War is a Consequence of Intelligence

[Domobran7]

War is a Consequence of Intelligence

Violent competition is normal in nature. Contrary to the idealistic assumption of peaceful cows, herbivores will kill anything they perceive as a threat, competition or merely an annoyance. One of …

historyandwarfare.wordpress.com

Violent competition is normal in nature. Contrary to the idealistic assumption of peaceful cows, herbivores will kill anything they perceive as a threat, competition or merely an annoyance. One of world’s most deadliest large animals is hippopotamus, and of course snakes also do not bite people because they think they can eat a human.

That however is not war. War is group violence in the context of an organized society. Within that context, many animals wage wars, but what defines these animals is a high level of group intelligence. Ants for example may not be individually smart, but they have a high degree of group intelligence, with complex social organization and – for their scale – enormous buildings. And they wage wars pretty much constantly. Most of this is fundamentally hunting strategy, but slave-making ants will raid other ant nests to enslave said ants’ brood.

On the other end of the scale, chimpanzees – apes very close to humans – wage real wars, absorbing territory of the exterminated group in the process. In Gombe chimpanzee war of 1974 – 1978., Kasakela chimpanzees exterminated the males of the Kahama group; some females were also killed while the rest were enslaved. In a sense, this would make chimpanzee wars more brutal than most human wars. And this is not a unique case: chimpanzee groups very frequently kill in order to expand their territory. In some cases, violence is aimed against other spieces, such as chimpanzee attacks on gorillas. Oftentimes, it is caused for competition for resources, which directly leads to competition for territory.

Territorial conflicts play an important role in the evolution. Fighting allows the most capable and populous group to obtain the resources, allowing the good genes as well as beneficial behaviour to spread. As a result, evolutionary fitness of the species is increased. Warfare has driven both biological evolution, leading to increase in intelligence, as well as social evolution, leading to larger and better organized communities.

In fact, if all animals were as intelligent as humans, consequence would be constant warfare. Or rather, intelligent species would fight until one gained dominance and exterminated all the others. Any species that tried to coexist would end up as such naïve groups historically did, being exterminated by the others. End result would be complete annihilation of all multicellular life on Earth.

 

[You]

humans are animals ........humans do irrational, stupid, emotional, etc things ..animals don't murder as much for the same things, I thought?

 

[Domobran7]

humans are animals ........humans do irrational, stupid, emotional, etc things ..animals don't murder as much for the same things, I thought?

Actually, they do. Animals will murder for many things: competition for territory, competition for mates... but also just fun or bloodthirst. And more intelligent animal is, more creative it becomes.

 

[You]

Actually, they do. Animals will murder for many things: competition for territory, competition for mates... but also just fun or bloodthirst. And more intelligent animal is, more creative it becomes.

true--but--
1. humans are supposed to be smarter, morally, etc
2. animals are not smart enough to kill at a rate that humans do
3. can they really measure hate, jealousy, etc in animals?
I rate humans worse.....

 

[You]

War is a Consequence of Intelligence

Violent competition is normal in nature. Contrary to the idealistic assumption of peaceful cows, herbivores will kill anything they perceive as a threat, competition or merely an annoyance. One of …

historyandwarfare.wordpress.com

Violent competition is normal in nature. Contrary to the idealistic assumption of peaceful cows, herbivores will kill anything they perceive as a threat, competition or merely an annoyance. One of world’s most deadliest large animals is hippopotamus, and of course snakes also do not bite people because they think they can eat a human.

That however is not war. War is group violence in the context of an organized society. Within that context, many animals wage wars, but what defines these animals is a high level of group intelligence. Ants for example may not be individually smart, but they have a high degree of group intelligence, with complex social organization and – for their scale – enormous buildings. And they wage wars pretty much constantly. Most of this is fundamentally hunting strategy, but slave-making ants will raid other ant nests to enslave said ants’ brood.

On the other end of the scale, chimpanzees – apes very close to humans – wage real wars, absorbing territory of the exterminated group in the process. In Gombe chimpanzee war of 1974 – 1978., Kasakela chimpanzees exterminated the males of the Kahama group; some females were also killed while the rest were enslaved. In a sense, this would make chimpanzee wars more brutal than most human wars. And this is not a unique case: chimpanzee groups very frequently kill in order to expand their territory. In some cases, violence is aimed against other spieces, such as chimpanzee attacks on gorillas. Oftentimes, it is caused for competition for resources, which directly leads to competition for territory.

