Conflicts and the DNA

[Loke2]

OK, this will probably end in a great flame war and lock-down... or could we have a discussion without flaming?

I have a theory (or "hypothesis" is probably a better word) connecting the DNA to military conflicts.

The Sami people have lived in the Nordic region for millenia. Although they are now treated quite well by the Swedes and Norwegians and Finns, it was not always like that. A hundred (or perhaps just 50) years back in time, and relations were worse. Go further back in time (100-10,000 years) and there have been periods of happy co-existance, but also of conflict and war. The stronger "Europeans" have always pushed the Sami people further and further north.

The interesting thing is that, in spite of millenia of conflict, the Sami people has (with some extremely few exceptions) never fought back; there are no Sami terrorists.

This could be linked to culture; however we are talking about millenniea here, and culture changes with time. Therefore I think that there must be something more.

I suggest a genetic component: Perhaps there are some "aggresion genes" that a certain percentage of the population have; people with that gene have a tendency to want to resolve conflicts using violence. Now, if in a population you have very few people with aggression genes, they will have little influence on the cultural development, and you get a pacifist culture, which again could favor people with few aggressor genes.

There could also be a "natural selection" involved. For several millenia the Sami have been purshed further north; this means conflict. If, in the past, the Sami people had a similar number of people with aggresion genes as other nearby tribes, then perhaps there would be conflict. However the weaker Sami would lose; only those that decided to flee would survive. Since there was a place to flee to (further north) that was a winning strategy. Aggressive sami would either be killed, or perhaps assimilated into the other tribe's gene pool.

Now, consider other parts of the world, like e.g. the Middle East. A relatively small patch of real estate, where a large number of different tribes and people have been living for millenia. This means conflict, and there are two basic responses; either you flee, or you fight.

People that live in the ME today are mostly descendants of those that decided to not flee to other parts of the world but decided to stay and fight.

There are also other areas where a large number of people have been living in a relatively small area for millenia, like the Balkans.

I suggest that just like the Sami people perhaps have fewer people with the "aggressor gene", other groups in other parts of the world, may have a higher percentage of people with "aggressor gene" in their gene pool.

A larger fraction of people with aggressor genes in a population will also make it possible for them to have a bigger influenze on the culture; instead of a pacifist culture you get a warrier culture.

It would be interesting to look for those "aggressor genes" and see if there really are differences -- my guess would be that in most parts of the world the fraction of people with aggressor genes would be roughly the same -- however, perhaps there are some few exceptions; The Sami could be in the lower end of the scale; if that's the case it seems reasonable to assume that some groups are in the upper end of the scale...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#Genetics_and_the_history_of_genetic_studies_on_the_Sami

[Mu-Meson]

Interesting concept.

People that live in the ME today are mostly descendants of those that decided to not flee to other parts of the world but decided to stay and fight.
Well, does the Jewish diaspora count as fleeing to other parts of the world? Coz they are staying and fighting now.

[ZARDOZ]

You point has some validity to it, the factors mentioned do and can effect aggressor actions, but it is just part of the puzzle.

I can recall (but not cite, sry) two white papers I read many moons ago. One theorized that the American Civil War was in actuality a carry over in part of the animosity that existed between the British and the Scotts. Given the settlement pattern in the U.S. at that time had the majority of these respective Cultures having one group settled in the South and the other in the North. An interesting theory, no doubt.

The other dealt more with Darwinism and the "Survivors/Winners" of conflicts in that the superior genes won out in battle while the weak died off. For example: The fastest/Most agile on the beachs of Normandy during the D-day invaison lived to spread their genes.

This theory while not as solid (Bullets and bombs are not "selective" in the gene pool), can be interplayed in that survivors pass on an aggression towards a certain party/class/culture, and backs it up with lore and tradition to further the next generation carrying on the aggression.


Good topic you have put forth and I look forward to those putting in their 2 cents...

[Invisigoth]

The other dealt more with Darwinism and the "Survivors/Winners" of conflicts in that the superior genes won out in battle while the weak died off. For example: The fastest/Most agile on the beachs of Normandy during the D-day invaison lived to spread their genes.

