From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: TIME TRAVEL
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:27:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

In article <34988@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> jc@sppip7.lkg.dec.com (John Chambers) writes:
>
>As humans, we have an essentially unique bit of freedom:  We can  walk
>about  freely almost anywhere on the planet, and not worry about being
>attacked by any of the strangers we see.  

I would have to disagree with a few points of this article, and this is
a good starting point.  Have you dared walk through ANY big inner-city 
(barrio, slum, ghetto, what have you) at nighttime?
At the risk of sounding sexist, it would be foolish for a woman to do
this, and very risky for even a strong man alone.

>In most other species,  even
>the mildest herbivores, there are territorial rules, and a stranger is
>very likely to be attacked and driven out  or  killed.   With  humans,
>attacks  are  much more likely at home.  

Domestic violence, yes.  Violence from strangers, no.

>To biologists, this poses  an  interesting  question.   They  are,  of
>course,  generally  working  from  the assumption that behavior is Yet
>Another Adaptation, and are studying it as such. Why is it that humans
>are   so   non-agressive  towards  strangers  of  their  own  species?
>Presumably there's an adaptive reason for it,  considering  that  such
>behavior is so rare in other species.

I think adaptation is a big part of it.  Social veneer does wonders to
maintain order.

>It's also interesting that our self image is so much the  opposite  of
>this.   One  of  the  things that we "know" is that humans (especially
>Caucasian humans ;-) are agressive, dangerous beasties that have taken
>over  the  planet  by  sheer  firepower.  

Sounds pretty much right on so far...
(let's send all those Indians back where they came from :-)

>But the biologists doing the
>comparison studies have concluded just the opposite.  Not only are  we
>less  agressive  than  other species (by several orders of magnitude),
>but we aren't even especially agressive hunters.  All the myths to the
>contrary,  most  other predators kill "for fun" (and leave the prey to
>rot) at a much higher rate than humans do.  

Very few animals kill "for fun" (other than Great white sharks and my cat :-).  
It is rarely for any reasons other than food or defense of self or 
territory.
Also, it is very rare for any animal other than man to kill his own
species for any reason.

>Humans are probably
>more dangerous to non-prey species than to those that we like to eat.

What could this mean?
  A:  pets
  B:  pests (rats, cockroaches, ants)
  C:  "valueless" species (non-pest insects, birds, inedible sealife)
      (don't flame on "valueless".  Note the quotes)

I would think we are much more dangerous to chickens, cows and lobsters
than we are to any of the above.  Of course, we are smart enough now not
to bring of these species' to extinction.

>If it's true that There Are Aliens Among Us,  there's  a  good  chance
>that  they're also curious as to how we could have become the dominant
>species while  being  so  incredibly  non-agressive.   They  might  be
>contemplating  taking  over  the  planet,  and  worrying  whether this
>apparently mild-mannered species will end up conquering them  instead.
>There are plenty of such examples in human records of our own history.

If they are advanced enough to infiltrate the human race I would think
they would also be more advanced than us in weaponry.  They would also
have the element of surprise in their favor, and could permeate society
before striking.

Disclaimer:  These are my opinions only, but they are correct, and
anybody who disagrees with me and thinks I am parroting the
aforementioned "myths" can die a slow, painful death.
-- 
========== Boyd Johnson	   nosc!spectra.com!johnson ==========
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa