Comment by JumpCrisscross

Comment by JumpCrisscross 5 days ago

58 replies

> Tools predate homo sapiens (which emerged about 300 kYA)

I’m going to use a charged word because Jane Goodall used it.

Goodall asserted that humans and chimpanzees (and wolves) are unique among animals in that we have a genocidal tendency [1]. When a group attacks us (or has “land and resources” we want) we don’t just chase them off. We exterminate them. We expend great resources to track them down to ensure they cannot threaten us.

One reading of pre-history is that we had a number of hominids that were fine sharing the world, and humans, who were not. (I’ve seen the uncanny valley hypothesised as a human response to non-human hominids, as well as other humans carrying transmissible disfiguring diseases.)

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/does-...

Incipient 5 days ago

>going to use a charged word

I honestly have no clue what word you used was 'charged'. Considering any of those words charged makes me worry how far political correctness has gone! (I'm assuming, I suppose, politically charged?)

  • throwup238 5 days ago

    “Genocidal” is charged because it projects human morality onto non-human animals. It’s about basic scientific hygiene, not political correctness.

    • nandomrumber 4 days ago

      That’s not why genocidal is a charged word in my opinion.

      It’s because it implies that genocide has always been, and will always be, a reality humans will all too frequently find them selves having to contend with.

      An aspect of our evolutionary success that will haunt us always, at least while its not busy being indulged in.

nomel 5 days ago

I think this is part of the reason humans are so stupid during any sort of divisions where "sides" emerge. To be able to do commit this genocide, you need a very ugly "switch" in your head that can make your actions justifiable/right. I think this switch is the same, emotional, unthinking one that makes some people so religion about teams sports, phone OS, political alignment, etc.

Related, I think this is also the mechanism for how religion tends to stabilize societies/give them cohesion. Rather than having an eventual positive feedback loop of division, the division is placed between some type of "good" and "evil" rather than your neighbor. The "us vs them" division that switch craves is put on something more metaphysical (and sometimes a net benefit, like defining evil as behavior destructive to societies).

  • nandomrumber 4 days ago

    This was worth reading, thank you.

    The line between good and evil runs straight down the centre of every human heart.

    And dogs / wolves too, and definitely many / all cetaceans, because they are also cursed with the ability to be deeply affected by the presence, and absence / loss, of those they form bonds with. And that drives us all to be prepared to kill, or at least encourage others to, not out or physical necessity (nutrition) but retribution.

    I’ve always considered the criminal justice system to be a euphemism for the codified retribution system.

    We live in an unjust realm. All we can ever hope for is something approximating an appropriate level of retribution.

    And it is a would appear as fact that that not infrequently rises to the level of not just genocide as we are familiar with it most recently, but proper extermination.

    • vixen99 4 days ago

      Moral philosophers pack up! It's all solved.

MarcelOlsz 5 days ago

The worst part of reading this thread is I know I won't be able to google image anything interesting related to "non-human hominids" :( Your comment was oddly depressing lol. Real "are we the baddies?" moment this morning.

  • JumpCrisscross 5 days ago

    > won't be able to google image anything interesting related to "non-human hominids"

    We were a large family [1].

    > Real "are we the baddies?" moment

    We were animals. We acted in accordance with our natures. Wolves and chimpanzees aren’t baddies any more than bees or hyenas. Nature is brutal.

    Today, however, we are more than our natures. We have the capacity to criticize it when it arises in ways we disapprove of. In a certain sense, humans have a unique capacity to reduce suffering in a way without precedent in Earth’s natural history.

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

    • unfitted2545 5 days ago

      That's kinda ridiculous to think we're not animals anymore, our nature is to use intellect for survival (and though we know we can reduce suffering further we choose not to).

      • ncr100 5 days ago

        It is a mind bender, yes.

        Your argument, written here and As far as I understand it at the moment, goes along with the other argument that everything is a simulation, or that everything that we do is preordained based upon physics. All mindbenders.

        I want to believe that I have the ability to make an educated decision when faced e.g. with impulses to suppress or oppress others, I do know that I can consider ramifications and benefits outside of those which directly impact me.

        So, perhaps it's better to say, we can be unanimal like rather than simply not animal, at all? What do you think?

