We once examined the question of why using a certain drug that suppresses the function of a person’s violence inhibitor (or as we also called it, “Anti-Lorenz” agents) has little practical utility and effectiveness, but is capable of leading to serious problems. However, this was presented from the perspective of social processes, whereas now we will delve deeper into the biological essence of this issue.
As we know, the violence inhibitor is managed by the brain’s serotonergic system, specifically the 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptors, as well as the MAO-A, TPH2, and SERT proteins associated with their function, encoded by the corresponding genes (for simplicity, we will call all of these “variables”). And we can assume that only a specific, quite narrow combination of these variables creates a high risk of developing violence inhibitor dysfunction in a particular individual. After all, only a tiny fraction of the population (no more than 1–2%) has increased psychopathic predispositions in any population.
Impact on at least one of these variables “upward” is quite capable of significantly strengthening the inhibitor function (eliminating the ability to initiate violence). Thus, in experiments on animals and humans, the mere activation of 5-HT1A or 5-HT1B receptors, or the enhancement of serotonergic function through impact on SERT activity, selectively eliminated violent behavior. At the same time, impact on any of the variables “downward” does not guarantee the weakening of the inhibitor (restoration of the ability to initiate violence), as was, for example, shown with the blocking of 5-HT1A and 5-HT1B receptors in animals.
On the other hand, there are strong grounds to believe that attempts to actively exert such an influence can cause serious mental disorders—increased anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and other pathologies related to the serotonergic system. Initially, such problems are often not particularly pronounced in psychopathic personalities simply because the narrow combination of “variables” required for this is evolutionarily maintained (with a bouquet of disorders, they simply would not have had reproductive success). In fact, according to research, violence inhibitor dysfunction itself is a “point” rather than an extensive disruption in brain function.
Why is all this important in practice? In the tasks of strengthening and weakening the violence inhibitor, there is a huge disparity in complexity. To put it simply—even in a successful attempt to weaken the violence inhibitor by suppressing any “variable,” it will not be possible to guarantee that this effect will not be reversible if someone applies agents to strengthen a certain “variable” to the person who did this. However, one can certainly guarantee serious side effects. In one of the experiments on rats using the neurotoxin 5,7-DHT, which affects the serotonergic system, although it was possible to increase their aggressiveness, this effect was reversed by introducing small doses of serotonin into the brain. A similar neurotoxic effect is exerted, for example, by methamphetamine, which at high intensity of intake is capable of increasing a person’s psychopathy. But most likely this effect is also reversible in the same way, and the result of weakening the inhibitor with “meth” in such a case will be a lack of result and the causation of serious harm to health.
And what if the aggressor does not know the specific time when they will have the practical opportunity to use violence? They would need to constantly take multiple drugs to weaken all “variables.” But constantly maintaining such a balance of “variables” so that simultaneously: 1) it is enough to weaken the violence inhibitor, 2) it is not yet enough to cause neurophysiological disorders, 3) it is enough to overcome the effect of agents for strengthening the inhibitor—is hardly possible in real life at all.
Ultimately, an attempt to weaken the violence inhibitor will only lead to serious neurophysiological and mental disorders, but will provide no guarantee against its reinforcement under appropriate influence. Practically effective and safe “Anti-Lorenz” agents turn out to be simply science fiction.
Extremely interesting and important results were demonstrated by experiments on the use of anti-aggressive agents in mice and rats. It turned out that some of them are capable of reducing the manifestation of attacking aggression on their part, while not affecting defensive aggression and other non-aggressive forms of behavior and social communication. To be more specific, we are talking about agonists that activate serotonin 5-HT1A/1B receptors.
These results align with the theory that many species possess innate inhibitors of aggressive behavior, which prevent causing harm and killing members of their own species. In the case of humans, a model of the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM) was even developed, which also explains the development of empathy. Based on this theory, violence in intraspecific relationships should be viewed as a pathological rather than a natural form of behavior. Especially since even in many territorial, social, and armed species, the level of lethal violence still does not exceed 1%, and according to various evidence, only no more than 2% of people do not experience strong resistance to committing murder.
We also see that defensive aggression, unlike attacking aggression, is indeed a natural form of behavior, and the work of the violence inhibitor does not stop it in the presence of an immediate threat to life in the environment. This was well demonstrated by the administration of the 5-HT1A agonist alnespirone to rats. It had an extremely selective effect; the strong reduction in aggressiveness did not prevent the rats from resorting to defensive behavior when encountering an aggressive peer.
Various genetic evidence demonstrates that certain variants of the 5-HT1A/1B receptor genes, as well as three other genes associated with the 5-HT system—TPH2, MAO A (also known as the “warrior gene”), and SERT—lead to increased aggressiveness in animals and humans. For example, in one study, impulsive and aggressive alcoholics were found to have differences in the 5-HT1B gene compared to healthy people and non-aggressive alcoholics. This study covered two different groups of people: Finns and a Native American tribe. Mutations in the MAO A gene have long been known as a cause of abnormal manifestations of aggression in men.
According to the violence inhibition mechanism model, the direct result of its dysfunction is calloused-unemotional (CU) traits in children and psychopathy in adults. Changes in the function of 5-HT1B receptors in certain parts of the brain were found in people with aggressive traits and psychopathic traits. A difference in the 5-HT1B gene genotype was present in children with calloused-unemotional traits.
