BTW, your position implying that genetics has nothing to do with violence is more extreme than mine.
Read better. I did not say ‘nothing’. I said that it is ‘much more flexible’. That is not denying that genes play a role. Again, give me the scientific source that in the case of this aggression genes play a main role. A generic ‘genes have a heavy influence on people’s’ behaviour will not do.
Keep in mind, revolutions are extremely nasty affairs which often pit brother against brother and few conflicts ever get much nastier then that. Given how much the Libyan’s have suffered under this guy (Ben Netanyahu got it right when he pointed out tp Piers Morgan that it was obvious that Gaddafi was “...no friend of the Libyans”) I would have been amazed if he had been kept alive for very long once he had been captured. Dictators have a funny habit of coming to some extremely bad and gruesome ends if they can’t make good their escape when crunch time comes by way of a revolt or a coup.
I won’t mourne Gaddafi Duck’s passing. When considering who to place on a list of people who desperately need to be dead, he had a well earned place at the very top.
I just hope that the Libyans don’t end up replacing the old executioner with some new ones who are just as if not more evil.
Okay, I can’t find any “scientific source” showing that Pitt bulls are more violent than Poodles because of their genes, so I guess it must be something else. Probably the food, making Pitt bulls’ brains less flexible.
OK. It is obvious that Libyans are more aggressive because of their genes. Who needs scientific proof for that? One sees the aggressive genes dancing in their eyes! We don’t need any more proof to rule out all other factors.
OK. It is obvious that Libyans are more aggressive because of their genes.
Sure, that and the environment. (Which in fact dictates the selection and the expression of the genes.) I also agree that Libyans will act less violently in our less violent society—just like a tiger in a ZOO will be less aggressive than a tiger in the African savanna.
Here’s another thought regarding Mr. Qaddafi’s death: this was completely predictable once he turned down the last offer of surrender. Before Tripoli fell, there was still an offer that he would be allowed to live in exile (I believe Saudi Arabia would have offered him refuge) if he surrendered. Such a deal would have saved thousands of lives. It was the only reasonable option left to Mr. Qaddafi. Yet he turned it down. Clearly he believed that he could win, yet his defeat was inevitable once NATO stepped in, and was obvious to everybody long before Tripoli fell.
How could anybody make so horribly wrong a decision? Mr. Hussein did not have such an option: once military operations began, he lost the opportunity for survival through surrender. In Tunisia, the dictator chose surrender with life. Mr. Mubarak wasn’t given a choice: the military threw him out. The only conclusion I can reach is that Mr. Qaddafi was out of touch with reality, an error that cost him his life. I can understand people making that kind of mistake in a fast emergency, but he had months to assess the situation.
The conclusion for the rest of us is sobering: people are capable of making monstrously incorrect decisions, decisions that cost them their own lives and the lives of others. Something to consider when assessing political opinions here in the USA.
The offer to live in exile might have been the best option but of course it was also hugely risky. As if Gaddafi could trust those who made the offer and as if he wouldn’t be at risk from many enemies.
Sure, that and the environment. (Which in fact dictates the selection and the expression of the genes.) I also agree that Libyans will act less violently in our less violent society—just like a tiger in a ZOO will be less aggressive than a tiger in the African savanna.
Right. And we both don’t know exactly in what way bot factors play a role in the events in Libya now. So every definite statement about it is premature.
It might have been premature when Darwin first discussed it more than a hundred years ago. I think today we have a pretty good idea of what’s going on. These ideas are not extreme, but they are a taboo. The problem is that the better we understand this subject, the less likely people will be willing to discuss it.
It might have been premature when Darwin first discussed it more than a hundred years ago. I think today we have a pretty good idea of what’s going on. These ideas are not extreme, but they are a taboo. The problem is that the better we understand this subject, the less likely people will be willing to discuss it.
Well, it might be taboo for a lot of people, but it is not for me. But your extreme position is just not supported by science.
The relative importance of specific genetic and environmental factors in regulating nicotine dependence (ND) risk, including the effects on specific forms of childhood adversity on smoking risk, have been understudied.
<snip>
This study provides evidence of a sex-specific gene × environment effect of CHRNA5 and childhood adversity on the risk for ND.
Obviously, in this case, it is both. Why are you so sure about the Libya case?
Instead of picking on Lybians for aggressive characteristicts, why not expand the group to “desert dwellers”. I think it is obvious that living in a harsh environment, natural selection would tend to favor aggressive behavior. Desert creatures are notorious for nasty characteristics. Why should human desert dwellers be exempt.
OTOH, lving in a region with abundance of resources, the need for aggression is not a survival requirement. The Bonobos are a good example of natural selection for non-competitive behavior able to express itself in a lush forest with abundant resources and relatively few predators.
Bees are another example of repressed aggression and genetic adaption. A bee dies when it stings an enemy. The very act of aggression is fatal to the bee. But then a bees life is symbiotic, not competitive.
Can you find any evidence pit bulls are more violent than other breeds? Is that a scientific fact? A function of media coverage? A function of the people who tend to own pitbulls? What does “violent” mean here? Frequency of biting? Severity of injuries inflicted? Aggression towards people, other dogs, gophers, etc…?
I realize it’s just an example, and I know we’ve been through the debate about “race” and genetics and behavior enough times that there is little point in having that conversation again. But I couldn’t just let pass an illustrative example that really is deeply flawed and misleading when it strayed into my bailiwick. The example says nothing about the propensity for violence in Libya vs Canada vs Anywhere Else, and it doesn’t actually even say anything well-grounded in science about pit bulls.
I understand your question to George, but is there not a relationship of aggressive behavior (in general) or passive behavior (in general) and environment? Is an aggressive personality a learned or genetic charcteristic?
My reaction when I saw the violent scene was a recolection of video where a bunch of chimps murdered another chimp from a neighboring tribe. Scary stuff. I think we get an instant idea of how primitive those people still are.
Wade points this out in his book Reclaiming the past. He states that the only two species who knowingly kill their fellow members are chimps and humans. I felt the same revulsion when I saw a bloody figure in the truck being beaten by a wild mob. I couldn’t tell who it was. He was beaten to a pulp. They should have kept him alive for a trial. It would at least shown the world that someone was in charge. Now on to the next strong man or theocrat.
Cap’t Jack
I have to challenge that reference. Lions are known to kill cubs born from a rival male. Wolves are known to kill members of a rival pack. I’m sure there are other examples. It’s more than chimps and humans.