    • staplers 5 days ago

        humans have a unique capacity to reduce suffering in a way
      
      With low cost to our wellbeing as well. Which I think is the main point. Our advances in logistical transportation and food production allow us to be kinder and more plentiful than ever before. Unfortunately we see "instinctual" echoes of past strife seemingly arise from minor inconveniences (those ppl do something that annoys me).
      • butlike 4 days ago

        Explain to me, specifically, how we have the capacity to reduce suffering.

        > Our advances in logistical transportation and food production allow us to be kinder and more plentiful than ever before.

        Are the fisheries not overfished? Are the chickens not caged inhumanely? Is last-mile logistics not a problem? Are microplastics in the water not giving 20-year olds cancer?

    • reactordev 5 days ago

      As equal to their ability to cause it. It’s this dichotomy that makes us, human. We have the power of destruction, the power of criticism, the power of nurturing, and the power to advance. We are amazing animals.

      • throwaway173738 5 days ago

        You might say we have eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge but not the tree of wisdom. So although we can act against our base nature we don’t always.

    • pinnochio 5 days ago

      > Today, however, we are more than our natures.

      This really depends on how you define nature. Attempts to delineate what is and is not nature tend to be motivated.

  • WarmWash 5 days ago

    Another way of looking at it is that humans (and apparently our close brethren) are tribal, don't give up fighting easily, and can generationally hold grudges.

    Invaders of days gone by knew that even the young kids would grow up to "avenge their people", so to avoid problems (violence/killing against their tribe) in 10-15 years, it's better to just totally erase the population.

  • WalterBright 5 days ago

    > Real "are we the baddies?" moment this morning

    Humans have a well-earned nickname: "murder apes"

    • WalterBright 5 days ago

      If you think we're peaceful basketballs, you haven't been provoked. The veneer of civilization is rather thin.

  • keybored 5 days ago

    Of course we are the baddies. That’s the narrative every time people need to defend terrible behavior lead by sociopaths: but that’s just human nature. Very practical fallback.

yieldcrv 5 days ago

Given enough time of human survival, the only species left on this planet will be ones that are aesthetically pleasing to us

Everything selectively bred due to environmental or artificial pressures to have big eyes, big heads, high vocal sounds, attributes of human babies

It is very strange and an aberration amongst species, one being tolerating other beings because of their entertainment value and the joy they give from looking at them, but seems to be consistent and validate what's happened over eons of homo sapien propagation

  • dpc050505 5 days ago

    Animals being tasty is a trait we heavily select for. I don't think chickens have any of the traits you describe but they're certainly not at risk of extinction.

throwup238 5 days ago

> (and wolves)

And lions. And banded mongooses. And meerkats. And ants. Lots and lots of ant species - they’re actually by far the worst, following colony pheromones to the end of the earth just to get a single ant. Ants that aren’t genocidal to their own species tend to be some of the worst invasive species (like Argentinian ant supercolonies).

I love me some Jane Goodall as much as the next guy but that hypothesis is not taken seriously by primatologists and using the word “genocidal” in this context would get you laughed out of the room. Lethal intergroup aggression, coalitionary killing, and raiding are all different aspects of violent behavior in animals and hominins are far from unique in demonstrating them.

  • adastra22 5 days ago

    Agree with your this-is-not-unique-to-primates take. But why is genocidal not accurate?

jama211 5 days ago

It’s an interesting interpretation, but it’s sounds all very unsubstantiated. Speculation it seems to me.

  • JumpCrisscross 5 days ago

    > sounds all very unsubstantiated. Speculation it seems to me

    What part of the study strikes you as unsubstantiated?

    • rhelz 5 days ago

      Every part is unsubstantiated. For starters, for the vast majority of H. Sapiens existence on earth--from 300,000 years ago to about 45,000 years ago, we shared the world with 4 or 5 other hominids that we know about. (Neanderthal, Denisoven, H. Luzonensis, H. Floresiensis, and still perhaps a few H. Erectus, and no doubt even more we haven't found yet.)

