2002, Montreal,Canada
The Origins of War
Peter Corning
Discussant: Frank Salter
Accumulatingresearch across a spectrum of disciplines, from anthropology toethology, primatology and political science, lend strong supportto the thesisthat collective violence is a widespread phenomenon in the naturalworld-- an adaptive instrumentality with many uses. This is true ofthe human species as well. There is reason to believe that collectiveviolencehas also played an important part in human evolution and that organizedmodern "warfare" represents a cultural elaboration upona deep-seated part of the hominid behavioral repertoire.
Corning, Peter A.
Institute for the Study of Complex Systems, 119 Bryant Street, Suite 212, Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA
E-mail: ISCS@aol.com
SYNERGY GOES TO WAR: AN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF COLLECTIVE VIOLENCE
Synergy — otherwise unattainable combined effects that are produced by two or more elements, parts or individuals — has played a key causal role in the evolution of complexity, from the very origins of life to the evolution of humankind and complex societies. This theory — known as the "Synergism Hypothesis" — also applies to social behavior, including the use of collective violence for various purposes: predation, defense against predators, the acquisition of needed resources, and the defense of these resources against other groups and species. Among other things, there have been (1) synergies of scale, (2) cost and risk sharing, (3) a division of labor (or, better said, a "combination of labor"), (4) functional complementarities, (5) information sharing and collective "intelligence" and (6) tool and technology "symbioses". More important, the incidence of collective violence — in nature and human societies alike — is greatly influenced by synergies of various kinds, which shape the "bioeconomic" benefits, costs and risks. Synergy is a necessary (but not sufficient) causal agency. Though there are notable exceptions (and some significant qualifiers), collective violence is, by and large, an evolved, synergy-driven instrumentality in humankind, not a mindless instinct or a reproductive strategy run amok. The thesis that various forms of collective violence were of vital importance in human evolution and are not a recent, "historical" invention will alsobe briefly reviewed.
Van der Dennen, Johan M.G.
Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
E-mail. j.m.g.van.der.dennen@rechten.rug.nl
THE ORIGINS OF WAR: THE EVOLUTION OF INTERGROUP VIOLENCE IN ANIMALS AND MAN
Themain thesis of my book "The Origin of War: The Evolution of a Male-Coalitional Reproductive Strategy" (Groningen: Origin Press, 1995) isthat warfare (violent intergroup interaction) was not, as the standardopinionis, a cultural invention concomitant with the agricultural revolutionand pristine state formation in Mesopotamia some five thousandyearsago, but an evolved high-risk/high- gain male-coalitional, parental-investmentstrategy of a hypersocial, large-brained, highly cooperative, andslightlyethnocentric, primate. Warring behavior ('lethal male raiding')is confined to typically highly social and 'brainy' species, cognitivelycapableof establishing relatively long-term polyadic coalitions, mainlyHominidae and Panidae. This, at least partially, explains why malesare universallythe warriors, why warfare emerged so (relatively) late in evolution,and why it is so conspicuously absent in mammals generally. Inevolutionaryperspective, the main problem I addressed in this study was toexplain why war or its nonhuman equivalent (violent and more orless organizedintergroup conflict) is confined in the animal kingdom to the hominids/humans,at least one species of chimpanzee ('Pan troglodytes'), and, thoughin much lesser and milder degree and more or less orchestrated('pitched battle'), in some dolphins, social carnivores (such ashyenas), anda number of primates, such as colobines, baboons and macaques.The paperwill focus on the evolution of intergroup agonistic behavior, especiallythe roles of sexual selection and kin selection.
