Yoo Gunna Eetz Yo Cornbread?!
 

Hey, no problem. Funny thing about that real question concept:

The real question, as requested, was the last two words of the OP.

...

I suppose that was my question.

...

I come here to learn. This is fun.

personally, i think scarcity of resources is much more powerful than violence.

A major issue.

Wouldn't that eventually lead to violence ala Soylent Green and Mad Max?

Yes, and perhaps it would imply that scarce resources, i.e. economic issues, are the driving force for humanity.

It makes sense; violence rarely occurs for its own sake. It happens because somebody wants what somebody else has.

Bingo we have a winner. Violence in itself is never a driving force or a reason for anything. You have to look deeper, for the reasons behind things. The driving force for humanity is survival.

Just because something leads to violence, doesn't make violence the driving force or reason behind the action itself. Nobody or nothing in the universe as we know it voluntarily chooses to do something violent just for the sake of violence in my opinion.

While I don't know what everything is thinking it's not often I see a shark just attack a fish for example, kill it and leave it there for the sake of violence. As humans we can deduce sharks attack other living things for a source of food. Just as every other intelligent life form is violent for some underlying reason. Any intelligent life form chooses to do something based on instinct or choice. Using logic and reasoning we can come to the conclusion, this instinct perpetuating violence furthers there ability to survive. In the latter, there are many other vast reasons why, but they too all have reasons behind them.Likewise, psychopaths don't kill people or hurt people randomly for the sake of hurting people randomly there is a reason behind it, they choose to do so for whatever agenda they have.

Violence in itself doesn't drive it is simply a vehichle used for other purposes. Much like a knife, the knife doesn't propel itself without something acting upon it. I haven't heard the old, "my knife is the thing that ended his life I may have thrust it into his chest, but i'm innocent" argument hold up in court. So yes violence is an effective tool for achieving ones desires but in no way is it the driving force.

I question this statement. Take a trip to your nearest elementary school playground and observe the violence children are capable of. Even very young children - toddlers - exhibit violent behavior: they spontaneously crush and destroy things, fling their toys, spoons and bottles, throw their food, grab and pull hair, scream and rage. Most toddlers are notoriously violent, regardless of their family life. One could say that it is society itself which civilizes and pacifies what is intrinsically a violent species.

You probably didn't understand what I was saying. I would argue they're exhibiting violent behaviors because they perhaps enjoy it, they're bored, maybe they're angry. My whole point is there's a reason behind all violence, they're not randomly doing it, if they were they wouldn't be an intelligent form of life.

This is my point...it is spontaneous violence. There is no outside stimulus that would explain toddler violence. Well-rested and recently fed infants can show signs of violence. I (and many child psychologists) argue that violence and aggression in humans - displayed raw and unfiltered in toddlers - is innate. Otherwise called the Death Instinct.

Maybe they want their mommy?

Maybe...or maybe they just want to crush, kill, destroy...something/anything.
Remember as a kid having the urge to knock down your best friend's sand castle, and not being able to understand why?

Well I come to conclusions based on logic and reason. Violence for the sake of violence not involving any other outside factor is illogical, so I cannot really answer you here.

I would think a natural explanation for toddler acting out would be that they are just trying to exert control over something at an age where they are starting to realize just how little control they actually have.

In any case, not all kids are prone to random violence - if it were human nature one might expect them all to be.

Interesting points. 2 things.
1: Why is it important for a very young child to feel the need to control something - anything?
2: If what you postulate is true, why does the need to control ever manifest itself in aggressive behavior?
Don't feel obligated to answer, I just enjoy child psychology.

Illogical, you say. Very well.

Because feeling like you're in control of something is the exact opposite of feeling helpless, and as far as i can tell, helplessness is one feeling most people try to avoid.

I don't know if you remember being a kid, but i do. Children are constantly being told what to do, and with good reason. They lack the awareness required to not inadvertently seriously hurt themselves or someone else. Regardless, constantly being bossed around can be stressful, and being physically active is one way of relieving stress. One of the few things that a kid at that age does have a lot of control over (in a sense they don't have that much control) is his/her body.

It could be for a lot of different reasons. Maybe the kid is trying to get in trouble because they want some attention from their caregiver. Maybe the kid is just mimicking behavior that they've seen elsewhere. Maybe the kid is just experimenting with different kinds of behavior.

Well, i wouldn't be all formal with it. This is just me talking out of my ass. And i wouldn't say that there aren't any kids who are prone to anti-social violence, i just think that there is generally a more satisfying explanation for it than simply chalking it up to human nature.

Yeah, violence doesn't have to occur for its own sake, though.

Every person has violence in their human toolbox. It never goes away.

Regardless of philosophy... violence is always an available option.

It is the first option for some, the last option for others.

So is baking cupcakes, i don't see your point.

Wow... deep. Like safety scissors.

(puts you on a desert island with another starving person)

Which one of you is lunch?

Good point. I suppose what fascinates me is the spontaneous destructiveness of the late infant/toddler, regardless of race, creed, color, socio-economic background, etc. I am referring to a period of human experience where social constraints haven't entered the picture. The amount of biting, scratching, tearing, poking and general mayhem emanating from such a small and inexperienced creature is not only impressive, but serves as a telling commentary on the adult of the species as well, at least to my way of thinking. It seems once past this period of expressive instinctual violence, we are henceforth in a struggle to curb our appetite for destruction.

Totally.

Take a group of infants and have them survive to adulthood without society's notions.

See how civilized they are... see how physical force runs the show.

Lord of the Flies'd!

Whomever dies first.

You ever shot your way into a loving marriage? Punched a complete stranger into being your friend? Stabbed your way through a job interview and gotten the job? How many body slams does it take to read a book?

Without discretion, violence is nothing, it's less than useless. There are a whole lot of things that coercion just can't get for you.

I don't think that there is necessarily anything profound about always having the option to hit somebody. What is interesting is that that option taken so little, that so many people seem to see the value in avoiding violence altogether.

That doesn't even make sense. Infants are completely helpless. In order to "have them survive into adulthood" there would have to be some sort of intervention i.e. socialization. Even if you were able to somehow raise them without impressing on them any socialization at all, their actions would still be governed more by economics than violence. Animals, despite being completely uncivilized, generally only use violence as a means of defending their resources or playing.

You're putting the cart before the horse here.

It also took considerable intelligence (some might use another word) not only to create gunpowder, but to engineer a device capable of leveraging its explosive properties.

Yay, technology. Things that would have been developed eventually anyways.

Put enough humans on a planet and leave them alone for enough years and you'll just about always end up with something that acts like the AK47.

Our species is especially talented at turning metals into implements with which to destroy each other.

...

I'm not talking about intellect, I'm talking history. I'm talking about a young society without the experience of an extensive set-up history to consult, without legal statutes, without common law, without uniforms, perhaps without a language.

By late infant/toddler, social constraints are already there. Socialization begins at day one, some people might argue it begins before the baby is even born. I don't know anything about your experience with infants, but my experience with them has been completely different from what you describe. It's not like kids that age are too young to have motivations for their behaviors. For you to ascribe to them some sort of innate tendency towards violence completely ignores the fact that they are already individuals, absorbing information from their surroundings constantly, with their own personal tendencies and temperaments.

I also can't relate to the idea that i am in a constant struggle to curb my appetite for destruction. It doesn't make sense to me. If animals are innately violent, then how come the wild ones aren't all on constant rampages? As far as i can tell, most of them live almost completely peaceful lives, and only resort to violence when they feel threatened or need to eat. They aren't socialized at all. What's their excuse for being able to overcome in their constant struggle with their appetite for destruction? If socialization is the root of humanity's ability to set aside it's blood lust, what qualities do animals possess that allow them to set aside their blood lust without the benefit of socialization, and do these qualities, by virtue of their innateness, actually mean that animals are naturally more discrete than humanity in their use of violence? Does this mean that animals are actually more civilized than humans?