It should be noted that dozens of genes and a large number of systems influence aggressiveness. However, the violence inhibitor remains a specific mechanism expressed by a limited number of receptors and genes. Firstly, this is simply important for inhibiting aggression most effectively. Secondly, other forms of pharmacological intervention, such as the use of antipsychotics (like haloperidol), beta-blockers, drugs affecting GABA neurotransmitters, and 5-HT2 receptor agonists and antagonists (many psychedelics belong to the former), result only in a non-selective reduction of aggressiveness, suppressing defensive aggression and other forms of behavior, and causing side effects.
Understanding the nature of the violence inhibitor and its limitation to a small number of receptors and genes can not only tell us a lot about violence itself, but also help in creating a solution aimed against it as a pathological form of behavior inherent in a minority of people. And the essence of such a solution is simple: returning to them the inhibiting control over aggression that is natural for the majority, through the use of appropriate pharmacological or even gene-therapeutic drugs.
In justification of intraspecific violence as a completely normal phenomenon in nature, one sometimes hears the argument about the selfishness of the gene. Since all biological evolution is primarily the evolution of genes striving for the most efficient preservation and copying of themselves, and only after that the evolution of individuals and populations, then intraspecific violence is not a problem at all. On the contrary—if a carrier of a gene committed violence, they gained an advantage over their conspecifics and passed this gene on. This means that intraspecific violence is a useful tool in the evolution of genes, and no violence inhibitor, slowing down aggression toward representatives of one’s own species, can exist, as it would contradict the attainment of such an evolutionary advantage by specific genes.
The idea that the evolution of genes takes precedence over the evolution of individuals and populations is a correct theory that there is no sense in disputing. But genes do not exist in a vacuum. Genes are carried by specific individuals who are part of specific populations. How the relationships between these individuals unfold will become the decisive factor in the preservation and transmission of genes. And violence will indeed give an advantage to a specific gene, provided it does not mean that gene’s own elimination. But what if it does?
Let’s take those species whose representatives possess strong innate weaponry and have no significant possibility of escaping violence (for example, due to the limited habitat range of the population or an extremely social lifestyle). It is precisely in such species that the inhibition (restraint) of intraspecific violence is observed. When one wolf exposes its neck or belly to another wolf, the latter becomes unable to bite its conspecific; no raven will peck another raven in the eye with its very sharp beak, even during a fight for food; venomous snakes conduct territorial clashes according to clearly defined rituals, without using their venomous teeth and not even demonstrating them to their opponent; oryx antelopes also ritualize battles, while they can freely use their sharp horns against lions. There are many such examples.
What is the benefit of the gene in such behavior? It is that a violent attack on a conspecific, given the latter’s strong weaponry, can end with the death of the aggressor itself with an impermissibly high probability. This means that the gene will not be preserved or passed on; it will simply perish along with its carrier. Only those genes will be passed on whose carriers, in such a situation, do not get into fights unnecessarily (or more accurately, do not initiate them at all, but only defend themselves if someone else has already initiated one). That is, the most advantageous evolutionary strategy for a gene is “cooperation” (let’s call it that) with the gene responsible for inhibiting violent behavior in the carrier.
This is a universal rule for biological evolution. Increasing weaponry of population representatives combined with frequent social contacts between them increases the negative consequences of intraspecific violence, at a certain point making them completely impermissible. As a result, only those genes survive whose carriers were able to compensate for this effect by suppressing violent behavior, meaning they were predisposed to have a sufficiently strong version of a violence inhibitor. The higher the weaponry of the population representatives, the less advantageous an evolutionary strategy violence becomes, and the more advantageous becomes the inhibition of violence.
This understanding should also be applied to humans—the most heavily armed species on the planet, whose weaponry is now growing at a giant pace along with the development of scientific and technical progress. The average person already possesses an inhibition of violence toward other people, but there remain those who suffer from a dysfunction of this neurobiological mechanism. Such people will sooner or later use weapons of mass destruction, which, with scientific and technical progress, are becoming increasingly accessible to recreate, especially regarding biological threats, where a catastrophic scenario could occur literally tomorrow. This means that violence is an evolutionarily failing strategy for humans!
Violence is a fairly common phenomenon in nature. This is especially observable in interspecies relationships. Representatives of different species are in a constant struggle for territory and resources; additionally, some become food for others. However, the situation changes when shifting to the consideration of intraspecies relationships. Of course, these are also frequently violent in nature, but this is far from always true. Under certain circumstances, a population will begin to develop inhibitors of intraspecies aggression. We will call this the violence inhibition mechanism, or more simply, the violence inhibitor.
The analysis of intraspecies aggression should begin with a look at its positive aspects, which will later allow us to avoid certain misunderstandings. Aggression, including that of a violent nature (i.e., inflicting physical harm, killing), allows stronger and healthier individuals in a population to prevent weaker and unhealthy ones from reproducing. Furthermore, it is simply beneficial for a specific individual capable of using it for their own survival and the transmission of their genes. It also serves as a tool in creating and maintaining a dominance hierarchy that coordinates the actions of individuals. Finally, since aggressive behavior prevents different individuals or groups of individuals from remaining close for too long, it leads to their uniform dispersal throughout the available living territory, and thus to a uniform distribution of limited resources.
