Can humans be conditioned to become non-violent and forget how to defend themselves?












1












$begingroup$


Okay, so here's a quick scenario. Humans over the course of time have been selected to breed based on how docile they are. The violent ones are exterminated and all outside sources have been shut out. Could humanity actually forget war and violence?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The violent ones are exterminated... How and by whom?
    $endgroup$
    – nzaman
    5 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can't really force all people to suicide on first sign of violent tendencies, can you?..
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How is poison non-violent?
    $endgroup$
    – Soan
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please specify what your definition of violence is. You mention that they would consider killing-by-poison to be non-violent. Most people I know would consider that to be violent (indeed "murder" is basically always violent in most people's vernacular, regardless of the method). From experience, your precise definition of "violence" will have a substantial effect on what happens when you try to stomp it out.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    BTW, welcome to our site. Yours is a bit of a baptism by fire, but simply generating this much commentary suggests there's a great question here.
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    2 hours ago
















1












$begingroup$


Okay, so here's a quick scenario. Humans over the course of time have been selected to breed based on how docile they are. The violent ones are exterminated and all outside sources have been shut out. Could humanity actually forget war and violence?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The violent ones are exterminated... How and by whom?
    $endgroup$
    – nzaman
    5 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can't really force all people to suicide on first sign of violent tendencies, can you?..
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How is poison non-violent?
    $endgroup$
    – Soan
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please specify what your definition of violence is. You mention that they would consider killing-by-poison to be non-violent. Most people I know would consider that to be violent (indeed "murder" is basically always violent in most people's vernacular, regardless of the method). From experience, your precise definition of "violence" will have a substantial effect on what happens when you try to stomp it out.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    BTW, welcome to our site. Yours is a bit of a baptism by fire, but simply generating this much commentary suggests there's a great question here.
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    2 hours ago














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Okay, so here's a quick scenario. Humans over the course of time have been selected to breed based on how docile they are. The violent ones are exterminated and all outside sources have been shut out. Could humanity actually forget war and violence?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Okay, so here's a quick scenario. Humans over the course of time have been selected to breed based on how docile they are. The violent ones are exterminated and all outside sources have been shut out. Could humanity actually forget war and violence?







science-based warfare evolution psychology behaviour






share|improve this question









New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









Cyn

5,916935




5,916935






New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









Samuel HunterSamuel Hunter

111




111




New contributor




Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Samuel Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The violent ones are exterminated... How and by whom?
    $endgroup$
    – nzaman
    5 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can't really force all people to suicide on first sign of violent tendencies, can you?..
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How is poison non-violent?
    $endgroup$
    – Soan
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please specify what your definition of violence is. You mention that they would consider killing-by-poison to be non-violent. Most people I know would consider that to be violent (indeed "murder" is basically always violent in most people's vernacular, regardless of the method). From experience, your precise definition of "violence" will have a substantial effect on what happens when you try to stomp it out.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    BTW, welcome to our site. Yours is a bit of a baptism by fire, but simply generating this much commentary suggests there's a great question here.
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    2 hours ago














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The violent ones are exterminated... How and by whom?
    $endgroup$
    – nzaman
    5 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    You can't really force all people to suicide on first sign of violent tendencies, can you?..
    $endgroup$
    – Mołot
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How is poison non-violent?
    $endgroup$
    – Soan
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Please specify what your definition of violence is. You mention that they would consider killing-by-poison to be non-violent. Most people I know would consider that to be violent (indeed "murder" is basically always violent in most people's vernacular, regardless of the method). From experience, your precise definition of "violence" will have a substantial effect on what happens when you try to stomp it out.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    BTW, welcome to our site. Yours is a bit of a baptism by fire, but simply generating this much commentary suggests there's a great question here.
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    2 hours ago








3




3




$begingroup$
The violent ones are exterminated... How and by whom?
$endgroup$
– nzaman
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
The violent ones are exterminated... How and by whom?
$endgroup$
– nzaman
5 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
You can't really force all people to suicide on first sign of violent tendencies, can you?..
$endgroup$
– Mołot
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
You can't really force all people to suicide on first sign of violent tendencies, can you?..
$endgroup$
– Mołot
5 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
How is poison non-violent?
$endgroup$
– Soan
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
How is poison non-violent?
$endgroup$
– Soan
5 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Please specify what your definition of violence is. You mention that they would consider killing-by-poison to be non-violent. Most people I know would consider that to be violent (indeed "murder" is basically always violent in most people's vernacular, regardless of the method). From experience, your precise definition of "violence" will have a substantial effect on what happens when you try to stomp it out.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Please specify what your definition of violence is. You mention that they would consider killing-by-poison to be non-violent. Most people I know would consider that to be violent (indeed "murder" is basically always violent in most people's vernacular, regardless of the method). From experience, your precise definition of "violence" will have a substantial effect on what happens when you try to stomp it out.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
4 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
BTW, welcome to our site. Yours is a bit of a baptism by fire, but simply generating this much commentary suggests there's a great question here.
$endgroup$
– JBH
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
BTW, welcome to our site. Yours is a bit of a baptism by fire, but simply generating this much commentary suggests there's a great question here.
$endgroup$
– JBH
2 hours ago










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

Theoretically yes, practically no



We get questions like this all the time, "is it possible to remove humanity's violent behavior?" In my answer to how to domesticate hippos I pointed out (among other things) that an experiment conducted on the Russian Red Fox required 20 generations to achieve 35% domestication. Let's assume that some human violent tendencies don't show until adulthood, meaning we need a minimum of 18 years to create another generation or a minimum of 360 years to achieve 35% domestication.



