Ben Cossitor

Psych 100H

September 24, 2009

The Natural Violence of Humankind

A spear is thrown, a bomb is detonated, a sword is swung, a gunshot is triggered. Throughout

the history of humankind, war and violence have always been present in one form or another. From the

single casualties of the spear thousands of years ago to the catastrophic casualties of today’s bombs,

violence for some reason has always plagued the human race. What is the reason for this ubiquitous,

unnecessary turmoil? Is it possible that this violence is in humans’ very nature? Scientists are currently

in debate over this very issue, as shown by two articles in Taking Sides. Michael Wilson and Richard

Wrangam in “Intergroup Relations in Chimpanzees” believe that it is in man’s nature to be violent, while

Robert Sussman in “Are Humans Inherently Violent?” argues against it. Although it is difficult to prove

simply due to historical distance, violence is in human nature, instilled in us by thousands of years of

natural selection.

The debate over violence in human nature has triggered very passionate responses from the

two sides. On the one side, scientists believe that natural selection has placed violent behavior in human

nature. According to Wilson and Wrangam the violence that has been seen in chimp groups shows that

violence is chosen by natural selection as a benefit to defending territory. They also mention hyenas and

lions for having similar behaviors. Sussman, however, argues that there is no way of knowing that

today’s chimpanzees are anything at all like the ancient chimps that are our common ancestor. Needless

to say, there is much speculation that must go on for this topic that is so difficult to research.

Because humans are so closely related to chimpanzees, they are the ideal species to study when

looking for clues to humans’ past. Thus, the studies related to violence in human nature debate have

mostly been performed on chimps. Wilson and Wrangam admit that it’s difficult to conduct these
experiments because “aggression between groups can occur at many more levels among humans than

among chimpanzees.” This means that humans organize themselves into communities, regions,

counties, nations, etc. while chimps have just one level of grouping. However, by studying only the level

at which relations become “anarchic,” comparisons can be made between the two species. The chimp

studies have shown that hunter-gatherers and chimps both become aggressive when they meet

members of other social groups and they “seek, or take advantage of, opportunities to use imbalances

of power for males to kill members of neighboring groups.” This idea is evidenced by a series of studies

at Bristol Zoo, Beaverton, Oregon, and Calcutta Zoo; they all proved through various methods that the

number of violent incidents is directly proportional to the size of the enclosure. Thus, the smaller the

enclosure, the more times the animals are forced to confront each other over territory (Russell and

Russell 1979).

By following the principles of natural selection, the theory that violence is natural gains even

more support. According to Wilson and Wrangham, “Instead of being a maladaptive aberration,

chimpanzee intergroup aggression appears to be typical of aggression in other wild animals in that it

tends to provide fitness benefits for the aggressors.” Thus, the aggression typical of chimps (and by

relation, humans) has some survival benefit that has caused it to be selected as a “good gene” according

to the rules of natural selection. Through this aggression males are able to keep other, outside males

from mating with their females, preserving their ability to pass on their genes. From this logic, humans’

natural aggression seems to be a classic instance of natural selection.

Some, including Sussman, have many arguments against aggression being in humankind’s

nature. One of these arguments is that there is not enough data collected yet to support that

chimpanzees even are naturally violent. Wilson and Wrangham argue against this by saying that

“evidence from classic and more recent studies shows that intergroup aggression, including lethal
attacks, is a pervasive feature of chimpanzee societies.” Another argument is that because humans can

also be peaceful creatures, violence must be triggered by the environment or cultures. However, this

theology is based on the idea that humans are “response-stimulus robots;” in fact, humans use a

complex decision-making process that involves consideration of the costs and benefits. Finally, some

might argue that a person’s environment and culture shapes how violent he/she will become. However,

according to a study by L. R. Huesmann and his colleagues, children studied over a span of thirty years

displayed their most violent behavior at the same ages as their parents, and this period of aggression

was completely unrelated to how violent the people around them were at the time. Thus, this study

implies a genetic basis for the violence in human nature theory ( Cadoret , Leve, and Devor 1997).

Because of its strong support by the theory of natural selection, the idea that humans are

naturally aggressive seems quite plausible. Humans, like other animals, seek to protect their territory

from other strangers, and males in particular seek to protect their females. By having this drive, humans

become inherently violent to ensure their survival. However, like other human drives, this aggression

can be controlled, and perhaps now that humans have become aware, they will be able to establish

better control over this impulse.

 References

Cadoret R. J., Leve L. D., Devor E. (1997). Genetics of aggressive and violent behavior. Psychiatric

Clinics of North America, 20, 301.

Russell, C. and Russell, W. M. (1979). The natural history of violence. Journal of Medical Ethics, 5,

108-117.

Sussman, R. W. (2004). Are Humans Inherently Violent? In B. Stife (ed.), Taking Sides: Clashing

Views on Psychological Issues. (pp. 72-82). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wilson, M. L. and Wrangham, R. W. (2003). Intergroup Relations in Chimpanzees. In B. Stife (ed.),

Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Psychological Issues. (pp. 66-71). New York: McGraw-Hill.