One might get the impression that committing violence against fellow clan members is not just useful, but vital for the survival of specific individuals (and the genes they carry), as well as for populations as a whole. But one should not make the mistake of viewing violence in isolation from environmental circumstances. In this case, two of the most important factors are the presence of strong innate weaponry among population representatives and their inability to escape from violence. The stronger these two factors are, the higher the risks of violence. At a certain point, they become too high for the benefits derived from violence to compensate for them. Violence ceases to be an evolutionarily optimal model of behavior. And these risks can grow to the point where individuals simply exterminate each other in violent clashes, and the population comes to an end.
As an example of such a scenario, one can cite the well-known Universe 25 experiment, in which a mouse population raised in supposedly paradise-like conditions went extinct in less than 5 years. The experiment was poorly executed; the conditions were far from paradise. But the main error was the design of the enclosure, which allowed the 65 largest males to use force to block all others’ access to females and food. This triggered a chain of events that led to the extinction of a population limited in space and extremely violent in its order. In more intelligently designed enclosures, where it is impossible to establish such a violent dominance hierarchy, mouse populations can live for decades [1].
As we can see, weaponry and the lack of an opportunity to escape violence prove to be a problem for the survival of the population. However, it is precisely this that creates evolutionary pressure to develop inhibitors of intraspecies aggression among its representatives, which solves this problem. If population representatives possess strong innate weaponry, then the individuals most inclined toward violence who initiate attacks will encounter the weaponry of their fellow members, and this can often lead to their death. Resistance from an armed victim who has nowhere else to run can also be fatal for the aggressor. Even several victories in such a situation do not guarantee success for the aggressor, since there is still a high probability that one of the attacks will end in a lethal outcome for them. Meanwhile, less violent individuals will perish less frequently, as they do not initiate attacks themselves but only defend against them. They will encounter the risk of dying from violence less often than their aggressive counterparts, and thus will more frequently produce offspring.
As a result, natural selection will move toward the development of strong inhibitors that prevent the infliction of physical harm and the killing of fellow members, as individuals lacking such inhibitors will be removed from the population and unable to pass on their genes. The mechanism responsible for such inhibitors is the violence inhibitor. Overall, we obtain an evolutionary model of non-violence, according to which violence is eradicated as a phenomenon of intraspecies relationships in the course of biological evolution.
This conclusion is supported by observations of animal behavior. The concept of the violence inhibitor was first formulated by ethologist Konrad Lorenz. According to his theory, this mechanism is most developed in species whose representatives are capable of easily killing an individual of approximately their own size. Describing his observations of wolves, he showed how the violence inhibitor is activated when one wolf demonstrates gestures of submission to another—exposing vulnerable areas such as the neck or belly. As a result, the stunned aggressor cannot continue the attack. Similarly, observations of crows confirmed that they do not peck out each other’s eyes, even during clashes [2][3]. Indeed, the sharp teeth of a wolf and the beak of a crow are powerful weapons; a single bite or strike to a vulnerable spot is enough to seriously injure, or even immediately kill, another individual. The presence of such weaponry led representatives of these species to develop corresponding inhibitors during biological evolution.
A large number of such observations from various researchers were listed by ethologist Ireneus Eibl-Eibesfeldt. Many animals exhibit ritualization of intraspecies battles, which prevents the use of strong weaponry. This is true even for arthropods, such as fiddler crabs, which do not open their claws wide enough to injure their opponent during clashes. Similar restraint of aggression is characteristic of many species of fish, lizards, and mammals. A notable example is the oryx antelope, which handles its sharp horns carefully in clashes with conspecifics but uses them to their full extent when defending against lions. It is also worth mentioning poisonous snakes, many of which writhe, exaggerate their size, and push each other during clashes, but do not bite and do not even display their weapon [4][5].
At the same time, violence is inhibited to a lesser extent in poorly armed species. Compared to crows, doves with less sharp beaks are not restrained in their aggression and are even capable of killing a conspecific if the latter is deprived of the opportunity to escape, for example, if placed in a cage [2]. Animals that lead a solitary lifestyle are also quite aggressive. Consider hamsters, which generally will fight to the death if several individuals are placed in one cage. In nature, however, they scatter after only a few mutual bites [4]. If we examine the case of a solitary lifestyle in more detail, in its evolutionary influence, it can be equated to escape. Thus, violence does not threaten the survival of bears, who outside the mating season encounter each other too rarely for the occasional clashes to affect the population as a whole.
Based on observations of animal behavior, neurobiologist James Blair suggested that humans possess a similar mechanism that inhibits aggressive behavior. He subsequently developed a model of the violence inhibition mechanism (English: Violence Inhibition Mechanism, or abbreviated VIM). In its development, his goal was to explain the emergence of psychopathy as a result of the malfunction of this mechanism [6][7].
According to the VIM model, the violence inhibitor is activated when a person observes distress signals from other people, such as a sad facial expression or crying. As a result, the person begins to experience aversion and ceases aggressive actions. The violence inhibitor is also a prerequisite for the development of moral emotions in humans (i.e., sympathy, guilt, remorse, and empathy) and the ability to identify moral transgressions in actions consisting of causing harm to people.