Would agree. We read many stories about extraordinary heroism and initiative and unfortunately too many of those stories end with posthumous awards.

[Ordie]

The interesting thing is that, in spite of millenia of conflict, the Sami people has (with some extremely few exceptions) never fought back; there are no Sami terrorists

It probably because its so damn cold up in the Artic.

They were probably more concerned about where to get the next meal, (or be eaten by a Polar bear) than plotting terrorist acts.

[Mordoror]

your initial postulate is false :
This could be linked to culture; however we are talking about millenniea here, and culture changes with time. Therefore I think that there must be something more.
cultures (isolated) may not change for thousand years (see Papus in New Guinea or Indians in Amazon or Bushmen in Kalahari desert etc etc)

now about the "genes" of agressivity or not
well that genes will be kept if providing a selective advantage

this may be the case in some tribes
the Yanomanis for example value war, fighting, capture of prisonners and rape

the more you kill ennemies, the more you get their wifes as slaves and the higher is your status in the tribe
so the more children you have
if (and i say IF) violence is genetically transmitted then the generations of Yanomanis will go more and more violent

now you have not to forget that there is also a social pressure for violence in some tribes or countries/people
first that pressure is somewhat seen in every society at the childhood : male child have to be strong, not to cry, and fight back if agressed

after that in some societies warriors are more considered than let's say peasants
so all child want to be warriors and train and behave accordingly
when they do that they developp of course a tendency for violence

finally the societies with a lot of warrior/soldiers..are often in conflict with other societies because an army is total money lost and unproductive part of the society so to maintain it you have to find ressources and these ressource (money, minerals, slaves, territories, goods etc) are found on the next country/land/tribe and obtained by war......but once you have launched a war you have to keep up that army and reequip it, reorganize it so you still need money.....that you find by attacking again other countries ...until the gain/cost balance cease to be positive (i.e : you are defeated militarily, politically or economically)
so basically here you have a self sustaining circle

if you want further examples of what i said i suggest you to read : the Lucifer Principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucifer_Principle

[Loke2]

your initial postulate is false :
cultures (isolated) may not change for thousand years (see Papus in New Guinea or Indians in Amazon or Bushmen in Kalahari desert etc etc)

But the sami culture has not been isolated, there has always been the influence of the "white man". That's one of the things that makes the sami case so special and different from the cases you refer to.

Also, how do you know that the tribes you refer to have not changed their culture the last thousand years? They don't have any written records, AFAIK. Their cultures may have changed significantly in that period, but we don't know because it was never recorded. Don't mix culture with "level of technology" (although technology by itself is a major driver for changes in culture, it is certainly not the only one)

I am not an expert in this field, but I do know this: The Norwegian culture has changed dramatically the last 1000 years. Even the changes the last 100 years have been astonishing.

[Ordie]

Reading reccommendations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book)

[Mordoror]

But the sami culture has not been isolated,

on that we may disagree a bit
Sami were on the edge of the medieval known word
Exchange with white men were done through trade (a very very little) and war/invasion (a lot) but we cannot say that they were integrated in the circle of the european nations

* first, wars are not an isolation breaking events (from a cultural point of view) if it is waged quickly enough to beat or driven away the weakest foes
your culture and civilization is destroyed quickly enough to not allow you to change and adapt (example of the Aztecs/Peruvians)...after that you are assimilated and nothing remains of your old cultures (or so few that it's anecdotic)

or if not, you are driven away (willingly or not) in more remote areas where nobody will come and bothers you (example of some natives indians (see Yana history) but also some african tribes that went/were driven to hostile are or asian tribes that went/were driven the same (also on remote islands))
then you get isolated and keep you culture (especially because culture is the cement of your society and that if you lose it, your already weakened society will collapse)

