WHY IS MAN SO VIOLENT?
______________________________________________________

Take any history book (and that includes the Bible; doubtfully a history but significant in many people's minds) and it is a history of violence. Violence defined as 'any act upon another, whether flora or fauna, that restricts, in any shape or form, the passage of others through the course of any part of their lives'.
Look anywhere in the world and it is killing, maiming, raping, warring, bestiality, hurting, blaming, bullying, guilt, duty; a thesaurus of words in the negative; hurtful, shameful acts of violence perpetrated upon others by other human beings.
This is the sad history of Man, apparently. His achievements (positive acts and behaviours) pale into insignificance; his victories are madness and violence, not the opposite.   In using the word Man, I include women, but please forgive me the simplification of using the one word to encompass both in this essay.         
    The question I ask myself, is: 'Why is Man so violent?"
And this is probably the hardest essay I have ever written.
 I am not presenting an essay on present-day violence and why people now act as they do; however these people act now, is a legacy from the past behaviours of Man, perhaps the essence of Man even, I am not sure. It am trying to understand this; that is the subject of this essay. I am not sure how this essay will end... Thoughts and feelings to paper...


The 'herd instinct'
It is believed that Man, as an animal, forms herds. Herds are groups of animals that act with an accord of living together for mutual benefit.  Man's legacy (like every other flora or fauna) is to reproduce. Very little more, nothing less. The nature of Man's reproduction is based on 'sexual reproduction' (as opposed to 'other means of reproduction); and the ability to make changes to a species by a random set of principals (i.e. sexual reproduction) that allows for individuality and eventually, a group of animals that accepts change and individuality as part of the nature of the beast (homo sapiens).
Homo sapien means creatures that have thoughts. ft is believed that homo sapiens are the only creatures that have thoughts but this is a moot point; we don't know if other animals' have thoughts because we can't communicate with them sufficiently well enough.
Homo sapiens are considered to be the only creatures that are aware of being aware. No-one can know, for sure, whether we (homo sapiens) are he only creatures thus endowed (as yet).
As a group or groups or as an individual, Man had to find food and shelter. Man is recognised for his 'hunting and gathering' abilities. As an animal, Man is the same as every other animal (or flora). He is, he finds a mate, he breeds, he has to feed his 'family', he has to find shelter. He has feelings because he is a feeling being (animal). He has no emotions (originally) because these emotions are outside his feelings; he is not aware of them. Ho does what he does because he has to, there is no choice. We have not gone beyond this; we mostly pretend that we have.   
Man fucks. He has 'sex' with another, usually female. That is what he is here for. He looks for a mate (the nature of the beast) and he fucks. Pure and simple; no mystery here. He produces babies through his mate. Eventually this children, siblings or whatever, do the same, they fuck or they are fucked and so on.
It is upon this same notion that all life since seems to have evolved in all its nonsensical way.

Culling
Most animals and plants have a natural way of culling. Culling is the way which animals and plants restrict their over-growth by way of natural 'pruning' of their species. That is the way that Nature works. Left to itself, Nature works to include all possible variances which lead to a healthy planet. It has no choice. It is directed by no-one or no-thing. It is the nature of life. It may have feelings but certainly not emotions. (Emotions are Man-derived)
The problem, it seems, is that Man has not developed a natural means of culling the species. Quite the contrary; the development of Man seems to be steeped in trying NOT to cull the species but allowing (not from natural selection) but to allowing for all forms of disarranged life to continue. Whether this is a/the natural consequence of Man, that is, that he will demise because of this behaviour, is a good question. Maybe Man has developed, seemingly, in consideration of his behaviour so far,  to get rid of himself; who knows. Apart from 'natural' disasters, Man goes on fucking until he is sure to over-growth and kill himself (Man) in the process (by the means of over-population).
Where over-population exists, it seems naturally to lead to a vying for territory. Whatever the reasons for this over-population (even on a small scale), the territory does not exist that will satisfy the greater herd. Food must be got. Living-space must be got. It is the expense to which this 'is 'got' that is the nature of Man's violence. 
Given his awareness, Man needs to control others to get his needs, especially when they include living space (lebensraum). His feelings go 'out of the window'. He desires to get what he wants and by whatever means he can devise. And Man is the devisor. Clever enough to design tools and weapons for killing what he needs in relation to his basic needs (food and shelter) he can then devise tools and weapons to kill others of his species; not far removed from his needs as provider.
Man goes to war on his fellows. No more the, the face-to-face confrontation (this becomes too difficult (the First World War) and so the 'killing-at-distance' prevails, the culmination of which was dropping the atom bomb on the Japanese (World War 2).
Herds create (negatively) notions of power. They invent hierarchies of controllers within the structure of which they feel safe, except when some disagree and they are ousted to be replaced by other herds who do the same thing by another name. The larger the herd becomes, the greater become the hierarchies (aka bureaucracy), thus the less the individuals in the herd have their input and frankly, the less they matter, since it is supposed that in bureaucratic/political terms, the 'greater good of the herd'.