As can be understood from the evolutionary model of non-violence we are considering, the development of a fairly strong version of the violence inhibitor could not have bypassed modern humans, as their ancestors began inventing artificial weaponry. Furthermore, population density has increased significantly over history, and the human population has already occupied the entire available habitat on the planet. However, due to rapid social and scientific-technological progress, the violence inhibitor has not had enough time to fully adapt to new circumstances, which creates the problem of violence in human society. But this issue, as well as the general issue of violence inhibition in humans, will be examined in detail in the following topics of the cycle.
Right now, it is important to understand that violence in human society is not an evolutionarily optimal model of behavior. It cannot be so for any highly armed beings limited in their habitat, since the risks of violence increase as weaponry increases, while there is nowhere to run from it. These risks become especially catastrophic in the case of a high-tech civilization due to the possibility of creating weapons of mass destruction. And humanity is exactly such a civilization. All this creates the prerequisites for the necessity of eradicating violence and achieving a non-violent society in which there is no place for forced forms of relationships, as the most evolutionarily optimal model of social organization.
Sources:
1. Khokhlovsky, P. (2020). “Universe 25: crushing criticism of myths and new conclusions”: https://tjournal.ru/analysis/212316-vselennaya-25-razgromnaya-kritika-mifov-i-novye-vyvody;
2. Lorenz, K. (1949). Er redete mit dem Vieh, den Vögeln und den Fischen (King Solomon’s Ring);
3. Lorenz, K. (1963). Das sogenannte Böse. Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression (Aggression: the so-called “evil”);
4. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1970). Ethology: The Biology of Behavior, pp. 314—325;
5. Dolnik, V. R. (1993). Ethological excursions through the forbidden gardens of the humanities;
6. Blair, R. J. R. (1992). The Development of Morality. Department of Psychology, University College, London;
7. Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: investigating the psychopath. Cognition 57, 1—29. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-P.
Bitarch, although I only recently became acquainted with libertarianism, I have already read about voluntarism and realized that it is exactly what I need! I am so tired of living among the abusers, boors, and rapists who surround me now! I wish a vaccine that destroys the ability to initiate aggressive violence would be invented as soon as possible, and along with it, universal prosperity would arrive! My father used to beat me, my ex-boyfriend beat me too, and once some thug even tried to rape me in an alleyway! Well, until the vaccine is invented, I want to ask for your help. Bitarch, I want to have a child with a strong Lorenz inhibitor, who would be guaranteed never to initiate violence and yet be able to stand up for themselves, just as you, strictly speaking, do. I am not a poor woman; I can sign a written waiver of alimony; all that is needed is conception from a carrier of a strong variant of the Lorenz inhibitor. Otherwise, there are two extremes around: either mama’s boys and wimps unable to protect themselves, or alpha males with testosterone overflowing and absolutely unrestrained in the manifestation of violence, but something in the middle is needed. Do you agree? And if so, how much do your services for the conception of non-violent offspring cost?
Katya Latysh
I am glad that you liked the ideas I promote and that you believe it is necessary to eradicate violence. As for your delicate request—unfortunately, I cannot 100% guarantee perfect genetics on my part. Although I am a non-violent person, who knows, perhaps I am a carrier of recessive genes that determine a weak variant of the violence inhibitor. There is no genetic test yet to determine the variant of the Lorenz mechanism (the violence inhibitor). Moreover, it is unnecessary to ask me specifically—most people are non-violent anyway; it is unlikely that I can offer anything more than they can. You have simply been unlucky so far, crossing paths with those same 2% of crazed degenerates who have an extremely weak variant of the inhibitor. The distribution of degenerates can be quite uneven, and it is possible that you found yourself in an environment with an increased concentration of them. Perhaps a good solution would be to slightly change your surroundings and your social circle?
I also want to note—one child cannot fix the situation as a whole. If you have financial resources, perhaps it is worth considering investments in biotechnology, obtaining the appropriate education, or some other way to help eradicate violence in degenerates? After all, the sooner it becomes possible to create a genetic test for the violence inhibitor variant and gene therapy to strengthen it, the faster the problem of rapists will be solved and no one will ever apply violence to you again. And in this way, you will be able to precisely guarantee both the non-violence of your children and that they themselves will never encounter violence.
Think about this; if violence is so unpleasant to you and you have certain opportunities, perhaps then it would be a good idea to dedicate your life to the fight against violence and bring closer the day when this problem is finally solved?
Intraspecific violence is often credited with the role of a mechanism important for maintaining the life of individual populations and even entire species. For example, violence is a tool for establishing a dominance hierarchy, excluding weak individuals from competition, allocating limited resources in favor of the strongest and most adapted members of the population, etc. To a certain extent, these statements are true, but what is definitely incorrect is to look at the phenomenon of violence in isolation from other factors—an error often made when presenting violence as a mechanism that works the same way in all cases.
Factors such as the innate armament of population members and the possibility of avoiding violence through flight play an important role in intraspecific violence. In cases where the armament of individuals is quite weak, the population is not limited by a strict habitat (it has room to expand), and individuals generally possess a good ability to flee, then certain benefits can indeed be derived from intraspecific violence without encountering an unacceptable level of negative externalities created by it. In short, in such cases, the benefits outweigh the losses.