* to come back on the Sami they were away of the main markets/lines of trade/church influence unlike let's say the norsemen who were traders/invaders but also settlers in foreign countries so yes they were pretty isolated

don't forget that at that time, travelling far wasn't easy as actually
isolation was easier
hell, even in countries considered as "modern" a majority of people didn't leave their villages (making them isolated)
that's why you may have a lot of very local culture (fests, formalities, traditions) sometimes limited to only one village or one valley (we have even until now plenty of them in France)


to me the Sami were driven away by successive norse settlers advances until they reach (or had remaining as territory) only remote areas where to live
in such remote areas you can keep your culture alive especially because it is lost and remote and because you avoid outside contact that may be catastrophic for you (as it was learned painfuly just before)


Also, how do you know that the tribes you refer to have not changed their culture the last thousand years? They don't have any written records

spoken records are/were still available (may be not for long) and may not be seen as fully accurates (although they are in fact in such kind of cultures)
and when the granpa of a village say its granpa was told by his granpa who himslef was told by his granpa that the formalities were conduced "this way" as far as the history of the tribe can be remembered, you can consider that for generations, the culture has not changed or not drastically


The Norwegian culture has changed dramatically the last 1000 years. Even the changes the last 100 years have been astonishing.

it has of course but again Norvegians were not isolated

they were travellers, invaders, settlers, merchants in the whole Europe and up to north africa, ME and russia
such kind of interactions build up some society changes because interactions are going both ways
on the other hand when you are in contact with only warriors/invaders without merchant/scholars/settlers interactions, so without exchange of new technologies and ideas/languages/way of thinking and only blood and mayhem in case of encounter you tend to avoid these unwelcome neighbors AND their culture/ideas/civilization by rejection

finally to come back to the initial point if some societies value violence a lot (because ressources are scarce so you have to loot them from the others ) others are giving violence a very low value because cooperation is needed to survive
and afterthat it becomes a cultural thing

as for the example of the Yanomani, there is counter example of tribes (don't remember if it is in South America or Africa) where a bragging/violent behaviour gives you a low social status
and having a low social level is unattractive for anybody
maybe the Sami were like that and once it is incorporated as a tradition for generations it is very difficult to remove it even in front of invaders especially if these ones are far stronger than you (see the Tibetan example also....)

[zg18]

Reading reccommendations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel



Didn't read the book , but watched documentary , very impressive.

[GiladS]

Interesting concept.

Well, does the Jewish diaspora count as fleeing to other parts of the world? Coz they are staying and fighting now.

Jew didn't flee, it is because they revolted against the Roman Empire that they were exiled.

[ronnieraygun]

Guns, Germs and Steel = interesting stuff. Thanks Ordie.

This would never fly - looking for an aggro gene that makes some more warlike than others? I don't think there is such a thing, even if you're watching Star Trek. Also, the last time a northern European showed up and said that certain races were more genetically inclined toward certain behaviors, it didn't end well.

If you gave Sami lots of automatic weapons and booze, I'm sure they would be classified as "aggressive."

[Gleipnir]

Maybe a better example than the Sami would be the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico-

http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/1924-the-tarahumaras-an-endangered-species

[Mordoror]

Guns, Germs and Steel = interesting stuff. Thanks Ordie.

This would never fly - looking for an aggro gene that makes some more warlike than others? I don't think there is such a thing, even if you're watching Star Trek. Also, the last time a northern European showed up and said that certain races were more genetically inclined toward certain behaviors, it didn't end well.

If you gave Sami lots of automatic weapons and booze, I'm sure they would be classified as "aggressive."

well agressivity behaviour is quite easy to maintain and even improve
we have done it artificially with a lot of races of dogs

but it is still a behaviour


the agressivity "genetic" background may be here (don't know : maybe higher testosterone content in the blood, or inappropriate secretion of serotonin ...that was seen in several serial killers which is the extrem example of "agressivity") BUT you need also a social background there (as always when we are talking about the complex human behaviour)

a society as a whole may then be or may be not agressive depending of what values it shares

PS : i have found an article in french trying to analyse factors of agressivity. It is in French but i'll give the link anyway
http://disc.vjf.inserm.fr/BASIS/elgis/fqmr/rapp/DDW?W%3DTEXTE++PH+LIKE+%27-INTERVENTION%27%26M%3D219%26K%3D1209%26R%3DY%26U%3D1
basically it says that low level of tryptophane aminoacid (which is used for the serotonin synthesis) or very low level of cholesterol (which is an activator of serotonin responding neurons) have been detected in individuals with violent behaviour
agressivity can also be promoted by damaging some areas of the brain (areas very rich in serotonin dependant neurons)
so it seems there is a link between agressive behaviour and the level of activation of the serotonin loop in the brain

[nemowork]

Speaking roughly since its friday and my blood alchohol level is higher than my IQ your confusing genetics with culture.

