The difference, H, is numbers applied to individual behaviors and numbers applied to mass behaviors. Again, no one can point to a gene or sequence of genes for war although they believe they can isolate the sequence for sexual preference where that preference is innate rather than chosen by societal pressure. That is why there is no simple answer. Yet we can show a stable frequency for sexual preference that we can't show for war and we can show examples where that frequency for war drops to zero in some populations and over time, drops precipitously.

If man is a dangerous animal, it is where his consumption outpaces his attention to sustainability. The Bolivian highland civilization is likely the mother civilization for mezo-america or so the inka believed and archaeology supports that. The technical details of stone cutting and transport do come with theories and yes, people have paid to find means, for example, building a reed boat big enough to transport a stone across Lake Titicaca. Once again, it is easy to spin theories up from the facts and fail to reach agreement because there is no single exculpatory fact that is definitive and irrefutable.

Eventually it comes down to the utility of the theory because if unproven or unprovable they have the same value to culture as Alice's Restaurant: a tale told well to encourage a behavior in the hopes that it will become self-sustaining, a movement. If a tale leads to despair it hasn't done much to help the generation to which it is told or the ones that follow. It becomes ritual bloodletting. The result of the rituals and tales of Viracocha was to destroy their society over time, to make it weak and incapable of defending itself against a superior mythos even as they possessed the most sophisticated farming techniques in history capable of feeding many times the number they did. When the Spaniards came, knocking off their descendants was child's play. The Spanish used their firepower and limited numbers well but their most effective weapon was the emnity of the locals against each other because of the ritual bloodletting.

"Sing a song of joy for peace shall come my brother."

The most effective weapons of the Spanish were the foreign diseases they brought to the new world.
Aside from that, their chief weapon was fear and surprise.....ummm their TWO chief weapons were fear, surprise and an almost fanatical devoution to the pope.....ummm....their THREE chief weapons were.....

Or was that a trade, Larry? Columbus took typhus, smallpox and cholera. His crew brought back syphilis or so the theory goes. The leading minds of the day asserted that it was in the stars.

heraclitis, i gotta say, i am sorely disappointed and deeply saddened to find out that underneath it all, captain zap is a war mongering fiend....

I am? Gee, thanks Agnes! Guess I'll go now and pick the veins out from between my teeth after eating all those dead, burnt bodies. Oh, wait! Those are cellulose fibers! I'm a vegetarian. Death to the plants! I'm a vegecidal maniac! All suspected foreign vegetables will be detained to determine their status! If you're not with us, you're soup!

I would guess he is no war mongering fiend. I get the general impression that if a genetic predisposition to war is real in humans then captain zap is recessive in many ways. However, (and here is a conundrum), you could say that the peace movement in the 60's actively demonstrated many of the war like traits against war. They actually practiced war against war. I expect that captain zap may fall nito that category. That is all just purely speculation.



Not sure I am with you on this one. I said before that individuals fight wars and individuals support wars and individuals propogate wars. If everybody (all them indivduals) said, "no let's try a different solution" then we would not have wars. (I think somebady said that around here, Goofus, somebody) That is not the case. I know of many a militant (at least 11% of the population) that have no solutions other than war (Osama Bin Laden and George W Bush to name a few). No I really can't buy your argument here, maybe others do, but I just don't. I know you say that it is the mass of civilization or their rulers that dupe us into being individuals that support war. Well, maybe being easily manipulated into such stupidity is a genetic trait. I have not even presented the arguments expressed in the book but I have mentioned the altruism bit. One of the arguments is related to how altruism ultimately defines the them or us syndrome when it reaches the community level. Pretty soon, anyone outside of your community (be it German or Muslim or Christian or Homosexual etc etc) can easily become demonized and is usually pictured in effective propaganda as either an evil predator (wolves and snakes) or vermin (rats, everybody hates rats). The argument being that this ability to dehumanize and transform those outside the community into these things can ultimately lead to demonization that makes it easier to kill (Japs, Germans, Jew, Muslims, Christians, Americans...all these groups have been on both sides of this coin). Those sensitized to this propaganda become the predator and there are plenty of instances where warriors demonize their prey to the point of collecting trophies (scalps, genitalia, fingers and tongues have always been popular since the Assyrians burned Jerusalum till the Americans invaded Cambodia). Another classic war tradition tradition that has been practiced by all makes and creeds of many is kill the children and rape the women. It is not pretty. It is what it is!

