Тег: Violence

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.

Can violence be an evolutionary adaptation?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The fact that there is still a certain percentage of individuals in the human population capable of committing violence, up to and including murder, easily and without any internal resistance, may lead some to think that this is quite normal and natural. Since such people exist, and humanity has existed for a long time, could violence simply be an evolutionary adaptation that for some reason proved necessary for the human population?

To answer this question, we turn to the works of ethologist Konrad Lorenz, who first discovered the presence of innate inhibitors of intraspecific aggression in many animal species. He also described the conditions under which these inhibitors arise. The most important of these are the presence of strong innate weaponry and the inability to avoid violence through flight. According to Lorenz’s observations, ravens possess a strong inhibitor against striking their conspecifics in the eyes with their sharp beaks. Such inhibitors are often observed in wolves as well—when one of them assumes a submissive posture or demonstrates vulnerable parts of the body, such as the throat or belly, it leads to the cessation of aggressive actions by the conspecific. At the same time, collared doves, whose beaks are not as sharp as those of ravens, although they usually do not kill each other in natural conditions, are capable of doing so during a conflict if they are deprived of the possibility of escape by being locked in a cage.

Speaking of humans, Lorenz did not believe that they possessed aggression inhibitors, as they lack strong innate weaponry. Furthermore, humans were not prepared for the emergence of artificial weapons, as scientific and technical progress acquired rapid momentum that biological evolution simply could not keep up with. In view of this, Lorenz expressed concerns about the possible destruction of humanity:

“The day will come when two hostile camps will find themselves face to face, facing the danger of mutual destruction. A day may come when all of humanity is split into two such camps. How will we behave in this case—like doves or like wolves? The fate of humanity will depend on how people answer this question. We must be vigilant!”

Of course, as other researchers later found, humans do possess a mechanism similar to the one Lorenz wrote about. Its emergence can be explained by gene-culture coevolution, where factors of culture and society influence selection in the human population even over short periods of time. And it is worth remembering that primitive artificial weaponry in the form of clubs, spears, and stones appeared in early hominids presumably as far back as 5 million years ago.

However, to a certain extent Lorenz was right, and in the course of biological evolution, intraspecific violence was not completely eradicated from the human population. It is also obvious that humans could not evolutionarily adapt to modern remote weaponry, such as artillery or the atomic bomb. Of course, based on the model of the violence inhibition mechanism in humans, conditioned reflexes should be developed during its operation, preventing any urges to initiate violence. But military evidence shows that while 98% of soldiers experience strong resistance to committing murder during direct contact, in the case of remote weaponry, which allows one not to observe or even know about the potential victims, such resistance weakens.

Based on all this, it can be boldly asserted that violence cannot be called an evolutionary adaptation for humans. Any adaptation must benefit the species by increasing its chances of survival, which cannot be said of violence. It is quite the opposite—due to rapid scientific and technical progress, humans have not had time to fully adapt to new environmental conditions, to the fact that they are the most armed species on the planet. This, in turn, based on the evolutionary model, should imply the existence of extremely strong and pronounced inhibitors of intraspecific aggression.

Preventive attack as a non-existent category

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Sometimes violent actions, ranging from their use as a method of resolving interpersonal conflicts to geopolitical relations, may be justified by resorting to the so-called concept of a preemptive strike. In this way, violence is equated with self-defense, since the victim of the attack is allegedly the aggressor themselves, intending to carry out an attack and certainly would have done so if a preemptive strike had not been delivered. In practice, this line of thinking can easily be seen in conflict situations where, for example, violence was used in response to purely verbal threats. It is even more evident in cases where some threat of a future attack was presented as a justified reason for starting wars.

Of course, there are no preemptive strikes as a separate category of aggression, and certainly not as a form of self-defense. A certain “preemptiveness” in this case is exactly the same kind of justification as any other possible justification for violence; it in no way makes a specific instance of its use something else, qualitatively different from other cases. Certainly, if there were immediate threats of violence or a real attempt to attack, then responsive force measures can be called self-defense. But if there was no such thing, then we are dealing precisely with a violent attack, and everything else is simply speculation, invented to justify one’s violence to others.

The problem of the stationary bandit’s tyranny cannot be solved with violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Some people believe that a stationary bandit can be defeated exclusively by initiating violence against them. From them, one may hear calls for a violent revolution. To some, such an idea may even seem reasonable; however, look at this matter from another perspective. To carry out a violent attack, it is necessary to gather a group of people capable of it, for such a task cannot be accomplished by complete pacifists or those ready to use weapons only for self-defense. Such people will emerge, naturally supported by interest groups who are also not opposed to violence as a tool for achieving goals. These people will attack the government, maiming and killing everyone who gets in their way along the way, and seize power for themselves. What happens next?

