Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!gjk From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: Re: A Question! Message-ID: <318@talcott.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Mar-85 15:20:00 EST Article-I.D.: talcott.318 Posted: Sun Mar 3 15:20:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Mar-85 02:35:41 EST References: <776@decwrl.UUCP> <597@pyuxd.UUCP> <501@whuxl.UUCP> Organization: Harvard Lines: 66 Xref: watmath net.politics:7945 net.religion:5849 net.flame:8671 >>> A person who, not so long ago was the idol of millions poised a question >>> that I would like someone to answer please. >>> >>> "Why shouldn't human beings be as cruel as nature is?" >>> >>> - Adolf Hitler >>> >>> Anyone want to try and explain it. Of course we know religion is bosh and >>> unscientific and unrational so can the Uzibsmo says stuff. I mean just >>> why should humans be DIFFERENT than other things in nature? [ARNDT] >> > >This question already presumes certain things that may not be true. >One is that nature is *crueler* than human beings. Actually there have never >been any species (to my knowledge, anybody know differently?) that went >about systematically murdering other members of their own species. >Other members of their species may wind up starving to death, being hunted >by predators and so forth but the members of the species do not dispatch >their fellows to the gas chamber or such themselves. This is a myth. It is now known that many mammalian species actually do commit murder. I think primates are the best documented. Basically, chimpanzees have organized their society into the equivalent of street gangs, with terretorial claims and all. If a lone chimpanzee is at the wrong place at the wrong time, there is a good chance that he will be beaten to death. Since the chimps are perpetually in this state, their overall murder rate is much higher than that of humans, even including wars. See back issues of Discover magazine for more details. >Other species also do not have the peculiar institution of war: as ethologists >have pointed out, while most species have established forms of agression >for mating and so forth, a part of these forms is to *stop before murder*. The reason that they do not have war is lack of sufficient organization. When there sufficient organization, there can also be war: a mammalian body is simply a highly organized colony of eucaryotes, so a fight between two mammals is a war between colonies of cells. As to aggression which is related to mating, the animals have evolved weapons which are usually not powerful enough for murder, but the intent is to kill. For example, it would take a great deal of time and energy for an alpha bull walrus to kill its challenger, and usually has to settle for bruising it heavily and then resting or doing something else. >It would not do the species much good if fighting over mates led to the >decimation of the protagonists. True, but it may be in the best interest of the indivual members; see above paragraph. >There is also benevolence in nature. I just saw a "Nature" segment on >the Osprey falcon: it was very touching to see both mother and father >build the nest and bring food back to their young. > >Love is a *part* of nature! > tim sevener whuxl!orb Yes, but the general rule is indifference to anything other than offspring. The general rule for humans on the other hand is cooperation, while murder is usually exceptional enough to make the headlines of the local papers. And war is exceptional enough to attract the attention of the whole world. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.