But everything changes with an increase in the armament of individuals, with the limitation of their habitat, and if their ability to flee is less developed. The more pronounced these factors are, the more negative externalities the population will experience—violence will begin to threaten its survival. This was noted in ethological research by Konrad Lorenz, who also did not deny the positive aspects of violence, but at the same time took into account factors capable of turning this phenomenon into a catastrophe. He also described the concept of a mechanism that inhibits (restrains) intraspecific violence. I will provide an excerpt from his book “Aggression, or the So-called Evil”:
“A raven can knock out another raven’s eye with a single blow of its beak; a wolf can rip open another wolf’s jugular vein with a single bite. If reliable prohibitions did not prevent this, neither ravens nor wolves would have existed for a long time. A pigeon, a hare, and even a chimpanzee are unable to kill one of their own kind with a single blow or bite. Moreover, such poorly armed creatures possess an ability to flee that allows them to escape even from ‘professional’ predators, who are far more skilled in pursuit, capture, and killing than any superior fellow of their own species. Therefore, in the wild, it is usually impossible for such an animal to harm its own kind. Consequently, there is no selective pressure creating a prohibition against killing.”
From all this, a simple conclusion can be drawn: intraspecific violence can be useful, but only as long as factors such as armament and the inability to flee from violence do not become so pronounced as to create too many negative externalities. And the more pronounced these factors are, the greater the harm will be, which will ultimately lead to selective pressure toward stronger inhibitors of aggressive behavior among population representatives.
Now let us briefly consider the case of humans. Their innate armament is quite weak, and they have not yet fully adapted to the artificial armament that emerged during the development of civilization and scientific and technical progress. But this armament, along with the current lack of possibility for significant expansion of living space (humans have already spread across almost all habitable territory on the planet), creates a great threat to the survival of humanity. Intraspecific violence may have been useful for the distant ancestors of humans, but since they began using artificial weaponry, the situation has changed fundamentally. It is also worth adding that when discussing violence, the characteristics of humans and human society that distinguish them from animals and the animal world are often overlooked. Violence has an extremely negative effect on human psyche and behavior. Violence also disrupts economic relationships. This creates even more negative externalities.
The development of biotechnology brings us closer to the moment when it will be possible to create a gene therapy capable of activating the violence-inhibiting mechanism in humans that Konrad Lorenz wrote about. However, along with this, there arises the risk of the appearance of a completely opposite gene therapy aimed precisely at eliminating any inhibitors of violence in a person. Therefore, some may consider the idea of creating gene therapy against violence to be useless, as if it can be made, then gene therapy to unleash violent potential can also be made. Demand for it could be found among certain psychotics, maniacs, and people who overly prize their aggressiveness, consider it the meaning of their life, and are unwilling to part with it because of some dart with a drug fired at them during another attack. Additionally, some groups of people (supporters of authoritarian power) may consider it important to achieve certain goals by force, meaning that the security forces executing these orders must be protected from the risk of losing their capacity for violence.
Of course, the vast majority of scientists are against violence, and it is unlikely that any of them would engage in such developments. But what happens if there is someone among them who decides to help violent degenerates? Let’s go through this step by step:
1) There is a probability of the uncontrolled spread of a drug that disables the Lorenz mechanism, and if this happens, the whole world will be mired in violence and wars, and the survival of humanity will become impossible (practically repeating a typical scenario from a zombie movie).
2) This risk will lead to the necessity of creating an updated gene therapy against violence. It may be capable of preventing the disabling of the Lorenz mechanism by any means whatsoever; however, if this cannot be guaranteed, the only remaining option will be to make it so that a person dies from an attempt to remove their own restrictions on violent behavior. Allowing the survival of people striving for violence in such a situation is simply impossible; otherwise, the previously mentioned scenario will occur.
3) After this, a fairly rapid equalization of the balance of violent potential will occur; absolute universal armament will be achieved (it will become clearly apparent to every average Joe that weapons in such a world are the only guarantee of survival). The new status quo will be maintained because a minority of sadists will be afraid to deactivate the Lorenz mechanism to attack the majority of non-violent people, who are capable of destroying them at the very first attempt to initiate violence.
4) The stationary bandit (the state) will not survive either the appearance of gene therapy against violence, since it would then lose the ability to impose its order by force, nor the appearance of a blocker of the violence-inhibiting mechanism, because in that case, the security forces working for it will receive Molotov cocktails, bottles of sulfuric acid, infectious agents, bursts of automatic gunfire, etc., instead of peaceful protests, from the very people who removed their restrictions on violence and will manifest it toward everyone, including them. Zombie movies, although pure fantasy, nevertheless quite accurately convey what will happen to the state in such a scenario.
As a result, it turns out that the creation of a drug to disable violence-inhibiting mechanisms will also lead to the elimination of the stationary bandit, whom supporters of authoritarian power and forceful measures love so much and consider the best mechanism for achieving any goals. They do not understand this, but even worse, they do not understand the catastrophic scenario that the creation of such a drug would lead to if gene therapy against violence is not updated in time according to the parameters in the second point, or at least if the balance of violent potential is not equalized so that all resulting rapists and violent criminals can be liquidated during their attacks.
