most violent species ever would be quite pleased to do just that, given that some species will fly into a destructive rage at the mere SOUND of another of their kind.
TL
R; Humanity is ridiculously peaceful, as proven by MATH and SCIENCE.
Also, to everyone who says humans are an extremely violent species, look at how high population density gets in some cities and tell me it's not mind-boggling that there isn't MORE violent crime and/or war. Taking the amount of required living space into account, humans are pretty much the most peace loving, non-violent species we have ever witnessed.
Other animals, especially non-domesticated ones, are at least marginally territorial, because they NEED a certain amount of food to survive, and that certain amount of food often translates into a certain amount of land. Humans, as yet, are the only species capable of altering the land to better support increased numbers, leading to a drastic decrease in territorialism.
To further specify, some animals are naturally group animals, humans being among them. A fair number of other primate species are also group animals, and a correlation has been found between primate brain size and group numbers. Long story short, predicting human group size by average brain size leads to a number around 100 ([a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number"]This explains the origin of the theory, and gives some hypotheses why humans tend to live in larger settlements[/a]. Consider how many MORE people than 100 live in the average city ([a href="http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/10mostdense.htm"] These are some of the highest population density cities[/a]), and how few actual territorial disputes occur in the average city.
That being said, why would THE MOST VIOLENT SPECIES EVAR consider being said species a BAD thing? I'm pretty sure with the capability to wipe everything off the face of the earth, the most violent species ever would be quite pleased to do just that, given that some species will fly into a destructive rage at the mere SOUND of another of their kind.
TL
R; Humanity is ridiculously peaceful, as proven by MATH and SCIENCE.
Since we haven't met any other sapient [footnote]Sapient. Not sentient. Most animals are sentient.[/footnote] alien species [footnote]Yes, not race.[/footnote] yet, I think it would be pretty difficult to determine how violent we were in comparison to them.
I have heard it said as a word of caution, we may encounter intelligent life out there, doesn't mean it will be friendly.
There is a difference between the "Most Violent" and "Most Capable Of Damage." We may be the latter, but we are certainly not the former. How many times have you been attacked by a person today? How many people have you seen today? Were you an orangutan male, had you seen ANY OTHER orangutan male, you two would threaten each other off, or fight it out. If one of you were female, there is a high chance of the female being forced into copulation. (the emotional and mental trauma implicit in the term "rape" are difficult to prove in non-human species, so the term is generally avoided.)KoalaKid said:
In response to your orangutan example I ask you this, how many other species have the orangutans hunted into extinction? How many nuclear bombs have the orangutans built and used? how many world wars have orangutans been apart of? I could go on, but surely you can see my point; comparing fights for dominance between male orangutans with the seas of blood humanity has spilled, human or otherwise is unintelligent. Honestly, I can't understand how you could even think to compare the two.conflictofinterests said:
I disagree here. If anything we have most definitely become less violent as the years roll by. And you saying that War is human nature is troubling, and makes me wonder, war may be human nature, but why must we accept human nature? And if everyone just accepted that everyone else can believe what they want and do what they want, ie. tolerance, then there would be no need for war.Blueruler182 said:
We are obviously at an impasse here, because I, on the one hand, find the mind boggling numbers of humans living alongside one another without proportional incident the most pertinent factor, and you find the mind-boggling lethality the species has expressed the most pertinent factor.KoalaKid said:
On a side note, the extinction of species occurs naturally, and is not entirely the fault of this species. Yes we have the capacity now to realize what extinction is, what it means, and why it ought to be avoided, but previously this knowledge was unavailable, and we were acting in the unenlightened best interest of the species, something every species does from time to time, and which cannot be labeled as evil because it lacks malicious forethought, and some segments of humanity cannot well afford to worry about biodiversity when predators are consuming their livelihoods, which is a mitigating circumstance, and thus only labeled evil in the strictest of moral codes.
Also, it may be as harmful to the environment to meddle as we do with species which are going extinct of their own accord, through no (discernible) fault of our own. The environment has always regulated itself, for better or worse, and will continue long after humans are gone. The prolonged existence of a species that would have otherwise gone extinct may have just as many negative ramifications as the premature extinction of another.
EDIT: Also, your examples lend themselves to demonstrating how capable humans are at causing harm, not at how violent they are. At best they negate the idea of humans being completely without violence, which I suppose I should not have implied. While humans have been known to create swaths of death and destruction, and while these are by no means isolated incidents, there are nearly 7 billion humans alive today, up nearly 1 billion in a decade, which should not be possible in a species as violent as you suggest. The population growth should not be skyrocketing with the advent of WMD's to a radically violent species, it should be plummeting.
EDITEDIT: Instead, world population is more affected by advents in effective food production and the availability of health care, both of which are peaceful endeavors.
Okay I have a lot to say, but will start with your idea of humans living alongside one another without proportional incident. Really? you surely must be talking only about the country in which you reside. Do you watch the news or stay informed by any means of whats happening in the rest of the world? Have you any idea of whats going on in just the country Libya perhaps? Really the simple fact that wars are going on right now as we speak should show you that we are not living peacefully side by side without proportional incidents of violence.conflictofinterests said:
As for the rise in population better medical technology, and nutrition is to thank for that, not a decline in human violence.
Lastly the examples I used in my second response do in fact show how violent humans are because their not isolated incidents, but instead ongoing incidents thus showing the behavior of humanity and its innate natural tendencies. I'm going to guess that your probably a non-violent person and so the idea of human violence is hard for you to swallow. As a pacifist myself that has seen a lot of violence I can tell you our disdain for it doesn't make it any less true.
