Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP): Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Homicide in the Context of Killing (USP) (Quelltext anzeigen)

Version vom 21. April 2018, 14:19 Uhr

733 Bytes hinzugefügt , 14:19, 21. Apr. 2018

→‎The Anthropology of Homicide

Tiao

Bürokraten, Administratoren

31.738

Bearbeitungen

@@ Zeile 45: / Zeile 45: @@
 == The Anthropology of Homicide ==
+Until recently, there was the idea (Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, 1966, that inter-specific killing occurs, but not intra-specific killing. Within a species, aggression is ritualized. Killing and warfare only occur in humans. That is certainly not true. Today we believe we know the following: Animal violence is usually interspecific: The predators practice offensive violence, whereas their victims practice defensive violence to prevent being eaten. Intraspecific competition is usually ritualized and related to fight for access to food, water, and sex. On the other hand, intra-specific killings are not as rare as once believed.
-. The male human animal is a schizophrenic killer. He likes to think of himself as a peaceful being, but indulges in the extermination of living organisms - including of his own species.
+. '''Humans do indulge in intra-specific violence, but they are neither the only ones to practice intra-specific violence and killings, nor are they the worst ones (the worst one with 20 out of every 100 deaths by intra-specific violence is the meerkat).'''
+. '''The male human animal is a schizophrenic killer.''' He likes to think of himself as a peaceful being, but indulges in the extermination of living organisms - including of his own species.
 *Georgiev (2013): Humans are a highly aggressive species in comparison to other animals, probably as a result of an unusually high benefit-to-cost ratio for intra-specific aggression. This conclusion is supported by frequent and widespread occurrence of male-male coalitionary killing and by male-female sexual coercion. Sex differences in violent aggression in humans and other species probably evolved by sexual selection and reflect different optimal competitive strategies for males and females.
-. While the meerkat is by far the worst intra-specific killer, the human animal also belongs to that group of animals whose evolution profited from intra-specific killings.
+. '''Genocide is not foreign to the human species'''. It can be seen as specific kind of coalitionary intergroup aggression that occurs when attackers are able to kill at high gain and low cost to themselves. Alexander Georgiev: "Consider, for example, the situation of the European colonial armies that first encountered the local populations in America, Africa, Asia, or Australia. The benefits of using violent aggression against the indigenous populations were enormous: taking away their land, their possessions, and even their people to use as slaves. The costs of the colonists’ aggression were minimal: armed with rifles, they could quickly kill large numbers of indigenous individuals at little or no physical risk to themselves. Moreover, the indigenous populations looked different and spoke a different language; it must have been quite easy for the colonists to find a psychological, political, historical, or religious justification for their violence, without suffering any consequences. These unusually high benefit/cost ratios for violent aggression against people from other countries are rare or nonexistent in animals, which may explain why large-scale aggression toward conspecifics is absent in animals, with the possible exception of chimpanzees and some species of ants and termites that stage wars against other colonies, destroying or taking away their resources and enslaving the workers."
-. Genocide is not foreign to the human species. It can be seen as specific kind of coalitionary intergroup aggression that occurs when attackers are able to kill at high gain and low cost to themselves. Alexander Georgiev: "Consider, for example, the situation of the European colonial armies that first encountered the local populations in America, Africa, Asia, or Australia. The benefits of using violent aggression against the indigenous populations were enormous: taking away their land, their possessions, and even their people to use as slaves. The costs of the colonists’ aggression were minimal: armed with rifles, they could quickly kill large numbers of indigenous individuals at little or no physical risk to themselves. Moreover, the indigenous populations looked different and spoke a different language; it must have been quite easy for the colonists to find a psychological, political, historical, or religious justification for their violence, without suffering any consequences. These unusually high benefit/cost ratios for violent aggression against people from other countries are rare or nonexistent in animals, which may explain why large-scale aggression toward conspecifics is absent in animals, with the possible exception of chimpanzees and some species of ants and termites that stage wars against other colonies, destroying or taking away their resources and enslaving the workers."
 '''An evolutionary perspective on killing'''