Essay talk:On the Origin of Human Conflict

For what it's worth, you are making a lot of unsupported leaps here. There is no evidence yet found, that shows we were at war with Neanderthal. No bones found with spear heads in them, for example. GodotGrow a vagina 17:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, the fact that Neanderthals began dying out as the Cro-Magnons arrived, findings of Neanderthal cannibalism, the new European innovations in weaponry as the Neanderthals began dying out, human-Neanderthal mtDNA differences ruling out interbreeding, all points to Neanderthal extinction being caused at least in part by dominance and attacks by Homo sapiens sapiens. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

General Ug! Greetings from General Grok. I have run the many hundred miles from our positions in the siege of Many-huts-in-the-valley to this seacoast location! Our systematic destruction of the Neander man is going excellent! Do you have any messages for us to dispatch? The new spear points work excellently! Ty^Annoy 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. When you are competing for food resources, and you have better technology, the other side won't be able to compete. nothing at all suggests that humans and neanderthal actually fought. they may well have, but it's not scientific, or fact supported - it's just someone's hunch. Also, your characterization of "weapon" is misplaced, for what it's worth. It is a tool. we do not know how it was used yet.--GodotGrow a vagina 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Petulant, much?

This whole "get content removed by other editors who know better and then hiving it off into my own little essay so I can have it and nobody else can play with it" routine--remember the Virgin Mary fiasco?--is tiresome petulance. Do us all a favor and knock it off. Thanks. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason he shouldn't make an essay on this. It's where it belongs, essay space. Maybe he can work though underdeveloped ideas, and find some core/interesting issues. If he is, as he says, a student, he should be encouraged to write things like this. but it's also important to explain to him the difference between "making assumptions", and doing "logical research". GodotGrow a vagina 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 17:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that whole conversation went right over his head. He's heading down the Orly Taitz method of logic, facts, and supporting evidence. "cause I said so" makes it an equally valid claim as one with evidence. GodotGrow a vagina 17:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It didn't go over my head. I provided supporting evidence for my claim. When you put forth an alternative explanation of the evidence, I said both our hypotheses are equally valid and evidence-supported, and how this evidence can be interpreted different ways. Professional scientists do have differing opinions on human-Neanderthal relationships, and it continually changes year to year. I'm not saying mine is true because I say so: I put up supporting evidence, and when you said it could support either way, I said you're right, and emphasized the "either way" part. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, except they aren't. You are advocating something with zero real evidence, from a time and a place where there is no support. You say "this must have happened", but that's not logical. Generally, when we write about pre-history, we look at what we know, and go from there. Neanderthal began to die out when Cro-magnum arrived. That's it. that's as far as you can go. You are making a positive assertion about the fact that there were battles. There is not one single piece of evidence to support that. "Evidence" cannot be interpreted in different ways, cause there is not enough of it. There is only one possible conclusion: neanderthals died out when CM came. any reason for why is ONLY speculation, not science or rationality. --GodotGrow a vagina 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the evidence:

• Neanderthals began to die out when Cro-Magnons began to arrive in Europe. They shared Europe sometime between five and twenty thousand years.
• Over the span of time when Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals co-existed, a lot of new weapons such as spears, atlatls, bows, etc., were developed in Europe but were not used by Neanderthals.
• Mitochondrial DNA indicates that Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals did not interbreed.
• Neanderthal bones have been found indicating they were eaten by some sort of humanoid.

