GENIUS FORUMS

Sure some people rank hitler as the first leader to the 1st genocide. They also say that the 21st century was the 1st to have one. I disagree. We see genocide throughout history and even in the bible. Queen isabella kills thousands of muslims after taking control over spain again and reastablishing christianity. Even though they had made huge strides in science. Even though when a muslim country took over a non-muslim country they never killed civilians or surrenderd soldiers.
My question is
Do you think that genocide is in human blood and will continue happening till the end of mankind? Who or what religion is most attributed with genocide?

My answere should be quite easy to guess. ;)

Do you think that genocide is in human blood and will continue happening till the end of mankind?

In a manner yes. Over 500 million years, I think we (and our pre-human forms) have developed instinctive type memes stored in our DNA that cause us to distrust outsiders to our particular group.

If you didn't fight outsiders they would avail themselves of your food resources, make you into slaves, steal or impregnate your females, or by accident kill your whole group because your group has a lack of resistance to some bug. The latter is the cause of far more human "wholesale" deaths than normal human fighting.

It will take many generations to alter this in our genes, and it will only be those communities that are sufficiently well off materially who will be capable of changing - creating a disparity between the well-off and others that will reinforce distrust for even longer.

Evan Tucker wrote:

Who or what religion is most attributed with genocide?

I would say Islam and Christianity. Not too many genocides have occurred over Taoism and Buddism.

Taoism has quotes like:

“Be like water; the soft force will overcome the hard force”

I would suspect that if I was a deluded overly emotional male looking for heroism it would be fairly difficult to go on a murderous rampage with this idea.

However Islam has quotes like:

“destroy thee enemy of Allah and thou shall be rewarded with heavenly riches and a spot will be saved for you next to Allah’s throne.” – not an exact quote.

Now this is more appealing if I’m incredibly deluded, basically Allah is hooking me up in the afterlife and all I have to do is destroy his enemies. Idea's like this are the ingredients for disaster.

It appears many religious writings are incredibly vulgar because they were written by vulgar people.

but the koran also states that you should never kill surrenderd soldiers or civilians period. This action of mass murder by islam is totaly random and new. This action is familiar with christians since the dawn of christianity.

Jamesh wrote:

If you didn't fight outsiders they would avail themselves of your food resources, make you into slaves, steal or impregnate your females, or by accident kill your whole group because your group has a lack of resistance to some bug.

So why don't birds have bird wars? Wolves might fight between packs if territory gets tight, but squirrels don't tend to have big battles (one squirrel might get another squirrel mad by snagging another's food, but even then they don't kill, they just try to get the food back).

Humans are a different species in many ways.

Chimpanzees are known to band together into gangs and fight each other in territorial wars.

-

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Jamesh wrote:

If you didn't fight outsiders they would avail themselves of your food resources, make you into slaves, steal or impregnate your females, or by accident kill your whole group because your group has a lack of resistance to some bug.

So why don't birds have bird wars? Wolves might fight between packs if territory gets tight, but squirrels don't tend to have big battles (one squirrel might get another squirrel mad by snagging another's food, but even then they don't kill, they just try to get the food back).

Humans are a different species in many ways.

Male lions kill every cub not theirs when they come into a new pride. Animal barbarism is so extreme they cannot build the social constructs it takes for what we might call "genocide".

People are better than other lower animal species.

Killing offspring is a different matter. Many animals kill any offspring that is a little different. I once saw a mother duck trying to drown one of her ducklings - but only one of them. Every time it surfaced and tried to catch back up with the rest, the mother would swim around and try to drown it again.

The males of many species seem to think that their offspring are food. Reptilian mothers seem to make the same judgement.

I think that a lot more humans would kill their offspring if there were not laws against that, so I don't think that makes humans better, just a little more regulated.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Killing offspring is a different matter. Many animals kill any offspring that is a little different. I once saw a mother duck trying to drown one of her ducklings - but only one of them. Every time it surfaced and tried to catch back up with the rest, the mother would swim around and try to drown it again.

The males of many species seem to think that their offspring are food. Reptilian mothers seem to make the same judgement.

I think that a lot more humans would kill their offspring if there were not laws against that, so I don't think that makes humans better, just a little more regulated.

