Is genocide a normal part of human evolution?

Question

After doing a lot of reading into prehistoric and historic 'population replacements', it seems that all through human history as soon as one group gets a genetic or technological edge over it's neighbours, it just expands and wipes them out.

We are now the only hominid group left. Several modern human populations have been totalled, and several others are on the way out. Is this evil or just evolution?

Answer 1

evolution says only the most fit survive, so well the rest of us (the majority who are not 'superior') are all no good I guess.

glad I'm not evolutionist.

Answer 2

evolution is what happens when it's controlled by mother nature, whatever you want to call it. Surely in the modern day, with our advances in everything, including intelligence, empathy, awareness and most of all conscience shouldn't we be able to sort out issues without the physical force of genocide?

Answer 3

Yes, it is a part of human evolution....I can say 'unfortunately', but that wouldn't change it...one iota.

Evil? Only by human terms....by Nature's terms...natural as the wolf trying to exterminte foxes...because they're a natural enemy of foxes.

We are all of the animals.

Answer 4

Evolution is objective, it can't be evil.

Answer 5

It can be evolutionary and evil. Do not confuse a description of what may be with a presciption of what ought to be.

Aside from that, in group/out group psychology does seem to be an evolved trait of humans. And trade between these groups has always shown ameliorating qualities.

Between different species, though? I would think anything goes.

Answer 6

The ugly ones killing the beautiful ones and taking their wives?

Answer 7

Cause we are social beings, we know that our survival depends on the survival of others.  This would serve us well but ... we also have knowledge that other beings could cause us harm and thus must be eliminated. Now that is the plan under the old brain but we have a systems check that is a secondary thought which is reason.  Now if reason agrees with the quick response brain then it is an all systems green light for elimination. There is nothing you can do about the thinking of the old brain, it has been around for too long and is standard equipment but the system check can be adjusted by education and experience.

Answer 8

The term "genocide" (especially the -cide part) implies an intentional, probably malicious act. I would argue first that to say genocide is part of normal evolution amounts to grandstanding.

Aside from that, it's perfectly natural for one group to push out another group when they move in. Resources are always finite, and it is the imperative of all species to be fruitful and prosper, to so speak. Bacteria would have no problem committing genocide on humans, their only real obstacle to that being our complicated defense mechanisms against them.

I don't know what happened 100,000 years ago, or 40,000 years ago, and there's not enough evidence to definitively say that modern humans wiped out other hominid species. Furthermore, just because we are the only guys left doesn't mean we achieved that violently. It's not like the triops went out and murdered all the trilobites. Things just didn't work out so well for the trilobites, and perhaps the Neanderthals too.

Finally, humans are highly cognitive creatures, and we are very good examining past behaviors, or present patterns, and making decisions about those things. Personally, I will say that modern genocide is evil, and so are many of the historical replacements I know about. Evil and wrong. But as an anthropologist, that's not an entirely useful statement to make. I think it's more accurate to say that expansions of that nature are opportunistic, and in the long view of history (especially when you look at things like the destruction of the Native Americans), they can be deemed shortsighted and unnecessary, even tragic.

If genocide, as you say, is a fundamental facet of human nature, it's certainly not the only one. Our cultural adaptability and ability to rationalize and examine our own actions is, as far as I know, unparalleled.

Answer 9

Let's go back to the basics for a moment:

*  We are not capable of doing anything unnatural (nature is what allows us to do whatever we do).

* Evolution is a natural process (Since all culture is by definition natural, it is ideological to distinguish between culture and nature)

* Not all activities have evolutionary significance.  

So, by definition, genocide is natural (this has nothing to do with whether or not it is good, evolutionarily significant, etc).  What intraspecies genocide tends to do is to narrow the gene pool - which is generally not really beneficial from the perspective of natural selection. However, this does not necessarily have anything to do with evolution since it is something that occurs within a species, not at the level of the species.

Interspecies competition leading to extinction simply means that one species is selected against and removed - this is essentially how most selection works (the process is largely negative, since there is no such thing as selective pressure which causes directional change in species) and again, by definition, it is natural.

Answer 10

That is very possible & especially if they competed for scarce resources.  As long as the groups benefitted each other & were close to the same power, they'd likely coexist, but should one have something the other wanted, it is likely they'd take it, if they had a likely chance of success.

I'd call it evolution that favored the most aggressive & well organized societies.  Chimps wage war on other groups of chimps & I suspect that goes all the way back to the common ancestor.

I've included some articles on Chimp wars & what appears to be a form of genocide over dwindling resources.

http://www.rainforestrelief.org/document...

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/...

Answer 11

Why is it that people think that everything humans do is somehow part of their 'evolution?'

Evolution is a gradual process that takes thousands or millions of years. Genocide is just what describes the act of individual organisms, not populations over long spans of time.

Your question is similar to asking, "Is the invention of the light bulb part of human evolution?" Well, of course not.

Competition among groups is the way things are in nature, and it was no different for our ancestors. Our ancestors competed with one another, and the winners may have killed the losers. That's not genocide, that's competition, or war, or whatever. Genocide is a relatively recent human invention.