Well said sir, I completely agree.

Alot here to chew on, thanks. While I agree with you that learned behavior is a factor later on in life (and to varying degrees) I disagree that there no instinctual acts of aggression in early childhood, ie., that from birth there is only Nurture over Nature. For example, I would characterize acts of self-preservation as aggressive behavior, such as biting due to physical discomfort, or screaming for food. Would you agree?

Not quite sure I follow. Which animals are you referring to? I don't think I said that all animals are as innately aggressive as Man. There are certain african fish (cichlids) that are extraordinaily aggressive and territorial (I used to collect them), but they don't "hunt for pleasure" in the wild as far as I know. There have been occurences of tigers in India killing humans for reasons other than eating them, but tigers are solitary. As for animals being more 'civilized' than humans, good question - although I've never seen a gorilla play the piano. :P

But seriously, yes I think it's safe to say that man is more aggressive towards his fellow man than any other animal towards its own, if that is what you meant.

power is simply having control over others. The ability to bend people to your will. Whether that power is obtained through persuasion or coercion is irrelevant. MLK jr and Hitler were both powerful men. One used words to obtain and use that power, while the other one used violence and force.

That was our point, there is a reason. You were saying there was no reason for this "violent" or "aggressive" behavior.

Yes this is correct. I think this is due to our intelligence. Most animals on this planet aren't intelligent enough to have any other goal than survival. But we humans have so many more wants in life, some of which aren't the most noble of aspirations. We created religions which killed millions. Our intelligence has lead us astray really from what we should be doing because we really have no idea what we are doing. So many people have just these insane agendas based upon insane beliefs and this comes from our ability to comprehend so many various concepts, ideas, ideals who is to say what is right and wrong? So therin lies our problem unlike more simple minded creatures, we don't just have to worry about survival and things of that nature anymore, so many other various really trivial things weigh upon our minds. All of these trivial things just mold our lives and take over our lives...our intelligence which is our greatest asset seems to also be our greatest downfall, I dunno.

Aaah, the source of evil thought.

I think you guys are approaching it from the wrong angle. Ustwo alluded to the following earlier.

Force (violence is a loaded term) is universal. Any creature on the planet will at some point use force to defend itself. Society has grown up to protect us from the indiscriminate use of force, the "State of Nature" if you will, which benefitted the strong and ruthless. Now the strong and ruthless hold positions of power, (which as stated before is backed with the threat of force) rather than just big clubs. "Violence" is just under the surface, and it is the reason for society itself, nevermind societies constructs.

And if you don't agree with this, I will kill you.

I am inclined to agree with this in part. I would, however, suggest that "violence" isn't the only reason for society. Even without (or with minimal) outside threats, there are other benefits of social cohesiveness, the best of which are related to the many aspects of adaptation to the conditions of existence and desired prosperity. Think of food security and the division of labour.

Force is universal, so much so that it is mundane. The fact that at some point a person might be required to use certain specific forms of it to defend themselves does not make those specific forms of force the be-all end-all of forces. In fact, as far as forces go, the role the force of violence plays in anybody's life ever is minuscule compared to other, more fundamental forces. That doesn't mean that we're ever going to have a thread about the profundity of electromagnetism, or that all decisions occur under the implied threat of gravitational acceleration.

All you're doing is taking hobbes a step further. It's a particularly cynical viewpoint and completely speculative. Nobody knows what the "state of nature" is. I don't. It's like speculating about the culture of dinosaurs- none of them took the time to write it down, so now all we have are bones.

Nobody knows what humanity was like before culture or social structure, because none of the folks who were around for it left any kind of substantial clue about how things were, beyond the rare artifact. A person's opinion on humanity's state of nature is more reflective of the person than the state of nature. It's useless as support for the idea that all human behavior has roots in violence or the avoidance thereof.