The potential structure of a free society is usually presented as a system of territorial and extraterritorial contractual jurisdictions (CJs) with voluntary participation and various internal orders. Thus, proponents of differing views on life and social organization can unite into separate communities to realize their own scenarios of happiness. Such an approach assumes absolute freedom and voluntariness of human choice. However, along with this, a question arises: what should be done if violent practices begin to be carried out in one of the CJs?
First, let us examine the question of “violent” CJs more closely. In fact, it is difficult to imagine how violence could occur against the will of the participants themselves. Effectively, a CJ is simply a service provider that has no ability to restrict freedom of movement within certain territorial borders (as states do now), which is necessary for carrying out forced violent practices. Moreover, this becomes impossible if there is any sort of uniform balance of violence potential in society (universal armament), because in such a case, infringing upon their freedom to exit would be, at the very least, disadvantageous for rational agents.
But besides the scenario of forced violence, there is also the option of consensual violence, or violence against people who are not fully capable of self-defense and are not considered independent legal subjects in that CJ, such as children. Such a CJ could be established by some fanatical traditionalists and conservatives. Through propaganda, they could convince weaker members of society that a violent hierarchy of dominance is normal, or even necessary. And as for children, no one will ask them at all. By the way, regarding children, the idea of a pedophile CJ is sometimes brought up as an attempt to discredit the concept of a free society. But, of course, no true supporter of freedom and the impermissibility of violence would support such a thing and, in the event of such practices, would advocate for intervention aimed at stopping them. In real life, intervention would also inevitably occur in CJs that support any forms of slavery, regardless of any previously concluded contract.
Some might believe that there is nothing wrong with consensual violence, or with violence as a method of raising children, and that these are acceptable practices within separate communities. However, violence in any form leads to sad consequences. It becomes a “normal” social phenomenon, and the people most prone to violence, who best fit violent orders, achieve the greatest success in life, while people without such inclinations effectively become outcasts. Both socially and in terms of “human nature” (evolutionarily), violence is reinforced and becomes an integral part of life.
Recently, I posted a picture depicting human sacrifice, typical for the Mesoamerican peoples who lived in the territory of modern Latin America, where one spectator says to another: “It’s fine, they built the roads for us.” In the comments, people immediately began to point out the inaccuracy of the analogy with current states, since these sacrifices were performed with the voluntary consent of the victims, who often sought benefit for their relatives, who received certain privileges after the ritual. But I am sure no one will dispute that such practices clearly leave behind only people prone to violence, capable of murder, while those not prone to it become the victims. Selection works in favor of violence and violators, reinforcing extremely weak variants of the Lorenz violence-inhibiting mechanism in the population. We can even see the result of such negative selection in Latin America today, especially its northern part (not to be confused with North America where the USA and Canada are located). Many people living there now are descendants of the indigenous population with their violent rituals and descendants of cruel Spanish conquerors. This mixture ultimately caused an extremely high homicide rate (it is the highest in the world in El Salvador, Honduras, and Venezuela), as well as excessive brutality in the massacres occurring there, against which even the activities of some Islamic terrorists pale in comparison.
Obviously, it is precisely from violent CJs, due to the extremely high percentage of violators within them, that one can most expect military attacks on other peaceful CJs and their participants (including the use of weapons of mass destruction), and ultimately the restoration of a violent hierarchy of dominance across the entire society. We cannot justify even voluntary violent practices, as they will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of people capable of violence and the corresponding consequences.
Of course, we are against violence and war as a solution to any problem, including the problem of violence itself, therefore we do not support military intervention. Moreover, to carry it out, we ourselves would have to become violators, capable of initiating an aggressive attack. But overall, specifically on this issue, we are for intervention, as only it will prevent the growth of the number of violators and the expansion of the problem of violence. Any violent practices, such as intentional infliction of physical harm, forced coercion, and even more so killings (even if they are voluntary), must be condemned, and their perpetrators must at least be subjected to various reputational and financial sanctions, making their lives extremely difficult and unpleasant (of course, until they decide to abandon such practices). If this proves insufficient, then the opposition (opponents of violence in such CJs) should be helped with supplies of weaponry and gene therapy drugs, so that they can eliminate violators at the immediate moment of attack on themselves, as self-defense. Not even the slightest justification of violence can be allowed. And this intervention is not a violation of freedom and voluntariness as such, since we are not proposing specifically forceful measures. And various non-forceful measures of influence are absolutely justified in the case of the risks carried by any violent practices.
The security forces of a stationary bandit (state) are, on average, staffed by people who are clearly more prone to violence than the general population. However, even their violent tendencies are not absolutely unrestrained. Most of them would still be unable to kill a person by initiating violence against them, rather than acting in immediate self-defense. Murder is an order of magnitude more serious act of violence than knocking someone onto the asphalt, twisting their arms behind their back, or beating them with a baton, which we can observe at the same rallies. To commit it, a person must be a completely reckless violent criminal. But in most cases, such individuals are unlikely to even make it into the security services, having been caught committing violent crimes in their adolescence. This means we can develop one very radical but effective strategy for fighting the stationary bandit.
