[pdpi]

I think you missed a very important detail: Everything you wrote talks in terms of groups. There's a cutoff level of aggression past which individuals wouldn't be able to function as a group.

Evolution doesn't work in terms of positively selecting the "strong", it works by selecting out the "weak". In this case, the point isn't that we positively selected the most peaceful. Instead, we selected out those so violent they wouldn't even be able to organise into a tribe.

[thaumasiotes]

> Evolution doesn't work in terms of positively selecting the "strong", it works by selecting out the "weak".

This is incorrect. Evolution works by a differential in the rate of reproduction. If weak couples have three kids (who survive and reproduce in turn) each, while strong couples have seven, then there is a strong selective pressure on "strength" and the population will grow stronger and stronger over time, but nobody's getting selected out. Weaks are an ever dwindling share of the population, but in absolute terms their numbers are constantly growing.

And this kind of thing is common, as with selection for higher fertility and lower age of first reproduction in the New World.

[porpoisely]

But "tribalism" predates humans. Living in groups is a trait that humans inherited, not something we developed.

Now we may have refined it and grown it to form tribe of tribes, but the point still stands.

When it comes to humans, we have to talk in terms of groups because that's the human experience. Humans don't exist outside of a group. Humans never have existed outside of a group. The "group" is what we inherited from our non-human ancestors.

Also, my point isn't that we selected the most peaceful. It's that female selection isn't the drive force behind human "evolution" or the human "taming". Humans were tamed through sheer brutality and concentrated power along with bread and circuses.

Take away the bread and circuses and loosen the concentration of power and I doubt we'd be as tame as we are now.

[simonh]

Domesticated isn’t the same thing as non-violent or even ‘tame’ as the term is usually used. It doesn’t even mean civilised. Rottweilers are domesticated. A small pet dog ate half the face off its owner, while she was alive, in France when she collapsed at home and it got hungry, yet it was a normal domestic pet dog.

I would agree that communal group living as seen in many primates is a precursor to the sort of domestication we’re talking about here. It’s a first step on a long road.

Yes Genghis Khan was violent and brutal, but he was also an inspiring leader that built alliances and administered a vast empire. He ate his meals using utensils, at regular times of the day, was able to be cordial and open minded about strangers.

He was first and foremost extremely disciplined and self-controlled. He was able to be taught and trained as a child, learn rules and commands and was able to control his immediate biological needs and desires especially when under external discipline.

Even that isn’t the whole story though. Cows and pigs are domesticated and display all the adaptive characteristics that come with it.

[porpoisely]

I didn't say domestication was the same as non-violent or "tame" or civilized. I didn't even mention the word.

My point is that humans were tamed through brutality and force and bread and circuses. And just like you little dog, when we run out of bread and circuses or an authority, we are capable of being violent again.

It seems like you want to disagree with me but everything you wrote agrees with me so I'm not sure how to respond.