Territorial conflicts play an important role in the evolution. Fighting allows the most capable and populous group to obtain the resources, allowing the good genes as well as beneficial behaviour to spread. As a result, evolutionary fitness of the species is increased. Warfare has driven both biological evolution, leading to increase in intelligence, as well as social evolution, leading to larger and better organized communities.

In fact, if all animals were as intelligent as humans, consequence would be constant warfare. Or rather, intelligent species would fight until one gained dominance and exterminated all the others. Any species that tried to coexist would end up as such naïve groups historically did, being exterminated by the others. End result would be complete annihilation of all multicellular life on Earth.

....another thing I thought of, was that the Native Americans never had the technology to kill as much and as efficiently as the whites did ....and I thought they did not ''want'' to kill as much because some tribes did not have a '''big'' population......so, is this akin to the animals? please to not infer any racism, etc into that--same with the Africans, South Americans, etc = they did not have the technology--not only in weapons, but just as importantly, the logistics to kill many efficiently and fast......the NAs, etc did not have the logistics for food, transportation of food, material, etc to make grand war, in the summer, and much less the winter
....one thing the NAs did per policy and culture, unlike the whites or animals, was to TORTURE!! even the kids participated

 

[Domobran7]

true--but--
1. humans are supposed to be smarter, morally, etc
2. animals are not smart enough to kill at a rate that humans do
3. can they really measure hate, jealousy, etc in animals?
I rate humans worse.....

1. Morality must necessarily give way to survival. If it doesn't, you don't survive and don't pass on your genes or upbringing, meaning that your behaviorial patterns evaporate.
2. Many predators may develop bloodlust. A fox in a chicken coop will kill every last chicken, even if it cannot eat all of them.
3. They know it exists...

....another thing I thought of, was that the Native Americans never had the technology to kill as much and as efficiently as the whites did ....and I thought they did not ''want'' to kill as much because some tribes did not have a '''big'' population......so, is this akin to the animals? please to not infer any racism, etc into that--same with the Africans, South Americans, etc = they did not have the technology--not only in weapons, but just as importantly, the logistics to kill many efficiently and fast......the NAs, etc did not have the logistics for food, transportation of food, material, etc to make grand war, in the summer, and much less the winter
....one thing the NAs did per policy and culture, unlike the whites or animals, was to TORTURE!! even the kids participated

I'm not the type of person to really care about whether something is racist or not, so long as it is not a lie.

And yes, I suspect that is the case. They had culture that was adequate to their population and technology level - which however also meant they remained at that level of population and technology.

 

[You]

1. Morality must necessarily give way to survival. If it doesn't, you don't survive and don't pass on your genes or upbringing, meaning that your behaviorial patterns evaporate.
2. Many predators may develop bloodlust. A fox in a chicken coop will kill every last chicken, even if it cannot eat all of them.
3. They know it exists...

I'm not the type of person to really care about whether something is racist or not, so long as it is not a lie.

And yes, I suspect that is the case. They had culture that was adequate to their population and technology level - which however also meant they remained at that level of population and technology.

ok, the fox is in the chicken coop....that's not the natural environment ...what will the fox do in the natural environment?
ty for the replies

 

[You]

War is a Consequence of Intelligence

Violent competition is normal in nature. Contrary to the idealistic assumption of peaceful cows, herbivores will kill anything they perceive as a threat, competition or merely an annoyance. One of …

historyandwarfare.wordpress.com

Violent competition is normal in nature. Contrary to the idealistic assumption of peaceful cows, herbivores will kill anything they perceive as a threat, competition or merely an annoyance. One of world’s most deadliest large animals is hippopotamus, and of course snakes also do not bite people because they think they can eat a human.

That however is not war. War is group violence in the context of an organized society. Within that context, many animals wage wars, but what defines these animals is a high level of group intelligence. Ants for example may not be individually smart, but they have a high degree of group intelligence, with complex social organization and – for their scale – enormous buildings. And they wage wars pretty much constantly. Most of this is fundamentally hunting strategy, but slave-making ants will raid other ant nests to enslave said ants’ brood.