Nothing will change! One set of violent oppressors in power will be removed, and other violent oppressors will take their place. Of course, it is quite likely that the new regime will be more liberal, as in such an unstable position, it will not risk immediately resorting to the methods of its predecessors. But the stationary bandit himself will not go anywhere; he will still try to build a monopoly on power through violence. Gradually, the new faces in power will also strive for increasingly harsh orders. This is how it has always been and always will be with monopoly political power. Or does someone really expect that people for whom using violence was previously the norm will suddenly become peaceful and kind pacifists after seizing power? It would be great naivety to believe so!

It sounds as if we are supporting the state. However, these are merely practical considerations. Since we want to achieve a free, non-violent society, it is more advantageous for activists ready for radical action to focus on balancing the potential for violence by ensuring universal armament, which will deprive the stationary bandit of the ability to effectively apply force. Or better yet, think in general about the methods of eradicating violence from society, which we constantly talk about. Non-violence and freedom cannot be achieved through the seizure of political power and a mere change of faces at the helm of the stationary bandit!

Goals and provocations are not the direct cause of violence

Voluntarist, Bitarch

It is often believed that the question of violence boils down exclusively to the goals that incite it, or to provoking factors. Based on this opinion, violence will be committed almost every time if it is beneficial for a specific person and carries no risks. Likewise, in the absence of risks, violence will almost always be committed in the event of a provoking stimulus. And the only thing that stops any person from committing violence is precisely such rationally assessed risks, for example, the threat of punishment following the violence, armed self-defense by the victim of a violent attack, or others.

Such a view of the issue of violence, of course, does not correspond to reality. Otherwise, the entire world would consist of evil and violent, or at least simply indifferent to violence, people. But the behavior of any person is largely shaped by a vast spectrum of feelings. Aggressive feelings are no exception; they are quite natural for a human being. However, based on the concept of the violence inhibition mechanism, every normally developing individual experiences, from a very early age, a feeling of repulsion toward committing violent acts against other people. This same mechanism plays an important role in the development of empathy, which is also characteristic of the vast majority of people.

It is also worth remembering that regardless of social circumstances, the vast majority of people never commit violence. Even in Latin American countries, all violent crime originates from a small minority of people. The driving force behind all wars, repressions, and genocides was a small minority of people. Therefore, can it really be believed that every person will indeed commit violence whenever it is rationally beneficial for them?

Regardless of the circumstances, the vast majority of people have never committed and will never commit violence, at least in its most serious forms (causing significant physical harm or murder). Violence is not formed solely by goals and provocations. These, of course, can incite violence, but only in those people who were already capable of such things because they felt no repulsion toward violence.

People are enslaved by violence, not by technology

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Luddite and anti-progressive positions that oppose scientific and technological progress, while quite unpopular, still exist, creating a myth about the enslavement of people by technology. These positions blame technology specifically for the fact that people are rapidly losing their freedom and happy lives. For example, with its help, governments gain more power and the ability to manipulate people, meaning that scientific and technological progress, starting from the moment of the industrialization of society, is an evil that must be eradicated. Of course, many would consider such argumentation extremely absurd without further explanation, but let us nevertheless look at what is wrong with it.

The point is that technologies themselves do not lead to any enslavement of humans. This is primarily caused by violence as a method of solving problems and achieving certain goals, including when used by those same governments. All of them rely on the threat of applying certain “legitimate” and “legal” force measures against any ordinary person if they do not follow a specific order. Technologies in this case only make such a threat more effective in its execution and help strengthen the power of already existing governments.

But think about it—even with the simplest tool, such as a hammer, it is much easier to intimidate, subdue, or even maim a person than with bare fists. However, a hammer is created to drive nails, and the problem lies within the person who is capable of committing violence using any available tools, not in the hammer itself. The exact same situation applies to weapons—the problem is not with the weapon, but with the tiny percentage of people willing to use it to commit violent attacks.

It is the problem of violence and the fact that some people strive for the forceful subjugation of others that needs a solution. As soon as this problem is solved and violent hierarchies of dominance disappear from society, technologies will cease to contribute to the enslavement of people in any way. It is necessary to fight violence and the tiny percentage of violent offenders in society, not technologies, which, by the way, are the only thing that could save people from endless hunger, disease, child mortality, and other terrible phenomena of the past, and will also allow humanity to survive and continue its existence in the long term.