You press a Sami and he's got a million miles of tundra at his back to retreat into regardless of somebody elses ideas of national borders. Theres no point in fighting to the death or going out to kill when free roaming land is so common.

You press a Palestinian and he's been educated to believe the land he's standing on is his and he's got nowhere else to go. Fighting and dying for the last square inch of land may be no good for him individually but it might save his siblings or children.

Its one of those weird things with people, genetics and family versus cause and intelligence and don't try and figure out which one is more important.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I’ve been recently reading up on epigenetic transformations related to stress or the lack of it. It appears that humans can alter on a genetic level due to elevated stress or non stress environments passing the resultant traits on to the following generations. My guess is that certain categories of stress or the lack of it, spread across a wide enough population could promote cultural propensities towards brain structures promoting varying levels of aggression to passivity.

Heck, scientists are already finding ways to flip these genetic switches on and off.

I've been wondering for decades from another direction just why so many people seem to be becomming more passive/agressive and how it may relate to the cyclical patterns of human economic and political fluctuations. It seems to me that the better times get, the worse people become.

[Chulo]

Reading reccommendations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel


Yea i was going to recommend that book. The East-West geopolitical influence is stronger than the North-South

[gazell]

Loke2,

Obviously, you are not a geneticist, I gather. Nor am I, for that matter, so me having never heard of an aggression gene, might be irrelevant. You got some seriously good, corrective comments on this already, so I just gonna add something that it reminded me of.

A psychiatrist wrote some study about why schizophrenia was not evolutionarily discarded. The person argued, that we need them for leaders, as the successful leader has a lot less moral sensitivity as the norm. So there.

[ting]

On Sami:
The Norsemen are coast huggers and the Sami are nomads. The Sami are quite adept at living inland. My guess is the conflicts between the two peoples were not that big. Trade between the Fishermen/traders on the coast vs. the Nomads in the inland would be more profitable than conflict for both groups. Also there would be little conflict over the land since the Nomads could just go around what little arable land there was. My guess is that those Norse who stayed on land were quite happy to have someone to trade with.

In short, the conflicts of interest between us vikings and the Sami were few, and we could, believe it or not, coexist without violence.

On aggression: Aggression towards others is a complex behavior and any biological drive in a normal person would play a very small part in this behavior. Appraisal of the situation, and learned behaivor/responses/emotional activation are the main factors in aggression towards others AFAIK.

my 2 cents

[vryhpyammoadded]

Loke2,

Obviously, you are not a geneticist, I gather. Nor am I, for that matter, so me having never heard of an aggression gene, might be irrelevant. You got some seriously good, corrective comments on this already, so I just gonna add something that it reminded me of.

A psychiatrist wrote some study about why schizophrenia was not evolutionarily discarded. The person argued, that we need them for leaders, as the successful leader has a lot less moral sensitivity as the norm. So there.
Interesting idea that, although, I'd lean towards manipulators or maybe better to say "managers" than leaders. Some of the best leaders I've studied were highly sensitive to the moral norm.

[gazell]

Interesting idea that, although, I'd lean towards manipulators or maybe better to say "managers" than leaders. Some of the best leaders I've studied were highly sensitive to the moral norm.

Yes, can be highly argued with at peril. And however a stretch the statement sounds, the article's argumentation was engaging. It was more of a pondering hypothesis though than anyway presenting a working principle.

Apart from touching on the subject of 'some of the most cruel leaders often become the most celebrated national heroes', mostly was discussing the hard decision situation and arguing, that the average guy would fail to make a clear, purely logically beneficial decision or even their judgement might be blurred with empathy, social sensitivity in such cases as declaring war, for example.