Are We Violent By Nature?

Posted on May 1, 2007 by Dave Pollard

Jason Godesky at anthropik.com has taken issue with the ‘violent chimps vs. peaceful bonobos’ debate, pointing out that Jane Goodall’s misbehaving chimps, for example, were coerced (with food bribes) into proximity with her research team over years of study and hence might no longer behave ‘naturally’ but rather in a ‘civilized’ manner. He’s also pointed out research that suggests that orangutans, though genetically less similar to us than either chimps or bonobos, behave much more like humans than either.

What all this suggests to me is that:

Most creatures are peaceful whenever they can be (in natural environments of abundance and sustainable population density), but violent when they must be (in environments of scarcity and overcrowding). Hall’s studies of mouse behaviour certainly bear this out.
We are a product of both genetics and culture. As Beamish’s studies of whales have indicated, and the recent work on the pirah“ people has substantiated, natural environments of abundance and sustainable population density favour ‘now time’ cultures of leisure and joy, in which instinctive and sensory forms of knowledge and learning (and hence of cultural evolution) prevail, whereas environments of scarcity and overcrowding favour civilized, frenzied ‘clock time’ cultures of intensity, stress and hierarchy, where emotional and intellectual forms of knowledge prevail. If one or the other type of environment prevails over long periods of time, the culture of the species in it will evolve accordingly. And culture evolves much faster than genetics.

So the answer to the question “Are We Violent By Nature” is yes and no: Genetically (so far) we are peaceful creatures (our bodies handle stress quite badly, especially when it is protracted), while culturally (for the last 30,000 years of scarcity and overcrowding, anyway) we have evolved, as we had to in order to survive, to be violent creatures.

I have hypothesized that our modern obsession with violence and crime is an instinctive attempt to make our bodies (including our minds) more resilient to stress by inuring (=habituating to something undesirable by prolonged subjection) ourselves to it, so it doesn’t hurt (as much) any more — a kind of ‘self-hazing’ behaviour. Not very successfully, however — our culture can never compensate for the weaknesses of our genes, which is perhaps why technophiles are so fond of trying to escape our bodies and their genetic codes entirely, into an artificial shell (which would nevertheless be subject to much different vulnerabilities, like rust).

We discharge stress and its complications (personal illness) by removing the cause of the stress, either peacefully or violently. Since stress was, until 30,000 years ago, rare and brief, our bodies have evolved to discharge it violently: fight or flight. Meditation, rationalization, chemical self-tranquilizing, ‘turning the other cheek’ and other modern vehicles of passively resolving more chronic stress are not intuitive. We are not, by nature, pacifists, because until 30,000 years ago we had no need to be, and so have not evolved genetically to be. It is not who we are. That doesn’t mean we are violent by nature. It just means we are when we have to be. And alas, in our modern, horrifically overcrowded world of scarcity, most of the time, we have to be.

I think about this a lot now, when I lose my temper, when I feel depressed (which is, I think, a form of internalization of that natural propensity for violence by those who would like to be pacifists, if only it were in their nature). This is who I am. I can no sooner deny or sublimate my anger than flap my wings and fly. The fact that, in our terrible world, this violence no longer serves any useful purpose, is of no consequence. The fact that it makes us physically and mentally ill is tragic, but unavoidable.

I take, reluctantly, some comfort in knowing that our civilization is in its last century, that the experiment with letting the apes run the laboratory for awhile will soon come to an abrupt (and unfortunately violent) conclusion. Because the alternative is even more horrifying: That we will find some way to escape our bodies in some sustainable manner (I can’t and don’t want to imagine how) so that the physical stress of our civilized world no longer cripples us; and find some way to escape our emotions so that an artificial, desolated world no longer causes us distress. If we could do that, we would no longer be human, we would be machines, unfeeling, immortal (at least until the shells into which we’d evolved broke down).

