How do you solve a problem like a genocide...?!

[MobBoss]

Ah humanity, red in tooth and claw....maybe it's time to evolve beyond settling differences with mass slaughters, no?

We are no where near reaching that stage yet, and to be honest, considering our nature, I am not entirely convinced it is even possible.

 

[Che Guava]

We are no where near reaching that stage yet, and to be honest, considering our nature, I am not entirely convinced it is even possible.

Ah, but in nature, just like in human societies (at least IMHO), the real winners are the ones that make symbiotic relationships, rather than putting themselves in direct competition. Just ask that the billions of bacteria living inside you every day that you never notice

In all seriousness though, most complex systems do best with higher levels of diversity and heterogeniety, and I don't think that human cultural systems are all that different. Removing an entire group of people just creates more homogenity in your society, and while it can make for more peaceful times in the short-term, its a recipe for stagnation in the long term.

 

[MobBoss]

Ah, but in nature, just like in human societies (at least IMHO), the real winners are the ones that make symbiotic relationships, rather than putting themselves in direct competition. Just ask that the billions of bacteria living inside you every day that you never notice

Well, then couldnt one make the arguement that an attempted (but failed) genocide is usually just part of the assimilation process?

In all seriousness though, most complex systems do best with higher levels of diversity and heterogeniety, and I don't think that human cultural systems are all that different. Removing an entire group of people just creates more homogenity in your society, and while it can make for more peaceful times in the short-term, its a recipe for stagnation in the long term.

Well, lets be honest. How many truly successful genocides have there ever been? Not many, because its extremely hard to kill off an entire demograph of people. I think genocide still results in diversity, because invaribly the survivors typically inbreed with the conquerers, thus ensuring that stagnation doesnt happen at the cost of the stronger societies culture.

 

[Ecofarm]

In all seriousness though, most complex systems do best with higher levels of diversity and heterogeniety, and I don't think that human cultural systems are all that different. Removing an entire group of people just creates more homogenity in your society, and while it can make for more peaceful times in the short-term, its a recipe for stagnation in the long term.

I endorse the above statement (see also: my username).

 

[Che Guava]

Well, then couldnt one make the arguement that an attempted (but failed) genocide is usually just part of the assimilation process?

Even a serious attempt, IMHO, is a loss of societal diversity...

Well, lets be honest. How many truly successful genocides have there ever been? Not many, because its extremely hard to kill off an entire demograph of people. I think genocide still results in diversity, because invaribly the survivors typically inbreed with the conquerers, thus ensuring that stagnation doesnt happen at the cost of the stronger societies culture.

By killing, destroying, supressing, etc, you still manage to get rid of a lot of diversity, and that's opportunity lost. Yes, partially completed genocides (lazy murderers! ) probably does result in a more diverse society for the conquerors, but still makes for a net loss if one side is nearly eliminated.

Point being: agression is a way of gaining diversity, but it is by nature clumsy, inefficient, and risky. And frankly, beneath us as a people.

I endorse the above statement (see also: my username).

Good lord, I've gone and agreed with Ecofarm! Must be a full moon....

 

[MobBoss]

Even a serious attempt, IMHO, is a loss of societal diversity...

I think you are confusing societal diversity with genetic diversity. The whole point of one society whacking another is to preserve the stronger society, as a more succesful society.....at least if you think Darwin was correct.

By killing, destroying, supressing, etc, you still manage to get rid of a lot of diversity, and that's opportunity lost.

Do unsuccessful experiments (i.e. the weak) deserve to continue in Darwinism?

Yes, partially completed genocides (lazy murderers! ) probably does result in a more diverse society for the conquerors, but still makes for a net loss if one side is nearly eliminated.

Thanks for confirming what I put forth, but again....not all cultures/societies are equal....some will make it...some wont.

Point being: agression is a way of gaining diversity, but it is by nature clumsy, inefficient, and risky. And frankly, beneath us as a people.

Ah...but ultimately isnt that natures way?

 

[Che Guava]

I think you are confusing societal diversity with genetic diversity. The whole point of one society whacking another is to preserve the stronger society, as a more succesful society.....at least if you think Darwin was correct.

No I agree totally. Genocide is really more about societies clashing. Genetics and 'race' are artificial constructs, and don't really amount to much in the end...

Do unsuccessful experiments (i.e. the weak) deserve to continue in Darwinism?

I think you oversimplify. Yes there are total failures in the great evolutionary experiment, but most of the time, a complete 'defeat' of one member is usually pretty calamatous for all involved. The best outcome of a competition is for one side to dominate, while another adapts to fit into a new niche with the neighbours. In the end, it makes for a more stable, and efficient system.

Thanks for confirming what I put forth, but again....not all cultures/societies are equal....some will make it...some wont.

I don't subscribe to that school of thought. All societies, IMHO, have something positive to offer. Hell, as modern North Americans, we are nothing if not a grab-bag of societal gifts from many sources. Some more isolated societies may not have as much to offer, but still something.

The main point is: living, evolving societies give more than relics of antiquity. Killing off one side completely just because you think they are 'weaker' is depriving yourself of of the full extent of what that culture and society has to offer...

Ah...but ultimately isnt that natures way?

Nature's, not people. There's a reason social darwinism fell out of favour: we're better than that.