So, I saw The Eagle

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

Few things I should mention.

a) Europeans are not the root cause of war for the entirety of the human race.
b) related to the above - in most, if not all, hunter-gatherer societies, warfare is constant. The death-toll sits about about 30% of the adult male population. This is also replicated in groups who farm, but in other ways are close to hunter-gatherers - like the Yanomami in the Amazon.
c) related to the ABOVE, that deathrate is the same for chimpanzees.
d) I've read that if we applied that deathrate - caused by lowkey, yet constant, warfare - to the twentieth century, we'd have a death toll of 2 billion.

and

e) humans are actually far more peaceful now than we were (depressing as this may seem).

This doesn't mean that war doesn't suck, that we shouldn't try and keep the peace. But, uh. Yeah. Europe is not the cause of everyone's problems. And might I suggest actually looking at the history of the other continents before declaring them peaceful?

One final thing, I'm sure it's just a typo, but:



I'm not sure what you mean there (presumably Europeans), but, uh, humans originally came from Africa.

Just to clarify, yes by a map's standard I did mean Europeans, but I think countries are complete BS, so I just said Humans, because we are all Humans. But, that's another story/argument for a different thread.

A. Well, Europeans are kinda the root cause of Large Scale Warfare involving the take over and destruction of near entire portions of Continents. Yes, small tribes fought across the world, but it wasn't as destructive (when all things are taken into consideration, such as the tolls on the land etc.) as European wars.
Small conflicts between groups of people might have been happening for a long time, but Europeans definately started large scale warfare.
During WWI/WWII era, much of Africa was also industrialized by European countries, and kinda F'd them up pretty bad doing that. We pretty much disregarded their cultures and customs.

B. Again, a 30% death rate doesn't mean as much as numbers when looking at Human death. To me, in my opinion at least, the number of people lost is more devastating, because when I think about the families of those people who die, the number seems more important to me. Like WWII. I thought about all those people, all the people who lost loved ones. I got through the thoughts of what it must have been like for 4 people, and I was already crying, trying to imagine what it would be like.

C. Again, chimpanzees isn't the same amount of numbers. While still sad, Early European wars caused a larger devastation.

D. I honestly don't understand. Sorry, feel like an idiot, but I'm not entirely sure to what you're referring to.

E. I guess it depends on what you're looking at, some parts of humanity are very mean. Like after factoring emotional bullying, just the general road rage stuff, how pissed people get about politics, there's a lot of rage build up, but I guess this depends on how you look at peace, and what you define it as.

Just one-uh say one more thing. I know there's like Samalian (sp?) pirates who kill American vacationers. And that a lot of people in Africa are pretty pissed at America/Europe. But if you look at it from their point, we can be seen in a very bad light. Thousands of Africans die of starvation each day. Thousands also die from AIDs. We have the money and technology to research cures for AIDs, and we have thousands of people become obese/over weight each day. So, while they are starving and dieing, (in their eyes it can easily be seen this way) Americans are getting fat, and going to Africa for pleasure vacations. Now, if I were a Healthy African, and all my friends and family were dieing, and these rich Americans are over weight, and vacationing in my homeland, I could be convinced to become a pirate fairly easily, and see these Americans as evil, and to fight them.

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by Theorist

Small conflicts between groups of people might have been happening for a long time, but Europeans definately started large scale warfare.

...no, they didn't. Ever heard of the Persian Empire? Or Asoka (Indian emperor, this is pretty much what he conquered) Or all the wars in the Bible that happened before Europe was anything more than a bunch of clans?

B. As I said in my point D, if you apply tribal warfare loss per year to the twentieth century, we'd be looking at a wardead of 2 billion. We don't have that in the twentieth century.

C. PURE numbers? No, of course. But it's the same percentage, meaning it's built into our nature. Fight more, get more women, thus get more babies is pretty much the biological logic behind it.

I have no idea why you are bringing up Somalia for. Empires mess people up, yes. I'm...not arguing otherwise?

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Though I think we're not discussing the same group. You're talking about agriculturalist groups, I'm talking about hunter-gatherer groups. Yes, agriculture made people more war-like, due to the need to acquire land for cultivation. Nomadic tendencies of hunter-gatherers reduced the possibility of squabbling over land.

Actually, we ARE discussing the same group. The Yanomami practice slash-and-burn agriculture. They are just popular conceived of as being hunter-gatherers, for some bizare reason. Farming doesn't make people more warlike - we're pretty warlike already, and getting steadily more peaceful. Fighting = more women = more babies. It's only later that is turned into other concepts.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

Actually, we ARE discussing the same group. The Yanomami practice slash-and-burn agriculture. They are just popular conceived of as being hunter-gatherers, for some bizare reason. Farming doesn't make people more warlike - we're pretty warlike already, and getting steadily more peaceful. Fighting = more women = more babies. It's only later that is turned into other concepts.

My mistake on the Yanomami, I just learned they were ags, and forgot to mention it in my last post (whoops). I guess that explains why they appear to be a warlike "exception" among relatively peaceful 100% hunter-gatherer peoples. They aren't true HGs.

Actually, agriculture does make people more warlike. Did you read the article? The reasoning was basically that as people settled down permanently, and expanded, they began to require, and acquire, more and more land, thus leading to more conflict with sorrounding peoples. This, opposed to "true" hunter-gatherers, who don't have the same need for property, and thus do not need to fight for it. Plus, agriculture led to hierarchy, which led to empire, which led to imperalism, etc. True hunter-gathering socieites are egalitarian/democratic.

Fun fact, we are programmed for democracy. Despotism actually has very little role in the natural world/animal kingdom, pretty much just for mating. Everyday activities are all handled democraticly. My theory is that we began democratic in our hunter-gatherer roots, moved away from it with ag, and are now just getting back to it after the Enlightenment.