Oh. I see. Killing offspring is ok because other animals do it. And you are JUST SURE more people would kill their children if there weren't laws against it. It's amazing how far you will stretch to badmouth humanity. Really. Truly amazing. What's wrong with you exactly?

Evan Tucker wrote:Sure some people rank hitler as the first leader to the 1st genocide. They also say that the 21st century was the 1st to have one. I disagree. We see genocide throughout history and even in the bible. Queen isabella kills thousands of muslims after taking control over spain again and reastablishing christianity. Even though they had made huge strides in science. Even though when a muslim country took over a non-muslim country they never killed civilians or surrenderd soldiers.
My question is
Do you think that genocide is in human blood and will continue happening till the end of mankind? Who or what religion is most attributed with genocide?

My answere should be quite easy to guess. ;)

What you seem to be doing is whitewashing Islam in comparison to Christianity, but the real question lies in understanding the basic mentality of the human race, which is capable of creating conceptual moralities according to self-centered individual or group interests. Even within a group, an individual creates his own circle of morality, and will self-justify his action even if it goes beyond the circle of his group moralities.

Each individual creates his own circle of morality, and thinks that his reasoning makes his morality, morality.

Animals don’t kill without a ‘reason’ so to speak, nor do humans, and as humans, we can logically deduce that. Generally, it is a reaction to a perceived threat/need according to an individual or a group, irrelevant of it being perceived instinctually or otherwise.

millipodium wrote: Killing offspring is ok because other animals do it.

I didn't say it was okay, I just noted that it's something humans have in common with other animals.

millipodium wrote: What's wrong with you exactly?

I'm a realist.

No, i think that genocide is an cowardly act!..

Killing people who cause no danger to you, with the motive that they are a danger to you isn't couragous or even neccessary.

Will genocide always be aroud?
Don't know, cannot see the future.. but i do know that learned hate will bring genocide.
example, parents teaching their children that one race is bad!

And notice that genocide always happens after a period of economical breakdown or set back.

My question:
Is lack of money the begin of all evil?

Religion
I think of religion, more in ways of guidelines for living your life. And none religion so far is destructive, people who misunderstand it are destructive. One country is it really worth the life of an innocent human being??

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

millipodium wrote: Killing offspring is ok because other animals do it.

I didn't say it was okay, I just noted that it's something humans have in common with other animals.

millipodium wrote: What's wrong with you exactly?

I'm a realist.

The barbarity of animals far exceeds that of man.

You're not a realist, you're a misanthrope.

Faca wrote:One country is it really worth the life of an innocent human being??

There is no need to resort to violence for the sake of a country, a religion, or any of the billions of stupid reasons people kill each other (the billions of stupid reasons include insults, greed, and narrow-minded unwillingness to let others think what they want).

Truth, logic, rationality, open-mindedness, even-temperedness, a willingness to communicate and a willingness to do the best of one's ability to contribute are all that is necessary.

I think this thread is more about wondering if it is possible to get people to behave like that.
****************added***********

Funny thing is that countries and religions go to war killing others because that is how they think they can get others to behave more rationally.

Truth, logic, rationality, open-mindedness, even-temperedness, a willingness to communicate and a willingness to do the best of one's ability to contribute are all that is necessary.

What if the best is, to defend you country.. even if you die. So that you protect your offspring.

But then again, you could also have left.. to start your life some place else with you family. Cause losing your life for your country, doesn't help your own family.

Which i believe, is that we put too much importance on countries (patriots)..

Like in the early ages, where there were only small comunitites.. and families.

Faca wrote:

Truth, logic, rationality, open-mindedness, even-temperedness, a willingness to communicate and a willingness to do the best of one's ability to contribute are all that is necessary.

What if the best is, to defend you country.. even if you die. So that you protect your offspring.

But then again, you could also have left.. to start your life some place else with you family. Cause losing your life for your country, doesn't help your own family.

Which i believe, is that we put too much importance on countries (patriots)..

Like in the early ages, where there were only small comunitites.. and families.

So you're definitely not an internationalist. That's all i need to hear. You're ok in my book.

Internationalists forget that they actually have a pony in the race.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Truth, logic, rationality, open-mindedness, even-temperedness, a willingness to communicate and a willingness to do the best of one's ability to contribute are all that is necessary.

Oh is that all? WHy didn't you say so? :rolleyes: