Murder is the most common cause of death today for some groups (young African American males, for example).
I don’t believe it is correct in general that intentional killing was the most common cause of death in primitive tribes; and if it was the case in specific groups, they were exceptional. The citation that occurs to me immediately is “Sex at Dawn” (Ryan & Jetha), which goes to some trouble to debunk the Hobbesian view that primitive life was “nasty, brutish, and short”. (Also, my partner is a professional anthropologist with a lot of experience with indigenous South American populations, and we discuss this kind of thing all the time, FWIW.) When population density is very low and resources (including social resources such as access to sexual partners) plentiful, there is no reason murder should be common (if by “murder” we mean the intentional killing of another in order to appropriate their resources). Even in groups where inter-group violence was common (certain American Indian groups, for example), that violence was generally of a demonstrative nature, and usually ended when one group had asserted its dominance, rather than going on until the ground was littered with corpses. The depictions we see of these conflicts in the media are often heavily over-dramatized.
Actually, upon further thought… Even if killing wasn’t the point of such inter-group conflicts, it’s possible that if those conflicts supplied sufficiently many male deaths, then that sort of “murder” might in fact have been the most common cause of male death in some groups. It is pretty certain, though, that intentional killing within social groups was an extremely rare occurrence, likely to have been met with severe social consequences. (Whereas killing an out-group individual might have been viewed as positively virtuous, probably not analogous to our concept of “murder” at all. Edit: more like “war”, I guess :-P )
As for evolving a specific aversion to murder… I think we’ve a general propensity to abide by social conventions, which seems rather more likely to have evolved in social primates than aversions to specific acts. Those of us raised in strict religious traditions probably had, at some point, a severe aversion to masturbation, for example, and it’s pretty clear that no such biological aversion has evolved in humans.
Yeah, it seems moderately plausible to me that in primitive tribes the killing of out-group individuals as part of inter-group violence would be a lot like war.
War requires a great deal more organisation, claity of purpose and discipline. If you’ve ever read much fantasy it’s the difference between a great big fight with warriors (people who may know how to fight, and fight extremely well individually) and soldiers (people who fight as part of a unit, and can be more or less relied upon to follow orders, usually there will be more than one type of unit, each of which has specific strengths and weaknesses and tactical roles.)
Obviously there is a continuum, but at one end we have set piece battles with cavalry, infantry, ranged weapon units of whatever type, and at another skirmishes between loose groups of men who have not trained to fight as a team, and are not capable of e.g. retreating in good order, and are much more likely to attack before the order goes out than soldiers.
I agree that there’s a continuum between engagements involving complex arrangements of heterogenous specialized combat and support units at one extreme, and engagements involving simple arrangements of homogenous combat units at another.
I agree that the former requires more explicit strategy and more organization than the latter.
I mostly agree that the former requires more discipline and more clarity of purpose than the latter.
I agree that certain tactical and strategic maneuvers (e.g., retreating in good order or attacking in a coordinated fashion) become much easier as you traverse that continuum.
I’m not entirely convinced that “war” doesn’t equally well denote positions all along that continuum, but I guess that’s a mere dispute over definitions and not particularly interesting.
(nods) OK, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
Murder is the most common cause of death today for some groups (young African American males, for example).
I don’t believe it is correct in general that intentional killing was the most common cause of death in primitive tribes; and if it was the case in specific groups, they were exceptional. The citation that occurs to me immediately is “Sex at Dawn” (Ryan & Jetha), which goes to some trouble to debunk the Hobbesian view that primitive life was “nasty, brutish, and short”. (Also, my partner is a professional anthropologist with a lot of experience with indigenous South American populations, and we discuss this kind of thing all the time, FWIW.) When population density is very low and resources (including social resources such as access to sexual partners) plentiful, there is no reason murder should be common (if by “murder” we mean the intentional killing of another in order to appropriate their resources). Even in groups where inter-group violence was common (certain American Indian groups, for example), that violence was generally of a demonstrative nature, and usually ended when one group had asserted its dominance, rather than going on until the ground was littered with corpses. The depictions we see of these conflicts in the media are often heavily over-dramatized.
Actually, upon further thought… Even if killing wasn’t the point of such inter-group conflicts, it’s possible that if those conflicts supplied sufficiently many male deaths, then that sort of “murder” might in fact have been the most common cause of male death in some groups. It is pretty certain, though, that intentional killing within social groups was an extremely rare occurrence, likely to have been met with severe social consequences. (Whereas killing an out-group individual might have been viewed as positively virtuous, probably not analogous to our concept of “murder” at all. Edit: more like “war”, I guess :-P )
As for evolving a specific aversion to murder… I think we’ve a general propensity to abide by social conventions, which seems rather more likely to have evolved in social primates than aversions to specific acts. Those of us raised in strict religious traditions probably had, at some point, a severe aversion to masturbation, for example, and it’s pretty clear that no such biological aversion has evolved in humans.
I wouldn’t call that an understatement. The difference between inter-tribe violence and ‘war’ is non-trivial.
Hm.
If you’re motivated to expand on that, I’d be interested.
War requires a great deal more organisation, claity of purpose and discipline. If you’ve ever read much fantasy it’s the difference between a great big fight with warriors (people who may know how to fight, and fight extremely well individually) and soldiers (people who fight as part of a unit, and can be more or less relied upon to follow orders, usually there will be more than one type of unit, each of which has specific strengths and weaknesses and tactical roles.)
Obviously there is a continuum, but at one end we have set piece battles with cavalry, infantry, ranged weapon units of whatever type, and at another skirmishes between loose groups of men who have not trained to fight as a team, and are not capable of e.g. retreating in good order, and are much more likely to attack before the order goes out than soldiers.
I agree that there’s a continuum between engagements involving complex arrangements of heterogenous specialized combat and support units at one extreme, and engagements involving simple arrangements of homogenous combat units at another.
I agree that the former requires more explicit strategy and more organization than the latter.
I mostly agree that the former requires more discipline and more clarity of purpose than the latter.
I agree that certain tactical and strategic maneuvers (e.g., retreating in good order or attacking in a coordinated fashion) become much easier as you traverse that continuum.
I’m not entirely convinced that “war” doesn’t equally well denote positions all along that continuum, but I guess that’s a mere dispute over definitions and not particularly interesting.
(nods) OK, fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.