Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (754)	3/1/2002 11:08:03 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I think you may be underrating the desperate and compelling need of early human social groups to control and direct male aggression - to prevent the adult males within the pack from turning on each other. Since the adult males were the strongest members of the pack, physical compulsion would not work. Some other device was needed. Of course this is all speculation, but it is an interesting subject on which to speculate. Most primate social groups have a single dominant male, who drives out all other adult males until he in turn is driven out by some stronger male. The survival value of having a pack with several adult males is clear, especially where the acquisition and defence of prime hunting/gathering territories is concerned. But how did they control the tendency toward internal conflict? Morality, in my mind, is the answer, and I submit that it would have been a far more pressing and immediate need than the need to explain and to perceive patterns. I have just finished repairing the plumbing, ending a temporary flooding episode, and with some astonishment I swear by the Gods of pipe wrenches and teflon tape that it leaketh not! If I were not by nature a skeptic, I would classify this as a miracle. Now I can go back to work.