Автор: Битарх

Pre-New Year address and year-end results

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Although 2022 was marked by a surge of violence in one of its most terrible forms—armed conflict—within the framework of our work on studying violence in human relationships and society, it was not without achievements in the opposite, better direction, aimed against violence. Previously, when arguing that violence should be called a deviation and a pathology rather than a natural social phenomenon, we relied only on individual facts and observations that did not demonstrate the full picture of what was happening. This could have caused distrust in such assertions given the brutal events still observed in human society.

But now everything has changed. We can confidently call the existence of a violence inhibition mechanism not just a hypothesis and a theory, but an indisputable fact. Evolutionary, archaeological, anthropological, military, psychological, neurophysiological, genetic, and many other pieces of evidence—demonstrating the same conclusions and forming a complete system that explains everything regarding violence—only confirm this. Violence is undoubtedly a pathological form of behavior, the result of a breakdown of a person’s internal inhibitors of aggression, due to which they stop experiencing a reaction of rejection and resistance to causing harm to other people. And the reason we observe so much violence in society is only because it exerts an enormous influence—even one violent person in certain circumstances is capable of causing harm to thousands of other, peaceful people.

All the evidence against the position that justifies and normalizes violence has been successfully gathered in one place—on the website Antiviolence.io. The main material of the site begins with definitions of the concepts of aggression, violence, and self-defense. Then we move to archaeological and anthropological evidence, examine cases of genocides, debunk various myths about violence, and confirm that in any war, even the most brutal one, never more than 2% of soldiers with psychopathic predispositions experience no resistance to committing murder, and in general, the overwhelming majority of people never kill or attempt to kill anyone. Further, we examine the evolutionary reasons for the emergence of the violence inhibitor in animals and humans, and become acquainted with a model that explains in detail how this mechanism functions.

Based on neurophysiological and genetic evidence, we conclude that people capable of easily committing violence should be treated as mentally ill and pathological personalities in need of therapy to restore the function of the violence inhibitor. Such therapy could contribute to the complete eradication of the pathology of violence from human relationships and society.

We have also not ignored many other questions about violence, which you can explore on the same website or in the materials of this channel. Of course, we will have to examine many more topics and problems, as it is impossible to answer all questions at once. But we have at least already created a solid foundation for the continuation of our activities without encountering serious controversial points.

I would like to congratulate you all on the upcoming New Year! In the coming year, we must definitely advance even further in understanding the problem of violence and how this phenomenon can be eradicated. And of course, how to popularize this understanding among an even greater number of people, which will undoubtedly only bring us closer to achieving a free, non-violent society. Stay with us in the coming year so as not to miss this!

A few words about scientific and technical progress and modern civilization

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There is a position based on the idea that scientific and technical progress and modern civilization are an evil capable only of making humans unhappy. Of course, this position is not very popular and is unlikely to ever gain significant support, but I would like to say a few words about how untenable it actually is.

The conversation can begin with the fact that the opponents of progress themselves have survived largely because of it, rather than having a high probability of dying from hunger, cold, or disease in early childhood. Moreover, the drastic increase in human survival rates and the accessibility of benefits is an obvious consequence of progress. However, it is sometimes less obvious that only thanks to progress does humanity have any chance at all of surviving in the long term.

Some may argue that progress has created means capable of severely harming all of humanity (by destroying the environment or even serving as weapons of mass destruction). However, it is pointless to argue against the fact that it is the lack of progress that could harm humanity the most. In such a case, it would be 100% unable to leave the boundaries of its home planet and would perish during the next planetary-scale catastrophe. The Earth is not eternal; furthermore, some catastrophe could happen very soon, rather than hundreds of millions of years from now. It turns out that opposing progress means advocating for the complete annihilation of humanity in the future. Is any of the critics of progress ready to openly support such an idea?

Another argument against progress is the alleged suffering of people in an urban environment that is unnatural for them. Instead, a life close to nature is proposed, to which the human psyche is best adapted, and for the sake of human happiness, the possibility of preserving humanity in the future can be sacrificed now. Of course, in reality, prehistoric people suffered greatly; archaeological evidence often shows traces of prolonged physiological stress from hunger and disease on their remains. The transition to primitive agriculture also did not fully solve this problem; just a few centuries ago, crop failure (for example, due to climatic factors) was a common cause of famine, and peasants of the past regularly suffered from food deficiency and monotony. An average resident of a modern city, who is constantly fed, kept warm, and fairly healthy, will clearly be happier. But this is not even the point; the point is that, according to the opponents of progress, the human living environment must be frozen in time.

One of the most natural processes for all living things is adaptation to changing environmental conditions. And modern urban civilization, like any form of potential future civilization, can easily be called a new living environment to which one simply needs to adapt. Moreover, humans also gain an advantage—they control how the new environment will be structured, which makes adaptation easier. Without progress, the change in the environment would still happen due to inevitable climatic changes, but people would have to do without such an advantage, facing an increased chance of premature extinction instead of adaptation.

An opponent of progress is ready to appeal to the naturalness of a certain living environment for humans. But why then does he deny such a natural process as adaptation? Why does one kind of naturalness satisfy him, while the other does not?

Finally, it should be said that opponents of progress simply have no chance of turning their ideas into reality. They will not be able to convince everyone, and their only way out is to forcibly compel others to renounce progress. But without progress, there simply will not be significant means to carry out such compulsion, especially on a global scale. And groups of people promoting progress will always have an advantage in terms of the means allowing them to protect themselves from such violent coercion. Thus, any ideas against progress are simply stillborn.

People with a weak violence inhibitor are the worst partners for relationships

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Any form of abuse in a relationship deserves condemnation for many reasons and should not be tolerated. However, particular attention should be paid to the consequences of relationships with degenerates who possess a weak violence inhibitor and exhibit psychopathic traits. As shown in one current Canadian study of victims of abuse in heterosexual relationships (93% of whom were women), up to 30% of “abusers” meet the criteria for psychopathy, and such individuals are the strongest predictor of long-term violence in relationships. Additionally, due to a dysfunctional violence inhibitor, they easily ignore distress signals (expressions of sadness and fear) from their partners, except in cases where they can use this for their own manipulative purposes. For example, by manipulating fear, they may intimidate their partner, coerce them into sexual contact, or force the use of substances. And the main conclusion of the study is that psychopathic abusers have the worst impact on the mental health of their partners, leaving them with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Obviously, degenerates with a weak violence inhibitor should not be allowed into relationships, at least until they agree to therapy for their disorder. First and foremost, every normal individual should think about their own safety and mental health, as relationships with such psychopathic abusers can only cause harm. Furthermore, if you know that a certain person is capable of easily committing violence without experiencing any resistance, it would be a good idea to warn everyone in your circle about this and the potential consequences of a relationship with them. Finally, the predisposition to a weak violence inhibitor simply should not be reinforced in the human gene pool. A good example is provided by a close relative of humans—the pygmy chimpanzee (bonobo), which has an extremely non-violent society and does not kill its own kind. According to some researchers, female bonobos simply refuse to breed with aggressive males. By acting in the same way, humans could significantly reduce the prevalence of a weak violence inhibitor in the very next generation.

Human mental health in the authoritarian-conservative societies of the past and modern liberal societies

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There is a claim that modern living conditions negatively affect the human psyche, as a very high level of stress, the prevalence of psychological problems, and even suicides can be observed in society today. At the same time, more primitive, conservative, and often even authoritarian societies of the past are cited as examples of the opposite, in which supposedly no psychological problems were observed. Sometimes such claims go as far as suggesting that people who slogged away around the clock simply to ensure basic survival and submitted to authoritarian-conservative orders—with attributes such as a lack of women’s rights, cruel upbringing of children, and submission to authority—were mentally healthier than the average resident of a modern city, who has far fewer difficulties and far more freedoms in life.

