Underscoring the inhuman minds of Uplifts, AIs and Bioroids

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Killing other species isn't usually classed as "war." "War" seems to refer to combat between two maximal social groups of the same species, typically resulting in at least some deaths.

Bill Stoddard

Organized violence between different sophant species has been classified as war since H G Wells, at least when conducted on a level that would be called war if intra-human and it is not implausible that the language of sci-fi will defictionalize once the other aspects have.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Compared to what?

Compared to every other species known and most imaginary species humanity scores high on the belligerancy scale. For one thing we are the only predator species that regularly exterminates or reduces to slavery every competitor as a logical extension of the fact that we are weak individually but strong in technologically armed packs and so the most logical way to defend our cubs is simply to hunt down predators even if we don't eat them. And while wolverines are vindictive like humans, or so I understand, they are not as scientific about killing.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I'm the last person you'll find advocating pacifism. I'm just saying, some kinds of animals may be better at coping with violence than others. At least intra-species violence. But it seems to me that instincts for coping with intra-species violence often also end up expanding fellow intelligent creatures of other species.

Logical, but human level intelligence may require enough of a change to base animal type as to reach the same level of violent tendencies.

I tend to think that a hypothetical non violent species would have to evolve in an environment hostile enough to make man vs. nature the main focus rather than man vs. predator/prey the way it was for our ancestors.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Logical, but human level intelligence may require enough of a change to base animal type as to reach the same level of violent tendencies.

I'm not sure what you mean given that the most spectacular acts of violence done by humans required considerable reasoning powers.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I'm not sure what you mean given that the most spectacular acts of violence done by humans required considerable reasoning powers.

Not really. The most prolific acts have required coordination and use of resources. But horrific acts of violence are regularly committed as unreasoning emotional outbursts. Thousands on thousands is not any more violent than one on one except by numbers alone.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Not really. The most prolific acts have required coordination and use of resources. But horrific acts of violence are regularly committed as unreasoning emotional outbursts. Thousands on thousands is not any more violent than one on one except by numbers alone.

Which behavior would not in fact be sufficient to compete with a sophant species even more violent then humans. The deliberate cultivation of bestial traits has in fact proved an ambiguous tool in intrahuman warfare. While berserkers were feared in anglo-scandinavian armies, their Celtic predescesors don't seem to have been sufficient against the antiberserk Romans.