The model of "percentage of population" can get sticky. The stats on alcoholism, for instance, are generally in agreement with the number of about 12% on average for human populations. But there are many degrees of alcoholism, from moderate to severe. There have been many studies done with rats (ya think?) that produce very similar results: a contained population of rats are offered the choice (remember this term) of alcohol in one bowl and water in another. After "experimentation" (by the rats), about 12% will shun water and drink only alcohol until that behavior kills them. And about 12% will never touch the alcohol again after the first experience. The remainder of the population will drink alcohol in moderate amounts only on occassion, and usually in a "social" or group behavior......kind of like gathering around the alcohol bowl maybe once a week, like Friday nights at Happy Hour. The percentage of population stats for the rats is analogous to that of human populations. But when researchers attempt to find a genetic correlation (by observing the offspring of the alcoholic and non-alcoholic rats) the results are inconclusive. Now, the population of rats being studied is homogeneous from an environmental standpoint, that is, they all are raised in more or less the same manner and have more or less identical backgrounds. With humans, it is generally accepted that there must be some genetic component at work because we observe that alcoholism often runs in families. And this is regardless of environmental factors such as parenting techniques and cultural/socio-economic backgrounds. The percentage of population holds steady regardless if a person was raised in the Lower 9th Ward or the Hamptons. (Keep in mind the concept of choice). We've been talking about predisposition to war......so what about behaviors such as "greed?" Why are some folks generous and sharing while others are greedy and selfish? Human behavioral traits run the entire gambit.......there's everything, the "good, bad and ugly" not only within populations, but also within individuals. It is so much easier for many to wrap all this up in a nice little package tied with a neat little bow with a card that simply reads "human nature". Are behaviors like greed or generousity genetic in any way, shape or form? For one thing, they are extremely difficult to quantify. I mean, I "know" what greed looks like, but I have (k)no(w) idea "why" folks act that way. Survival mechanism? Those who hoard the most for themselves and don't share, do they fare better than communal societies? It seems counter-intuitive........Like Arlo has said, and I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread, "I realized I didn't know any more after thinking than before I'd begun."

I'm sure you aren't. That's ok, H. After a time I won't debate a pseudonym anyway. That's creepy. There is no merit to your reply. It has no frame. Individuals don't fight wars. Institutions do. Individuals may for combinations of reasons from rule of law to individual preferences acede to the institutional directives but they don't declare wars. The best you may get is a gene for aggression but to be expressed, other motivations may have to couple such as defense of their young. I know that if my children are endangered, I can kill without hesitation. Is that war? No that would be absurd. Again, you'd need definition for what war is and thus far you haven't provided a definition and if you do you can't avoid the institutions and structures.

Still, you might want to pray you're wrong. Here's why: we now have as a planet empowered individuals and small groups to pursue aggressive behaviors at scales for which we have no historic precedents except in legend. You can't step up to the microphone today and say "F*** Arizona and their racist laws!" without accounting for the fact that anyone can find your address and do the full monty on your house, your kids and your act. They may not be racist but they may be violent as hell. Was it worth wasting eight people over a few cases of Budweiser? No. Why in heaven's name are Chinese suddenly wasting kindergartens? Is it in their genes or is it in their water? A good case may be made for the water given what they export.

So if you want to take up a cause, you better be willing to pay whatever is asked. You can't live in Nashville where Tennessee is trying to pass the same law and wage personal vendettas on Arizona. There is no shelter. This doesn't mean you shouldn't. It means you should be very aware. Is that creepy? Well, yes it is. It is also true.

It might be time to learn how to be still, watch, listen and measure a response. It might be time to grow up and realize that it isn't enough to react with umbrage. War may not be in our genes but aggression is in our repetoire, a part of the act, a nasty tune on the list, and it is easy to trigger and hard to turn off. Choose the means that makes the best difference.

One practices ahimsa because like a song, it takes practice to remember how to perform it.

zap... :)

there i went being naughty

oh....


actually i think that is an interesting point.

still, i don't want to forget the girl (who i mentioned earlier) who didn't succumb to the rallying war cries of the angry mob...she just said no.

Well, I don't know about you but I think those people playing World of Warcraft night after night are mighty suspicious.

I dunno Agnes. I still think all opossums are ugly.

I saw an especially ugly one this morning on my way to work.......it was spread out over about a 20 square foot area. But that was just through my eyes......the turkey buzzards on the side of the road probably saw it differently. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder(s)...

A "Road Pizza"!

poor ol' possum

they too help take care of a bit of carrion with their unusual appetites.