Download e-book War, murder & human nature: why people kill

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online War, murder & human nature: why people kill file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with War, murder & human nature: why people kill book. Happy reading War, murder & human nature: why people kill Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF War, murder & human nature: why people kill at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF War, murder & human nature: why people kill Pocket Guide.

When a child sits stunned in an ambulance having watched his home and family destroyed by deliberate attack. When a boy trades a handgun for a father and projects his personal pain upon playmates, preferring to become a child murderer. When police in moments of fear fire first and question later, and when they are picked off by a sniper like points in a pointless video game. Violence is in our genes and in our environment, but so too are territoriality and society.

These things we will not change. Genes change at a glacial pace. But territory and society shift constantly and they are molded by man. There is hope through understanding the science of human violence, as we can see. Some men do deliberate and decide to forfeit their life if necessary to rush into a war zone wearing white helmets to dig a broken child out of rubble. It is interesting. I would have thought the same as you that population density would correlate with the homicide rate, but the authors draw the opposite conclusion.

Darwin teaches us there is no cooperation withouts some competition. Human beings having no natural predators means Nature rebalances this by having some of us be intra species predators ie psychopaths and sociopath and sociopath groups including political groups like the Khmer rouge. Perhaps one way to reduce at least some murderous violence is to spread out more and reduce the population density? We tend to pack ourselves into densely populated cities; don't suburbs and rural areas have fewer murders per capita than cities?

I've also read that when a country or geographic group develops an "excess young male" population, that violence increases. I read that young males in particular become more prone to violence when they feel they have no future: no chance of getting a well-paying job, attracting a desirable wife, buying a home and raising a family. Bleak hopelessness and resentment and a craving for status drives young men to join criminal gangs or to seek status and create meaningfulness in their lives by radicalizing and performing acts of jihad.

If I'm remembering correctly, historically when the economy is booming and there are lots of well-paying jobs, a high employment rate, there is less violent crime, less domestic violence, less suicide, less mass murder, etc. Also: I am not particularly religious but I find it fascinating that the first real crime described in the Bible all three of the Abrahamic religions share the "Old Testament" stories was brother-against-brother murder, committed out of jealousy. Seems we human beings have known this about ourselves, our propensity for extreme violence, for a long time.

Domestic violence is a crime committed by men of all social groups, not just the unemployed. Likewise spree killings and mass murder are usually the result of male narcissists who have very conservative, sexist values and a sense of unfulfilled entitlement to women, wealth, power and social status. They're not the result of simply unemployment. Religious terrorism is the result of religious ideology, not just social disadvantage. Many terrorists are wealthy, educated and privileged. It seems that mental illness and social disadvantage are the go to excuses for the actions of violent men.

However women and girls suffer more from social disadvantage, sexism, depression and poverty, yet don't resort to extreme violence at anywhere near the same rate as men. So the question remains, is it biological or is it to do with the fact that men are raised with a sense of entitlement to social status and power, and to believe that aggression and violence are the answer when they don't get it or when confronted with another male?

Men are killing each other at an alarming rate so it would really help to get to the root of the matter. I don't think this research is honest or helpful cause it can't even make a distinction between male and female levels of violence. Stating that 'human's' are predisposed to violence is very disingenuous on their part and counterproductive if the goal is to understand violence and murder and address it effectively.

I agree. Actually the opposite is true. Sparse population does not stop killings, it encourages them. Feuds were a way of life in the 18th and 19th centuries in the Appalachian Mountains and further west, where law enforcement was scarce and people often took the law into their own hands. Where good law enforcement and a justice system was available, like in cities, killing no longer becomes the only way to get justice.

It is far better to have the state prosecute a killer than to be forced to kill him and any other family member protecting him. No two people, regardless of the kind of environment that they were brought up in and reside in, are the same. Take two young men who've grown up in a similar environment:. Person A goes out, joins a criminal gang, and gets into criminality himself, and ends up dead or in prison. Person A's going out and getting into crime, and ending up in jail or dead, is due, at least in part because he was reared in a household with criminals, and therefore ended up getting into crime himself, plus, psychologically, he was more prone to criminal behavior.

Person B is brought up and raised in the exact same environment, but instead of getting into crime, he makes an effort to become a success in life, stays in school, gets good grades, obtains a scholarship to go to a college that he likes, and ends up becoming a carpenter. Person B's family is straight as an arrow, with no history or criminality, and they want their kids to have an education and to make something of themselves in life.

Both A and B spell the difference between somebody who is successful in life, and who joins a criminal gang, gets into a life of crime, and ends up either dead or behind bars. Get what I'm saying? I can see what your saying I disagree. This theory doesn't explain why the overwhelming majority of people who kill are male. This can be explained by social factors, such as raising men to believe that aggression and violence are an essential part of 'masculinity', of being a man.

I would like men to stop tarring women with their own brush. I think women have more respect for life because we give it. Perhaps there's also some deep seated frustration in men that they can't ever be the life givers, so they destroy it instead. Whatever it is, I wish they would stop being so irrational, get a grip and stop ruining things for the peaceful amongst us, both male and female.