My point is that violence isn't the sole motivator because there are a whole lot of other reasons to do or not do things. My motivation for going to school right now is not that deep down i know that if i don't violence will befall me.

Now, maybe you're thinking, "But if someone shot you to death, you wouldn't be going to school anymore." So what? There is probably an infinite number of different things that could happen that would result in me not going to school anymore. Singling violence out and creaming your jeans over its awesome power is something i don't really feel justified in doing. Though it is certainly a possibility that someone might shoot me, i tend to think that a more likely reason for me to drop out of school would be the fact that there are only 24 hours in a day- that's just playing the odds though. This gets back to the subject of scarcity, which i still think is much more important than violence when it comes to controlling the behavior of humans.

I would also argue that civilization can only come about when a good portion of its potential members realize that violence is often completely useless and counterproductive, but again, that's just how i see it.

Baraka: I would never suggest that there are no other benefits to society, but I would suggest that most, if not all, of the other benefits are possible because there is not the constant struggle for the most base neccessities against the stronger. Both of the examples you cite are motivated, indirectly, by the threat(and therefore the employment) of force.

Filtherton: I was saying that the ability for you to go to school is because our society puts a buffer betwixt you and the "state of nature". There is no different state for humans, it is what it is.

If it were not for the "societal buffer", we would not be typing this, because someone stronger than you would have come and taken your stuff, or you would be out taking someone elses, as a means to survive and prosper. We (most of us) have overcome this, to a point. It is a good thing. I would not enjoy living a nasty, brutish, and short life.

No fear means violence has no power.
We see all these things at TV that say :"Look it's normal to be scared, to have fear, those who scare us are the evil ones".
No it is not "normal", those who say we should be afraid instead of trying to overcome fear are the evil ones

I've had my shit stolen, and we all know that people get killed and assaulted every day. Society is a shitty buffer.

I see what you're saying and i don't necessarily disagree with it in principle, though i think that it's incomplete. The fact that i am who i am at this point in time, much less the fact that i am able to go to school, owes credit to many things that can be generally be considered to be completely separate from the influence of society: i haven't yet come down with a debilitating or fatal disease; i wasn't born with any noticeable (so far, at least) physical or mental handicaps of a nature that would preclude my survival; i haven't been seriously injured or killed in some sort of "act of god"-ey type thing; i have been able to gain access to resources essential to my survival; etc. Out of all the things i have just listed, human on human violence only really comes into play in the last one, and even then only as one of a multitude of ways in which to gain or procure resources. The "state of nature" of humanity, as i see it, is one of constant uncertainty, where that great fudge factor luck has more to do with survival than any one specific nonrandom thing.

I also think that a "state of nature" as we are using it here is nothing more than a label for arbitrary axioms about the nature of something, humanity in this case. It actually says nothing about humanity in its natural state, unless it takes into account the fact that humanity is always in its natural state. We are living in the "state of nature" right now. Humans are social animals, and as such, society is a state of our nature, always has been, always will be.

We are governed by the same things right now that we have always been governed by, the same things that currently govern every other form of life.

But, after writing all this, i think that all you're really trying to say is that the guy who is willing to resort to violence will always have the advantage over the guy who isn't, in which case i think it depends on the situation.

The sun is quite violent.
PHOTOSYNTHESIS requires it, and is the basis of most of our power, not to mention our existence. Upon what hubris this thread goes on!

I love it.

Please don't come and kill me.
That would suck.

I learned a lot from this thread.

Start with random speculation.

Get a lot of educated opinions.

Really gave me a boner.

I am not afraid
But I definitely fear.
Oh, society!

reason and force

This is what I was looking for earlier when I said that power comes from violence AND/OR persuasion.

The yellow revolution in the Philippines, the orange revolution in Ukraine, the purple revolution in Georgia....just a few examples of how persuasion and civil disobedience can force change without guns .

and i'm not trying to say that ONLY violence can make changes. It simply is a matter of there being only two ways to make change, force or persuasion.