Bred for aggression?

[The Red Fox]

I had a thought today which may come across as obvious, but I was wondering if perhaps humans as a species have been bred for aggression? It seems to me that the world is full of it, but I can't imagine a species with inherent aggression surviving long. Also inherent aggression doesn't explain the wishy-washy pacifists like me who refuse to fight others. Some ideas which occurred to me are the possibility of populations needing aggressive people to fight in wars, the nature of ancient warfare requiring large numbers of people willing to partake in violence. Another is that aggressive males simply got to the women first and those of a more docile temperament have been out-bred, much like the left-handed population has been reduced in favour of right-handedness.

Any merit to this do you think?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Agression can be turned off and on at will. Some people who think they could never be aggressive have found that they can be under the right circumstances.

Saying someone is aggressive is like saying they're happy.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Agression can be turned off and on at will. Some people who think they could never be aggressive have found that they can be under the right circumstances.

Saying someone is aggressive is like saying they're happy.

Very true. Although there is a greater predilection for violence in some individuals than in others. Whether this is nature or nurture, of course, is the 64,000 dollar question.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Agression can be turned off and on at will. Some people who think they could never be aggressive have found that they can be under the right circumstances.

Saying someone is aggressive is like saying they're happy.

Very true. Although there is a greater predilection for violence in some individuals than in others. Whether this is nature or nurture, of course, is the 64,000 dollar question.

I can turn a pacifist in a raging maniac in thirty-second. The killer ape is very close to the surface.

[The Red Fox]

Agression can be turned off and on at will. Some people who think they could never be aggressive have found that they can be under the right circumstances.

Saying someone is aggressive is like saying they're happy.

Very true. Although there is a greater predilection for violence in some individuals than in others. Whether this is nature or nurture, of course, is the 64,000 dollar question.

Which is what I'm asking I suppose. Is it a trait which has become more prolific due to selective breeding or is it something we're all born with and our upbringing decides whether we become more predisposed towards violent behaviour? Or something else?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Agression can be turned off and on at will. Some people who think they could never be aggressive have found that they can be under the right circumstances.

Saying someone is aggressive is like saying they're happy.

Very true. Although there is a greater predilection for violence in some individuals than in others. Whether this is nature or nurture, of course, is the 64,000 dollar question.

Which is what I'm asking I suppose. Is it a trait which has become more prolific due to selective breeding or is it something we're all born with and our upbringing decides whether we become more predisposed towards violent behaviour? Or something else?

It's less obvious in humans than in some other apes. Humans are learning to control it. Sort of.

[Pappa]

I had a thought today which may come across as obvious, but I was wondering if perhaps humans as a species have been bred for aggression? It seems to me that the world is full of it, but I can't imagine a species with inherent aggression surviving long. Also inherent aggression doesn't explain the wishy-washy pacifists like me who refuse to fight others. Some ideas which occurred to me are the possibility of populations needing aggressive people to fight in wars, the nature of ancient warfare requiring large numbers of people willing to partake in violence. Another is that aggressive males simply got to the women first and those of a more docile temperament have been out-bred, much like the left-handed population has been reduced in favour of right-handedness.

Any merit to this do you think?

There was an article along those lines in the New Scientist a few months ago. It covered someone's theory that we are basically aggressive at a genetic level. In some ways we appear to be more aggressive than other ape species.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There was an article along those lines in the New Scientist a few months ago. It covered someone's theory that we are basically aggressive at a genetic level. In some ways we appear to be more aggressive than other ape species.

Humans have more ways of displaying aggression, including the one we all know and love, passive-aggressive. Human aggression gets spread out and redirected so much that its not really fair to say that we have the same aggressive tendencies the other apes.

[Feck]

I seem to remember there is a gene present in about 70% of the people serving long prison terms for violence but only 10% of the population at large

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I seem to remember there is a gene present in about 70% of the people serving long prison terms for violence but only 10% of the population at large

You don't necessarily go to prison if you have that gene, of course. Just sayin'.

[Clinton Huxley]

I think we all have the capacity for violence, some just have a much lower "activation threshold" than others. Some people will stab you if you "look at them funny" whereas others will only fight as a last resort.

Me, I prefer running off.

I guess you can take the territorial ape out of the jungle but you can't take the jungle out of the territorial ape...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think we all have the capacity for violence, some just have a much lower "activation threshold" than others. Some people will stab you if you "look at them funny" whereas others will only fight as a last resort.

Me, I prefer running off.

I guess you can take the territorial ape out of the jungle but you can't take the jungle out of the territorial ape...

On an evolutionary scale we're still in the jungle. We like to imagine we're "civilized", but I know better.

Ghandi, on arrival in New York in the 1930s, was asked what he thought of Western Civilization.

"I think it would be a good idea."

[Trolldor]

I think we all have the capacity for violence, some just have a much lower "activation threshold" than others. Some people will stab you if you "look at them funny" whereas others will only fight as a last resort.

Me, I prefer running off.

I guess you can take the territorial ape out of the jungle but you can't take the jungle out of the territorial ape...

On an evolutionary scale we're still in the jungle. We like to imagine we're "civilized", but I know better.

Ghandi, on arrival in New York in the 1930s, was asked what he thought of Western Civilization.

"I think it would be a good idea."

Ghandi also happened to think subsitence agriculture was the way towards the future. Probably not best to quote him on progression.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think we all have the capacity for violence, some just have a much lower "activation threshold" than others. Some people will stab you if you "look at them funny" whereas others will only fight as a last resort.

Me, I prefer running off.

I guess you can take the territorial ape out of the jungle but you can't take the jungle out of the territorial ape...

On an evolutionary scale we're still in the jungle. We like to imagine we're "civilized", but I know better.

Ghandi, on arrival in New York in the 1930s, was asked what he thought of Western Civilization.

"I think it would be a good idea."

Ghandi also happened to think subsitence agriculture was the way towards the future. Probably not best to quote him on progression.

His point stands. I've always thought civilization would be great, if we ever figure out what it is.

[Trolldor]

His point with someone else's intonations, yes. Civilisation will occur the day we overcome our fear of death and our desire to take more than we need.