Are humans innately violent? Anthropologists have often said “no” — in public. But troubling facts kept bubbling up, until in 1966 Napoleon Chagnon published a breakthrough field study of the violent Yanamamo tribes in Venezuela…
In warlike tribes the adult male death rate from interpersonal violence now stands around one out of three. Because humans adapt in many different ways, that number is variable.
A new study published in Nature, the world’s original scientific journal, now compares human death by violence with other species and finds it to be remarkably stable, hopefully ending a century of desperate debate among anthropologists, who tried to uphold a taboo against reporting real human violence among primitive peoples. This lie — that native humans are people and loving — is still peddled by liberal professors who simply will not face the fact. (It should also be noted that the 1986 Seville Statement, which condemns theories that human aggression is innate, remains in effect today.)
Researchers estimate that the incidence of human lethal violence at the time of the origin of our species was about six times higher than for the average mammal, but about as violent as expected, given our great-ape ancestry.
It shows you some of the headwinds r/K will struggle against. One in three men are killed by other humans in some populations, and yet the intellectuals who dominate the scientific debate refuse to acknowledge that human nature could ever be violent, instead claiming that unlike most animals, humans are always peaceful and loving, and any violence must be aberrant.
Now imagine r/K Theory, which innately out-groups leftists, portrays them as aberrant and contemptible, and is almost guaranteed to make leftism a pariah ideology wherever it takes root.
I have always known r/K would not rise through academia. r/K can only rise within the general population, to the point that it is undeniable among the masses. Then academia will be forced to adopt it.
When dealing with liberals, their only fear is being out-grouped by the larger group. If you can get the larger group to believe something the left will accept it, no matter how noxious to them it may be, because the alternative is to endure the stigma and out-grouping inherent to being viewed as stupid. No leftist can tolerate that.
That is how r/K will inevitably rise.
[…] Humans Are Violent […]
Define: humans.
Back in the 70’s this theory was common among liberals. You even see some TV shows and movies back then that have this as the theme, that violence is a learned behavior.
A correction to you post AC. The original said that 1 out of 3 adult men, not 1 out of 3 people are killed by violence. In fossil records from Africa, it seems that about 1 in 5 humans died by violence from other humans. I’d expect a higher amount of men being the warriors dying that way, and a lower amount of women and children.
Of course this violence would be resource driven. And that resource could be food, water or access to women. As a side example of this, in the middle ages when paper finally got cheep enough to record court records (about AD1100) in England the records show that most peasant v peasant homicide in court trials were caused by the theft of land usually by such things as the moving of marker stones for the common field. There would be fields in which each of them farmed strips. One farmer would move it a foot or so to get more at harvest. The victim of theft would react violently and one of the two would end up in a grave, and the other in court. *
Also note that in 1000 to 1100 when these records became available (because of paper) was a time BEFORE the Little Ice Age (c1310) and Black Death (c1350). In fact Europe was so food rich – and therefore generally well off – that it was able to launch the Crusades.
* this would be all those who were not part of the fighter class or religious class. So basically everyone else. And this is part of the ‘not war’ part of life at that time.
Used this today in class; thanks.