Picking your Battles

[The Sociologist]

Every human has a built in aversion to killing which can only be overcome by a)extreme anger, b)mental disbalance, c)special training (like in the Vietnam war, which will scar them forever) or d)the belief that those they kill are not human.

I am not aware of any such thing. It is almost the reverse. We know now that chimpanzees on occasion make "war", the only other animal species to do so, which places the antecedents back 6-12 million years or so. It is likely we evolved this capacity for reasons of territoriality in the context of the complex fission-fusion groupings involved.

In any case, if humans had a true psychological aversion to killing, why would they spend most of their free time watching the sorts of TV and movies they do?

[sem]

I'd be more inclined to say something along the lines of 'the only other mammalian species known to do so' Other animal species, especially the social insects could be said to make war.

On the other hand we also know that chimpanzees have more empathy than they were once credited with. Have there been any studies to check whether there are any pacifist chimpanzees. When the groups do go to war do they all take part in the fighting to the same extent, or are there many who merely make aggressive displays (analogous to the reports that most soldiers shoot high, rather than actually aiming at people on the other side)?

The fact that many of us may watch the kind of TV shows and movies that we do does not necessarily indicate that we'd all be equally committed, let alone equally effective in a real combat situation.

[The Sociologist]

On the other hand we also know that chimpanzees have more empathy than they were once credited with. Have there been any studies to check whether there are any pacifist chimpanzees.

Well, an entire subspecies of chimpanzees are pacifist, namely bonobos.

When the groups do go to war do they all take part in the fighting to the same extent, or are there many who merely make aggressive displays (analogous to the reports that most soldiers shoot high, rather than actually aiming at people on the other side)?

I don't know what you've been reading, but it's not so hot. I've been in a war, and as a conscript too. That is to say, rather unwillingly. Nonetheless, when people are shooting at you you shoot back. What I'm talking about is that a band of chimpanzees will take a decision to "ethnically cleanse" another group and then conduct a war to that aim over a considerable period of time and involving what obviously constitutes deliberate planning. The other group, if they lose, may be forced out or exterminated.

The fact that many of us may watch the kind of TV shows and movies that we do does not necessarily indicate that we'd all be equally committed, let alone equally effective in a real combat situation.

My point is that the fact we can and do watch such material indicates there is no built-in aversion. There may be enculturated or socialized aversion, but that is not the same thing.

The whole point is that spawning characters with "inbuilt aversions" is not supported by the arguments made.

[SekoETC]

People are evil. People do not kill because they have been taught it's bad when they were kids. And also because usually there's a very high chance of getting caught and being punished.

[sem]

I don't know what you've been reading, but it's not so hot.

Hmm. After a morning's browsing it looks as if I was relying on a vague memory of 'Men Against Fire'. I'd missed the debunking of that work in 1988. Apologies.

[Zanthos]

. All this friendliness and cooperation and newspawns going on and on about OOC concepts like 'freedom of speech' just isn't natural.

Personally, only one of my characters supports a democracy of some kind. Two ferverently support governments which many newspawns come to hate when they dont read the posted laws, and the rest are travelers or apathetic. I personally feel that the best run city I have seen has a totalitarian government.

And yes, I hate it when someone spawns and says "hi, I am a newspawn, I want to settle down here and build a cottage and set up a repair shop or become a cook" when we already have a community apartment building and a repair man and a bakery maned by a cook -_-

[Sicofonte]

Marian, I think freedom of speech is not a OOC concept. If it is, then, war is a OOC concept too.

But I agree with you, I don't like newspawna that come up to live full of over-elaborated political ideas -shrugs-

About the aversion to kill, most of my chars are against the murder, but it is not a built-in instinct, but a reasoned behaviour.
Some of my chars think that dead people doesn't work, so it's better to let them live in order to get some help from them (egoistic reason).
Others know that dead people doesn't tend to talk, so to kill them would mean a more bore place (not so egoistic reason).
And some of my chars think that "Don't do to others what you don't want that other do to you" (not altruistic, but not egoistic).


And people is not just evil. We are egoists and/or stupids, but not wicked in a genuine way.

[Duckers]

Well said, Sicofonte.

[Marian]

Marian, I think freedom of speech is not a OOC concept.

I'm not sure about that...how long has free speech actually been considered a right that people are born with? And even now it's not everywhere. For most of human history over most of the world I'm sure it was kind of a given that you could get killed for talking bad about the king, and lets not even mention insulting him right to his face...

And obviously that doesn't go over to well in a lot of Cantr towns either, so if a newspawn pops up with strong beliefs about that I think it's more the player talking then anything.

[formerly known as hf]

Freedom of speech as an inalienable right for all humans has existed as a firm concept for no more than 150 years, and only been intermittently practised in some areas for the past 20 years, tops.

[Phalynx]

Freedom of speech as an inalienable right for all humans has existed as a firm concept for no more than 150 years, and only been intermittently practised in some areas for the past 20 years, tops.

And disappearing fast!

[Nalaris]

Every child seems to come with a built in motive for 'right' and 'wrong', fairness, etc., for example, if babies hear a recording of other babies crying, they will start crying. Up until recently everyone thought that it was because of the racket, but recordings of the babies own crying don't seem to bother him/her as much.

Kids also seem to be really concerned about what's 'fair'. This is just my experience, of course. Kids learn fast, however. It could be that they just picked this idea up from society. It could also be that the only reason they don't show it in distinctly unfair societies is because they learn not to equally fast.

Nonetheless, my characters start out with some small aversion to killing(but one which is easily overcome if it get's in the way of their goals too much).

[Phalynx]

Take it from one who has kids, it takes them several years to be able to think abstractly beyond their own existance and their own needs. Up to about 4 or 5 they are concerend with only themselves and its a complicated bussiness working out when the appearance of altrusim and caring moves from emulation or manipulation to the real attriubutes one would consider 'good'. Many adults never move into a completely self aware state which also incorporates true empathy for others. This can be summed up in the phrase "Everybody is an I". Sounds simple but you would be amazed how may peope cannot firmly grasp that and it is the root of most psychopathy.

This of course returns us to the same quandry of a character spawning as an adult, with some preferring to think of a blank canvas and others assuming that it would be age appropriate to have formed a few character traits and opinions by the time one reaches 20.

[formerly known as hf]

Yeah, what Phalynx says.
Although I only know from study, not kids of my own...


Right/wrong are learned values, not innate in any form.

[Nosajimiki]

Just because society represses freedom of speech so much doesn't meen it is not an intrinsic quality that we want to speak freely. We are as before said, inheirantly selfish. Just about all other behavior comes about from conditioning. It is selfish to say whatever you want b/c you want your opionions to be heard and considered. If you don't say what you want to say, it is ussally b/c of some conditioning you have recieved against doing such.