杏吧原创s have worked out an evolutionary basis for many behaviours, such as altruism and jealousy. Over the millennia, however, people have been unbelievably and gratuitously cruel to each other. The evolutionary advantage of cruelty is not obvious. What is its biological basis in humans?
There may not be an evolutionary advantage, at least not any longer. It is more likely a throwback from the past. Not so very long ago in evolutionary terms, humans lived as hunter-gatherers in small groups. Indeed, many such groups still remain, in the remnants of tropical rainforests, for example.
There is safety in numbers and individuals can specialise in what they are good at, knowing that other essential tasks will be taken care of by their companions. However, although in-group individuals may be loving and caring towards each other, there is open hostility towards any out-group that competes for territory and food resources. Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) were one group that lost out to humans (Homo sapiens) in such past conflicts. However, to speak of cruelty in an evolutionary context seems inappropriately anthropomorphic, despite the fact that we are discussing human beings.
Advertisement
Homo sapiens evolved in parallel with the other great apes, in which we can see similar 鈥渃ruel鈥� behaviours. Even within their own groups, great apes are not necessarily loving and caring. They nevertheless gain advantage from living in a group, through increased security and the sharing of tasks. Such hunter-gatherers have to carve out and defend a territory for themselves in order to survive. In consequence, outside groups are a threat to their existence. A group of apes has its hierarchy, and a conflict between two groups is a threat not only to survival, but to the dominance of the males in a particular group. The conflict is resolved by either driving off the rival group or by killing all the rival males in the group and assimilating the females and young. Whichever group wins the conflict is obviously the fittest in terms of survival. That鈥檚 what it鈥檚 all about in the end, cruel or not.
Modern humans behave in a similar fashion. It is quite clear even today that humans belonging to one group can easily be influenced to see humans of another group as being subhuman and inferior, enabling their extermination without mercy (see 鈥淭hey made me do it鈥�, New 杏吧原创, 14 April, p 42). This is true even when the differences are over beliefs, rather than over limited resources.
The Americas were recently colonised by Europeans, who pushed the Native Americans aside, and killed any that resisted. Hitler鈥檚 motivation was just the same in the second world war. He envisaged a greater German territory, stretching to the Urals, into which the 鈥渟uperior鈥� Aryan race could grow. The process repeats itself regularly, most recently in the Balkans and Darfur.
Terence Hollingworth, Blagnac, France
Only one word is needed to answer this question 鈥� power. Let鈥檚 leave women out of it. Very few women, if any, have reached the heights of cruelty of Nero or Caligula 鈥� or Saddam Hussein for that matter. The would-be alpha male must trample over all opposition, must create fear to keep himself in power and must keep enough of his cronies loyal. He thus obtains access to a great number of women, the best in material goods and food, and assures himself of the largest possible number of healthy descendants. Other methods of the cruel alpha male may include reducing the number of offspring of rivals, who might compete with his own children.
鈥淰ery few women, if any, have reached the heights of cruelty of Nero 鈥� or Saddam Hussein鈥�
Valerie Moyses, Bloxham, Oxfordshire, UK