Meyer, Peter
Universitaet Augsburg, WiSo Fakultaet, Universitaetsstr.16, D 86159 Augsburg
WARFARE IN SOCIAL EVOLUTION: A LOOK AT ITS EVOLUTIONARY UNDERPINNINGS
Numerous theorists agree that warfare was a major factor in social evolution. However, from an evolutionary point of view the qestion arises why individuals should be willing to risk their lives in war? It is suggested that inclusive fitness theory may account for part of the problem by pointing to the potential reproductive benefits for partaking individuals. However, with regard to warfare's impact on social evolution, kin ties could not have been the only foundations for warriors' cooperation. It will be pointed out how the introduction of new patterns of cooperation, as well as of other innovations exerted a major impact on social evolution.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenäus
Max Planck Society Human Ethology Film Archive, Von-der-Tann-Str. 3, 82346 Andechs, Germany
E-mail: eibl@humanethologie.de
AGGRESSION AND WARFARE
Aggression is a topic still much disputed as to definition and causation. I deal here only with intraspecific aggression and discuss individual as well as collective aggression, and their phylogenetic roots. I begin with our dominance appetite, which does not only find ist outlet in physical aggression. Collective aggression and defence has a phylogenetic background and is still universal in man, as there are the physiological reward mechanisms underlying them. I will point out the phenomena of fear of strangers, territoriality, and group identity. Many of the adaptations which bond groups tap into existing familial dispositions. This is particularly true for cultural adaptations able to bond groups so strongly that in competition with others, especially during warfare, they become units of selection. Natural selection thus becomes a process taking place on different levels.
Warfare
William Charlesworth
Discussant: Peter Meyer
Charlesworth, William
Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455 USA
Profiling Terrorists: Ultimate and Proximate Causes of a Terroristic Act
A terroristic act, like any human behaviour, is a product of multiple interacting causal factors that consist of histories and situations of various lengths and intensities. These factors include genetic traits, environmental conditions, and early experiences that facilitate and sustain aggressive tendencies as well as situational stimulae that trigger the act itself. It is hypothesized that a terroristic act has its genetic origins in evolutionary adaptations to respond aggressively to resource scarcity. However, whether an individual actually engages in the act or not is contingent upon a range of processes resulting from the interaction of genetic traits, life experiences, and proximate stimulus situations.
Goldstein, Joshua S.
American University, 4400 Mass. Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20016-8071 USA
E-mail: jg@joshuagoldstein.com
EVOLUTIONARY ASPECTS OF GENDER ROLES IN WAR
Acrossa remarkable range of cultures and historical periods, in warfaremalesare the primary (usually the exclusive) fighters. The cross-culturalconsistency of these gender roles in war suggests that their rootsextenddeep into human prehistory. This paper considers the empiricalevidence relevant to evolutionary theories that claim to accountfor the genderingof war roles. It brings to bear–on arguments about reproductive advantage–data about male-female size differentials, spatialskills, dominance hierarchies, and the behavioral aspects of testosterone.Iconclude that the evolutionary pressures arising from resourcecompetition were more important than those arising from breedingcompetition,inshaping gendered war roles. The paper fills a gap in my book Warand Gender, which largely bypasses evolutionary theories in discussingthefunctional gender roles prominent in war through history and acrosscultures.
SALTER, Frank
Max Planck Institute, Von-der-Tann-Str. 3, 82346 Andechs, Germany
E-mail: salter@humanethologie.de
ESTIMATING ETHNIC GENETIC INTERESTS
Biological theories of the origin of warfare and other types of altruism directed towards the tribe or ethnic group have often attributed this to some adaptive function, such as retention of group resources. However, no theory of altruism can be tested using Hamilton's rule for adaptive altruism without an estimate of the genetic interests at stake within the group (copies of a random member's genes carried in co-ethnics who are not kin). Though W. Hamilton's 1975 model showed that ethnic genetic interests could theoretically be large, no evolutionary theory has yet answered the most basic question, whether in fact that interest is ever large enough to make self-sacrifice in war adaptive. The genetic interests held by one population in relation to another can be estimated from the mean kinship coefficient between the two populations, multiplied by population size. The genetic assay data needed to make this estimate for modern ethnic groups are becoming available, and yield results between one and six orders of magnitude larger than the genetic interests contained by families, depending on genetic distance and population size. Finer grained data are needed to estimate kinship coefficients between autochthonous tribes, but are likely to yield tribal genetic interests of the same order of magnitude as familial ones. The direction of theory and data strongly indicate that altruism directed towards one's ethnic group, such as self sacrifice in defence and contributions to other collective goods, can be adaptive.
Schiefenhövel, Wulf
Human Ethology Group, Max-Planck-Society, 82346 Andechs, Germany
E-mail: schiefen@erl.ornithol.mpg.de
Olane fatan (hungry for fight) - intragroup fights is mostly regretted, the killing of an enemy in warfare is met with triumph. Warfare involves propaganda, mainly through dehumanizing the enemies. Agression, therefore, may be one of the factors which have led to the extreme degree of cultural pseudospeciation so typical for Melanesian societies.
Peter Corning
Discussant: Frank Salter
Accumulatingresearch across a spectrum of disciplines, from anthropology toethology, primatology and political science, lend strong supportto the thesisthat collective violence is a widespread phenomenon in the naturalworld-- an adaptive instrumentality with many uses. This is true ofthe human species as well. There is reason to believe that collectiveviolencehas also played an important part in human evolution and that organizedmodern "warfare" represents a cultural elaboration upona deep-seated part of the hominid behavioral repertoire.
Corning, Peter A.
Institute for the Study of Complex Systems, 119 Bryant Street, Suite 212, Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA
E-mail: ISCS@aol.com
SYNERGY GOES TO WAR: AN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF COLLECTIVE VIOLENCE
Synergy — otherwise unattainable combined effects that are produced by two or more elements, parts or individuals — has played a key causal role in the evolution of complexity, from the very origins of life to the evolution of humankind and complex societies. This theory — known as the "Synergism Hypothesis" — also applies to social behavior, including the use of collective violence for various purposes: predation, defense against predators, the acquisition of needed resources, and the defense of these resources against other groups and species. Among other things, there have been (1) synergies of scale, (2) cost and risk sharing, (3) a division of labor (or, better said, a "combination of labor"), (4) functional complementarities, (5) information sharing and collective "intelligence" and (6) tool and technology "symbioses". More important, the incidence of collective violence — in nature and human societies alike — is greatly influenced by synergies of various kinds, which shape the "bioeconomic" benefits, costs and risks. Synergy is a necessary (but not sufficient) causal agency. Though there are notable exceptions (and some significant qualifiers), collective violence is, by and large, an evolved, synergy-driven instrumentality in humankind, not a mindless instinct or a reproductive strategy run amok. The thesis that various forms of collective violence were of vital importance in human evolution and are not a recent, "historical" invention will alsobe briefly reviewed.
Van der Dennen, Johan M.G.
Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
E-mail. j.m.g.van.der.dennen@rechten.rug.nl
THE ORIGINS OF WAR: THE EVOLUTION OF INTERGROUP VIOLENCE IN ANIMALS AND MAN
Themain thesis of my book "The Origin of War: The Evolution of a Male-Coalitional Reproductive Strategy" (Groningen: Origin Press, 1995) isthat warfare (violent intergroup interaction) was not, as the standardopinionis, a cultural invention concomitant with the agricultural revolutionand pristine state formation in Mesopotamia some five thousandyearsago, but an evolved high-risk/high- gain male-coalitional, parental-investmentstrategy of a hypersocial, large-brained, highly cooperative, andslightlyethnocentric, primate. Warring behavior ('lethal male raiding')is confined to typically highly social and 'brainy' species, cognitivelycapableof establishing relatively long-term polyadic coalitions, mainlyHominidae and Panidae. This, at least partially, explains why malesare universallythe warriors, why warfare emerged so (relatively) late in evolution,and why it is so conspicuously absent in mammals generally. Inevolutionaryperspective, the main problem I addressed in this study was toexplain why war or its nonhuman equivalent (violent and more orless organizedintergroup conflict) is confined in the animal kingdom to the hominids/humans,at least one species of chimpanzee ('Pan troglodytes'), and, thoughin much lesser and milder degree and more or less orchestrated('pitched battle'), in some dolphins, social carnivores (such ashyenas), anda number of primates, such as colobines, baboons and macaques.The paperwill focus on the evolution of intergroup agonistic behavior, especiallythe roles of sexual selection and kin selection.
Meyer, Peter
Universitaet Augsburg, WiSo Fakultaet, Universitaetsstr.16, D 86159 Augsburg
WARFARE IN SOCIAL EVOLUTION: A LOOK AT ITS EVOLUTIONARY UNDERPINNINGS
Numerous theorists agree that warfare was a major factor in social evolution. However, from an evolutionary point of view the qestion arises why individuals should be willing to risk their lives in war? It is suggested that inclusive fitness theory may account for part of the problem by pointing to the potential reproductive benefits for partaking individuals. However, with regard to warfare's impact on social evolution, kin ties could not have been the only foundations for warriors' cooperation. It will be pointed out how the introduction of new patterns of cooperation, as well as of other innovations exerted a major impact on social evolution.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenäus
Max Planck Society Human Ethology Film Archive, Von-der-Tann-Str. 3, 82346 Andechs, Germany
E-mail: eibl@humanethologie.de
AGGRESSION AND WARFARE
Aggression is a topic still much disputed as to definition and causation. I deal here only with intraspecific aggression and discuss individual as well as collective aggression, and their phylogenetic roots. I begin with our dominance appetite, which does not only find ist outlet in physical aggression. Collective aggression and defence has a phylogenetic background and is still universal in man, as there are the physiological reward mechanisms underlying them. I will point out the phenomena of fear of strangers, territoriality, and group identity. Many of the adaptations which bond groups tap into existing familial dispositions. This is particularly true for cultural adaptations able to bond groups so strongly that in competition with others, especially during warfare, they become units of selection. Natural selection thus becomes a process taking place on different levels.
Warfare
William Charlesworth
Discussant: Peter Meyer
Charlesworth, William
Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455 USA
Profiling Terrorists: Ultimate and Proximate Causes of a Terroristic Act
A terroristic act, like any human behaviour, is a product of multiple interacting causal factors that consist of histories and situations of various lengths and intensities. These factors include genetic traits, environmental conditions, and early experiences that facilitate and sustain aggressive tendencies as well as situational stimulae that trigger the act itself. It is hypothesized that a terroristic act has its genetic origins in evolutionary adaptations to respond aggressively to resource scarcity. However, whether an individual actually engages in the act or not is contingent upon a range of processes resulting from the interaction of genetic traits, life experiences, and proximate stimulus situations.
Goldstein, Joshua S.
American University, 4400 Mass. Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20016-8071 USA
E-mail: jg@joshuagoldstein.com
EVOLUTIONARY ASPECTS OF GENDER ROLES IN WAR
Acrossa remarkable range of cultures and historical periods, in warfaremalesare the primary (usually the exclusive) fighters. The cross-culturalconsistency of these gender roles in war suggests that their rootsextenddeep into human prehistory. This paper considers the empiricalevidence relevant to evolutionary theories that claim to accountfor the genderingof war roles. It brings to bear–on arguments about reproductive advantage–data about male-female size differentials, spatialskills, dominance hierarchies, and the behavioral aspects of testosterone.Iconclude that the evolutionary pressures arising from resourcecompetition were more important than those arising from breedingcompetition,inshaping gendered war roles. The paper fills a gap in my book Warand Gender, which largely bypasses evolutionary theories in discussingthefunctional gender roles prominent in war through history and acrosscultures.
SALTER, Frank
Max Planck Institute, Von-der-Tann-Str. 3, 82346 Andechs, Germany
E-mail: salter@humanethologie.de
ESTIMATING ETHNIC GENETIC INTERESTS
Biological theories of the origin of warfare and other types of altruism directed towards the tribe or ethnic group have often attributed this to some adaptive function, such as retention of group resources. However, no theory of altruism can be tested using Hamilton's rule for adaptive altruism without an estimate of the genetic interests at stake within the group (copies of a random member's genes carried in co-ethnics who are not kin). Though W. Hamilton's 1975 model showed that ethnic genetic interests could theoretically be large, no evolutionary theory has yet answered the most basic question, whether in fact that interest is ever large enough to make self-sacrifice in war adaptive. The genetic interests held by one population in relation to another can be estimated from the mean kinship coefficient between the two populations, multiplied by population size. The genetic assay data needed to make this estimate for modern ethnic groups are becoming available, and yield results between one and six orders of magnitude larger than the genetic interests contained by families, depending on genetic distance and population size. Finer grained data are needed to estimate kinship coefficients between autochthonous tribes, but are likely to yield tribal genetic interests of the same order of magnitude as familial ones. The direction of theory and data strongly indicate that altruism directed towards one's ethnic group, such as self sacrifice in defence and contributions to other collective goods, can be adaptive.
Schiefenhövel, Wulf
Human Ethology Group, Max-Planck-Society, 82346 Andechs, Germany
E-mail: schiefen@erl.ornithol.mpg.de
Olane fatan (hungry for fight) - intragroup fights is mostly regretted, the killing of an enemy in warfare is met with triumph. Warfare involves propaganda, mainly through dehumanizing the enemies. Agression, therefore, may be one of the factors which have led to the extreme degree of cultural pseudospeciation so typical for Melanesian societies.
No comments:
Post a Comment