Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,328
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
I definitely believe there are genetic causes; I'm just not sure these authors have proved it.
See: Gomez et al: The phylogenetic roots of lethal violence
http://www.nature.com/articles/natu...b0q-WBn-I4miyDArUk7a3ai9sX_x9V4v6vookFIRZ5YM=
It's a Nature article and I can't seem to copy paste from it.
conspecific violence in humans are still debated, despite attracting
the attention of intellectuals for over two millennia
1–11
. Here we
propose a conceptual approach towards understanding these roots
based on the assumption that aggression in mammals, including
humans, has a significant phylogenetic component. By compiling
sources of mortality from a comprehensive sample of mammals,
we assessed the percentage of deaths due to conspecifics and,
using phylogenetic comparative tools, predicted this value for
humans. The proportion of human deaths phylogenetically
predicted to be caused by interpersonal violence stood at 2%.
This value was similar to the one phylogenetically inferred for
the evolutionary ancestor of primates and apes, indicating that a
certain level of lethal violence arises owing to our position within
the phylogeny of mammals. It was also similar to the percentage
seen in prehistoric bands and tribes, indicating that we were as
lethally violent then as common mammalian evolutionary history
would predict. However, the level of lethal violence has changed
through human history and can be associated with changes in
the socio-political organization of human populations. Our study
provides a detailed phylogenetic and historical context against
which to compare levels of lethal violence observed throughout
our history.
conspecific violence in humans are still debated, despite attracting
the attention of intellectuals for over two millennia
1–11
. Here we
propose a conceptual approach towards understanding these roots
based on the assumption that aggression in mammals, including
humans, has a significant phylogenetic component. By compiling
sources of mortality from a comprehensive sample of mammals,
we assessed the percentage of deaths due to conspecifics and,
using phylogenetic comparative tools, predicted this value for
humans. The proportion of human deaths phylogenetically
predicted to be caused by interpersonal violence stood at 2%.
This value was similar to the one phylogenetically inferred for
the evolutionary ancestor of primates and apes, indicating that a
certain level of lethal violence arises owing to our position within
the phylogeny of mammals. It was also similar to the percentage
seen in prehistoric bands and tribes, indicating that we were as
lethally violent then as common mammalian evolutionary history
would predict. However, the level of lethal violence has changed
through human history and can be associated with changes in
the socio-political organization of human populations. Our study
provides a detailed phylogenetic and historical context against
which to compare levels of lethal violence observed throughout
our history.
See: Gomez et al: The phylogenetic roots of lethal violence
http://www.nature.com/articles/natu...b0q-WBn-I4miyDArUk7a3ai9sX_x9V4v6vookFIRZ5YM=
It's a Nature article and I can't seem to copy paste from it.
conspecific violence in humans are still debated, despite attracting
the attention of intellectuals for over two millennia
1–11
. Here we
propose a conceptual approach towards understanding these roots
based on the assumption that aggression in mammals, including
humans, has a significant phylogenetic component. By compiling
sources of mortality from a comprehensive sample of mammals,
we assessed the percentage of deaths due to conspecifics and,
using phylogenetic comparative tools, predicted this value for
humans. The proportion of human deaths phylogenetically
predicted to be caused by interpersonal violence stood at 2%.
This value was similar to the one phylogenetically inferred for
the evolutionary ancestor of primates and apes, indicating that a
certain level of lethal violence arises owing to our position within
the phylogeny of mammals. It was also similar to the percentage
seen in prehistoric bands and tribes, indicating that we were as
lethally violent then as common mammalian evolutionary history
would predict. However, the level of lethal violence has changed
through human history and can be associated with changes in
the socio-political organization of human populations. Our study
provides a detailed phylogenetic and historical context against
which to compare levels of lethal violence observed throughout
our history.
conspecific violence in humans are still debated, despite attracting
the attention of intellectuals for over two millennia
1–11
. Here we
propose a conceptual approach towards understanding these roots
based on the assumption that aggression in mammals, including
humans, has a significant phylogenetic component. By compiling
sources of mortality from a comprehensive sample of mammals,
we assessed the percentage of deaths due to conspecifics and,
using phylogenetic comparative tools, predicted this value for
humans. The proportion of human deaths phylogenetically
predicted to be caused by interpersonal violence stood at 2%.
This value was similar to the one phylogenetically inferred for
the evolutionary ancestor of primates and apes, indicating that a
certain level of lethal violence arises owing to our position within
the phylogeny of mammals. It was also similar to the percentage
seen in prehistoric bands and tribes, indicating that we were as
lethally violent then as common mammalian evolutionary history
would predict. However, the level of lethal violence has changed
through human history and can be associated with changes in
the socio-political organization of human populations. Our study
provides a detailed phylogenetic and historical context against
which to compare levels of lethal violence observed throughout
our history.
