What's new

Is violence in our genes? team of scientists finds out!

Zibago

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
37,006
Reaction score
12
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Is violence in our genes? team of scientists finds out!
b0507ea86019fae620a18dd3150c4a7f

By AFPSeptember 28, 2016 23:45
Violence-Geners-890x395.jpg


Related Articles
Nature or nurture? The quest to understand why humans kill one another has occupied the minds of philosophers, sociologists and psychologists for centuries.

Are we innately violent, as Englishman Thomas Hobbes postulated in the 1650s, or is our behaviour influenced more by the environment we grow up in, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau theorised a century later?

On Tuesday, a team of scientists who looked at the question from a new angle — that of evolutionary biology — concluded that our violent nature was at least partly inherited from an ancient ancestor, and shared with other primates.

Lethal violence appears to be “deeply rooted” in the lineage of monkeys, apes and Homo sapiens, the researchers wrote in the science journal Nature.

Hobbes.jpg

Are we innately violent, as Englishman Thomas Hobbes postulated in the 1650s?

This, in turn, suggests that “a certain level of lethal violence in humans arises from the occupation of a position within a particularly violent mammalian clade.”

A clade is the biological term for a group of organisms descending from a common evolutionary ancestor.

The Spanish researchers gathered data on more than four million deaths in 1,024 present-day mammal species, as well as 600-plus human populations from the late Stone Age some 50,000-10,000 years ago until today.

The animals sampled represent some 80 percent of mammal families.

The researchers looked specifically at the proportion of deaths caused by lethal violence perpetrated by a member of the same species — in humans this was war, homicide, infanticide, execution and other intentional killings.

They also searched for similarities between species with common ancestors, which they used to infer how violent those predecessors would have been, and to reconstruct a history of ancestral killing rates.

Overall, the researchers found, intraspecies killing was the cause of about 0.3 percent of mammal deaths.

– Turning it off –

But for the ancestor of all primates, rodents and hares, killings caused about 1.1 percent of deaths, rising to 2.3 percent for the next, more recent, common ancestor of primates and tree shrews.

By the time the common human ancestor first appeared around 200,000-160,000 years ago, the rate was about two percent — similar to that for other primates, the team found.

“This means that humans have phylogenetically inherited their propensity for violence,” they wrote.

Phylogenetics is the study of the genetic relationship between species over time, giving us the so-called evolutionary tree, with a primordial ancestor at its base from which all organisms developed.

Study co-author Jose Maria Gomez Reyes told AFP the new data showed there was “an evolutionary component to human violence, not that this is the only component.”

VIOLENCE_AFP.jpg


This evolutionary component are not only genetic, and “most likely” influenced by environmental pressures on survival.

“In fact, social behaviour and territoriality, two behavioural traits shared with relatives of (Homo) sapiens, seem to have also contributed to the level of lethal violence… inherited in humans,” said the study.

Commenting on the study, Mark Pagel of the University of Reading said it provided “good grounds for believing that we are intrinsically more violent than the average mammal.”

But it also showed that humans are able to curtail such tendencies.

“Rates of homicide in modern societies that have police forces, legal systems, prisons and strong cultural attitudes that reject violence are, at less than one in 10,000 deaths (or 0.01 percent) about 200 times lower than the authors’ predictions for our state of nature,” he wrote.

“Hobbes has landed a serious blow on Rousseau, but not quite knocked him out.”
http://arynews.tv/en/violence-genes-team-scientists-finds/

@django @Vapnope @The Sandman @Moonlight @Chauvinist @LadyFinger @PaklovesTurkiye @@krash
 
. .
MAOA and CDH3 are the genes associated with anger,violence and warrior skills of human. But environment does control its expression and in certain individuals its turned on. All the human on the earth are not violent though they have these genes. We inherited from ancestors but mutations made us "human" and we sure have control on it. If not then human should be a rat having 98% genome similarity.
 
. .
There is no difference between Humans eating Humans (cannibalism) and Human eating animals (non vegetarianism).

Wrong analogy. Cannibalism is a taboo in most human civilizations. Eating meat is largely a taboo in Indian society. Even then many Indians do eat meat in from or the other

We humans are omnivores. We can digest meat

But then why even eat plants? Are plants the creations of a lesser god? Should not one should stick to a diet of minerals and water?
 
.
Wrong analogy. Cannibalism is a taboo in most human civilizations. Eating meat is largely a taboo in Indian society. Even then many Indians do eat meat in from or the other

We humans are omnivores. We can digest meat

But then why even eat plants? Are plants the creations of a lesser god? Should not one should stick to a diet of minerals and water?

I think you did not get the point.

I never said Indians are any different to Pakistanis or for that matter anywhere in the world.

Just because something is a taboo or acceptable does not make it right or wrong.

For example, Kissing in public is a common place in the Western world but a taboo in the eastern world.

Living together, having a child outside of marriage, Girls wearing pants, being Homosexual were all taboos once but are very well accepted today.

Cannibalism was acceptable once but it is a taboo today.

Non Vegetarianism would be a taboo in future when people evolve and become more civilized.

If Humans are omnivores why is Cannibalism a taboo today?

Plants are not creation of lesser god but Plants and Animals demonstrate different behavior.

For example, Plants do not have a fixed structure (number of branches, roots, leaves etc.) while Humans and Animals do (Number of Eyes, Nose, Ears, Hands, Legs etc.).

Can Humans and Animals grow new hands, legs, ears etc., if one is amputated? On the other hand plants can grow back branches and leaves.

People practicing Jainism truly believe and practice not to harm any living creatures..

Hence, not only they are vegetarian but they do not eat any plant food which grows below the earth as eating the roots (potatoes, onions etc.) means that you are actually killing the plant. They wear a mask to cover their mouth, so that they do not swallow any living creature like flies etc. even by an accident, while they are talking.

Many people think that Vegetarianism originated in Hinduism but it is incorrect. Sacrificing animals to gods was a common place in the ancient times. Even in the times of Mahabharata (~5000 years BCE) Hindus ate Beef. Offering Beef to dead forefathers was considered sacred. It was Buddha (~ 500 years BCE) who put a stop to the practice of sacrificing animals to god and offering the meat as part of puja. Mahavira (~500 years BCE) went a step ahead and influenced people to turn vegetarian. People who have been influenced by Mahavira have turned vegetarian irrespective of the caste. Hence you would see many people in parts of Karnataka, Maharastra, Telangana practicing vegetarianism while people who were not influenced still continue to eat meat irrespective of the caste (including Brahmins) practicing non-vegetarianism.


upload_2016-9-29_18-24-20.png
 
.
As far as Pakistan is concerened our ignorance to "haqooqul ibad" (human rights concept of Islam) is reason behind this. Most of violance noticed in our socity is in rural areas (unfortunatly in majority and visible) which has least knowledge to Islamic teachings.
 
Last edited:
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom