Fighting naturally/fighting smart

[Neone]

Why would paleo man be fighting with their arms and legs when they had tools?

[Iguana]

Why would they be fighting? What would they be fighting for? 

[Brad462]

Why would paleo man be fighting with their arms and legs when they had tools?

i don't know.  It is kind of silly to want to imitate the cavemen while you're staring at a computer screen.  (Don't mean to sound arrogant, just my humble opinion.)

[van]

Why would they be fighting? What would they be fighting for? 

   I can't remember,  maybe you think that until 'they' started cooking, that they didn't war amongst other tribes, as has been shown all through history ( except as you may point out, not before cooking appeared)        And if so,, do you have anything to support this belief?

[Iguana]

The remarkable book  « Sex at dawn »  linked several times in this forum by GS, Aura and I — and again in my post on page 1 of this thread. A quick Google search resulted in a lot of references, amongst them these:
   

New Study of Prehistoric Skeletons Undermines Claim That War Has Deep Evolutionary Roots - By John Horgan | July 24, 2013
« When did war begin? Does war have deep roots, or is it a modern invention? A new analysis of ancient human remains by anthropologists Jonathan Haas and Matthew Piscitelli of Chicago’s Field Museum provides strong evidence for the latter view. [*See also next post, "Survey of Earliest Human Settlements Undermines Claims That War Has Deep Evolutionary Roots."]

Image caption :
13,000 year old skeletons in mass grave near Nile are oldest evidence of group violence.

(…) which describes a study of modern-day foragers (also called hunter gatherers), whose behavior is assumed to be similar to that of our Stone Age ancestors. The study found that modern foragers have engaged in little or no warfare, defined as a lethal attack by two or more people in one group against another group. This finding contradicts the claim that war emerged hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago.

Please read all there: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/07/24/new-study-of-prehistoric-skeletons-undermines-claim-that-war-has-deep-evolutionary-roots/

You can also read for example « Prehistory of War and Peace in Europe and the Near East » available here: http://www.academia.edu/3816993/The_Prehistory_of_War_and_Peace_in_Europe_and_the_Near_East

[van]

Sorry I don't find much interest in contrasting speculations, one could debate for eons.   My sense tells me, that like animals, man can be guided by his wants.   The American Indians were know to have wanted other tribe's women, and so killed to take them.   This has been repeated so many times through out history, I think it's hard to refute.     Not to be confused with massing huge armies to conquer entire nations.   Animals will often fight, if not to death due to injuries, for the right to be Lead Alpha.      I have no memory for myself that having gone to raw paleo that my tendencies to be aggressive has waned.   To me it's speculation at best.

[Iguana]

The Amerindians are not a fine example of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers! History is one thing (beginning with the civilization, in other words at the Neolithic) and prehistory is another thing.

You asked me if I had some references, I take the time to search some academic ones on line for you and  you immediately reply that you don't find interest in what you call "speculations"!

[van]

I did look at them.  I simply get tired of speculations.  and why aren't the American Indians a fine example?  And what about animals that kill for right of food or mating?  And why should we think early man was any different, especially since man has demonstrated far more severe atrocities than any animal could conceive of?   

[eveheart]

The world is awfully large, and conditions varied from place to place, so I'm not sure how to determine that one group of humans is a "fine" example, while another group is not a "fine" example. I'm thinking, for example, of conditions of food shortage, which might naturally happen. In that case, I would imagine an increase of aggression between groups of humans that might naturally lead to fatal aggression by whichever group was lucky enough to inflict enough fatality first. Other groups of humans might have dispensed with aggression and preferred rather to compete with spears and slingshots. Much like human nature today - when there is enough to go around, we all live in peace; in times of shortage, we vie with each other for whatever we deem to be in short supply.

[Iguana]

As far as I can see, human behaviors in Neolithic and recent civilized populations are hardly fine examples of human behavior in pre-fire Paleolithic foragers’ populations…

The answers to Van’s questions are in the books I gave the links to. 

This has already been discussed before, as usual… Another reference (BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE
By James W. Prescott
From "The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists", November 1975, pp. 10-20)
is quoted in this old post of mine:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg102010/#msg102010

[TylerDurden]

In the past, I have heard all sorts of claims that palaeo peoples were "true communists" or that women were the dominant sex in palaeo societies etc.. Truth is, no one really knows but one can guess. Now, I for example know that humans are genetically closest  to the common chimpanzee which is a pretty warmongering animal that likes killing monkeys for food and even other chimps re territory/mates etc. Now bonobo chimps are very peaceful by contrast but not as closely related to us hominids.

Using other primitive tribes as examples of ideals is not just another lame example of the fraudulent Noble Savage theory(previously somewhat debunked by me in the past) but, as regards war, the climate and other factors were implicated in the behaviour of certain tribes. For example, I read that the Inuit were very peaceful. However, this was due to the harsh, cold climate, more than anything else - they needed each other for survival.

[Iguana]

Now, I for example know that humans are genetically closest  to the common chimpanzee which is a pretty warmongering animal that likes killing monkeys for food and even other chimps re territory/mates etc. Now bonobo chimps are very peaceful by contrast but not as closely related to us hominids.

The opposite info are well documented from several sources, notably "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan, PhD, and Cacilda Jethá, MD
 http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page10/page10.html
and seem more likely to me, not only because bonobos' sexual behavior is much more similar to ours. Could you give some references to your info? 

[van]

following again the post you sited here,, I'm noticing how you state that it's GCB theory.   I think that about sums it up for me.  Those who follow his theories appear to follow all of them. 

[TylerDurden]

The opposite info are well documented from several sources, notably "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan, PhD, and Cacilda Jethá, MD
 http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page10/page10.html
and seem more likely to me, not only because bonobos' sexual behavior is much more similar to ours. Could you give some references to your info? 

It is known that whereas DNA sequences in humans diverged from those in bonobos and chimpanzees five to seven million years ago, DNA sequences in bonobos diverged from those in chimpanzees around two million years ago

taken from:-

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature11128.html

[Iguana]

following again the post you sited here,, I'm noticing how you state that it's GCB theory.   I think that about sums it up for me.

So, you admit that you don’t establish your views on a balanced factual and objective analysis of the competitive theories, but subjectively on their source, your perception of the personality of their author and your preconceived ideas!

Moreover, you immediately dismissed as “speculations” the well documented academic texts (which plainly support GCB’s theory) which I searched for you in response to your request. I was naive enough to think that you asked me in good faith, but it wasn’t the case.
     

Those who follow his theories appear to follow all of them.

That couldn't be more wrong! Most of the people practicing a raw paleo instinctive nutrition as outlined by GCB are vehemently opposed to his “metasexuality” theory!   

taken from:-
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/nature11128.html

Thanks Tyler, I read the article you linked. It’s highly technical and most of the subtleties are over my head, but the conclusion (repeated 3 times) is clearly inconclusive  and does not support neither your views nor mine! Excerpts:

We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other.

It is known that whereas DNA sequences in humans diverged from those in bonobos and chimpanzees five to seven million years ago, DNA sequences in bonobos diverged from those in chimpanzees around two million years ago. Bonobos are thus closely related to chimpanzees. Moreover, comparison of a small number of autosomal DNA sequences has shown that bonobo DNA sequences often fall within the variation of chimpanzees5.

No parsimonious reconstruction of the social structure and behavioural patterns of the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos is therefore possible. That ancestor may in fact have possessed a mosaic of features, including those now seen in bonobo, chimpanzee and human.

We conclude that more than 3% of the human genome is more closely related to either bonobos or chimpanzees than these are to each other.

The bonobo genome shows that more than 3% of the human genome is more closely related to either bonobos or chimpanzees than these are to each other. This can be used to illuminate the population history and selective events that affected the ancestor of bonobos and chimpanzees. In addition, about 25% of human genes contain parts that are more closely related to one of the two apes than the other. Such regions can now be identified and will hopefully contribute to the unravelling of the genetic background of phenotypic similarities among humans, bonobos and chimpanzees.

[TylerDurden]

The point is, though, that the other study made it clear that humans diverged from the ancestor of chimps and bonobos millions of years  BEFORE the Bonobos later  split off from the common chimpanzees. So, as a logical deduction,  the bonobos have less much DNA in common with humans than  common chimpanzees have with us.

I never believed in the Man is inherently peaceful nonsense, anyway. I see Man as always having wiped out entire species from the very beginning. I doubt that the introduction of fire, let alone Neolithic culture, would have changed humans from peaceful beings to warlike ones. After all, even modern HGs are prone to warfare. It is only exceptions like the Inuit who never did, but that was only due to the constraints of a savage climate.

[Iguana]

The point is, though, that the other study

Which other study? I did read the one you linked and now you speak about another one?

made it clear that humans diverged from the ancestor of chimps and bonobos millions of years  BEFORE the Bonobos later  split off from the common chimpanzees.

That is said in the one you linked. Ok, let’s admit it anyway. Then this conclusion of the authors (“We conclude that more than 3% of the human genome is more closely related to either bonobos or chimpanzees than these are to each other”) doesn’t seem to fit with your phrase below:

So, as a logical deduction,  the bonobos have less much DNA in common with humans than  common chimpanzees have with us.

I suppose you meant “much less”, didn’t you?
They say: “This showed that 1.6% of the human genome is more closely related to the bonobo genome than to the chimpanzee genome, and that 1.7% of the human genome is more closely related to the chimpanzee than to the bonobo genome”. I don’t feel that a difference between 1,6% and 1,7% could be considered as “much”. I would rather call it insignificant.   

I never believed in the Man is inherently peaceful nonsense, anyway.

So, you’ve always had an immutable belief (a negative one) that never changed and won’t ever change, whatever evidence is brought up to you, isn’t it? You and Van didn’t even bother to read the references I provided above.

Personally, I never had any inflexible opinion and I’ve avoided all beliefs since I was 16. I’m just curious and highly disappointed by both of your reactions. 

I see Man as always having wiped out entire species from the very beginning. I doubt that the introduction of fire, let alone Neolithic culture, would have changed humans from peaceful beings to warlike ones.

We are not talking about interspecies violence but about intra-species relations. Anyway, hominids didn’t wipe out entire species before using the fire and maybe not even before the Neolithic as it is not sure at all that the megafauna extinction was due to human hunting and overkill. 

After all, even modern HGs are prone to warfare. It is only exceptions like the Inuit who never did, but that was only due to the constraints of a savage climate.

What could be the influence of climate on aggressiveness?

According to what I read not all modern HGs are prone to warfare, although the few remaining are subject to territorial and environmental pressure from the civilization around them. Eveheart made a valid point in telling that “much like human nature today - when there is enough to go around, we all live in peace; in times of shortage, we vie with each other for whatever we deem to be in short supply.” In this regard, it’s is widely reckoned today that the Neolithic revolution caused overpopulation, concentrations of humans in groups larger than about 150, shortages, famines and wars.

It’s plain obvious that empathy and mutual aid are normal for humans and even for most mammals. Intra-species aggression happens only in situations out of natural balance. Can’t you see that? 

[van]

Iguana, there is no proven body of science that is wholly accepted regarding this topic.  To state or infer that there is and that anyone else's ideas are not valid seems narrow minded.   I have sited the example of the American Indians, I could throw in the Polynesians, and with not too much trouble a dozen others globally,, along with animals routinely killing each other.    To say that these peoples only engaged in killing each others tribes because of eating cooked foods, or farming what ever crops they had hundreds of years ago seems to be only theory and one that makes little sense, unless one is looking to support one's theory as I believe GCB is doing.    And of course he's entitled to believe what he wants and you are too.    But please don't suggest that by siting a couple of theories that are supportive of your view point that that alone is proof of truth.    I said earlier,  I am not interested to debate using theories, for that can go on a life time.  One group says this, another group says that.   I'm always curious why some spend so much time engaging in debate, trying to convince the other seems to be at the route of it, for some reason.     I said earlier that in my own lived experience, that moving from cooked to raw paleo, I didn't notice any less aggressiveness.    Of course I've never warred with anyone, so don't have that level of experience.  And one other direct experience is from having now for over nine years  lived off of fat as my primary fuel as opposed to sugar, that my peace of mind and level of acceptance or calmness, or tolerance has vastly improved.  That I do know for myself.

[Iguana]

I am not interested to debate using theories, for that can go on a life time.  One group says this, another group says that.   I'm always curious why some spend so much time engaging in debate, trying to convince the other seems to be at the route of it, for some reason

Why are you debating, then? You are nevertheless using a theory (and an outdated one) without being conscious of it!

I’ve never pretended to hold the ultimate truth and I do not try to convince anyone, what are you insinuating? I’m not even definitively convinced myself of anything on this matter, but I find interesting the likelihood that humans are not inherently aggressive, but on the contrary that extreme violence and wars seem due to the Neolithic societies structures. It’s neither me nor GCB who say that, but contemporary anthropologists. Moreover, what are you doing of the experiments showing clearly that wheat (especially) drastically increases stress and aggressiveness in mice and other animals?

As far as I can tell, the American Indians and Polynesians practiced some form of agriculture (and cooked some of their food), which obviously influenced the structure of their society.

There are wild animals fighting to the point of killing their pair(s), but it’s rather an exception than a rule.

You didn’t reply to my question “Can’t you see that empathy and mutual aid are normal for humans and even for most mammals?”

[van]

thought that was for Tyler.    My grandmother was the kindest woman to have walked the face of the earth.  She ate wheat and cooked food her entire life.   Yes, one example.  But one example to point to the fact that people can be simply abundant with love, and the next can be full of hate and anger to the point of killing another.    I'll end it here by saying it makes little sense to me to blame it on cooked food and farming.   If others here want to chime in and report if going paleo lessened their tendency to want to kill another, please do so.

[Iguana]

My grandfather too and he was a baker!  White flour from sifted wheat doesn't have the same properties as whole grain and humans' behavior is much more controlled by their mind than that of mice! There are other factors at work too and fortunately not all individuals get sick (mentally and physically) from eating bread! Most people get habituated, of course. I never had any inclination to kill anyone either, even when I ate a lot of whole grain bread… 

Don’t you realize that when you are a farmer, you work to get a harvest and so you won’t like if somebody else steals your crop? Private property, dogmatic religions, states with borders, laws, stocks of grain, governments and armies were born with agriculture and tend cause conflicts. So obvious!

And, oh, I forgot to say… one’s behavior depend to a large extent of what was experienced during childhood, early childhood especially.   

[Brad462]

"If others here want to chime in and report if going paleo lessened their tendency to want to kill another, please do so."  Lol.  No, unfortunately not.  I recently read a story about a paleo chef who murdered his wife.  It is delusional to think that diet will solve all your problems.

[nummi]

"If others here want to chime in and report if going paleo lessened their tendency to want to kill another, please do so."

Since paleo corresponds a lot to our bodies' needs, and the effect of this diet is much better to the body compared to less healthy ones, then it will make all body's processes more efficient.
But there are emotional and mental bodies as well.
The path is both ways. Just as a better diet can lead to a more efficient and happier body and thus better mind and emotional state, so can emotional and mental bodies lead to a better and happier body. The same applies to negativity. Body can be under a very good diet, but if emotional and mental bodies are not of equivalent state then they will affect actions you take and the physical body negatively as well.

It's not just about healing the physical body. Every aspect of ourselves, that we can perceive of and get to, should be dealt with. Otherwise it'll be a never-ending up and down ride - pointlessly in a loop - body goes up, mind takes down, mind goes up, body takes down, body goes up, etc. (or something like this, and other possibilities). If not aware of this (and other possibilities that affect mind and thought and the resulting actions) then won't even understand what's going on, never mind being aware of ones "faults" in the first place.

But paleo makes it much easier to address mental and emotional side, as there's less to deal with regarding physical body. Can allow more focus and energy to healing the mind and whatever else, but first requires awareness that this is actually real and of high (utmost) significance...

[TylerDurden]

~~

Sorry about this, I really ought to read everything I cite but I live in a time-poor environment these days! I realise that the conclusion does not make any sense at all, though. I mean, if humans split off from the ancestors of chimps and bonobos and then the bonobos split off from the chimps, then, logically via deduction, bonobos must have far more in common with common chimps than humans and humans must be more distant, genetically, from bonobos than from common chimpanzees. I mean it is simple maths. No matter.

Personally, I never had any inflexible opinion and I’ve avoided all beliefs since I was 16. I’m just curious and highly disappointed by both of your reactions. 

My experiences of humans being an aggressive, violent species go a very LONG way back to the age of 4, which is why I stated that my views had not changed to any extent on this issue. Perhaps, before my mind was fully formed by age 4 , I was under the immature impression that humans were all nice etc. at the time. Even then, I doubt it, as I vaguely recall incidents where I cried after being slapped for a misdeameanour by my mother, for example. So, if humans are such a lovey-dovey so-called "gentle" species, if only as regards their own species, how come I was in 2 schools which had endemic bullying to a horrific extent? Why is it that so many bullied victims at school commit suicide? If intraspecies love is so widespread, why is there  frequent bullying at the workplace? Blaming this on a change in diet from raw to cooked or on switching to a grains-filled diet, just does not make sense. When I switched from cooked to raw, my hormonal levels went down and I became calmer  as I'd had acute anxiety among a 100 other conditions up till then, however, I was still perfectly capable of feeling homicidal thoughts towards one group of odious  relatives who have been constantly  trying to rob me of my  property rights over the last 12 years. Indeed, now that my hormones are in balance, I would confidently state that feelings of vengeance on my part are more clear-cut and overt than in pre-raw diet times.
 

We are not talking about interspecies violence but about intra-species relations. Anyway, hominids didn’t wipe out entire species before using the fire and maybe not even before the Neolithic as it is not sure at all that the megafauna extinction was due to human hunting and overkill.  What could be the influence of climate on aggressiveness?

It is actually more accepted now that humans, not climate, killed the megafauna in the Palaeolithic era. As regards climate, it can affect aggressiveness. In the case of the Inuit, they had scarce resources so had to cooperate with each other in order to survive - any warfare in the Arctic would have led even the winners to die out fast.

It’s plain obvious that empathy and mutual aid are normal for humans and even for most mammals. Intra-species aggression happens only in situations out of natural balance. Can’t you see that? 

Put simply, no. I have seen how male lions, for example, routinely kill the infants of a captured pride in order to get the female lions to ovulate and  create their own offspring. I have seen male bears do the same. Plenty of intra-species violence exists in Nature if one looks for it a tiny bit. Competition among males for females during mating season can be pretty fierce, and even  rather deadly, for example.

[eveheart]

It’s plain obvious that empathy and mutual aid are normal for humans and even for most mammals. Intra-species aggression happens only in situations out of natural balance. Can’t you see that? 

I'll go one step further and propose that even species like bonobos would probably become aggressive, given the right stressors. In human communities, the stressors can occur (literally) on one street but not the next, in one socioeconomic group but not another, in one person and not another.

But if we are looking at how aggressive a species is, aggression by both genders should be taken into account. For example, the violent bullying that TD reports from his school days was unheard of at my school because girl aggression is most-often expressed by social exclusion (Spoken as a taunt: "You can't play with us!"), not physical violence. (N.b. I said "most-often" so don't accuse me of denying the existence of girl fights.)

Perhaps we should specify that martial arts is performed non-aggressively in large part; it is the stylized, socially acceptable form of physical aggression, practiced and performed with rules that aim to avoid or reduce grave injuries and fatalities. Presented that way, the most subdued milquetoast can become an accomplished "fighter" while maintaining a bit of a distance from violence.