Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcrvax!hcrvx1!tracy
From: tracy@hcrvx1.UUCP (Tracy Tims)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Men/Hate, Women/Love.  (Aggression)
Message-ID: <1062@hcrvx1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Dec-84 17:43:59 EST
Article-I.D.: hcrvx1.1062
Posted: Sat Dec 29 17:43:59 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Dec-84 02:04:13 EST
References: <1038@hcrvx1.UUCP> <247@ahuta.UUCP> <756@pucc-k>
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 52

		Dale :
		... aggression ... is a strategy for survival that WORKS.
		So is cooperation.

	Henry C. Mensch (pucc-i!ag5):  (paraphrased)
	Unfortunately it is our fault that this strategy works. ... this
	aggression caused things like the first atom bomb ...

	Just what's so wrong with a peaceful and cooperative world, anyway?

It doesn't exist.  All you can do is decide to be peaceful and cooperative
and to try and recognize other peaceful and cooperative people that you can
be peaceful and cooperative with.  Sometimes you come across people who just
want what you've got.  All of it.  To ensure you own survival you resist.
Look at it this way:  if you can make the distinction between aggressive,
non cooperative violence, and between violence designed to ensure your
survival (note that "survival" does not mean:  political ideology, standard
of living or a McDonald's on every corner) and if you can avoid the first
then your resisting those who can't (and possibly denying their survival)
will enhance peaceful survival in general.  I think that's a good thing.

When Dale says aggression is a good strategy for survival he fails to answer
the question "Who's survival?"  In some situations perhaps aggression works
for the survival of the person being aggressive.  It certainly doesn't help
the survival of the person being aggressed upon.  If the two are human beings,
the aggression doesn't help the survival of the race as much as cooperation.
A cooperating system has much more potential for survival (and more potential
for the survival of it's components) than a non cooperating system.

It's pretty clear to me that we could be using this planet and it's resources
to better effect, if there was less aggression.  People as individuals would
have to settle for less in areas that they are used to getting all they want.
(Try to convince anyone this is good.)  But the outlook for the race, and for
the people following us (who may not share our particular notions about what
we deserve to get out of life) might be a little better.

Yes, sometimes there are situations where there *really* is only one slice of
pie, and in order to stay alive you've got to get it.  In these instances,
aggression gets used.  Unfortunately many people want to be aggressive where
it's not really appropriate (or survival related)  (perhaps it's dishwasher or
big car or cheap electronics related).

Look at it this way:  both aggression and cooperation are systems for cutting
up the pie.  In one of them you grab, in the other you are given.  I suspect
that the overhead of the aggression system is much higher than the overhead
of the cooperation system in all but the most trivial of cases (where the
overhead is the same.)  The overhead comes out as oppression, loss of life
and all sorts of nasty things.

                              Tracy Tims    {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
   Human Computing Resources Corporation                     {ihnp4,utzoo}!...
 Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  416 922-1937                   ...hcr!hcrvx1!tracy