Richard Wrangham’s hypothesis that teams of beta males systematically killing off alpha males is what made us Homo sapiens is perhaps the most dramatic “selective killing driving evolution” argument.
"communally approved killings of group members emerged in the Pleistocene as a cultural adaptation for suppressing domineering bullies and norm violators"
The problem is that in reducing the propensity for violence, the ability to mount vigorous self-defence is also hindered. No wonder Western societies are being overrun by aggressors from less pacified cultures. Sadly, pacification may be the proverbial self-cleaning oven.
Dr. Frost, your very interesting proposed project regarding genetic pacification could be enhanced by considering the temporal variation in the onset of the State monopoly on violence as a function of geography. The Scottish-English Border region came under the full weight of the justice system approximately 600 years later than, say, Wessex. My personal experience in the American South with descendants of Scots-Irish immigrants (Ulstermen themselves descended from Borderers) suggests that genetic pacification in that group may be less than in Germans, for example. Albanians would be another likely group whose pacific selective pressure began much later in time.
Yes, that's an excellent example. There seems to be a general tendency for men to be less pacified in highland regions, probably (as you point out) because such regions are less easily brought under State control.
Such men are notably common in the “martial races” who have supplied so many recruits for military service—the Gurkhas and Sikhs of the Himalayas, the Pashtuns of the Northwest Frontier, the Chechens of the Caucasus, the Berbers of the Atlas, the Highland Scots, and so on. Living in highland regions, they have experienced the State monopoly on violence only in recent times.
Isn’t this the problem with your thesis? In addition to the Scottish Highlands, consider some of the remote regions of Finland or Norway.
And yet when the Danish government compiles its crime statistics it’s not recently civilised Nordics who have the highest rates of crime but people from places with a long tradition of civilisation and a state monopoly of violence like Iraq and Syria for example.
The English people are likewise "recently civilized." In the late Middle Ages, their homicide rate was between 20 and 40 homicides per 100,000. How high was it in Scandinavia?
"Fairly good data enable us to estimate mid-16th-century homicide rates (to between 10 and 15 per 100,000). Data from the earlier centuries, documents from the standardized process for homicides, and occasional other mentions are at first sight not promising, but can be treated with advanced statistical methods. With these, the homicide rates for the region and period in question can be estimated to between 8 and 13 per 100,000 for the part of Norway that they cover: southern rural Norway." (Kadane & Næshagen, 2014)
So the decline in the homicide rate was even more dramatic in England than in Scandinavia. From 20-40 homicides per 100,000, it fell to 0.5-1 per 100,000 in the mid-twentieth century.
Such a dramatic decline, whether in England or Scandinavia, can be explained by the equally dramatic increase in the execution rate. This "war on murder" was made possible by an alliance between the State and the Church, and this alliance was just as strong in Scandinavia as it was in England. Once people became indoctrinated in the belief that murder is evil, they became willing participants in the process of finding, prosecuting, and executing murderers.
You cite the example of Iraq and Syria. These are regions where the State-Church alliance collapsed with the Arab conquests of the 7th century. This point is discussed by Ibn Khaldun in the Muqaddimah:
"Furthermore, (the Arabs) are not concerned with laws. (They are not concerned) to deter people from misdeeds or to protect some against the others. They care only for the property that they might take away from people through looting and imposts. When they have obtained that, they have no interest in anything further, such as taking care of (people), looking after their interests, or forcing them not to commit misdeeds." Muqaddimah II. 25.40
Sources:
Kadane, J. B., & Næshagen, F. L. (2014). Homicide rates in rural southern Norway 1300–1569. Scandinavian Journal of History, 39(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2014.882270
Rosenthal, F., Dawood, N.Y.D. (1969). The Muqaddimah: an introduction to history; in three volumes. Vol. 1. Princeton University Press.
Mountains are the quintessential refugia from government control. The British Borderers were, however, an outlier from strictly elevational causation because they were pastoral societies which were motivated both by their own raiding "business" across the national frontier and by their royalty's use of them for low-intensity international warfare.
"Medieval times - most people fail to develop mentally beyond the stage of preoperational thinking."
No, the issue is not the stage of preoperational thinking, but the stage of preformal thinking. The people of the European Middle Ages were at the concrete-operational stage, i.e. above preoperative thinking; but they had not yet reached the stage of formal-operative thinking.
A good study of executing enemies in the micro, and its effect on the rise of Western Civ. A macro study could, perhaps, be done on the fall of Western Civ being the result of no longer killing our enemies (since August, 1945), but in the absurdity of limited “war,” a contradiction in terms. Charlemagne built Western Europe in part by his annual war on the Saxons. Rome erased Carthage in its entirety.
The hotspots in the world today - the obstacles to peace - all are in areas where too much concern about collateral damage stopped us from killing our enemies. See Israel v Gaza today.
I am a pacifist, especially in the context of modern warfare. Wars are no longer fought to defend families and communities. They are fought to advance the geopolitical interests of global elites.
In the case of the Gaza "Operation," this is not a war with an unfortunately high level of civilian casualties. The civilians are the main target. This is mass murder.
Interesting article. I love how you add a bibliography with hypertext links at the bottom. This is very useful.