From this, I am concluding that, at least in part, there was competition between Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals for the necessities of life. It would not have been very surprising if the two species attacked each other to aid their own ends. I admit I could be wrong, but the evidence seems to support my position. Do you have a counterargument? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

so you are actually suggesting a single WAR lasted 5000 plus years? cause this is the "history of war", not chimps that are known to attack other tribes for resources. GodotGrow a vagina 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC & fucking page shift) I don't think anybody is doubting that there was competition between the species & that they probably attacked each other. Characterising that as "war" is misleading. There are plenty of species that compete with & attack each other but we don't talk about this in terms of "war", which is a term for organised conflicts within the same species (almost invariably homo sapiens sapiens). Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, a better phrase would be "series of conflicts over 5000+ years", but we're getting into semantic games at this point. Now, what do you have to say about the evidence for this series of conflicts? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing, because I haven't researched the subject or studied the evidence. But as I've said, competition & conflict between species doesn't begin or end with humans, so this really isn't the origin of conflict. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

2012

It only goes as far as 2012. Just like the Mayan calendar! Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

For all I know, Homo sapiens may blow itself up or world peace may somehow re-emerge before December 31. Until January this year, it read "Postbellum ('after war') -10 000 to +2011". I changed it to what it is now when the new year came and humans were still fighting like usual. Unless something different happens, I'll keep updating this year by year. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My prediction is that none of those things will happen. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I am not going to guess about what the future of warfare will be. This depends on a lot of things like future politics and technology which cannot be foreseen. I am going to presume that humans will continue fighting as long as there are humans. I just am not going to say that with absolute 100% certainty. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There have actually been quite a lot of developments in politics and technology already, yet you put all warfare from the last twelve thousand years in the same bag. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, using your logic above shouldn't you update the date daily?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

All the other dates are in years, so this one will also be in years. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

These are general phases. It would be impractical to meticulously list the cause and effect of the myriads of battles from Cemetery 114 to now. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Six words for you.

Peer-reviewed research from professional anthropologists. Or GTFO. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 17:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Know any good journals to submit this to? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Try "Highlights." if not, try here. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 18:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure: Jurnal of Human development, Journal of world prehistory are two that deal in this area. By the way, why do you think cro-mag and neanderthal did not interbreed, since we have DNA evidence that they did. that 1/4 of modern humans carry neanderthal DNA. (this from Planck's institute). GodotGrow a vagina 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mitochondrial DNA indicates against human-Neanderthal interbreeding. If they interbred, then the mtDNA from female Neanderthals would find their way into modern European haplogroups, but this isn't the case: modern European mtDNA comes from the "pure-blooded Homo sapiens" mitochondrial Eve. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/ really, I'm not a biologist but this took 10 seconds.Godot What do cats dream about? 01:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"A lot of criticisms of my work..."

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! You take yourself sooooo seriously. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 18:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Damn it! I had just cleaned my screen yesterday. Ty^Annoy 18:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Conflict

You're changing your own goal posts, which is a problem for your essay. Conflict for "human" goes back to our earliest ape ancestors, if we can draw any comparisons form modern apes. They attack eachother for food, for space, for women. Tribe attacks tribe. Of course, Kimodo Dragons do that too. It's going to be hard to work this in, if your issues is "when did humans start fighting other humans'. probably as long ago as they were dinosaurs. GodotGrow a vagina 18:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to say

As a history major with interest in early medieval on back; i can tell you this is absolutely hilarious, thank you, i like a good facepalm sometimes. --il'Dictator Mikal 23:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

He's just a child. Cut him some slack. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

he made an essay on something, im reviewing it. If i wanted ot be harsh i would have actually gone into what i know of pre civilization humanity and why hes wrong--il'Dictator Mikal 00:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

More likely origin of war

Watch this, especially from the 43:25 mark. Transcription:

"Genghis Khan was a nomad and an inventor of a powerful war machine [the horse], and that conjunction says something important about the origins of war in human history. Of course, it's tempting to close one's eyes to history and instead to speculate about the roots of war in some possible animal instinct, as if, like the tiger, we still had to kill to live, or, like the robin redbreast, to defend a nesting territory. But war, organized war, is not a human instinct. It is a highly planned and cooperative form of theft. And that form of theft began 10,000 years ago, when the harvesters of wheat accumulated a surplus and the nomads rose out of the desert to rob them of what they themselves could not provide. Evidence of that we saw in the walled city of Jericho and its prehistoric tower. That is the beginning of war." --Tweenk (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)