So, after 1,000-2,000 years of devoted effort, you might end up removing humanity's violent temper. Maybe.



Humanity evolved in a competitive environment



Competition is part of our genetic makeup. Yes, theoretically you could create a Bene Gesserit-grade breeding program that would attempt to "domesticate" humanity, but that natural tendency to eat the other kid's school lunch is still there. Foxes (and, I assume, hippos) are nowhere near as sapient as humans — and to get rid of all violent behavior you would have to get rid of greed, envy, jealousy, and every other nasty thought that might lead to, "Jerry's out cleaning his new boat again. He does that on purpose just to rub it in my face! He thinks he's so much better than I am. I think it's time to give Jerry the beat-down of his life!"



But, let's assume that your program succeeds and the competitive nature of our being is removed. No more violence. Well... you'd have to get rid of low self-esteem, too. And shyness. And arrogance... wait...



We actually use some of those behaviors to our advantage



Here's the gist of the problem: if you remove our violent tendencies, you also remove our tendencies to take risks, to innovate, to solve problems, to overcome challenges... all these are just minor forms of violence. How often have I told myself, "I will not be defeated by an inanimate object!" (More often than I'll ever admit to any of you!) Am I justifying violence? Absolutely not. What I'm explaining is that violence is the extreme expression of behavior that is the core of what it is to be human. Arbitrarily remove violence and you remove what it is to be human. The resulting person would be perfectly content to use a stone hammer for the rest of their lives because it would never occur to them to become frustrated over how inefficient it is. ("Rotten hammer!" Wait... that's a violent thought...)



And here's where I need to insert a great observation by John, in comments. If you rob us of our tendency to violence, you affect our fight-vs-flight response — or not. And there's the problem. You either turn us all into cows waiting for the wolves to eat us, or you start killing people because their fight-or-flight response is dialed to fight and you don't want that so you exterminate a normal, useful, valuable response. But, more to the point, no matter how well bred your humans are, you'll never know how they'll react when pushed into a corner until they are. Very deeply rooted, fight-or-flight.



Just for fun, let me put it to you another way. I once golfed with a friend who was studying to become a clinical psychologist. The irony of him slicing into a lake and then throwing his club in frustration wasn't lost on me. But that same emotion that led him to throw his club would lead another to figure out how to stop slicing the ball.... And you want to remove that base tendency.



The real problem isn't violence, it's self-control



This might not sound relevant at first, but a friend of mine once explained that autism isn't a disease or a genetic abnormality per-se. It's not abnormal, so-to-speak. Humans have "settings" for how they see, hear, taste, touch, and perceive the world around them. One of the conditions of autism is that one or more of those dials are set higher than "normal."



In other words — everybody's autistic. Whether or not there's a problem depends on where we arbitrarily scratch a line on the dial that means "beyond this point there be dragons."



Violence is the same. The acceptability of a bold speaker vs. a beach bully is one of subjective acceptance. We admire the bold speaker and vilify the bully — but the base behavior is identical, it's just an issue of how extreme it is...



...or how well we control it.



Conclusion



So, theoretically you could breed violence out of humans, but all those wonderful advances in culture and science would be the last you'd ever see. So it's a bad idea.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    note domesticated does not mean incapable of violence, domesticated animals still bite and scratch. They just don't react to humans as predators.
    $endgroup$
    – John
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    @John, That's a good point I'm going to add to the answer. It's the fight-or-flight response. I've had many cats over the years. When backed into a corner, most will lash out to give them an opportunity to flee, but some would cower and wait for the proverbial wolf to eat them.
    $endgroup$
    – JBH
    1 hour ago



















2












$begingroup$

Your premise is self-contradictory. If humans are killing violent humans in an effort to wipe out all violent humans, then they would have to eventually kill themselves.



Violence is still violence even if you think of some mechanism for it that somehow nicer than stabbing somebody.



Also, every form of government is ultimately based on a monopoly on violence within a given geographic area (e.g. the police and military provide "legal violence"). It would be impossible to create the penned in area where no outsiders could enter without a very powerful totalitarian regime. Such regimes require a large supply of violent people to stop rebellions and revolutions. These violent people who are part of the state can also attempt to overthrow it, which means you need even more violent people and a system where violent people watch other violent people and apply violence to them if they start applying violence in the wrong places.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    If you're talking about programming humans to repress violence, like in clock-work orange, I think it's unlikely. Every species need to be able to protect itself and its young, it's instinctual and I don't think you can breed that out no matter how hard you tried.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Francis Moon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      time for a little ultra-violence?
      $endgroup$
      – Richard U
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
      $endgroup$
      – Gryphon
      4 hours ago



















    0












    $begingroup$

    The problem exists in exterminating the violent ones. You'd need to use violence to exterminate them.



    Failing that, there's an old saying "Those who beat their swords into plow shares become the slaves of those who did not".



    The ones who had no problems with violence would react with violence towards any attempt to exterminate them, or worse, alter or eliminate their present and/or future children. By nature, I'm a non-violent person myself, but try to harm my children, and I'd use my full potential.



    Therein lies the entirety of the problem. At least some portion of the people would see it as a threat, and respond accordingly.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      Committing violence (aggression) and protecting themselves are very different things.



      True, violent individuals usually know how to protect themselves, and, conversely, "tough" men are more likely to be violent, but those are conditioned traits.



      If we look at the children, we can see how those traits are developing. Some children are naturally more aggressive, and they act this way towards other children, but at first, they have no idea how to defend themselves. If they are becoming a target of other kid's aggression, these little bullies will just flounder. Only later they will learn how to defend themselves, and learn how to pick "soft" targets.



      On the other hand, some children are tough like little soldiers, they won't let anyone to bully them - but they are not violent at all. Oh, they do get in trouble for fighting, maybe even more than bullies - but always because another kid started it first.



      If we remove all aggressive kids from population, the rest will undoubtedly become softer, because they will have no practice defending themselves. But if the need to defend should arise, those who are naturally "tough" will be quick learners.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$





















        0












        $begingroup$

        Example from science fiction literature: even the Eloi have Morlocks.



        In other words, a "non-defending" human species would cease to be at the top of the food chain...






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        rje is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "579"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136883%2fcan-humans-be-conditioned-to-become-non-violent-and-forget-how-to-defend-themsel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          6 Answers
          6






          active

          oldest

          votes








          6 Answers
          6






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5












          $begingroup$

          Theoretically yes, practically no



          We get questions like this all the time, "is it possible to remove humanity's violent behavior?" In my answer to how to domesticate hippos I pointed out (among other things) that an experiment conducted on the Russian Red Fox required 20 generations to achieve 35% domestication. Let's assume that some human violent tendencies don't show until adulthood, meaning we need a minimum of 18 years to create another generation or a minimum of 360 years to achieve 35% domestication.



          So, after 1,000-2,000 years of devoted effort, you might end up removing humanity's violent temper. Maybe.



          Humanity evolved in a competitive environment



          Competition is part of our genetic makeup. Yes, theoretically you could create a Bene Gesserit-grade breeding program that would attempt to "domesticate" humanity, but that natural tendency to eat the other kid's school lunch is still there. Foxes (and, I assume, hippos) are nowhere near as sapient as humans — and to get rid of all violent behavior you would have to get rid of greed, envy, jealousy, and every other nasty thought that might lead to, "Jerry's out cleaning his new boat again. He does that on purpose just to rub it in my face! He thinks he's so much better than I am. I think it's time to give Jerry the beat-down of his life!"



          But, let's assume that your program succeeds and the competitive nature of our being is removed. No more violence. Well... you'd have to get rid of low self-esteem, too. And shyness. And arrogance... wait...



          We actually use some of those behaviors to our advantage



          Here's the gist of the problem: if you remove our violent tendencies, you also remove our tendencies to take risks, to innovate, to solve problems, to overcome challenges... all these are just minor forms of violence. How often have I told myself, "I will not be defeated by an inanimate object!" (More often than I'll ever admit to any of you!) Am I justifying violence? Absolutely not. What I'm explaining is that violence is the extreme expression of behavior that is the core of what it is to be human. Arbitrarily remove violence and you remove what it is to be human. The resulting person would be perfectly content to use a stone hammer for the rest of their lives because it would never occur to them to become frustrated over how inefficient it is. ("Rotten hammer!" Wait... that's a violent thought...)



          And here's where I need to insert a great observation by John, in comments. If you rob us of our tendency to violence, you affect our fight-vs-flight response — or not. And there's the problem. You either turn us all into cows waiting for the wolves to eat us, or you start killing people because their fight-or-flight response is dialed to fight and you don't want that so you exterminate a normal, useful, valuable response. But, more to the point, no matter how well bred your humans are, you'll never know how they'll react when pushed into a corner until they are. Very deeply rooted, fight-or-flight.



          Just for fun, let me put it to you another way. I once golfed with a friend who was studying to become a clinical psychologist. The irony of him slicing into a lake and then throwing his club in frustration wasn't lost on me. But that same emotion that led him to throw his club would lead another to figure out how to stop slicing the ball.... And you want to remove that base tendency.



          The real problem isn't violence, it's self-control



          This might not sound relevant at first, but a friend of mine once explained that autism isn't a disease or a genetic abnormality per-se. It's not abnormal, so-to-speak. Humans have "settings" for how they see, hear, taste, touch, and perceive the world around them. One of the conditions of autism is that one or more of those dials are set higher than "normal."



          In other words — everybody's autistic. Whether or not there's a problem depends on where we arbitrarily scratch a line on the dial that means "beyond this point there be dragons."



          Violence is the same. The acceptability of a bold speaker vs. a beach bully is one of subjective acceptance. We admire the bold speaker and vilify the bully — but the base behavior is identical, it's just an issue of how extreme it is...



          ...or how well we control it.



          Conclusion



          So, theoretically you could breed violence out of humans, but all those wonderful advances in culture and science would be the last you'd ever see. So it's a bad idea.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            note domesticated does not mean incapable of violence, domesticated animals still bite and scratch. They just don't react to humans as predators.
            $endgroup$
            – John
            2 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @John, That's a good point I'm going to add to the answer. It's the fight-or-flight response. I've had many cats over the years. When backed into a corner, most will lash out to give them an opportunity to flee, but some would cower and wait for the proverbial wolf to eat them.
            $endgroup$
            – JBH
            1 hour ago
















          5












          $begingroup$

          Theoretically yes, practically no



          We get questions like this all the time, "is it possible to remove humanity's violent behavior?" In my answer to how to domesticate hippos I pointed out (among other things) that an experiment conducted on the Russian Red Fox required 20 generations to achieve 35% domestication. Let's assume that some human violent tendencies don't show until adulthood, meaning we need a minimum of 18 years to create another generation or a minimum of 360 years to achieve 35% domestication.



          So, after 1,000-2,000 years of devoted effort, you might end up removing humanity's violent temper. Maybe.



          Humanity evolved in a competitive environment



          Competition is part of our genetic makeup. Yes, theoretically you could create a Bene Gesserit-grade breeding program that would attempt to "domesticate" humanity, but that natural tendency to eat the other kid's school lunch is still there. Foxes (and, I assume, hippos) are nowhere near as sapient as humans — and to get rid of all violent behavior you would have to get rid of greed, envy, jealousy, and every other nasty thought that might lead to, "Jerry's out cleaning his new boat again. He does that on purpose just to rub it in my face! He thinks he's so much better than I am. I think it's time to give Jerry the beat-down of his life!"



          But, let's assume that your program succeeds and the competitive nature of our being is removed. No more violence. Well... you'd have to get rid of low self-esteem, too. And shyness. And arrogance... wait...



          We actually use some of those behaviors to our advantage



          Here's the gist of the problem: if you remove our violent tendencies, you also remove our tendencies to take risks, to innovate, to solve problems, to overcome challenges... all these are just minor forms of violence. How often have I told myself, "I will not be defeated by an inanimate object!" (More often than I'll ever admit to any of you!) Am I justifying violence? Absolutely not. What I'm explaining is that violence is the extreme expression of behavior that is the core of what it is to be human. Arbitrarily remove violence and you remove what it is to be human. The resulting person would be perfectly content to use a stone hammer for the rest of their lives because it would never occur to them to become frustrated over how inefficient it is. ("Rotten hammer!" Wait... that's a violent thought...)



          And here's where I need to insert a great observation by John, in comments. If you rob us of our tendency to violence, you affect our fight-vs-flight response — or not. And there's the problem. You either turn us all into cows waiting for the wolves to eat us, or you start killing people because their fight-or-flight response is dialed to fight and you don't want that so you exterminate a normal, useful, valuable response. But, more to the point, no matter how well bred your humans are, you'll never know how they'll react when pushed into a corner until they are. Very deeply rooted, fight-or-flight.



          Just for fun, let me put it to you another way. I once golfed with a friend who was studying to become a clinical psychologist. The irony of him slicing into a lake and then throwing his club in frustration wasn't lost on me. But that same emotion that led him to throw his club would lead another to figure out how to stop slicing the ball.... And you want to remove that base tendency.



          The real problem isn't violence, it's self-control



          This might not sound relevant at first, but a friend of mine once explained that autism isn't a disease or a genetic abnormality per-se. It's not abnormal, so-to-speak. Humans have "settings" for how they see, hear, taste, touch, and perceive the world around them. One of the conditions of autism is that one or more of those dials are set higher than "normal."



          In other words — everybody's autistic. Whether or not there's a problem depends on where we arbitrarily scratch a line on the dial that means "beyond this point there be dragons."



          Violence is the same. The acceptability of a bold speaker vs. a beach bully is one of subjective acceptance. We admire the bold speaker and vilify the bully — but the base behavior is identical, it's just an issue of how extreme it is...



          ...or how well we control it.



          Conclusion



          So, theoretically you could breed violence out of humans, but all those wonderful advances in culture and science would be the last you'd ever see. So it's a bad idea.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            note domesticated does not mean incapable of violence, domesticated animals still bite and scratch. They just don't react to humans as predators.
            $endgroup$
            – John
            2 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @John, That's a good point I'm going to add to the answer. It's the fight-or-flight response. I've had many cats over the years. When backed into a corner, most will lash out to give them an opportunity to flee, but some would cower and wait for the proverbial wolf to eat them.
            $endgroup$
            – JBH
            1 hour ago














          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          Theoretically yes, practically no



          We get questions like this all the time, "is it possible to remove humanity's violent behavior?" In my answer to how to domesticate hippos I pointed out (among other things) that an experiment conducted on the Russian Red Fox required 20 generations to achieve 35% domestication. Let's assume that some human violent tendencies don't show until adulthood, meaning we need a minimum of 18 years to create another generation or a minimum of 360 years to achieve 35% domestication.



          So, after 1,000-2,000 years of devoted effort, you might end up removing humanity's violent temper. Maybe.



          Humanity evolved in a competitive environment



          Competition is part of our genetic makeup. Yes, theoretically you could create a Bene Gesserit-grade breeding program that would attempt to "domesticate" humanity, but that natural tendency to eat the other kid's school lunch is still there. Foxes (and, I assume, hippos) are nowhere near as sapient as humans — and to get rid of all violent behavior you would have to get rid of greed, envy, jealousy, and every other nasty thought that might lead to, "Jerry's out cleaning his new boat again. He does that on purpose just to rub it in my face! He thinks he's so much better than I am. I think it's time to give Jerry the beat-down of his life!"



          But, let's assume that your program succeeds and the competitive nature of our being is removed. No more violence. Well... you'd have to get rid of low self-esteem, too. And shyness. And arrogance... wait...



          We actually use some of those behaviors to our advantage



          Here's the gist of the problem: if you remove our violent tendencies, you also remove our tendencies to take risks, to innovate, to solve problems, to overcome challenges... all these are just minor forms of violence. How often have I told myself, "I will not be defeated by an inanimate object!" (More often than I'll ever admit to any of you!) Am I justifying violence? Absolutely not. What I'm explaining is that violence is the extreme expression of behavior that is the core of what it is to be human. Arbitrarily remove violence and you remove what it is to be human. The resulting person would be perfectly content to use a stone hammer for the rest of their lives because it would never occur to them to become frustrated over how inefficient it is. ("Rotten hammer!" Wait... that's a violent thought...)



          And here's where I need to insert a great observation by John, in comments. If you rob us of our tendency to violence, you affect our fight-vs-flight response — or not. And there's the problem. You either turn us all into cows waiting for the wolves to eat us, or you start killing people because their fight-or-flight response is dialed to fight and you don't want that so you exterminate a normal, useful, valuable response. But, more to the point, no matter how well bred your humans are, you'll never know how they'll react when pushed into a corner until they are. Very deeply rooted, fight-or-flight.



          Just for fun, let me put it to you another way. I once golfed with a friend who was studying to become a clinical psychologist. The irony of him slicing into a lake and then throwing his club in frustration wasn't lost on me. But that same emotion that led him to throw his club would lead another to figure out how to stop slicing the ball.... And you want to remove that base tendency.



          The real problem isn't violence, it's self-control



          This might not sound relevant at first, but a friend of mine once explained that autism isn't a disease or a genetic abnormality per-se. It's not abnormal, so-to-speak. Humans have "settings" for how they see, hear, taste, touch, and perceive the world around them. One of the conditions of autism is that one or more of those dials are set higher than "normal."



          In other words — everybody's autistic. Whether or not there's a problem depends on where we arbitrarily scratch a line on the dial that means "beyond this point there be dragons."



          Violence is the same. The acceptability of a bold speaker vs. a beach bully is one of subjective acceptance. We admire the bold speaker and vilify the bully — but the base behavior is identical, it's just an issue of how extreme it is...



          ...or how well we control it.



          Conclusion



          So, theoretically you could breed violence out of humans, but all those wonderful advances in culture and science would be the last you'd ever see. So it's a bad idea.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Theoretically yes, practically no



          We get questions like this all the time, "is it possible to remove humanity's violent behavior?" In my answer to how to domesticate hippos I pointed out (among other things) that an experiment conducted on the Russian Red Fox required 20 generations to achieve 35% domestication. Let's assume that some human violent tendencies don't show until adulthood, meaning we need a minimum of 18 years to create another generation or a minimum of 360 years to achieve 35% domestication.



          So, after 1,000-2,000 years of devoted effort, you might end up removing humanity's violent temper. Maybe.



          Humanity evolved in a competitive environment



          Competition is part of our genetic makeup. Yes, theoretically you could create a Bene Gesserit-grade breeding program that would attempt to "domesticate" humanity, but that natural tendency to eat the other kid's school lunch is still there. Foxes (and, I assume, hippos) are nowhere near as sapient as humans — and to get rid of all violent behavior you would have to get rid of greed, envy, jealousy, and every other nasty thought that might lead to, "Jerry's out cleaning his new boat again. He does that on purpose just to rub it in my face! He thinks he's so much better than I am. I think it's time to give Jerry the beat-down of his life!"



          But, let's assume that your program succeeds and the competitive nature of our being is removed. No more violence. Well... you'd have to get rid of low self-esteem, too. And shyness. And arrogance... wait...



          We actually use some of those behaviors to our advantage



          Here's the gist of the problem: if you remove our violent tendencies, you also remove our tendencies to take risks, to innovate, to solve problems, to overcome challenges... all these are just minor forms of violence. How often have I told myself, "I will not be defeated by an inanimate object!" (More often than I'll ever admit to any of you!) Am I justifying violence? Absolutely not. What I'm explaining is that violence is the extreme expression of behavior that is the core of what it is to be human. Arbitrarily remove violence and you remove what it is to be human. The resulting person would be perfectly content to use a stone hammer for the rest of their lives because it would never occur to them to become frustrated over how inefficient it is. ("Rotten hammer!" Wait... that's a violent thought...)



          And here's where I need to insert a great observation by John, in comments. If you rob us of our tendency to violence, you affect our fight-vs-flight response — or not. And there's the problem. You either turn us all into cows waiting for the wolves to eat us, or you start killing people because their fight-or-flight response is dialed to fight and you don't want that so you exterminate a normal, useful, valuable response. But, more to the point, no matter how well bred your humans are, you'll never know how they'll react when pushed into a corner until they are. Very deeply rooted, fight-or-flight.



          Just for fun, let me put it to you another way. I once golfed with a friend who was studying to become a clinical psychologist. The irony of him slicing into a lake and then throwing his club in frustration wasn't lost on me. But that same emotion that led him to throw his club would lead another to figure out how to stop slicing the ball.... And you want to remove that base tendency.



          The real problem isn't violence, it's self-control



          This might not sound relevant at first, but a friend of mine once explained that autism isn't a disease or a genetic abnormality per-se. It's not abnormal, so-to-speak. Humans have "settings" for how they see, hear, taste, touch, and perceive the world around them. One of the conditions of autism is that one or more of those dials are set higher than "normal."



          In other words — everybody's autistic. Whether or not there's a problem depends on where we arbitrarily scratch a line on the dial that means "beyond this point there be dragons."



          Violence is the same. The acceptability of a bold speaker vs. a beach bully is one of subjective acceptance. We admire the bold speaker and vilify the bully — but the base behavior is identical, it's just an issue of how extreme it is...



          ...or how well we control it.



          Conclusion



          So, theoretically you could breed violence out of humans, but all those wonderful advances in culture and science would be the last you'd ever see. So it's a bad idea.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 1 hour ago

























          answered 4 hours ago









          JBHJBH

          41.3k591197




          41.3k591197












          • $begingroup$
            note domesticated does not mean incapable of violence, domesticated animals still bite and scratch. They just don't react to humans as predators.
            $endgroup$
            – John
            2 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @John, That's a good point I'm going to add to the answer. It's the fight-or-flight response. I've had many cats over the years. When backed into a corner, most will lash out to give them an opportunity to flee, but some would cower and wait for the proverbial wolf to eat them.
            $endgroup$
            – JBH
            1 hour ago


















          • $begingroup$
            note domesticated does not mean incapable of violence, domesticated animals still bite and scratch. They just don't react to humans as predators.
            $endgroup$
            – John
            2 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @John, That's a good point I'm going to add to the answer. It's the fight-or-flight response. I've had many cats over the years. When backed into a corner, most will lash out to give them an opportunity to flee, but some would cower and wait for the proverbial wolf to eat them.
            $endgroup$
            – JBH
            1 hour ago
















          $begingroup$
          note domesticated does not mean incapable of violence, domesticated animals still bite and scratch. They just don't react to humans as predators.
          $endgroup$
          – John
          2 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          note domesticated does not mean incapable of violence, domesticated animals still bite and scratch. They just don't react to humans as predators.
          $endgroup$
          – John
          2 hours ago














          $begingroup$
          @John, That's a good point I'm going to add to the answer. It's the fight-or-flight response. I've had many cats over the years. When backed into a corner, most will lash out to give them an opportunity to flee, but some would cower and wait for the proverbial wolf to eat them.
          $endgroup$
          – JBH
          1 hour ago




          $begingroup$
          @John, That's a good point I'm going to add to the answer. It's the fight-or-flight response. I've had many cats over the years. When backed into a corner, most will lash out to give them an opportunity to flee, but some would cower and wait for the proverbial wolf to eat them.
          $endgroup$
          – JBH
          1 hour ago











          2












          $begingroup$

          Your premise is self-contradictory. If humans are killing violent humans in an effort to wipe out all violent humans, then they would have to eventually kill themselves.



          Violence is still violence even if you think of some mechanism for it that somehow nicer than stabbing somebody.



          Also, every form of government is ultimately based on a monopoly on violence within a given geographic area (e.g. the police and military provide "legal violence"). It would be impossible to create the penned in area where no outsiders could enter without a very powerful totalitarian regime. Such regimes require a large supply of violent people to stop rebellions and revolutions. These violent people who are part of the state can also attempt to overthrow it, which means you need even more violent people and a system where violent people watch other violent people and apply violence to them if they start applying violence in the wrong places.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$


















            2












            $begingroup$

            Your premise is self-contradictory. If humans are killing violent humans in an effort to wipe out all violent humans, then they would have to eventually kill themselves.



            Violence is still violence even if you think of some mechanism for it that somehow nicer than stabbing somebody.



            Also, every form of government is ultimately based on a monopoly on violence within a given geographic area (e.g. the police and military provide "legal violence"). It would be impossible to create the penned in area where no outsiders could enter without a very powerful totalitarian regime. Such regimes require a large supply of violent people to stop rebellions and revolutions. These violent people who are part of the state can also attempt to overthrow it, which means you need even more violent people and a system where violent people watch other violent people and apply violence to them if they start applying violence in the wrong places.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$
















              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              Your premise is self-contradictory. If humans are killing violent humans in an effort to wipe out all violent humans, then they would have to eventually kill themselves.



              Violence is still violence even if you think of some mechanism for it that somehow nicer than stabbing somebody.



              Also, every form of government is ultimately based on a monopoly on violence within a given geographic area (e.g. the police and military provide "legal violence"). It would be impossible to create the penned in area where no outsiders could enter without a very powerful totalitarian regime. Such regimes require a large supply of violent people to stop rebellions and revolutions. These violent people who are part of the state can also attempt to overthrow it, which means you need even more violent people and a system where violent people watch other violent people and apply violence to them if they start applying violence in the wrong places.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              Your premise is self-contradictory. If humans are killing violent humans in an effort to wipe out all violent humans, then they would have to eventually kill themselves.



              Violence is still violence even if you think of some mechanism for it that somehow nicer than stabbing somebody.



              Also, every form of government is ultimately based on a monopoly on violence within a given geographic area (e.g. the police and military provide "legal violence"). It would be impossible to create the penned in area where no outsiders could enter without a very powerful totalitarian regime. Such regimes require a large supply of violent people to stop rebellions and revolutions. These violent people who are part of the state can also attempt to overthrow it, which means you need even more violent people and a system where violent people watch other violent people and apply violence to them if they start applying violence in the wrong places.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 4 hours ago









              JoeJoe

              1411




              1411























                  0












                  $begingroup$

                  If you're talking about programming humans to repress violence, like in clock-work orange, I think it's unlikely. Every species need to be able to protect itself and its young, it's instinctual and I don't think you can breed that out no matter how hard you tried.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Francis Moon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$









                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    time for a little ultra-violence?
                    $endgroup$
                    – Richard U
                    4 hours ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                    $endgroup$
                    – Gryphon
                    4 hours ago
















                  0












                  $begingroup$

                  If you're talking about programming humans to repress violence, like in clock-work orange, I think it's unlikely. Every species need to be able to protect itself and its young, it's instinctual and I don't think you can breed that out no matter how hard you tried.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Francis Moon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$









                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    time for a little ultra-violence?
                    $endgroup$
                    – Richard U
                    4 hours ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                    $endgroup$
                    – Gryphon
                    4 hours ago














                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  If you're talking about programming humans to repress violence, like in clock-work orange, I think it's unlikely. Every species need to be able to protect itself and its young, it's instinctual and I don't think you can breed that out no matter how hard you tried.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Francis Moon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$



                  If you're talking about programming humans to repress violence, like in clock-work orange, I think it's unlikely. Every species need to be able to protect itself and its young, it's instinctual and I don't think you can breed that out no matter how hard you tried.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Francis Moon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Francis Moon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 4 hours ago









                  Francis MoonFrancis Moon

                  111




                  111




                  New contributor




                  Francis Moon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Francis Moon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Francis Moon is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.








                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    time for a little ultra-violence?
                    $endgroup$
                    – Richard U
                    4 hours ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                    $endgroup$
                    – Gryphon
                    4 hours ago














                  • 1




                    $begingroup$
                    time for a little ultra-violence?
                    $endgroup$
                    – Richard U
                    4 hours ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                    $endgroup$
                    – Gryphon
                    4 hours ago








                  1




                  1




                  $begingroup$
                  time for a little ultra-violence?
                  $endgroup$
                  – Richard U
                  4 hours ago




                  $begingroup$
                  time for a little ultra-violence?
                  $endgroup$
                  – Richard U
                  4 hours ago












                  $begingroup$
                  This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                  $endgroup$
                  – Gryphon
                  4 hours ago




                  $begingroup$
                  This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review
                  $endgroup$
                  – Gryphon
                  4 hours ago











                  0












                  $begingroup$

                  The problem exists in exterminating the violent ones. You'd need to use violence to exterminate them.



                  Failing that, there's an old saying "Those who beat their swords into plow shares become the slaves of those who did not".



                  The ones who had no problems with violence would react with violence towards any attempt to exterminate them, or worse, alter or eliminate their present and/or future children. By nature, I'm a non-violent person myself, but try to harm my children, and I'd use my full potential.



                  Therein lies the entirety of the problem. At least some portion of the people would see it as a threat, and respond accordingly.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$


















                    0












                    $begingroup$

                    The problem exists in exterminating the violent ones. You'd need to use violence to exterminate them.



                    Failing that, there's an old saying "Those who beat their swords into plow shares become the slaves of those who did not".



                    The ones who had no problems with violence would react with violence towards any attempt to exterminate them, or worse, alter or eliminate their present and/or future children. By nature, I'm a non-violent person myself, but try to harm my children, and I'd use my full potential.



                    Therein lies the entirety of the problem. At least some portion of the people would see it as a threat, and respond accordingly.






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$
















                      0












                      0








                      0





                      $begingroup$

                      The problem exists in exterminating the violent ones. You'd need to use violence to exterminate them.



                      Failing that, there's an old saying "Those who beat their swords into plow shares become the slaves of those who did not".



                      The ones who had no problems with violence would react with violence towards any attempt to exterminate them, or worse, alter or eliminate their present and/or future children. By nature, I'm a non-violent person myself, but try to harm my children, and I'd use my full potential.



                      Therein lies the entirety of the problem. At least some portion of the people would see it as a threat, and respond accordingly.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      The problem exists in exterminating the violent ones. You'd need to use violence to exterminate them.



                      Failing that, there's an old saying "Those who beat their swords into plow shares become the slaves of those who did not".



                      The ones who had no problems with violence would react with violence towards any attempt to exterminate them, or worse, alter or eliminate their present and/or future children. By nature, I'm a non-violent person myself, but try to harm my children, and I'd use my full potential.



                      Therein lies the entirety of the problem. At least some portion of the people would see it as a threat, and respond accordingly.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 3 hours ago









                      Richard URichard U

                      5,303931




                      5,303931























                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          Committing violence (aggression) and protecting themselves are very different things.



                          True, violent individuals usually know how to protect themselves, and, conversely, "tough" men are more likely to be violent, but those are conditioned traits.



                          If we look at the children, we can see how those traits are developing. Some children are naturally more aggressive, and they act this way towards other children, but at first, they have no idea how to defend themselves. If they are becoming a target of other kid's aggression, these little bullies will just flounder. Only later they will learn how to defend themselves, and learn how to pick "soft" targets.



                          On the other hand, some children are tough like little soldiers, they won't let anyone to bully them - but they are not violent at all. Oh, they do get in trouble for fighting, maybe even more than bullies - but always because another kid started it first.



                          If we remove all aggressive kids from population, the rest will undoubtedly become softer, because they will have no practice defending themselves. But if the need to defend should arise, those who are naturally "tough" will be quick learners.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$


















                            0












                            $begingroup$

                            Committing violence (aggression) and protecting themselves are very different things.



                            True, violent individuals usually know how to protect themselves, and, conversely, "tough" men are more likely to be violent, but those are conditioned traits.



                            If we look at the children, we can see how those traits are developing. Some children are naturally more aggressive, and they act this way towards other children, but at first, they have no idea how to defend themselves. If they are becoming a target of other kid's aggression, these little bullies will just flounder. Only later they will learn how to defend themselves, and learn how to pick "soft" targets.



                            On the other hand, some children are tough like little soldiers, they won't let anyone to bully them - but they are not violent at all. Oh, they do get in trouble for fighting, maybe even more than bullies - but always because another kid started it first.



                            If we remove all aggressive kids from population, the rest will undoubtedly become softer, because they will have no practice defending themselves. But if the need to defend should arise, those who are naturally "tough" will be quick learners.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$
















                              0












                              0








                              0





                              $begingroup$

                              Committing violence (aggression) and protecting themselves are very different things.



                              True, violent individuals usually know how to protect themselves, and, conversely, "tough" men are more likely to be violent, but those are conditioned traits.



                              If we look at the children, we can see how those traits are developing. Some children are naturally more aggressive, and they act this way towards other children, but at first, they have no idea how to defend themselves. If they are becoming a target of other kid's aggression, these little bullies will just flounder. Only later they will learn how to defend themselves, and learn how to pick "soft" targets.



                              On the other hand, some children are tough like little soldiers, they won't let anyone to bully them - but they are not violent at all. Oh, they do get in trouble for fighting, maybe even more than bullies - but always because another kid started it first.



                              If we remove all aggressive kids from population, the rest will undoubtedly become softer, because they will have no practice defending themselves. But if the need to defend should arise, those who are naturally "tough" will be quick learners.






                              share|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$



                              Committing violence (aggression) and protecting themselves are very different things.



                              True, violent individuals usually know how to protect themselves, and, conversely, "tough" men are more likely to be violent, but those are conditioned traits.



                              If we look at the children, we can see how those traits are developing. Some children are naturally more aggressive, and they act this way towards other children, but at first, they have no idea how to defend themselves. If they are becoming a target of other kid's aggression, these little bullies will just flounder. Only later they will learn how to defend themselves, and learn how to pick "soft" targets.



                              On the other hand, some children are tough like little soldiers, they won't let anyone to bully them - but they are not violent at all. Oh, they do get in trouble for fighting, maybe even more than bullies - but always because another kid started it first.



                              If we remove all aggressive kids from population, the rest will undoubtedly become softer, because they will have no practice defending themselves. But if the need to defend should arise, those who are naturally "tough" will be quick learners.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 2 hours ago









                              AlexanderAlexander

                              19.7k53174




                              19.7k53174























                                  0












                                  $begingroup$

                                  Example from science fiction literature: even the Eloi have Morlocks.



                                  In other words, a "non-defending" human species would cease to be at the top of the food chain...






                                  share|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  rje is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                  $endgroup$


















                                    0












                                    $begingroup$

                                    Example from science fiction literature: even the Eloi have Morlocks.



                                    In other words, a "non-defending" human species would cease to be at the top of the food chain...






                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    rje is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                    $endgroup$
















                                      0












                                      0








                                      0





                                      $begingroup$

                                      Example from science fiction literature: even the Eloi have Morlocks.



                                      In other words, a "non-defending" human species would cease to be at the top of the food chain...






                                      share|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      rje is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                      $endgroup$



                                      Example from science fiction literature: even the Eloi have Morlocks.



                                      In other words, a "non-defending" human species would cease to be at the top of the food chain...







                                      share|improve this answer








                                      New contributor




                                      rje is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer






                                      New contributor




                                      rje is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      answered 2 hours ago









                                      rjerje

                                      214




                                      214




                                      New contributor




                                      rje is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                      New contributor





                                      rje is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                      rje is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                                          Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded


















                                          Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                          Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                          Samuel Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136883%2fcan-humans-be-conditioned-to-become-non-violent-and-forget-how-to-defend-themsel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Knooppunt Holsloot

                                          Altaar (religie)

                                          Gregoriusmis