Richard Wrangham’s hypothesis that teams of beta males systematically killing off alpha males is what made us Homo sapiens is perhaps the most dramatic “selective killing driving evolution” argument.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1713611115
"communally approved killings of group members emerged in the Pleistocene as a cultural adaptation for suppressing domineering bullies and norm violators"
I'm not sure about that timing.
The problem is that in reducing the propensity for violence, the ability to mount vigorous self-defence is also hindered. No wonder Western societies are being overrun by aggressors from less pacified cultures. Sadly, pacification may be the proverbial self-cleaning oven.
Dr. Frost, your very interesting proposed project regarding genetic pacification could be enhanced by considering the temporal variation in the onset of the State monopoly on violence as a function of geography. The Scottish-English Border region came under the full weight of the justice system approximately 600 years later than, say, Wessex. My personal experience in the American South with descendants of Scots-Irish immigrants (Ulstermen themselves descended from Borderers) suggests that genetic pacification in that group may be less than in Germans, for example. Albanians would be another likely group whose pacific selective pressure began much later in time.
Yes, that's an excellent example. There seems to be a general tendency for men to be less pacified in highland regions, probably (as you point out) because such regions are less easily brought under State control.
Such men are notably common in the “martial races” who have supplied so many recruits for military service—the Gurkhas and Sikhs of the Himalayas, the Pashtuns of the Northwest Frontier, the Chechens of the Caucasus, the Berbers of the Atlas, the Highland Scots, and so on. Living in highland regions, they have experienced the State monopoly on violence only in recent times.
Isn’t this the problem with your thesis? In addition to the Scottish Highlands, consider some of the remote regions of Finland or Norway.
And yet when the Danish government compiles its crime statistics it’s not recently civilised Nordics who have the highest rates of crime but people from places with a long tradition of civilisation and a state monopoly of violence like Iraq and Syria for example.
The English people are likewise "recently civilized." In the late Middle Ages, their homicide rate was between 20 and 40 homicides per 100,000. How high was it in Scandinavia?
"Fairly good data enable us to estimate mid-16th-century homicide rates (to between 10 and 15 per 100,000). Data from the earlier centuries, documents from the standardized process for homicides, and occasional other mentions are at first sight not promising, but can be treated with advanced statistical methods. With these, the homicide rates for the region and period in question can be estimated to between 8 and 13 per 100,000 for the part of Norway that they cover: southern rural Norway." (Kadane & Næshagen, 2014)
So the decline in the homicide rate was even more dramatic in England than in Scandinavia. From 20-40 homicides per 100,000, it fell to 0.5-1 per 100,000 in the mid-twentieth century.
Such a dramatic decline, whether in England or Scandinavia, can be explained by the equally dramatic increase in the execution rate. This "war on murder" was made possible by an alliance between the State and the Church, and this alliance was just as strong in Scandinavia as it was in England. Once people became indoctrinated in the belief that murder is evil, they became willing participants in the process of finding, prosecuting, and executing murderers.
You cite the example of Iraq and Syria. These are regions where the State-Church alliance collapsed with the Arab conquests of the 7th century. This point is discussed by Ibn Khaldun in the Muqaddimah:
"Furthermore, (the Arabs) are not concerned with laws. (They are not concerned) to deter people from misdeeds or to protect some against the others. They care only for the property that they might take away from people through looting and imposts. When they have obtained that, they have no interest in anything further, such as taking care of (people), looking after their interests, or forcing them not to commit misdeeds." Muqaddimah II. 25.40
Sources:
Kadane, J. B., & Næshagen, F. L. (2014). Homicide rates in rural southern Norway 1300–1569. Scandinavian Journal of History, 39(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2014.882270
Rosenthal, F., Dawood, N.Y.D. (1969). The Muqaddimah: an introduction to history; in three volumes. Vol. 1. Princeton University Press.
Mountains are the quintessential refugia from government control. The British Borderers were, however, an outlier from strictly elevational causation because they were pastoral societies which were motivated both by their own raiding "business" across the national frontier and by their royalty's use of them for low-intensity international warfare.
Would war also influence the mortality of violent phenotypes?
"Medieval times - most people fail to develop mentally beyond the stage of preoperational thinking."
No, the issue is not the stage of preoperational thinking, but the stage of preformal thinking. The people of the European Middle Ages were at the concrete-operational stage, i.e. above preoperative thinking; but they had not yet reached the stage of formal-operative thinking.
A good study of executing enemies in the micro, and its effect on the rise of Western Civ. A macro study could, perhaps, be done on the fall of Western Civ being the result of no longer killing our enemies (since August, 1945), but in the absurdity of limited “war,” a contradiction in terms. Charlemagne built Western Europe in part by his annual war on the Saxons. Rome erased Carthage in its entirety.
The hotspots in the world today - the obstacles to peace - all are in areas where too much concern about collateral damage stopped us from killing our enemies. See Israel v Gaza today.
I am a pacifist, especially in the context of modern warfare. Wars are no longer fought to defend families and communities. They are fought to advance the geopolitical interests of global elites.
In the case of the Gaza "Operation," this is not a war with an unfortunately high level of civilian casualties. The civilians are the main target. This is mass murder.