Based on Konrad Lorenz’s theory of the inhibitor of intraspecific violence (Lorenz mechanism or LM), James Blair’s model of the violence inhibition mechanism (VIM), as well as a multitude of supporting evidence, including neurophysiological and genetic data, it can be confidently stated that the ability of some people to commit violence against other people is the result of a pathological impairment in the functioning of the innate violence inhibitor (LM/VIM). And since this is a pathology, it must be combated, as with any other pathology, namely through its treatment [1].
Since the impairment in the functioning of the LM/VIM is of genetic origin, treatment requires gene therapy intervention. At the neurophysiological level, specific areas of the brain are responsible for the functioning of this mechanism, which means we need to perform gene therapy on brain cells. However, the possibility of conducting such gene therapy is questioned. There is also an opinion that gene therapy cannot correct neurophysiological impairments. However, all these doubts can be easily dispelled, which I will now do.
In the past, gene therapy on brain cells was impossible because the viral vector with genetic material could not cross the blood-brain barrier—the protective filter between the circulatory and nervous systems. However, in 2003, a group of researchers found a solution to this problem, which involves using a vector small enough to be able to cross this barrier [2]. Later, a wide variety of tools for performing gene therapy on brain cells appeared, using different types of vectors and the genetic material they transport [3].
Fine, gene therapy can be performed on brain cells. But can it cure neurophysiological impairments? Let’s look at a practical example. There is a hereditary genetic disease called “Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency,” the symptoms of which include: mental retardation, inability to fully control the body, decreased muscle tone, seizures, and many others. It is caused by a mutation of the DDC gene, leading to a deficiency of key neurotransmitters (dopamine and serotonin).
However, quite recently (the corresponding study was published on July 12, 2021), specialists developed a gene therapy to treat this disease. A drug with a viral vector carrying the corrected version of the gene is injected directly into the patient’s midbrain, where it distributes through the tissues, and they gradually become capable of producing the missing proteins. This gene therapy has proven its safety and efficacy. Seven patients aged four to nine years, within 18 months after the injection, were freed from seizures, began trying to speak and smile, and two were even able to walk with assistance, which was considered fundamentally impossible for such a diagnosis [4].
Of course, at the moment, gene therapy is a complex and expensive technology that requires further development. However, there are absolutely no reasons to believe that the treatment of neurophysiological impairments and the restoration of nervous system functions (including the brain) is a fundamentally unsolvable task. Current research, on the contrary, proves the possibility of this. This means that the argument about the impossibility of treating LM/VIM dysfunction, based on such a claim, is incorrect.
Despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of people are actually capable of committing brutal violence, politically, supporters of non-violence ideas are currently in the minority. The majority, at least passively, consider the use of force justified in the implementation of state coercion, and some people even actively resort to using this tool of force in the pursuit of their goals. And how can the ideas of non-violence be promoted in such a position?
To do this, let us consider how some other ideas that were very unpopular in society were promoted, for example, the ideas of the LGBT movement (it does not matter how you personally feel about this; moreover, if you believe that movements of this kind must be stopped by resorting to violent measures, then you are simply a violent person—realize this fact and reconsider your outlook on life). Of course, there are relatively few representatives of this movement in society, which means they simply would not have had the chance to defeat all their enemies at once. But that is not necessary; it is not essential to deal with everyone at once, it is enough to choose one goal. Suppose a specific business began to implement a policy of discrimination against LGBT representatives, or some person spoke about them in an extremely negative key. By gathering together, the representatives of the movement have enough strength to organize a campaign of harassment against a single subject. Of course, this subject, faced with strong condemnation, will begin to lose their reputation; if it is a business, its income will be jeopardized. Seeing this, other opponents of the ideas of this movement will not want to risk their money and reputation, and therefore will make certain concessions. This is how the LGBT movement managed to promote its cultural agenda and achieve recognition in many countries—in fact, in most developed countries, where half a century ago homosexuals were afraid to even walk down the street holding hands.
A similar strategy could be used in the promotion of the ideas of non-violence. All supporters of violence cannot be defeated at once, especially considering that a significant part of society, albeit passively, is still on their side (moreover, they themselves are biologically incapable of initiating violence, as most of the population have a strong version of the violence-inhibiting mechanism, but this does not prevent them from having certain views and morally supporting other people who are more prone to violence). But, again, there is no need to fight everyone all at once. It is enough to choose one subject who advocates for violence and organize a campaign of harassment against them, as a result of which they will suffer certain losses. Other subjects, seeing this, will make concessions to us.
One of the concrete implementations of this strategy could be the conclusion of non-violence contracts. For example, deciding to do business with a certain organization or person, one can demand the inclusion of a clause in the contract stating that in the event of disputed situations, the parties cannot resort to violent measures of influence, i.e., cannot turn to state judicial and law enforcement structures. Instead, the resolution of the conflict must be carried out exclusively within the framework of non-violent reputational and financial influence. If the other party agrees to such a condition, it will create a positive precedent that will greatly help in the further popularization of non-violence ideas. If they refuse, then they can be condemned as a supporter of violence according to the model described above.
Thus, even with a small number of active supporters of non-violence ideas, it is possible to effectively deal with a certain number of supporters of violence. And those remaining will simply decide to make concessions in order not to lose their business or avoid ending up in social isolation. Over time, the agenda of non-violence will become recognized and generally accepted, which is what we strive for!
Doing business and any financial activity are always associated with certain risks. Many will first think of risks leading to the loss of invested funds, however, that is not the issue we are interested in. We will consider the risk that violence, up to and including liquidation, may be applied to a person engaged in such activity. I think you have heard stories about how some businessmen were “taken to the forest” by their more violent and gangster-like competitors in the market. Frequently, a government may eliminate a person for “unacceptable” economic activity. An illustrative example is the recent story of the death of John McAfee, who had some problems with paying taxes and activities related to cryptocurrency operations, and who, as he claimed before his death, was threatened by representatives of the US authorities.
Of course, some will say that problems can be avoided by strictly playing by the rules of the state power and stronger market agents. But these rules are established unilaterally and can be changed at any moment to destroy your activity or make its conduct impossible. The mere fact of conducting some activity may be unacceptable to those capable of committing violence against you. In the best case, your business will be stopped due to the threat of violence from ordinary or stationary (“state”) gangsters, resulting in large financial losses. In the worst case, you will simply become another person who “committed suicide.”
Anyone engaged in any economic activity, especially if it involves running a business or investing in certain assets, finds it beneficial and necessary to invest in the fight against violence. Only by eradicating violence in human society can its risks be eliminated and one can finally peacefully attend to their affairs without fearing tomorrow. Investing in the fight against violence is clearly worth it to simultaneously preserve both your activity and your life!
Previously, we have already examined the topic of why it is profitable for corporations to fight violence. In short, they make their money by selling products that must be constantly improved technologically. In effect, new technologies are the source of their profit. However, as technologies develop, they become increasingly dangerous. In the future, it can be expected that, for example, even typical consumer electronics will require ultra-high-capacity energy sources due to the rapid expansion of functionality, which could then be used for violent purposes, including terrorist acts. Or someone could use widely available DNA/RNA synthesizers to begin creating dangerous viruses. As a result, violence hinders further progress, which is critically important for the survival of humanity as a whole, and also becomes a barrier to profit for private companies. This is precisely why it is in their interest to fight violence.
Of course, one might hear the argument that large corporations and elites are only interested in fighting violence among ordinary people, so that they cannot balance the potential for violence in their own favor and threaten them. In this view, technology is in the background and means nothing. I do not dispute that this was relevant in the past, and even in the 20th century, since dangerous technologies (such as nuclear weapons) were held only by major governments. However, now the issue of dangerous technologies is becoming more relevant than it has ever been before.
Alright, let’s assume the elites decide to strip ordinary people of their capacity for violence, for example, through gene therapy implemented “from above,” so that they can safely use dangerous technologies and not even think about committing acts of violence. At the same time, they would reserve violence for themselves, in order to permanently secure an endless potential for violence and maintain the ability to continue a violent policy toward the population, promoting their interests through government security forces.
But let us not forget—the elites themselves mean absolutely nothing without the security agents who serve them. We have already discussed this in the material titled “Our Goal is the Elimination of the Violence of the Pawns”. If gene therapy against violence becomes common knowledge, it could be used against security agents in direct clashes, for example, by firing a dart containing the corresponding vaccine at them. But suppose that gene therapy is implemented from the top down and ordinary people do not yet have the opportunity to obtain or recreate this technology. Even then, this state of affairs would change nothing.
The point is that the security agents working for such elites are also ordinary people, part of the rest of the population. Protecting the elite is just their job; outside of work, they lead ordinary lives, including using new technological gadgets. Consequently, the elites face the following problem: if they want to maintain their security functions, they must leave the violent tendencies in the agents who work for them. But these agents could also, at any moment, use dangerous technologies for violent purposes—for example, if someone among them is no longer satisfied with the policy imposed from above, or simply due to an unrestrained desire to commit violence. This, in turn, forces the elites either to slow down technological progress—which would result in loss of profit, the futile consumption of limited resources, and a decrease in humanity’s chances of survival—or to implement gene therapy against violence for everyone, including the agents working for them. I believe that when the moment comes to choose, they will find the second option more acceptable, as they all want to continue living and improving their living conditions, even if it means losing the ability to conduct a policy of force.
Some people say they are ready to personally hinder the development of gene therapy against violence (to strengthen Lorenz’s violence-inhibiting mechanism, also known as VIM in English-language research). Well, that is their right. We will not remind them that they are unlikely to succeed in hindering development in the real world, as most scientists ideologically oppose violence. But let us imagine that they did succeed, or that the development of this gene therapy proved too complex for the current technological level and, within our lifetime, gene therapy against violence was never created.
First, let us note that the absence of gene therapy in no way denies the fact of the existence of ML/VIM in the species Homo sapiens and its varying strength in different people. This has already been proven by authoritative scientists and will undoubtedly become a generally recognized fact sooner or later. As will the path by which ML/VIM is strengthened under the pressure of natural selection. Consequently, without the development of corrective gene therapy, the fate of people prone to violence will be extremely dismal. They will find themselves in a situation where they will literally pray to God for this gene therapy to appear as soon as possible!
1) The mildest, libertarian scenario. When the understanding of ML/VIM enters the mainstream and begins to be covered in the media, activists will immediately appear who will intentionally provoke everyone with words, clothing, and gestures, and immediately destroy those who succumb to provocation within the framework of self-defense. In essence, they will repeat the “Masquerade,” which, without even knowing the theory of Lorenz on which we base ourselves, was successfully conducted by Marshal Zhukov in post-war Odessa to “eradicate crime.” Why is this approach libertarian? Because according to the non-aggression principle (NAP), “one can offend, but one cannot be offended,” i.e., provocation is entirely permissible, as is self-defense, but the use of physical violence in response to provocation is a violation of the NAP. As a result, natural selection pressure is created to strengthen ML/VIM. If you, as a specific opponent of gene therapy, are prone to violence in deed rather than just in words, you will inevitably be removed from the population.
2) The moderately statist scenario. This is very likely in developed countries where the level of violence is already low, and humanism and human rights are more or less recognized as values. The propensity for violence is recognized as a socially dangerous pathology, like, for example, incurable infectious diseases. Even a hundred years ago, even in the USA, it was the norm to send carriers of dangerous infections such as leprosy and typhus into lifelong quarantine. Similarly, it will be with violent people — a reservation will be created on an island or in some remote wilderness, where all those prone to violence will be exiled as socially dangerous elements. Inside, they will live quite freely, roughly as they do now in some places of deprivation of liberty in Norway for not very dangerous criminals. But they will never be able to leave this reservation (at least until the creation of gene therapy or another method of strengthening ML/VIM).
3) The authoritarian scenario. Unlikely in developed countries, but who knows where the stars will turn… It is as simple as can be — mass genetic testing and forced euthanasia or sterilization followed by the exile of all carriers of weak ML/VIM variants (i.e., those prone to violence). Personally, as a libertarian/voluntarist, I naturally do not approve of this scenario, but I would like to warn opponents of gene therapy that society can turn toward totalitarianism at any moment and you personally will be subject to destruction. There have been enough examples in history!
So remember this well — when the existence of a violence-inhibiting mechanism in the species Homo sapiens and the variability of its strength in different people becomes a well-known fact, violence will be eradicated regardless of the successes in developing gene therapy. Only the methods by which this happens will now depend personally on you!
Until quite recently, the forced sterilization of the “unfit” was a reality even in the seemingly “free” USA
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.
If it is unclear where exactly you are admitting it – here is the chat dialogue:
Purple Dragon: @ancapsan, I wonder, if Bitarch actually invents his libertarian vaccine, tests it, and gets approval from independent doctors, would you get vaccinated?
Ancap-chan: It’s important to understand exactly what changes will occur in the body and decide based on the specifics. If the effect is exactly as Bitarch dreams—which I don’t believe in, because genetics doesn’t seem to work that way—then why not? It wouldn’t affect self-defense capabilities, and if I needed to take violent revenge, I would still prefer to hire a specialist rather than act myself.
At first I thought about joking it off, but I think I’ll answer seriously.
The subject of my main disagreement with Bitarch is my dislike of operating with holistic constructs. I prefer to consider not violence as a phenomenon, but violence that one specific subject manifests toward another specific subject. And only then do I view this specific violence in the context of libertarian ideology, which proclaims freedom as its value. And this very freedom means that I reserve the right, among other things, to revenge, if I so wish. Naturally, I also leave others the right to try to stop me and hold me accountable.
My own moral views, which may prompt me to enter into a conflict, including a violent one, are higher for me than an abstract desire to have a world completely devoid of aggressive violence. Attempts to manipulate me in the spirit of “as long as violence remains in the world, humanity is in danger” might lead only to a shrug: “then let it remain in danger.” I would perhaps even sharpen the thesis. If we assume there is a button that, when pressed, destroys humanity, I would want to have it. Not to press it, but to know that I can do it. This is a very important incentive for a person—the expansion of possibilities, that is, degrees of freedom. Freedom.
And it is all the more important for me to have the ability to respond to violence against me, both directly at the moment of attack and ex post facto, if that is more convenient for me. I will not voluntarily destroy in myself the capacity for such a thing. So please forgive me, in the dialogue quoted above, I lied.
At the same time, I deeply appreciate Bitarch’s research with the Voluntarist regarding the investigation of mechanisms that influence people’s attitudes toward the manifestation of violence. Moreover, I respect Bitarch’s striving to obtain a button that eradicates the inclination toward aggressive violence in humanity. After all, how is this worse than the desire to have a button to destroy humanity? True, he craves this button in order to press it, and that changes the situation slightly: perhaps I will still have to stop him, as they stop mad scientists in classic action movies. Well, that would be interesting.
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].