I can’t conceive of such a disconnected life. I’m not sure it even meets the definition of life. I am sure I wouldn’t want to experience it, even for a moment. I’ll take this damaged and irrationally violent life, as a flawed part of the staggeringly wondrous all-life-on-Earth. I’ll do what I must.

Category: Being Human

Update: Since a few people have been asking about Puc-Puc: She’s back today after a month’s absence (I thought she’d given up on me and left to find a mate), still running alongside me in my backyard track, and jumping up on my shoulder when I turn my back. I’m wondering: Does she think I’m running around trying to get up speed to fly, and therefore trying to show me, big clumsy slow learner withscrawny wings that I am, how to do it?

This entry was posted in Our Culture / Ourselves. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Are We Violent By Nature?

Mike says:

May 1, 2007 at 22:19

The alternative you mention in the penultimate paragraph doesn’t sound so bad to me. The story may be about intelligence, which included us for a while, but maybe isn’t dependent on us.
Don Dwiggins says:

May 1, 2007 at 23:08

For another perspective on this, based on baboon research, check out Robert Sapolsky’s “A Natural History of Peace” at http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/18139. There’s also a book by Shirley Strum, “Almost Human”, that offers a similar, but different view of baboon society.
Rory says:

May 2, 2007 at 00:11

To say I am a new reader here would not be true – but certainly a first-time commenter. Thank you for providing some thought-provoking views.In this post, you conclude by saying: I take, reluctantly, some comfort in knowing that our civilization is in its last century, that the experiment with letting the apes run the laboratory for awhile will soon come to an abrupt (and unfortunately violent) conclusion.And I just wondered what you meant by that?
Sonny says:

May 2, 2007 at 02:11

Humans don’t behave violently in conditions of overcrowding or scarcity. (Look at actual crowds and food lines.)Human violence happens almost exclusively between adolescent males competing for dominance with males from outside groups, and in social situations arranged on that model. The stress that a person needs to discharge doesn’t come mainly from a drive to violence; it comes from a drive to act physically for well-being and to get necessary things for survival. It needs release through physical exercise or else causes worry, depression, and other nervous disorders. Why people don’t exercise, how social norms constrain them to sedentary behavior, that I don’t know yet.
John in Australia says:

May 2, 2007 at 05:10

I’m almost too depressed by the state of civilisation to write this! I agree that this may be civilisation’s, or at least the industrial variety’s, last century. But hasn’t human evolution, both before and since stone/bone/wooden weapons were invented, favoured cooperative individuals?Nor am I sure that ‘overcrowding’ encourages violence. I think equally important factors are the size of one’s ego and the level of trust one has in other people. Compare Texas with Hong Kong perhaps.
Dave Pollard says:

May 2, 2007 at 07:12

For those like Rory who want to know how I see the crash unfolding, I outlined my predicted scenario in my article on Feb.9, 2005 (these comments for some reason no longer allow URLs, even to my own blog posts). Google “In the year 2045” and it should be the second result.
Tracy Puett says:

May 2, 2007 at 07:13

I really thank you all for your comments here. I’d like to share a resource that is new to me this week. The magazine out of UC Berkley named Greater Good Magazine (http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/) is apparently focused on research around what makes us altruistic, compassionate, loving, etc… Or not. Have just subscribed for the trial issue to get a sense of what they are up to. Looks to be research-based from a socio-emotional base (Goleman has a high presence in the web site). Has anyone else seen this rag? What is your take, given Dave’s postings here around human violence, etc…
Jason Godesky says:

