on 3/28/00 7:22 PM, frank scott at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Very interesting, and a welcome change in focus...one quick contention:
> why would language have to be developed in order to plan killing/war?
> Isn't it just as likely that it developed to plan not killing/peace? Or
> escape or defense from killers-predators? Why assume the worst? Even of
> the plan didn't work? At that  time? Why not now?
Frank:

Well, I think the answer would be (subjunctive mood here because I'm not an
authority) first, the close historical correspondence between the rapid
expansion of homo sapiens' frontal lobe (language center and all that) and
our extermination of the Neanderthals; and second, the lack of intrinsic
need to develop language to foster peace-loving strategies.

It's possible that Konrad Lorenz is long-discredited, but back in the 70s
when I read "On Aggression," he argued that homicidal intraspecies
aggression is counter-evolutionary, because although killing a fellow member
of one's species may benefit you in any number of ways, it also opens YOU to
the risk of being killed by HIM (masculine gender not out of place here, I
think we can agree), or seriously injured, which doesn't do you any genetic
good at all. You can't pass on your genes if you are rotting flesh. So the
best aggressive strategy is a minimal one of threat and counterthreat
followed by face-saving retreat. This distributes a species widely over the
available habitat, thus allowing all to pursue their own procreation without
unnecesssary competition. He points to widespread adoption of precisely this
behavior throughout the animal kingdom, and the corresponding near-absence
of homicidal aggression in species other than our own, with the exception of
rats, appropriately enough. But even rats only engage in mass intraspecies
slaughter under conditions of overcrowding. I suspect "The Population Bomb"
was lurking in the shadows of Lorenz's book, and the latter's popularity at
the time.

At any rate, if other animals quite naturally discover, without benefit of
language, the evolutionary advantages of not killing their own kind, then
one might argue there would be no need for humans to go to all the trouble
of developing language for that purpose either. Conversely, if for some
reason the human practice of war yielded some unique advantages that
outweighted the Lorenzian disadvantages, then language might be the
explanation. (And let's face it: despite, or perhaps because of, our
homicidal natures, homo sapiens the most successful example of species
adaptation in natural history, cockroach possibly excepted. We live
everywhere, and completely dominate all other species.) For example, being
able to band together in armies minimizes the risk of individual death while
maximizing the chance of vanquishing the adversary, but only insofar as the
individual knows who's friend or foe. Language would certainly help there.
So would it in planning war strategies, especially if it minimized the risk
to the individual warrior. (The objection immediately arises that, at least
in warfare as we know it, generals deliberately sacrifice soldiers as part
of strategy; see Kubrick's Paths of Glory. So why would those sacrificial
lambs put up with it? A question for another day.)

I will admit that much of the last paragraph is speculative on my part, but
it makes sense to me. It may perhaps be grounded in the literature. I'm sure
it's been addressed, whether confirmed or not, I don't know. Does anyone?

--
Tresy Kilbourne
Seattle WA