      That's 250,000 years of coexistence. We know that we sheboinked with at least two other species, probably more, because we still carry their genes to this day. So much so that it couldn't have been just a sheboink or two; we sheboinked over extended periods of time, i.e. we formed families with Neanderthals and Denisovens.

      We have no evidence of warfare between the species. I.E. We have found no Neanderthal skull with an arrowhead in it, for example. Besides the fact that we are the only ones left, I don't see any substantiation at all.

      It is a mystery why they are not still here. But the last 50,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, has been very hard on human species, for some reason. We are the only humans left, what every got them might get us too if we let it.

      • shakna 5 days ago

        > We have no evidence of warfare between the species.

        Thats not correct.

        We have a neanderthal slain by spear, at a time and place where it was only carried by modern humans. [0]

        This isn't a singular event. We have a history on injuries consistent with war, on both sides.

        Yes, we "sheboinked". We also took women as prizes of war and raped them. As humanity has continued to do for most of their history.

        Sure, the story is probably more complex. Some tribes at war, others at trade. Some who intermingle, and others who raged. That's... Just history of a people. That's normal.

        But we absolutely have a history of war between the species.

        [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...

    • jama211 4 days ago

      Not the study specifically, the rather huge leaps of logic and faith required to get from the study’s findings to the speculations mentioned in your comment.

      • jama211 2 days ago

        But they knew that, so I’ll get no response… ;)

    • [removed] 5 days ago
      [deleted]
api 5 days ago

Sometimes when I think about this it makes me wonder if we should take the dark forest hypothesis seriously (re: Fermi paradox).

Not only are we the only species to reach this kind of technology but among humans the first group to reach space was the Nazis. Today the innovation in that area seems driven by militaristic states and by people who seem ideologically adjacent. In other words it’s driven by very aggressive territorial members of one of the most aggressive territorial species.

We can’t generalize from one example of evolution, but if this is indicative of a common pattern then there might be some scary MFs out there. Our radio signals have been spreading for a while, so for all we know something is on its way to cleanse the universe of all forms of life that offend its god (or whatever its genocidal rationalizations is).

If this is true then we die. There is zero chance of resisting something with the technology to travel the stars and perhaps a million years or more head start on us. It’d be like an Apache attack helicopter versus a termite mound.

I had this thought when I saw the ideological turn (or mask removal) of certain people in the space industry. I found it metaphysically disturbing. Again… if there is other advanced life and if this is the pattern of how you evolve to become spacefaring, then we are doomed.

  • WalterBright 5 days ago

    > Today the innovation in that area seems driven by militaristic states and by people who seem ideologically adjacent.

    Today it's Musk driving space technology forward, and I don't see him acting militaristic.

    • htek 4 days ago

      > Musk driving space technology forward, and I don't see him acting militaristic.

      Surely, you jest. He's heavily entwined his companies with the US military. StarLink is used heavily in battlefield communications [1]. He sought to deny the courtesy to one of our allies when Russia disrupted Ukraine's satellite communications, but eventually reversed course over the optics of it [2].

      Musk's Grok is going to be used by the Pentagon for the usual pursuits of police states everywhere [3].

      1. https://spacenews.com/spacexs-expanding-role-in-u-s-defense/

      2. https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/when-a-ceo-plays-presi...

      3. https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-gains-favor-as-pentagon-emb...

      • WalterBright 4 days ago

        None of those suggest "heavily intertwined". More like the US military has decided that it's a smart move to take advantage of Musk's technology.

        As for the Ukraine thing, I read that Musk was trying to comply with US law in avoiding making foreign policy.

        It's no surprise that the military uses Starlink, just like they use cars.

        As for grok, of course the military is going to buy what they want.

        • htek 3 days ago

          Of course it does. And I should have said not just the military, but the government in general. From day 1 he was working to infiltrate government databases and networking. He was having his DOGE lackeys installing Starlink at the White House [0] and buildings of federal agencies he was raiding to exfiltrate PII and sensitive, if not classified, data from to his own servers for likely use to influence American sentiment and target groups or individuals. So says a whistleblower Dan Berulis [1] and a DOGE goon was caught by Secret Service trying to install a Starlink device on the roof of the Eisenhower Federal Building across from the White House [2]. There is absolutely no valid need for a private network operating in parallel with the US government's system. Unless the intent was to avoid detection when exfiltrating data to private systems.

