I will accept your apology on one condition - that you accept my apology for misunderstanding the point of your questions.



Now you reminded me of a point that I'd like to look into.

In the video, he touched on the "raiding party" phenomenon observed im Gorillas. And I was wondering how that related to any kind of "evolutionary survival mechanism". And if it does, then how would it compare to human survival mechanisms vis-a-vis suicide bombers?

What I mean is, if it is a pro-survival action for Gorillas, why is it not also a pro-survival action for humans? Or if it's not pro-survival for gorillas, then how did it come about in the absence of any possibility for the "hijacking" phenomenon. How could it possibly have come about at all if it's contra-survival?

Some take the view that it is the gene which is competing for survival, not the individual.

...also...

It may be that the 'raiding party' phenomenon is a variation of a more obviously 'survival oriented' behavior, such as hunting.

Notta problem!





Good question. Keep in mind that there is no purpose, reason, or intent when considering evolutional ideas. What helps the species to survive best at the time with the given known conditions is passed on. Those without the necessary survival traits perish.

It is a pro-survival mechanism for humans, or at least was, and has not been lost yet. Here's how...

What you are referring to is what Dr. Andy called male coalition violence including the lethal raids, if memory serves me correctly. It has been a few days since I last watched. Those behaviours not only show tendencies in their name, but also in kinship(another survival mechanism). There have been humans studied as recently as the 1960's which were documented in order to help understand the notion. The attacking groups and their gene pool are at an advantage with reproduction and survival... obviously so. None-the-less, because those behaviours are more likely to exist in the aggressive members of any pre-societal/linguistic population, those aggressive tendencies are passed along through the gene pool, while the submissive ones are less likely to be.

As far back as we can see into our fossil records, humans - males specifically - show lethal injuries at the hands of what is most likely other males. Every step along the way in which there are enough fossils records to establish the idea, it has held constant.

These ideas are still supported by modern examples which can be given.

Sorry Sky, I inadvertantly skipped an important question.



Because male coalition violence involves kinship, follow the leader, and other survival mechanisms, it alone does not account for suicide bombings. However, it is a critical factor in the developmental stages of such a mindset because of it's other constituents. That psychology is not necessarily impacted by lethal raiding in the sense of primitive man or chimps, but the combined elements which can produce such behaviours can also form the framework which helps to support the hijacking of those innate tendencies for the purpose of suicide bombing. Add an unshakable belief in the reward of a wonderful afterlife for you and your family which is founded in religion, and therefore not subject to logical contradiction, and you have your recipe.

Where's Jeremy at in all of this?



I think we are finally heading in the direction he would have liked to see.

Sorry, JB, what statement are you referring to -- 1 or 2 ???

If its 2, you oughtta be ashamed of yourself!!!
(see massagetrade's comment on page 10!)

Ok, thanks Creative. That adds another piece to the puzzle. I’m getting a better and better picture of what the puzzle looks like from the viewpoint of the loyal opposition. And even though I don’t agree on a lot of things, at least I’m gaining a better understanding of how others think.

Sky, you ARE a Master of Diplomacy!!!!!!!!!

Just a friendly reminder to please stay on the topic.

7) Hijacking a topic by making posts which are off-topic and unrelated to the original post is considered rude. Please try to keep your posts pertinent to the topic at hand. We will allow some leeway in this area, as there is some amount of "topic drift" that occurs in a normal conversation that we will permit. However, members who we feel are continually and intentionally hijacking topics, especially after having been warned by a moderator, may have their posting privileges suspended. We ask all users to do their best to stay on-topic.

Kim
site moderator

Earlier you asked Di to re-read a post of yours which had been made on Mon. at 5:50...

Would you mind if this conversation went in that direction also? I breifly read it, and would like to entertain the differences you propose in some of the elements in question.

If not, no harm done, I'll continue to read your and Di's discussion quietly...

Ok, who went and snitched on us?

Ok by me - as long as the snitch doesn't mind.

It is often quite painful, but sometimes I manage.

Sky,

I do not think that our conversation, nor yours and Di's, has been off-topic...

Neither do I, but I got the impression that the OP (Bushi) thought I was off-topic from the start...

After re-reading that post of mine, I can see how there could be some confusion about how and where the "conscious" and "unconscious" nature of different survival goals fits in.

As I said earlier, I don't differentiate between the two because I consider that they have the same source and the same purpose. It's just that one is "automatic" and the other is "manual".

So if there's any questions there, just assume I meant whichever one would fit best, and take it from there.

Regarding the OP...

Nah...

It seemed to me that he just wanted to address what was presented.

I'll get to your Monday post tomorrow morning, if possible.



Nite!

I don't think either one of us presumed any such thing. We are simply NOT presuming one way or another.

I can think of numerous examples which deny the conclusion. To state an absolute like that requires only one example to the contrary to prove the conclusion fales.

In order for this to be true, all actions must be geared at a conscious goal. That isn't how it works. We are just recently(in historical terms) beginning to identify natural selection, and those selections are not always consciously made. Natural selection does not invoke a survival goal.

I think this is the source of discreprancy which leads away from the facts at hand.