In one Indian article about mental health problems in conservative societies, there is a good paragraph that describes the entire situation:
“Due to erroneous conservative views on mental health, society characterizes patients [suffering from such problems] as crazy or weak people. People with such conservative beliefs generally remain in ignorance and suffer in silence, hiding their pain or suppressing the pain of their loved ones, who may also be suffering. As a result, such an undesirable conservative ego prevents people or their family members not only from accepting their pain—that is, opening up about their struggle—but also from seeking professional help.”

People with authoritarian-conservative views have no evidence that people in stricter and more authoritarian societies possess better mental health. On the contrary, it would be logical to expect that phenomena such as poverty, violent coercion and abuse, and a lack of rights and freedoms should seriously traumatize people. But in societies characterized by such attributes, it is not customary to even raise the issue of psychological problems, because no one would simply understand the suffering person; they would quite likely be ridiculed, called a weakling, or even punished for such a revelation. Therefore, such problems will not be observed in them.

In modern society, things are different, as over time, sharing one’s problems has become a normal practice that does not face misunderstanding and condemnation. Now we can observe so many psychological problems because people take the opportunity to tell everyone about them. If in the past a person hid their suffering, and suicide was an absolutely unexpected act for those around them, now few people would hide, and a potential suicide would complain about their state to those around them many times, or at least hint at it in some way, before attempting to cause themselves real harm. This is precisely the difference between authoritarian-conservative and more liberal and free societies—the latter only have more visible psychological problems because they are hidden less. However, a greater number of real psychological problems can be expected specifically from stricter and more authoritarian societies.

How strongly the resistance to committing murder affects a person

Voluntarist, Bitarch

In 2011, US Air Force psychologists conducted a mental health screening of 600 combat drone operators. As it turned out, 42% of UAV operators reported moderate or severe stress, and 20% reported emotional exhaustion or burnout. A later study showed that drone operators suffered from the same levels of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse, and suicidal ideation as conventional combat crews. Many will immediately ask—why is this happening?

As far back as the 20th century, many military experts concluded that 98% of people experience strong internal resistance to committing murder, and only up to 2% of individuals with psychopathic predispositions do not. In analyzing the issue of modern warfare involving combat drones, it is important for us to pay attention to what these experts said about the factors influencing the ability to kill and the factors leading to psychological trauma on the battlefield. The conclusions drawn and listed in the works of Dave Grossman will be especially helpful to us in this regard.

Firstly, this example with combat drone operators confirms the conclusion that killing is the most traumatic experience for a human being. As Grossman writes, the contradiction between the necessity to kill and the inability to do so due to internal resistance traumatizes a soldier’s psyche more than any other difficulties of combat operations. And those soldiers who were still able to kill most often suffer for the rest of their lives after the war because of what they committed.

A drone operator does not experience cold, hunger, lack of sleep, physical injuries, the loss of comrades, the risk of dying at any moment, and many other things that an ordinary soldier faces in battle. The only thing that unites them is the necessity to kill. This, therefore, only proves the long-established conclusion that killing is absolutely unnatural for humans and is the most traumatic experience of all possible ones.

Secondly, although military experts of the past concluded that distancing allows one to bypass the resistance to killing, they apparently underestimated how strongly it is expressed in humans. Even for a UAV operator, who may be located on the other side of the planet from the combat operations, this resistance does not completely disappear. The mere awareness of committing a murder is enough to cause psychological trauma.

An analogy can be drawn with the trench warfare of the First World War, in which hand grenades proved to be psychologically effective weapons. A soldier simply threw a grenade toward the enemy trenches, and it was not necessary for him to directly observe the enemy for this or what his actions led to. However, if he did see the result of his actions, or even just heard it, for example in the form of the screams of enemy soldiers, it could already traumatize his psyche.

