Is fighting for territory a core driver in the psyche of our species?
Listening to international news and reflecting on human history certainly makes it seem so . We are after all just higher primates and all the others are in constant battles with rival groups. The greatest civilizations in history alll conquered their territories from others who were weaker. That’s how Putin’s Russia became as big as it is. He’s just acting out the role of a Czar. He saw Ukraine as weak and decide to grab it. I suppose that’s how our own country grew as well.
Bottom line: we need to be aware of human nature and act accordingly. Ie., prepare for war and intimidate rivals... or become victims,
Replies to: Is fighting for territory a core driver in the psyche of our species?
Neocon's morning rant. Survival is a human trait. Russia is fighting western neocon for survival.
Neocon started Nato agressive eastward expansion right after cold war which strategists and statements of old generation all said would lead to new cold war between west and Russia. But neocon, starting and leading from Madeleine Albright, ignored this warning and took advantage of a weak Russia's chaotic domestic situation.
Russia finally fought back when their red line - Ukraine as a neutral buffer zone between west and Ukraine in term of security, wad broken. OK. If Ukraine doesn't want to be neutral buffer zone, Russia has to take it as buffer zone. Russia fight this war for survival. Neocon know it. They spread propaganda to hide their aggressive imperial-like strategy.
Asinine. Russia was in no existential peril. You’re a doofus.
(no message)
Russia is fighting to absorb and control Ukraine which is part of its expansionist history.
If Ukraine joining NATO is such a concern, why hasn’t it happened since independence? There was zero chance of Ukraine being accepted into NATO at the time your tyrant friend began his aggression. He knew that, but decided to invade anyway.
Russia was a tiny hamlet til the 16th century... when they began fighting for survival THRU CONQUEST
There was no motherland to "protect" before that.
Putin is just another primate seeking to expand his band's territory.
So Nato's aggressive expansion in 21st century is against Russia's 16th century's expansion? WTF
By your logic, all non native Americans/Australians/Canadians/New Zealander should go back to Britain and return their lands to the natives. Because from your logic they are consequences of 17th, 18th and 19th century's expansion of that empire on which the sun never sets. You're well brainwashed by CRT, I have to admit.
The more you talk, the more you reveal your liberal worldview. Your age and life experiences might add a little bit conservative element in your reasoning . But liberal worldview is in your blood.
Eastern block NATO countries applied to get in and be protected against Putin's aggression.
NATO did not use any military force to enlist these new members.
But you are beginning to understand my point: war for territory seems to be deeply repressed in the human psyche... and has compelled creation of ALL the greatest human empires.
The best way to avoid war against human aggression, therefore, is to deter potential enemies with overwhelming potential force AND evidence that you will use it if necessary.
Show weakness and you are inviting war... as Chamberlain did in Munich... and as we did in the chaotic flight from Afghanistan.
1 Why you brought up 16th century then? 2 Nato expansion started before Putin. 3 You violated
the most fundamental law, action and reaction. Nato acted first by expanding its territory which betrayed secretary ofstate Bakers own word, not expand 1 inch east. Russia now simply reacted to 20+ years' nato agressive expansion.
Nato does not have territory... it has members who want to protect their own territory.
Nato really had no capacity or desire to invade Russia. Ukraine had and has far far less.
But.... no one who was under the communist yoke ever wants to see a reinstitution of the Soviet Union... not even most Russians!
Putin uses all this as a pretext to stay in power for life.
He's pushed himself into a lonely corner and set his country back decades.
No idiot. Russia’s expansion is. Again, there was zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO when that
aggression occurred. By the way, buy an English dictionary.
Go home to learn some 101. You're too ignorant to my taste. You know that.
(no message)
I accept your white flag.
(no message)
Correct. The problem for them is what was acceptable in terms of conquest in earlier centuries no
longer is.
Nobody told Putin that he's just acting out his primate instincts to his country's detriment.
Guess the Russian people will have to send him that message.
Regarding your comment on higher primates: Chimps vs Bonobos.
This is a topic I am very interested in. Christopher Ryan has some interesting and funny commentary on it. Previously I have linked his TED talk and another deeper conversation on the topic.
To the best of our knowledge, Chimps, Bonobos and Humans share a common ancestor that the three species diverged from. We are equally related to Bonobos as Chimps. Historically, we have focused on Chimp behavior: which is patriarchal, territorial and warlike; and ignored Bonobo behavior: which is matriarchal, tolerant and peace like. I think we have the capacity for both modes of existence depending on a number of developmental, environmental and circumstantial factors.
In general, I think a lot of it comes down to leadership. If we elect chimps, we will collectively behave as Chimps, if we elect Bonobos we will collectively behave as Bonobos.
Link: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208865119
If "chimps" and "bonobos" live in the same area, who gets the resources?
Ask the neandertals.
Between neanderthals and sapiens, which is the chimp and bonobo?
Africans lack neanderthal DNA, Europeans and Asians have 1-4% with western Asians also having Denisovan DNA.
Trigger alert, the denisovans were Russians!
Neither.
We were the same species. Hence the ability to have fertile offspring.
Ability to interbreed is not how we define species.
Unless you think Lions and Tigers are the same thing.
Fun stuff at the link.
Link: https://bigthink.com/the-past/soviet-human-ape-super-warriors-humanzee-ivanov/
Their offspring are not fertile. They are like mules.
Close enough to produce an offspring, but not one which can then produce more offspring.
Now do Wolves, Dogs and Coyotes.
Surely you don't think they are all the same species, do you?
Wolves and dogs split off even more recently
Than humans and neanderthals did. It shows the power of selective breeding to change traits. But they are effectively the same species. They can still mate. Ditto coyotes.
I think we're splitting hairs between species and sub species definitions.
Which there is a lot of debate over and is irrelevant to the original argument. We know what a Bonobo is and what a Chimpanzee is, they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. But they have distinct characteristics from one another and a geneticist given a DNA sample could tell us definitively which one it came from. Also, we know what a homo sapiens sapiens is, vs a homo sapiens neanderthalensis, vs a homo sapiens denisova. They could and did all interbreed and have fertile offspring, but the differences are where the interesting conversations happen. And a geneticist can tell you how much from each lineage is in you.
So, even though a wolf could mate with a chihuahua and produce fertile offspring, the differences between them are important for classification purposes. You would most likely not want to have a wolf as a pet, and there is also a lot more interesting stuff around domestication (Russia fox study, for example).
If I were to describe a person as having red hair, blue eyes and freckles to you, would you suggest that it's just as likely that they derived from indigenous populations in South America as any other origin?
The only thing I am asserting
is that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were not separate species. I don't think homo sapiens eliminated them. I think they were assimilated.
I don't pretend to be an expert on this. But I read a lot, and there is a whole bunch of recent genetic research that seems to support this interpretation of events. Probably same is true with Denisovans. It is becoming clearer that human history involved many forays out from Africa, with returns and new forays discovering those left behind 20,000 years prior.
I am not a biologist, but I think speciation requires the inability to produce fertile offspring. Shitsu's and Great Danes and wolves can still produce fertile offspring, but in 250,000 years that may no longer be the case.
Interesting thoughts.
There was someone I was listening to recently, can't remember who, that suggested that agricultural societies eliminated hunter-gatherer societies over time mostly unintentionally through disease. Since many diseases jump to humans in close proximity to domesticated animals, herding societies would encounter hunter-gatherer and the hunter-gatherers would die from some flu they had no immunity for. It is not thought that herding existed 40K years ago when neanderthals went extinct (or were assimilated) but I think similar hypotheses could have some merit.
So, by your hypothesis, neanderthals and denisovans left Africa earlier and were assimilated/absorbed into populations that left Africa later. It's interesting.