Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Lynn Wigglesworth wrote:

> Am I not writing English? I don't seem to be able to make my point  
> that
> there are people, cultures, religions, etc. that DON'T start  
> conflicts with
> others. Bev and others have implied, or outright said that it's  
> "just the
> way human are" to aggress against others and take what they want.  
> I'm saying
> that as long as there are people who DON'T do that, it can't be a   
> universal
> "human" trait...it is perhaps a trait in a subset of humans, but not  
> all. If
> violence and aggression were universal human traits, wouldn't ALL  
> people be
> brawl and stealing?

Viewing the results of war instructs most of us to non-violence, but  
as here, there are those who are stuck in the belief that history  
always repeats. As with religion, dogma diverts intellectual inquiry.  
Alas, it is most easy to fall back on platitudes.

It might be useful to consider the various conditions that lead to  
violence, among them hunger, fear, and greed. Our evolutionary history  
is replete with examples of violence from these motivators. In our  
most successful societies we have pretty much eliminated hunger. The  
paranoia expressed here from time to time is proof that fear still  
plays a role even among those of intellect who have much security. And  
I have high confidence that greed will always be with us. It may be a  
necessity for continuing progress in some areas.

Seems to me that violence mostly occurs at both ends of civilization  
as we now perceive it, at the hungry beginning and at at the affluent  
end, which of course is not an end but a temporary place on a  
continuum. In many ways, financial business is barely controlled  
violence. Were it not for laws, the floors of the world's stock  
exchanges would likely be littered daily with bodies.