All of this shows us that as long as a human is fundamentally capable of realizing the fact of committing a murder, no means will make it an easy act for them. By the way, this also aligns with the assumption of the Violence Inhibition Mechanism (VIM) model. Although this mechanism is directly activated only when a person can observe the suffering of their victim, due to the process of conditioning (the formation of conditioned reflex reactions), its functioning from childhood develops the ability to experience a rejection reaction even at the mere thought of committing violence.

As we can see, one cannot underestimate how unnatural the act of killing is for a human being. Every mentally healthy individual possesses a violence inhibitor, the function of which cannot simply be bypassed or suppressed. Even if certain means and methods enable some people to commit murder, it still does not end well for them. Only a tiny percentage of psychopathic personalities are truly capable of easily committing murder.

Rapists are not more successful in procreation

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There is a myth that more cruel and aggressive people should be more successful in reproduction, as this is an advantageous behavioral strategy. An example can be drawn from the research of anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, according to which greater reproductive success compared to tribesmen of their own age is found among those men of the Yanomami indigenous people living in Brazil and Venezuela who commit murders. It is claimed that they have 2.5 times more wives and 3 times more children.

As Chagnon and some other researchers believe, the success of aggressive men in reproduction is the rule for primitive societies. According to their evolutionary logic, killers push their neighbors out of reproduction and have more offspring, meaning murder becomes a hereditary trait. Therefore, humans became born killers in the course of evolution. But if this conclusion is examined in more detail, it turns out that 6 arguments can be put forward against it:

  1. Computer simulations of evolutionary processes have shown that neither a warlike strategy (hawk), consisting of carrying out attacks, nor a timid strategy (dove), consisting of retreating during attacks, are as evolutionarily stable strategies as the “retaliator strategy,” where individuals behave non-aggressively but will still fight back in the event of an attack. Timid individuals cannot compete with aggressive individuals, but at the same time, aggressive individuals risk sustaining injuries in battles. Therefore, the mixed retaliator strategy is the most optimal.
  2. Data from animal behavior research shows that most intra-species aggression is non-lethal. Of course, in some situations, killing conspecifics can be beneficial, but in most cases, this is not the case. Accordingly, in the course of biological evolution, inhibitors of intra-species aggression are developed, preventing harm in battles.
  3. Military research has shown that the average healthy individual has strong internal resistance to committing murder. Only 1-2% of soldiers with sociopathic tendencies do not experience this in battle. There are also a number of evolutionary factors as to why such resistance is inherent in humans. As with animals, killing conspecifics is rarely a strategy encouraged by natural selection for humans.
  4. Humans possess the potential for competition, aggression, and even committing murder, and wars occur in many societies. However, examples of absolutely non-violent societies, such as the Semai and Paliyar peoples, show that humans are capable of living peacefully. This raises questions regarding the claim that murder is a natural trait of humans.
  5. Research on the Yanomami people has methodological problems. Firstly, anthropologist Brian Ferguson questioned the claim that killers and non-killers were of comparable age. Accordingly, the difference in the number of children may be explained by the difference in age of the studied individuals. Chagnon ignored this criticism. Secondly, examining Chagnon’s data, Ferguson concluded that even if killers had a reproductive advantage, it was nowhere near as large as 3 times. The criticism of Chagnon’s research does not end there; there are many other reasons why they may be methodologically unsound.
  6. Other studies demonstrate opposite results. For instance, a study of the Waorani people of Ecuador showed that zealous warriors who carry out raids on fellow tribesmen have lower reproductive success. They did not have more wives or children; moreover, their children were less likely to survive to reproductive age. As a result, warlike men proved to be not as individually fit as less aggressive men.

As we can see, a large amount of theoretical and empirical data shows that in various social circumstances, killers should have fewer children than non-killers. And the idea of murder as an evolutionarily advantageous strategy for humans faces many obstacles.

Is the deterrence of aggression linked to oxytocin and pro-social behavior?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is a well-known fact that the hormone oxytocin plays an important role in pro-social behavior. It promotes the formation of attachment between mother and child, pair bonding, disposes a person to trust and benevolence toward those they consider “their own,” helps establish relationships between people, and so on. The hormone vasopressin also plays an important role in pro-social behavior, including the formation of paternal love for children.