On the other end of the scale, chimpanzees – apes very close to humans – wage real wars, absorbing territory of the exterminated group in the process. In Gombe chimpanzee war of 1974 – 1978., Kasakela chimpanzees exterminated the males of the Kahama group; some females were also killed while the rest were enslaved. In a sense, this would make chimpanzee wars more brutal than most human wars. And this is not a unique case: chimpanzee groups very frequently kill in order to expand their territory. In some cases, violence is aimed against other spieces, such as chimpanzee attacks on gorillas. Oftentimes, it is caused for competition for resources, which directly leads to competition for territory.

Territorial conflicts play an important role in the evolution. Fighting allows the most capable and populous group to obtain the resources, allowing the good genes as well as beneficial behaviour to spread. As a result, evolutionary fitness of the species is increased. Warfare has driven both biological evolution, leading to increase in intelligence, as well as social evolution, leading to larger and better organized communities.

In fact, if all animals were as intelligent as humans, consequence would be constant warfare. Or rather, intelligent species would fight until one gained dominance and exterminated all the others. Any species that tried to coexist would end up as such naïve groups historically did, being exterminated by the others. End result would be complete annihilation of all multicellular life on Earth.

.....you say many animals wage war---we know humans wage wars ..I count the humans as one type of ''animal'''....now, do all types of animals wage wars? are wolves in wars or is it mostly just food ''gathering''?
...your thread is very interesting .....ty

 

[B.t.N]

War is a Consequence of Intelligence

Violent competition is normal in nature. Contrary to the idealistic assumption of peaceful cows, herbivores will kill anything they perceive as a threat, competition or merely an annoyance. One of …

historyandwarfare.wordpress.com

Violent competition is normal in nature. Contrary to the idealistic assumption of peaceful cows, herbivores will kill anything they perceive as a threat, competition or merely an annoyance. One of world’s most deadliest large animals is hippopotamus, and of course snakes also do not bite people because they think they can eat a human.

That however is not war. War is group violence in the context of an organized society. Within that context, many animals wage wars, but what defines these animals is a high level of group intelligence. Ants for example may not be individually smart, but they have a high degree of group intelligence, with complex social organization and – for their scale – enormous buildings. And they wage wars pretty much constantly. Most of this is fundamentally hunting strategy, but slave-making ants will raid other ant nests to enslave said ants’ brood.

On the other end of the scale, chimpanzees – apes very close to humans – wage real wars, absorbing territory of the exterminated group in the process. In Gombe chimpanzee war of 1974 – 1978., Kasakela chimpanzees exterminated the males of the Kahama group; some females were also killed while the rest were enslaved. In a sense, this would make chimpanzee wars more brutal than most human wars. And this is not a unique case: chimpanzee groups very frequently kill in order to expand their territory. In some cases, violence is aimed against other spieces, such as chimpanzee attacks on gorillas. Oftentimes, it is caused for competition for resources, which directly leads to competition for territory.

Territorial conflicts play an important role in the evolution. Fighting allows the most capable and populous group to obtain the resources, allowing the good genes as well as beneficial behaviour to spread. As a result, evolutionary fitness of the species is increased. Warfare has driven both biological evolution, leading to increase in intelligence, as well as social evolution, leading to larger and better organized communities.

In fact, if all animals were as intelligent as humans, consequence would be constant warfare. Or rather, intelligent species would fight until one gained dominance and exterminated all the others. Any species that tried to coexist would end up as such naïve groups historically did, being exterminated by the others. End result would be complete annihilation of all multicellular life on Earth.

That is exactly why homo-sapiens are the sovereign race, and now we are busy annihilating each other off the surface of the planet!

 

[Domobran7]

.....you say many animals wage war---we know humans wage wars ..I count the humans as one type of ''animal'''....now, do all types of animals wage wars? are wolves in wars or is it mostly just food ''gathering''?
...your thread is very interesting .....ty

Not all animals wage wars, as war requires organized groups, which is not something all animals have.

ok, the fox is in the chicken coop....that's not the natural environment ...what will the fox do in the natural environment?
ty for the replies

Same thing, I believe, except in the natural environment the prey will run away so by the time fox has killed something, everything else will be out of range. But if a predator finds a group of helpless prey, it will kill everything, and then eat. And keep eating from the same source, for as long as there is anything edible left.