Oh, I forgot about the extinction thing (I'm getting tired) whatever semantics you may want to argue about extinction humans hunting something out of existence is genocide, and even back in what I will deem the stupid ages I'm pretty sure they were aware that if you have a finite number of something and you destroy it wholly that nothing would be left. otherwise they would have been constantly confused, Example: person has one apple, person eats one apple, person is confused as to why they don't have any more apples. LOL!
Just because humans are violent and continue to fight wars in which many people are killed does not mean that the violence is proportional to the amount of violence experienced between species.KoalaKid said:
First of all, a social species is by necessity more non-violent than a non-social species. The survival of the individual depends on the survival of the group, therefore intra-group violence must be kept at a minimum.
As I explained in my first post in this thread, humans have a group capacity of between 100 and 230, that't the limit of people any human can keep track of and perform figurative social grooming on. Violent species would not tolerate individuals or groups not in that group. (I know what you're thinking, humans have little tolerance for people outside their groups already) Human settlements aren't restricted to band or tribe level, however, as in other species where each individual only knows other individuals within a distinct group which increases to meet the species' group capacity, because humans accept "friends of friends" almost as much as they accept "friends." This being the case, the amount of people any one person is non-violent towards expands as individuals interact with people outside of their own distinct group.
In the aforementioned other species, this would be all but impossible, because the existence of one social group is often at odds with the existence of another, as the group as a whole competes for resources.
Humans, or human ancestors, instead of maintaining bands and fighting other bands for resources until the species came to its inevitable end, began not only trade for necessities and desirables, but the development of agriculture to better support these trade networks, and eventually the burgeoning populations as children were born and people moved in. Yes, wars still did and still do exist, however for each drop of blood spilt, enough goodwill built up between people in bands to make tribes, chiefdoms, and states. These group sizes are utterly unachievable without a willingness to cooperate between groups (a peacefullness or lack of violence, some might say), something other species lack.
Medical achievements do not arise solely out of violent intentions or selfishness. Medical technology I classify as peaceful because it benefits society much more than it benefits its creator, a society which often includes individuals unrelated to said creator, and may even benefit individuals outside of the creator's society. There is a similar case to be made with agricultural technology. If not of a desire to reduce the suffering of others, where is born the idea for Doctors Without Borders? Where is born research into crops for desert settlements (certainly the places that can afford to fund this research get their food from much lusher places).
Advances in agricultural and medical technology, peaceful advances, have far outstripped the tendency towards violence, as evidenced by the skyrocketing population of the world.
Also just because war is ongoing does not mean it is pervasive enough to label the entire species "the most violent." If violence is one of humanity's "innate and natural tendencies" as you say, then there will be NO human pacifists, like we two. If violence is one of humanity's "innate and natural tendencies" as you say, then all countries would be at war with one another at all times, if they ever became countries in the first place, instead of just warring cities, if they ever became cities in the first place, instead of just warring bands.
[a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction"] While that may be true of finite quantities, nature was considered infinite, up until about 200 years ago. [/a] It would be like saying to them, here, you have an apple. Oh no, you ate the apple. There are no more apples. "Sure I don't have an apple now, but there's an apple tree right over there. And if that one dies, there's the rest of the orchard. And if the orchard dies, there are other orchards. There are other countries with other orchards, even!
In fact, extinction directly conflicted with the philosophy of the Great Chain of Being, a doctrine based in Western Europe that said not only that every species has always existed exactly as it is since the beginning of time, and will continue to until the day of judgement (and also that it is ordered in complexity from the lowliest worm up to God himself. So, please, explain to me why they should know better than to hunt an animal just as much as they please, when they think the world is infinite, and there's BOUND to be more SOMEWHERE.
Sorry for using a language that's been around longer than your ability to criticize it, but yeah the "human race" as it is said, is nearly always portrayed in scifi about encounters with intelligent beings to be the most warlike race out there. A LOT of stories like to go with the mentality The Day the Earth Stood Still took, that we won't deserve to leave orbit until we stop fighting because the rest of the universe stopped fighting long ago.Jonluw said:
We have become less violent because, as I said, technology has made it so we don't have to be. As a species, we do what we have to, and war and violence is the darker half of ambition. We don't like it, but we need it. Without it we can't reach the heights that humanity is capable of. All our greatest inventions have been through desctruction. We smash two things together to make something new. Without conflict, there is nothing.Rex Fallout said:
And another thought that I've been mulling over for a while, no other creature questions it's nature. They do what they do, with some devience but mostly they simply do it. Their nature is far beyond their comprehension and, as a species, human beings are constantly being reminded that, despite all we know, we have yet to even tap what we are capable of learning, and we have yet to figure out the human soul. Human nature is so monumentally complex that, as an individual we can't see it working within ourselves, it's just beyond our comprehension, but we're smart enough to question that. But when we look at the whole, when we look at a group of people, we start to see it. Again, it's a big thing, so what we see is miniscule, but it's there.
Also, letting everyone believe what they believe goes against multiple belief systems, so you're already going against what you said. Ignoring that, multple facets of each individuals belief, even if we broaden it to, say, religion, conflict wildly, and the only way to make happen what you've described above would be a sort of mind control that's usually reserved for sci-fi interpretations of totalitarian dictatorships.