These hormones are often called regulators of aggression. It is believed that in intra-group relations, oxytocin promotes the establishment of altruism and non-violence, which unite and coordinate the actions of individual group members. Conversely, in the case of inter-group relations, this only increases aggressiveness, as a cohesive group is ready to fight more fiercely against other “alien” groups, toward whose members oxytocin does not dispose one to trust. This is often used to explain the occurrence of wars between different groups of people [1].

At the same time, based on the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism, in species where it is strongly expressed, including humans, the restraint of aggression extends to all intra-species relations. Nevertheless, the violence that does occur is explained by the presence of a small number of individuals in whom this mechanism is impaired. This conclusion is supported by many studies, including military ones. They show that most people experience strong resistance to harming others and committing murder. Even on the battlefield, this applies to the majority of soldiers, and only a minority of them constitute the driving force of war [2].

Having two such explanations for the nature of social and aggressive behavior, the question arises as to which one is correct, or if both are correct, how they relate to one another. Answering such a question is not so difficult if one looks at how the corresponding neurophysiological systems work and interact with each other.

Recall that the use of certain agonists of serotonin 1A and 1B receptors (drugs that activate them) led to the suppression of attacking aggression in animals, while not affecting defensive aggression or other forms of behavior and social communication. This result is completely consistent with the expected result of the work of a violence inhibitor, which speaks to its function as part of the serotonergic (5-HT) system.

It is interesting that the 5-HT system, including 1A and 1B receptors, is involved in the regulation of oxytocin and vasopressin secretion [3]. In one experiment, the use of a 1A receptor agonist in mice promoted not only the suppression of attacking aggression but also the emergence of pro-social behavior (close contact and grooming of a conspecific) due to oxytocin secretion. At the same time, the simultaneous administration of an oxytocin receptor antagonist (a drug that blocks it) did not reduce the anti-aggressive effect at all, but only suppressed the pro-social behavior. And administration together with a vasopressin receptor antagonist changed nothing at all [4].

It can be concluded that the regulation of aggression and the stimulation of pro-social behavior are functions performed by different neurophysiological systems. Moreover, the 5-HT system, responsible for the former, is capable of influencing the operation of oxytocin and vasopressin receptors, responsible for the latter, but not vice versa. This means that it is precisely the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism that explains the nature of aggression regulation, while oxytocin relates only to pro-social behavior. And the absence of such behavior in an individual—for example, when encountering a “stranger” (but a representative of their own species) or simply due to the impairment of the oxytocin receptor, while the violence inhibitor is still functioning—absolutely does not mean that they will be predisposed to a violent attack.

1. De Dreu C. K. W. et al. (2010). The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans;
2. Theory of Violence: https://antiviolence.io/ru;
3. Jørgensen, H., Riis, M., Knigge, U., Kjaer, A., & Warberg, J. (2003). Serotonin Receptors Involved in Vasopressin and Oxytocin Secretion;
4. Tan, O., Martin, L. J., & Bowen, M. T. (2020). Divergent pathways mediate 5-HT1A receptor agonist effects on close social interaction, grooming and aggressive behaviour in mice: Exploring the involvement of the oxytocin and vasopressin systems.

Suicides among veterans or why war is unnatural for humans

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Some might argue that there have always been wars in human history, and therefore it is a completely natural phenomenon. Many arguments can be made as to why this is not the case, but one of the most telling is the prevalence of suicide among veterans. In September 2019, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs published a report stating that at least 60,000 veterans committed suicide between 2008 and 2017. According to statistics, nearly two dozen veterans commit suicide every day in the US, and according to some claims, more Iraq War veterans have committed suicide than died on the battlefield. An extremely high suicide rate can also be observed among veterans of Afghanistan.