Those not of the 'herd'.
It is to be (probably, though I personally doubt it, as a positive person) agreed that most people follow the herd instinct.
Be that as it may, there are others of the human race who do not follow the herd instinct. These individuals come about the same way their counterparts do. They are the product of  couplings of humans as part of the heritage of sexual reproduction. They are therefore as worthy to be called homo.sapiens as anyone.     
In various parlance called 'outsiders', 'anarchists' and so forth, these individuals have been the creators in the World. These are not the negative people, they are the positive.
Herds do not create things except to eventually destroy others (flora and fauna) because they become to big and thus unwieldy. Individuals do create things (ideas, .art, data, writings and So forth). These individuals are (usually) persecuted by the herd because the herd works one way (towards self-destruction), the individual another. The herd is therefore negative; the individual positive. The herd is negative because it runs around all over the place, driven by fear. The individual is positive because he stands still and listens to the earth. The best part of the World (as opposed to. the earth upon which we all live), is produced by individuals despite the herd. Without the individual, the World would have long since deceased if the herd had its way.
The herd does not like the individual because he poses a threat The threat is the realisation that the herd is a purely animal thing which can have no future except extinction because of its nature.
The herd WILL fail because it is a growing herd. It is a human herd without a sense of culling, without a sense of purpose. The herd has a spirit which will destroy itself because of its nature. It is only the individual who may succeed. The individual with feelings that have been so often relegated to the pathetic.
            Individualism (in the sense of a feeling person and not an emotional person), is a self-regulating mechanism because that individual, who has 'feelings has also self-control and self-discipline, integrity, loyalty and feeling for others. An individual will not allow himself to be controlled by others who prey on 'individuals with their self-imposed emotions because they are part of a herd. to which he does not wish to belong; his feelings are against it.
The herd is not self-regulating because it relies on the hierarchy of a 'pecking order'. The individual is a no-no in this scheme of things. Some sort of order must prevail, they say. There is no order. The universe is not linear, it is crinkly. What appears to be straight is only a concept, not a reality.
Time, methinks for a positive move to a MERITOCRACY. That is, those that have the skills do. (They feel, therefore they do). Those that don't are often sad, lazy people, who could but don't/wouldn't/can't care. These people can be accommodated. Democracies always ends up as political dictatorships.
With groups of people, there is possibly a need for some management. Management to co-ordinate the best uses of people, not to dictate behaviours. There are such people with the requisite skills. So-called 'primitive' societies did this quite successfully. Modern societies don't (because they are politically driven). We would still have the technology we have now but there would be less people and a great deal more of the natural resources that have ended up at the bottom of some ocean.

Bottom Line
I think what I am saying, is that the world is too full of people. That is, we are over-populated given the nature of the herd. The earth itself might possibly withstand the onslaught of the human race until the food and space finally give out or the herd instinct degenerates further into global warfare and we are doomed in whatever way to obliteration. But before that, the misery of a growing herd, with no purpose except to procreate (for that we can be grateful to a church of some sort, the greatest controllers of them all for their own ends) will produce an unhappy world for everyone. The so-called 'right' to have children, is an irresponsibility. It is an invention. 3 It is a herd invention which will be the downfall of the whole human' race. The motto seems to be: breed and be damned. Time we came to terms with this notion and pursue it sensibly.



Return to CONTENTS page