Seville Statement on Violence

[random]

"The Seville Statement on Violence is a statement on violence that was adopted by an international meeting of scientists, convened by the Spanish National Commission for UNESCO, in Seville, Spain, on 16 May 1986. It was subsequently adopted by UNESCO at the twenty-fifth session of the General Conference on 16 November 1989. The statement, then known as a 'Statement on Violence', was designed to refute "the notion that organized human violence is biologically determined".

The statement contains five core ideas. These ideas are:

1. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors."
2. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature."
3. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour."
4. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a 'violent brain'."
5. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by 'instinct' or any single motivation."

The statement concludes: "Just as 'wars begin in the minds of men', peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us." "

What it's your opinion about this?

regards!

 

[restin]

I find it really interesting. It is nearly common to think that the survival of the fittest (and therefore the willing for violence) is in our genes. It is part of the common mentality, this is why capitalism actually works.

I also do not believe that violence is the primary human nature (although it is part of us), I base it on my own experience with human beings and myself-

but I wonder, what is their statement based on? Pure idealistic thought or is it really scientific?

 

[Nomada]

^ "nearly common", "common mentality", what is that? For centuries humanity was a one gender species-women were weak men, their penis was inverted for a lack of internal fire and drive- and that was common mentality...

Every time I've checked capitalism wasn't working...ohhhh, now, yes it is working-excuse me- if you think "survival of the fittest" is the way to go. Every one else how's not fit to fit the competitive logic of capital accumulation has to die.

Never in the entire history has there been more destruction, to nature, to human beings than right now. The dichotomy first-world/third-and-fourth-world is produced by the system. The dying miserable are just not competitive enough...they have to go. Travel south and check for yourself.

 

[Nomada]

Every time I've checked capitalism wasn't working...ohhhh, now, yes it is working-excuse me- if you think "survival of the fittest" is the way to go

I'm sorry if this, or anything else I said, might have sounded aggressive. I wasn't my intention-I'm ranting...and I don't know what you think. What I'm trying to say is that you can follow the "survival of the fittest" to a fascist ideology; cuasi-Nazism for example.

Travel south and check for yourself.

I'm not referring to you. signaling the north/south asymmetric axis that permeates globalization.

 

[magickmumu]

There is a talk by Ralph Metzner and Terence Mckenna where they talk about exactly this subject. What they say is something like this,

People have lived in peace without war and weapons longer then they did with war and weapons. That's a fact.

this survival of the fittest idea is just not true. It's a stupit macho idea and nature just doesn't work that way.
The species that is most connected to the environment (needed the most by the environment) is likely to survive.

 

[restin]

people, people either re-read my post or I expressed myself wrong??

I am not of the opinion, Nomada, to all you referred in your first post.

What I intended to say is, that NOW it is common to say blablabla, I am NEVER of this opinion :wink: But it is sadly true, that there are a lot of (mainstream) voices that state survival of the fittest. Uhm, however, re-read, you really sound quite aggressive.

I don't believe that you can state "humans are naturally war-like" or "humans are naturally peaceful". You cannot cut one piece out and ignore it or put it to light, like the capitalists do "humans are naturally gready" they say and ignore all the rest. Also the statement that humans were longer peaceful than warlike is an oversimplification of the situation.

The situation of Hunters and Gatherers is completely different from the one of the Farmers and even more different from the modern complex society. It is easier to be peaceful in a small company, where you have to relate to each other than in a society where you have to kill your boss to get "better".

Human nature is complex and also if you like to call us monkeys, you must agree on this. It is (nearly) impossible to predict what a human will do.

Read carefully and slowly :wink:

 

[Nomada]

I apologize again. I didn't intend any attack on yourself-I'm trying to attack the-if I'm allowed- essence ideology. I'm embarrassed.

like the capitalists do "humans are naturally gready" they say and ignore all the rest. Also the statement that humans were longer peaceful than warlike is an oversimplification of the situation.

Human Nature is a pre-modern concept used to justify, amongst other things, the inquisition. Human nature is "this and that"-a closed definition with no permeable boundary- and everything and everyone who's positioned outside this boundary is not-human (native americans, africans ("black" people), witches, etc, non-competitive individuals).
If you look "essentia" on a latin dictionary a little christian cross appears beside it, meaning it was used a lot by Christian thinkers and writers.
Supposidely, the renaissance and the modern epoch brought about the notion, that we have always had as collective, to produce ourselves, to our own image, by ourselves-not some God or equivalent. This is why the modern paradigm is poison to most religions.
I, nonetheless, put the modern paradigm, right now, on a crisis stage. We seem to be going backwards. I'm very sensible to this and this is probably why I reacted so lunatic-I apologize again.

 

[restin]

yes, there were always theories trying to explain what History has done to us res. what we have done to history, Schopenhauer, Rousseau, Smith, Marx, you know them. It is extremely risky to rely on one of them - as you said - a closed definition only works in reflection to the knowledge and morals of the very same time. There are people who say "I rely more on Rousseau", the others say "Smith was right" what leads to a war of opinions instead of argumentation and deep thought. Not that I had an ultimate explanation, I believe there is none. I cannot find out who I am myself, how should I find out who humanity is?