Human beings have a moral sense and the power of abstract thought. We're not at the mercy of our genetics and biology. We have free will and make our choices. Violent men are making the wrong choices.

We should not make questionable excuses and justifications for them. Evolution explains it perfectly. The male who knocks the other males on the head for "control" of the female breeding prize has just inculcated his "knock them on the head" genes to the next generation. He is "successful" by impregnating the "female prize" and thus evolution "naturally selects" his aggression over passivity. Males with passive genes will thus be selected out.

It is obvious. The "female prize" would not have had much say as to who "knocks her up" in the past and still does not in some countries with a certain dominant degenerate religion. Thus evolution is ambivalent about female aggression but biased toward male aggression. Just as an aside: there are some very aggressive women out there as well, so to say that all females are the paragons of blissful virtue is not correct. Here in australia it is Spring and Magpie a bird with a big sharp beak breeding season.

The male birds "defend" the nest by swooping on anything in a radius of approx metres. They are very aggressive and sometimes even draw blood! The female birds do not exhibit such tendencies but I would suspect that the more aggressive birds are also aggressive at breeding too. For it is predominantly the female that thinks that breeding is a sublime virtue. Many men are actually scared of the responsibility and cost of "knocking someone up" and want the "fun" but certainly not the outcome. On many occasions it is the female that tries to entrap the male by attempting to convince him that taking on the massive responsibility of child raising is something he wants.

So to "get his way" he has to play along and pretend that this is also what he wants: when it is not, he is only interested in one thing and would happily move on to the next "female prize" if he could leaving the last female prize stuck with the wonder of "life giving".

No scientific proof that war is ingrained in human nature, according to study

All of this is of course a big joke for neither the male or the female is a "life giver". Until you can say that you are god and created your body, you are nothing by a passenger in something that Evolution not you created! When you are "having sex", you are not doing it with another person but with Nature or Evolution. Your emotions and procreation drive are an overlay imposed upon you by Evolution probably in the brain stem : they are not you, you are just the hapless passenger. So by identifying yourself as your drives, you are just dumbly playing into the hands of Evolution.

You are not the new life.

Why do we kill? Controversial study blames our distant ancestors | Science | AAAS

When you die you will be gone and you will have nothing to do with the subsequent generations. Unless you have some contrary religious views, science clearly shows that the cost of procreation is clearly not worth it. Especially in today's environment when jobs are getting harder to get and house prices are going through the roof, there has never been a better time to question this whole breeding thing.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I would have to say that testosterone is not oxytocin, if you follow my meaning, and there are obvious reasons why testosterone causes increased muscle development and increased aggression. This is true throughout the world and across cultures.

However, at the same time males by the same margin are more likely to risk their life heroically to help someone in trouble. Often complete strangers, often females, and frequently as an impulsive reflex without any thought.


You bitches kill too. Just because you are soft all bitches are. Males are males, and we are animals and it is what it is. This is not going to be fixed, and men should be men.

Why do we kill?

I do agree animals shouldn't be eaten. The book "Violent Land" the name of the author escapes me at the moment , which was published in the early 's by Harvard University Press succinctly points out that behavior has an environmental, cultural and biological basis for it. How can you find some awesome topics to share. You are helping lots of people for doing this. Thank you for the sharing. I believe that violence is in our genes, but it is still sad how we are educated, but still uses emotions rather than our intellect.

It's true that there are definitely a lot of rotten apples in the human species but holding the entire species responsible for this contradicts that many most? One could say evolution is just an adaptive mechanism with which humans adapted to their environment but humans are much more than the sum of their instincts; they also have higher brain function which allows for self-reflection and rational thought.

  • Are We Hardwired to Kill? - The Intersection : The Intersection.
  • Béloni (Littérature Française) (French Edition).
  • No scientific proof that war is ingrained in human nature, according to study.
  • PRIORITIES: Choosing an Ideal Life.
  • The Mystery Sister (Charming Sisters)!
  • The rate of lethal violence is 7 times higher than the average for all mammals.
  • Pour un tweet avec toi (EMOTIONS) (French Edition).

We no longer live in the Pleistocene when violence was an instinctual urge necessary for survival. We've created works of art that can affect emotions and provoke thoughtful conversations. Perhaps what makes us even more remarkable is that we have this seemingly infinite capacity to achieve great things, and yet our history is filled with violence toward one another.

How can we dedicate countless hours to matters of art, science, and other sophisticated pursuits and still commit acts of murder or wage globe-spanning wars? We have a tendency to think of ourselves as existing apart from other species. Humans have the ability to reason and pass down knowledge to future generations. This ability makes it seem like we base our actions mainly upon rationality. But how do we reconcile that with the act of eliminating other members of our own species?

It's a complex problem.

Most Popular

Formatos ePub. Computadora de escritorio. Sinopsis Why do people kill? Is violent behaviour part of human nature? These are important social questions. And while murder and war are grim subject matters, they are difficult to ignore. There are , murders every year around the world, and that number would be quadrupled were it not for fast ambulances and modern emergency units.

If you count the war dead in the past two centuries, the number blows past If you count the war dead in the past two centuries, the number blows past million.