From: Keith Henson (hkhenson@rogers.com)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 08:15:27 MDT
At 11:16 PM 05/10/03 -0600, you wrote:
>[henson]I think a good case could be made for primitive societies being
>more violent than non primitive societies. They certainly are at the
>level of violence seen by the murder rates.
>
>[Mermaid]I have made it very clear why this reasoning has more holes than
>swiss cheese on it. Ahh..well..
I really didn't try to make a case re more or less overall violence in
primitive societies, even pointing out later that with respect to violence
against children it might be lower (from bone studies).
I could construct arguments either way.
I think that you would agree that there are degrees of violence and that
murder is at the high end of the range of violence.
If violence falls along some range with the more extreme being less common
(Bell curve) then you would expect high murder rates to be continuous with
less extreme forms of violence, resulting in more area under the "violence
curve." From what I know about chimp societies, a plot of this kind would
show lower levels of violence to be common and murders fairly rare. (If
you have not read Chimpanzee Politics, you should.)
On the other hand, lower levels of violence could be restrained by social
forces. It is believed for example that communal living may reduce the
damage from spouse (wife) beatings because the other tribe members (who are
always nearby) intervene. You could get a situation where lower levels of
violence were suppressed but if violence did occur, it often resulted in
murder.
I simply don't know. Perhaps some readers can cite studies.
Keith Henson
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 08:11:45 MDT