Re: Is Humanity Inherently Violent?
4 May 94 18:03:11 CDT

In article <1994May4.111426.1@clstac> asks:

>I would like to pose a question to this newsgroup...
>Is humankind inherently non-violent and/or non-agressive?

It would be hard to argue that we are inherently non-agressive,
considering our record. In all probability, we are neither innately agressive
or non-agressive.

>Recently a professor at the college that I attend, adressed this point
>claiming that humanity is inherently "good" - by this he ment socialy
>productive (peaceful, etc.) From my understanding however, the fossil record
>shows evidence of warfare in the stages of Homo Erectus and Neanderthal - as
>well as canabolism.

The most common popular books about man as innately agressive would be
Robert Ardrey's _The Territorial Imperative_ and _The Hunting Hypothesis,
or Konrad Lorenz's _On Agression_. On the other side of the argument (not that
man is good, but that he isn't the bloody savage that Ardey and Lorenz believe)
would be Richard Leakey and Robert Lewin (among others). The most readable of
their books is _The People of the Lake_, followed by both _Origins_ and
_Origins Reconsidered_.

>However, my knowledge of modern human tribal organization is quite poor. In
>the most egaltarian of societies, I would tend to presume that acts of murder,
>rape, and other non-social tendancies would be prevalent - perhaps not to the
>extent as they are in modern Am

I don't think that there is any question that _every_ society has
running sores of the type yuo described. This holds true in modernity and
historically. There are no counter-examples.

Clay Hale