To implement this, we will need a “self-destruct device,” for example, a collar with a small amount of explosives. Few people would voluntarily put such a device on; however, there are activists who, as a sign of protest, go so far as to commit self-immolation, and here, sustaining significant or fatal damage to oneself is not even necessary, as the goal is not to commit ritual suicide, but to deter security forces from committing an act of violence. How? An automatic activation device must be built into this collar, for example, triggered by any attempt to strike or immobilize the wearer (an artificial intelligence program can be used to determine this). The activation must be specifically automatic, since only a very small percentage of people (only those capable of self-immolation) would dare to manually activate it. Security forces know this, and therefore they would likely venture to immobilize and disarm a person if the activation were not automatic, which they would most likely succeed in doing. Additionally, the activist must inform the media before the action or the security forces directly during it that they are wearing such a device.
Thus, any violent action by the security forces would lead to serious injury or even the death of the activist. And they cannot afford this; after all, there are very few completely deranged maniacs among them, and even they might not dare, given that this would result in serious consequences for them, considering that such a death of an activist and the security forces responsible for it would immediately be in the public eye. Even with terrorists, security forces initially try to negotiate rather than liquidate them immediately. By the way, there was a recent case where an armed man, visited by security forces on suspicion of stockpiling weapons, decided to offer armed resistance, barricading himself in his home. The simplest option for the security forces to solve this problem would have been immediate liquidation, given that there was no one else in the house except this man. However, for a full 9 hours, they spent time cordoning off the house and attempting a storm; in the end, it ended with a grenade launcher shelling, which caused a fire in the house, during which the defender died.
Now imagine that even a small percentage of activists put the security forces before a choice: either don’t hit, or kill? Effectively, the activity of the security forces would be paralyzed; they would have to spend their strength and time dealing with these activists (though they would not be successful, as the only acceptable option for the security forces would be to persuade the activist to remove the device, which not everyone would fall for). Meanwhile, other protesters would be able to conduct their actions more freely and calmly while the security forces are distracted from them. Also, over time, they may generally begin to fear using violence against protesters, as such a device could be on any one of them.
A state, which possesses undisputed power and a monopoly on violence, is typically regarded as a purely human social phenomenon. However, if we look at the very foundation of the state’s structure—namely, the fact of coercive force exerted on people by political power—it can boldly be called one of the forms of a violent hierarchy of dominance, much like the hierarchies that arise under certain conditions in many animal species. This prompts us to analyze the phenomenon of the violent hierarchy of dominance as a whole, the prerequisites and consequences of its emergence, including in the case of humans.
We will cover all points of this topic. We will examine the history of the emergence and development of states and compare it with how violent hierarchies of dominance arise in animals, including known experiments such as “Universe 25,” in which a mouse population went extinct despite an abundance of resources, or the experiment by Didier Dezos, where some rats forcibly compelled other rats to swim across a pool for food. As a result, we will draw certain conclusions regarding the influence of violence on society as a whole.
First, let us confirm the violent nature of the state. To do this, we must turn to the theory of the stationary bandit. According to this theory, the state is a settled (stationary) bandit who decided to establish themselves in a certain territory, control it exclusively, and rob the population in the long term [1]. We should look at what serves as a prerequisite for the independent emergence of states in different corners of the world. Consider the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, and Indus valleys in the Old World, and the Mexico Valley, as well as the mountain and coastal plains of Peru in the New World. All these places have one thing in common: lands suitable for agriculture that are limited by seas, mountains, or deserts. In such places, there is simply nowhere to flee from coercive force, which led to the appearance of the first states there. We should also add social boundaries to this. Communities located in the center of populated lands are far more likely to be subjugated than those located on the periphery [2].
Over time, the entire world came under the violent control of certain groups of people, and this continues today. Let us not forget that modern state borders were drawn as a result of wars and subjugations. Even if we assume that in the past some group of people truly volunteered to form a monopoly government, they were either forcibly subjugated by someone else, or they themselves engaged in the subjugation of others. The same happened with subsequent generations, who did not initially agree to such a contract. Current states also actively control your life and their borders, resorting to all possible means. If the state does not allow you to do something, your chances of hiding or escaping from it will be extremely slim.
Let us keep in mind what the stationary bandit theory tells us about the state and move on to considering the issue of violence in the animal world, which is very important for understanding the reasons behind the emergence of a violent hierarchy of dominance. It is worth starting with the research of ethologist Konrad Lorenz, which showed that species with strong innate weaponry have evolutionarily developed a strong innate intraspecific morality of non-violence—that is, a mechanism that inhibits the manifestation of violent behavior in intraspecific clashes [3]. The following example can effectively demonstrate this mechanism:
“During a territorial clash, venomous snakes exaggerate their size by stretching, competing to see who can stand higher; they sway and push each other, but they never bite, nor do they even display their weapons. Some species even threaten each other by turning their heads away. It is no wonder that not only ordinary people, but many zoologists, mistook the tournament battles of snakes for mating dances.” [4]
No one will dispute that venomous snakes are heavily armed species; with a venomous bite, they can instantly kill a member of their own species. But they do not bite their own. This is all due to the Lorenz mechanism (LM), for if its development had been impossible over the course of evolution, many species would simply have self-destructed. However, the development of this mechanism is a fairly obvious process, given that individuals without an innate inhibitor of violent behavior would very often face death due to repeated attacks on heavily armed conspecifics, and therefore their genetic material would not be passed on to future generations.