May 2, 2007 at 07:43

Spot on, I’d say. Violence has a role in the natural world. We’re animals; for us to continue living, something else has to die. Every breath we take is, to one extent or another, a violent act. But there’s usually a balance to it. We don’ act more violently than we have to, we give back, and ultimately, we die.Those are the things civilization tries to cheat. It’s the endemic violence of civilization that’s so destructive. When primitive tribes go to war, the goal is to do something brave and intimidating, so that fear reduces violence. When states go to war, the goal is annihilation. This changes things considerably.Of course, the case about overcrowding leading to violence isn’t something as simple as mere claustrophobia so that a mosh pit breaks out. When there’s not enough to go around–when scarcity first appears–then there’s the chance you might not get what you need. That’s when you start to consider violence to make sure you do. This quickly leads to organized violence, since a group of people cooperating can make sure that it’s everyone else who doesn’t have enough, and that’s where your State begins to emerge. By extension, States fail when they can no longer provide the basic services they’re founded upon. People have a certain amount of faith in the State that buttresses them against short-term failures; they’ll keep supporting the State for a while. But eventually, even the most ardent patriot will cut off support for a State that can no longer provide the things it promises.
Jason Godesky says:

May 2, 2007 at 07:49

Oh, and on the ending note of the transhumanist fantasy, it’s important to remember that the Cartesian dualism that entire notion is founded on is complete poppycock.Emotions are based on internal body environment which act as inputs into the brain, just as visual or auditory information is an input to the brain from the external environment. Indeed, in evolutionary terms, the brain is primarily an organ for homeostasis – a centre which collects and collates feedback on body states, and acts to maintain constancy of the internal milieu. This concept vastly clarifies the role and nature of emotions, and allows them to be studied using the full force of integrated modern neuroscience. …Emotions are also vital to the higher reaches of distinctively human intelligence. Contrary to some popular notions, emotions do not
Candy Minx says:

May 2, 2007 at 10:12

Well, if violence is apart of human nature…so is community and non-violent conflict resolution. Part of being human is cooperating. My immediate response to this post of yours Dave, is that female circumcision occurs in societies not “backward or violent” but in societies whose habitat and resources have been influenced by Christianity. Like Wade Davis’ book on what makes a zombie (the Serpent and The Rainbow) violent acts against women like female circumcision occurs when farmers-particularily christian farmers- challenge resoures of those tribes. Peopel give as good as they get, we need to give more good to avoid a future that ends in your fears. Listen Dave, by the way…I hope you don’t mind but I tagged you in an internet meme. I realize you are apretty busy person and may not have time or inclination to respond but thought I’d tag you anyways…because it was a meme about “thinking blog award” and you are my number one thinking blog!!! I linked you in my post today. Cheers,Candy
Jason Godesky says:

May 2, 2007 at 10:32

Female circumcision has more to do with Islam than Christianity, and I’m not sure I’d call it “violence against women,” since the women usually accept it. Cultural traditions of mutilation and pain are fairly commonplace. Aboriginal Australians, for instance, often have a custom of slicing the penis down to the urethra, then sowing it back together, so that when it’s all said and down, a large scar on the underside makes it look like an emu’s penis. I’d say that ranks up there with female circumcision, and once again it’s a culturally-accepted practice, accepted by members of that culture. We can think it’s barbaric, disgusting, or vile, but we’re not in that culture, either, so it’s really just ethnocentrism on our parts.Now, there are plenty of women that have fled their villages to avoid this, because, hell, it’s painful. I shivered just typing that description about the Aboriginal practice, too. For those that don’t accept it, what you essentially have are people who are no longer really part of that culture. They don’t accept it because they’ve taken on our culture, and at that point, it would be like trying to circumcize you.Doesn’t have all that much to do with violence, though.
Bob Watson says:

May 2, 2007 at 13:34

I have always thought of violence as a subset of aggression, that energy/will/desire to alter some part of our circumstances to be more suitable to our well being. The paradigm case is eating. We enjoyably tear food to pieces with our teeth, and we break it down to the molecular level in digestion. Hard to get any more destructive than that! And aggression so understood can’t ever go away.The objectionable aggressiion we call violence seems to come when we can’t see other ways to get what we want. And it’s pretty clear, isn’t it, that most of the time we are finding non-violent ways to get what we want. Otherwise, civilization would not last a day.
Bob Watson says:

May 12, 2007 at 10:21

This essay by Steven Pinker argues that human violence has actually diminished in historical time.http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge206.html#pinkerAnd if you go there, don’t miss “Universe” down the scroll a bit.