          0. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/18/musk-starlin...

          1. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/15/nx-s1-5355896/doge-nlrb-elon-...

          2. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/doge-roof-elon-musk-st...

  • SJC_Hacker 5 days ago

    There could be life on other planets. It could even be (somewhat) suitable for humans to live without a full space suit

    But I find it unlikely the exact combination of factors, of which there are dozens or more, will be present such that it’s any place anyone actually wants to settle. Like what if the planet was much like Earth except the gravity was 1.2G. Or the atmosphere was only 500 mb, or surface temp was just barely above freezing. That would be deal breaker for just about everyone

  • joquarky 5 days ago

    But why would a species that built an Apache helicopter want to waste its resources on attacking a termite mound?

    • api 4 days ago

      It doesn’t need to be rational.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/mar/03/afghanistan.lu...

      The thought experiment I’m doing is asking what happens if there is a link between hyper aggressive species and certain kinds of intelligence and technological development.

      It could just be a fluke of our evolution and history that there seems to be a link, but what if it’s a pattern. If true this would mean any spacefaring intelligence is likely to be quite scary.

mkoubaa 4 days ago

We have the unique ability for genocide but also the unique ability to invent sophisticated tools, one of which is culture, whose functions include ways to override our impulses in ways we deem valuable.

crazygringo 5 days ago

> unique among animals in that we have a genocidal tendency

That's an unsupported generalization.

The article describes "behaviors" that include "perhaps even genocide", and notes that wiping out populations exists in chimps and wolves too.

So not unique, there's a "perhaps", and it's not a tendency. There's no evidence we have a "gene" for it or anything.

In the vast, vast, vast majority of conflicts between two groups, we don't exterminate the "enemy". Otherwise, the human race would have gone extinct a long time ago. Wiping out entire populations is by far the exception, not the rule, of human societies. It happens, but the situations are notable precisely for their extremity, precisely because they're not the norm.

  • to11mtm 5 days ago

    We are far more subtle and targeted about it as a whole, possibly due to our social structures.

    As vapid as the movie (intentionally) is, "Mean Girls" does a really good break-down of things, and perhaps the main issue is that unlike some other animal groups, people don't always stop.

    • crazygringo 5 days ago

      No. We simply engage in cost-benefit analysis, because we have limited resources.

      Entirely wiping out an enemy population can be incredibly risky as they'll try to also wipe you out in response. It consumes enormous resources as people on your own side get killed, your resources get used up, etc. It weakens your group making you more vulnerable to attack from third parties.

      Most of the time, it's just bad strategy.

      You don't need to invent instincts or tendencies or claim something is more subtle or targeted when the vastly simpler explanation is just that it's all just cost-benefit.

      • BurningFrog 5 days ago

        > Entirely wiping out an enemy population can be incredibly risky as they'll try to also wipe you out in response

        Which is why you either wipe out the whole population, or not at all.

        If you have the type of enemy that holds a grudge across generations, that is.

        Should be true for hominids. I have no theory for the wolves.

        • crazygringo 5 days ago

          > Which is why you either wipe out the whole population, or not at all.

          Huh? Most of human history is battles here and there -- gain a little more land and stop, deter the enemy then stop, maybe conquer some people and rule them and extract some resources rather than kill them. Not total peace vs genocide. The idea of it being all-or-nothing is neither usually reality nor usually good strategy.

      • to11mtm 5 days ago

        You kinda missed part of my specific point,

        Mostly that there's a lot that goes on in society where a single person can't necessarily genocide a 'race' but a single person can certainly fuck up a single person of family's life over the long term intentionally and not care, even if doing so does not gain them any real advantage.

        But hey if you want to look at 'bigger picture', 'societal' cruelty...

        Reaching even further back than WW2, we may look at the Armenian Genocide and the circumstances.

        > You don't need to invent instincts or tendencies or claim something is more subtle or targeted when the vastly simpler explanation is just that it's all just cost-benefit.

        Part of the human condition used to be the idea that we had evolved beyond short term cost-benefit, however the last 15 years, might be proving you right.