This mechanism can be observed to varying degrees in many species. The more heavily armed a species is, the more strongly the LM is expressed in its representatives, and conversely—in weak species, it is weakly expressed. Lorenz gave quite interesting examples regarding wolves, which do not bite their tribesmen in the neck, and ravens, which under no circumstances peck out the eyes of other ravens even during clashes. However, after leaving two turtle doves—seemingly peaceful birds of the pigeon family—in one cage for some time, Lorenz discovered that one of them nearly killed the other. Of course, a strong LM could not have developed in turtle doves because, in this case, its absence does not threaten their survival, as they have weak weaponry and can easily flee from an attacker in nature.
Based on this, we can link the development of the LM to two factors: the presence of strong innate weaponry and the impossibility of escaping from violent pursuit. Now it is time to move to the topic of the emergence of a violent hierarchy of dominance among animals, and we will take the famous experiment called “Universe 25” as an example. In this experiment, ethologist John Calhoun created an enclosure for mice in which he provided an abundance of resources. Initially, the mouse population grew rapidly up to 2,200 individuals, but after that, their numbers began to decline, and in less than 5 years, the population became completely extinct.
Many reasons for this can be cited; the conditions of Calhoun’s enclosure were actually far from paradise, and there is also an opinion that the problem lies in the abundance of resources itself—and humanity, by the way, with its current high level of prosperity, faces the same fate. However, the main factor that led to extinction, especially compared to vivariums in other laboratories where mouse populations lived peacefully for decades, was that the design of the enclosure promoted the emergence of a violent hierarchy of dominance:
“The enclosure built by Calhoun, unlike a standard vivarium or natural environments, had one characteristic feature: an extremely irrational and inconvenient systematization of space for the mice, as a result of which a situation arose where the 65 largest males were able to monopolize access to food sources and females, while the mice driven into the center of the enclosure were forced to lead a wretched existence.” [5]
Under such conditions, further reproduction became impossible. The stress level of the mice simply skyrocketed, and the males who occupied the top of the dominance hierarchy did not allow other males access to females even after losing their own ability to reproduce due to old age.
Let us recall another experiment conducted by French researcher Didier Dezos. Six rats were placed in a cage with only one exit—into a pool. At the end of the pool was a feeder with food, but the rat could not eat there—after swimming across, it would take the food and had to return to its companions in the cage. Under these conditions, a rigid hierarchy of dominance formed, in which some rats forced others to swim for food and took it from them. Here too, we can clearly link the emergence of a dominance hierarchy to the limitation of space and the impossibility of escaping from it.
Interesting cases can also be noted in the world of primates. Observation of three species of macaques showed that in two of them (the rhesus macaque and the crab-eating macaque), a strong hierarchy of dominance can be seen, whereas the social relationships of the third species (the Tonkin macaque) are non-violent in nature [6]. Different researchers explain this difference through both environmental factors and genetics. However, it is most likely that a combination of these factors is at play—the corresponding environment led to the development of corresponding innate tendencies, specifically a weaker LM in the first two species and a stronger LM in the third (this explanation is not provided in the macaque study, but it fits perfectly based on the explanation of the nature of violence in many other species).
Another interesting case was observed by biologists Robert Sapolsky and Lisa Sher regarding a troop of baboons—primates known for their aggressiveness. In 1982, the most aggressive males of this troop began feeding at a tourist dump and ate contaminated meat. Eventually, they all died, leaving behind less aggressive males. As a result, the level of violence in the troop decreased sharply [7]. It is also worth remembering the pygmy chimpanzees—bonobos, whose behavior is less violent than that of other chimpanzees. This fact is explained by the fact that they do not have to share their habitat with large and aggressive gorillas. The latter displace and limit the resources of other chimpanzees, which effectively leads them to the very situation where there is nowhere to flee from violence within society due to the limitation of available living space.
Let us now return to humans. Humans are naturally a weakly armed species, which is one of the prerequisites for the development of a weak version of the LM. Combining this with the fact of the limited space suitable for agriculture in the territory where the first states emerged, one can conclude that the state is the same form of violent hierarchy of dominance as in the case of other species when they also find themselves in similar living conditions. And over time, people most prone to violence, who occupied the top of this hierarchy, gained increasing opportunities to control and restrict the freedom of all other people. Thus we have arrived at the modern state of total control, in which, as we mentioned at the beginning, without permission from above, you have no right to anything, including the right to escape from the violence of the stationary bandit.
This state of affairs seriously threatens the survival of humanity. Let us recall Calhoun’s experiment. Many call it prophetic in view of the observed decline in birth rates in developed countries. But usually, incorrect reasons are given, related to the high level of prosperity. The only correct reason is the existence of a violent hierarchy of dominance. This also explains why birth rates do not decline as sharply in less developed countries—states there simply lack the technical means and resources to control their population, regardless of what level of control is written in their laws.
Another reason why violence is a major problem and must be fought is the multitude of negative externalities. These include the increase in stress levels in society and the slowing of economic development, but most importantly—the risk of the destruction of humanity due to the use of weapons of mass destruction. And such means are becoming more accessible every day, even for small organizations and individuals. For example, trends in the development of biotechnology tell us that creating artificial viruses will soon be a fairly easy task, which in turn will allow some violent individual to create and release a very dangerous infection, far more serious than the coronavirus we recently faced. You can learn more about these externalities and methods for fighting violence in another material titled “Violence: Problems and Solutions” [8].