Moreover, it is not even necessary to take the US as an example. There is recent data that since November 2020, at least 26 Azerbaijani veterans of the second Karabakh war have committed suicide. In 2018, in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, one of the representatives of the veterans’ affairs committee reported thousands of suicides among participants in the battles in Donbas. As for Russia, there are data that in 2004, more than 1,000 suicide attempts were recorded among those who had been to Chechnya. Surely, the list of suicides among veterans even only in the countries and conflicts we have considered is far from over. And the list of psychologically traumatized veterans who did not decide to commit suicide will be dozens of times larger. And it is frightening to imagine how many psychiatric losses, besides the direct cases of death in battle, await us on both sides after the end of the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Military experts have long known that the average healthy individual possesses a strong internal resistance to killing, and only less than 2% of people are able to do it easily. But in war, a person is forced to try to suppress their violence inhibitor and commit killings, because otherwise they will not be able to cope with the task at hand, will fail their comrades, and will ultimately contribute to defeat in battle. These two contradictory factors—the necessity to kill and the inability to kill—together are the main cause of psychological trauma on the battlefield. Even among those who were able to kill in war, such traumas are not uncommon, because after realizing what they have done, they cannot come to terms with it and suffer for the rest of their lives. Definitely, war is absolutely unnatural for human beings.

Why direct democracy cannot exist within a state, but quite possibly can within a free non-violent society

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Many proponents of liberal views often consider the sole source of all problems in social and economic management to be the insufficient involvement of the population in the political process. They believe that the state, and especially its coercive function, is absolutely necessary for existence, but that it should be managed by all people simultaneously and without the mediation of any political elites. This can lead to the concept of direct democracy, where a referendum is held on every political issue and the decision chosen by the majority is adopted. It should be noted that the creation of a direct democracy state is often implied, albeit not always explicitly, even by proponents of anarchic views.

Let us ask ourselves: does the decision-making process itself truly play a key role in how social management works? Of course not, because the most critical role is assigned not to the making, but to the execution of decisions. But are the majority of people capable of taking a direct part specifically in their execution? Let us examine this question in more detail.

If we are talking about decisions of a violent nature—for example, the use of force to compel people to comply with certain norms—then the obvious answer to the previous question is no! The majority of people are unable and will never personally execute violent decisions. When it is said that someone must be forced into something by power, it means the execution of this decision by certain separate security agents, who constitute a specific minority in society. This means that even if a violent decision was made by the majority, it will still be executed by the minority, and it cannot be any other way.

The right to commit violence, even in a state of direct democracy and majority choice, is still completely transferred into the hands of a minority. Moreover, the security apparatus must be capable of ensuring the realization of this right. Thus, a direct democracy state also presupposes that the ability of individuals and private communities for self-defense must be lower than the security forces’ ability to attack. This may mean the introduction of gun laws, if not a complete ban on civilian weaponry.

And why would anyone suddenly decide that this minority with the right to commit violence will not use such a position for its own benefit? Will it really execute decisions made by the majority, while effectively having the power to compel that majority to do anything? In practice, in the best case, it will simply pretend to execute the majority’s decisions, but the process of their execution will be organized to maximize its own interests.

In comparison, a free non-violent society, in which the primary tools for implementing punishments for the violation of certain norms are reputational and financial sanctions, can be organized according to the model of direct democracy. Imagine that as a punitive measure for a certain violation, a decision was made by majority vote to ostracize a person in certain types of relationships, including limiting or refusing them the ability to conduct some purchase and sale transactions. Furthermore, it was decided to subject those who continue full cooperation with the violator regardless of everything to this punishment. In such a case, the majority that made these decisions will also be their direct executor. It is the majority that will, in practice, refuse or limit cooperation with the violators.

If someone really likes the idea of society being managed according to the principles of direct democracy, they should first think about how violence can be eradicated from human relationships and how to completely get rid of it as a tool for implementing decisions. Otherwise, the choice of the majority will simply have no practical meaning if the decisions are still executed by a minority of people.