CRIME AND VIOLENT: WHEN INSTINCT NEED TO BE UNDER CONTROL

Violence and crime have never been dominant or superior in any community of creatures, including humans. They appear sporadically and are only prominent in a few specific moments, but for the most part, humans are communal creatures good at living and building together.

What species of mammal often get killed by its own kind?

The answer, fortunately, is not human and also not one of those apex predators like grey wolf or lion, although they are at least ranked pretty high in the deadliest mammal ladder. According to a study conducted by professor José María Gómez from the University of Granada et al [1], the top place belongs to… meerkat — a small species of mongoose found in southern Africa , with broad head, large eyes, pointed muzzle, long legs, a slender tail, and a striped fur pattern. Although also known for their ability to cooperate in groups, these friendly-looking black masked creatures can kill each other at a rate that if compared to humans, our species is still remarkably docile. According to the study, nearly one out of five meerkats, mostly juveniles, die under the feet and jaws of their fellows

Although it only examined mammals, Professor Gómez’s study is considered the first thorough survey of violence in the animal kingdom, when it collated data on more than a thousand different species from the Paleolithic age to the present day. Research results show that we humans are not alone in our ability to kill our own kind. This is because until the 1970s, people still believed that the types of own-kind-killing violence or organized deadly conflicts did not belong to nature in general, but were formed in the process of human society development [2]. And this view was challenged after new studies emerged in the late 20th century that proved otherwise.

Clearly, the use of violence leading to death in human society is a crime that should be punished, and we even use the very act of “murder” to permanently remove the perpetrators from society. But for animals, how is this behavior that humans consider “evil” perceived by them?

1. The animal kingdom: Where “evil” is just “survival instinct”?

The first evidence of intra-species violence and killing in animals was published by Jane Goodall, a British protozoologist and anthropologist who is considered a world-leading expert on chimpanzees [3]. Jane Goodall’s most prominent scientific work dates back to the late 1960s and spanned 60 years with the subject of research being wild chimpanzees at Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania. Here, she observed human-like behaviors in wild chimpanzees such as hugging, kissing, patting on the back, and even violent behaviors such as killing their own kind, cannibals, and organized armed conflict.

Jane Goodall’s publishing has created a sensation in the scientific world, it closes the gap in human and animal behavior, and challenges the previously entrenched view that “only humans can make and use tools according to their own purposes” and “killing their own kind is a by-product of human civilization”. Jane Goodall’s revolutionary discoveries inspired similar studies to be carried out on other social animals, including famous predators such as lions, wolves, gepards, hyenas… and smaller, “seemingly gentler” species like ants and meerkats.

Continuing with Professor Gómez’s research, the data collected shows that nearly 40% of the 1,024 mammal species surveyed exhibit the ability to kill each other. Many primates have high levels of group conflict and young killing, or social predators that invade another group’s territory will sometimes kill males in the new group, especially their younglings, to be replaced by members of their own group. According to Dr. Richard Wrangham from Harvard University, with primates, killing young is undoubtedly the most common form of internal slaughter.

What’s also surprising is that the levels of internal violence in predators like lions, tigers, and bears are not among the highest in the survey results, but in primates — which include humans, apes, monkeys and lemurs — is especially violent. Across mammals, the mortality rate caused by individuals of the same species is only 0.3%, while in the common ancestor of primates, the rate is 2.3% and just a little less than the ancestors of great apes (1.8%). Professor Gómez argues that primates are particularly aggressive because they exhibit both “territoriality” and “sociability” — the two main factors that provide incentives and opportunities for fellow genocide. In theory, the research data of Professor Gómez et al. have demonstrated the influence of these two characteristics when the violent death rate is estimated to be 1.9% in the models that do not use these two variables and 2.1 % with models that have them. However, the study also shows that the level of deadly violence in branches within the same species can vary, for example, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are significantly more aggressive than their cousin bonobos (Pan paniscus).

Based on Jane Goodall’s detailed and complete reports of attacks and killings among groups of chimpanzees, Dr. Richard Wrangham makes preliminary observations that natural selection has favored the tendency to hunt and kill each other in chimpanzees and this behavior has a long evolutionary history [4].

Wrangham believes that the origin of the own-kind-killing behavior is closely related to the ability to access food sources and expand the territory. Specifically, when there is a shortage of food in a group’s territory, attacks and conflicts with neighboring communities will increase, as long as these raids bring large profits with minimal loss. Winning the conflict and killing the rival group’s males both reduces the neighboring community’s ability to compete for food, and increases its own community’s resources such as physical enhancement through territory, expand food sources, and have an advantage in mate selection during the breeding season. Therefore, territorial and resource interests are the driving force behind domination behaviors among neighboring communities.

Wrangham applies this interpretation to the range of available data on the continuous killing of adult males within species such as chimpanzees, bonobos and wolves, and can account for variations in the frequency of attacks between communities. According to him, attacks only happen when one side knows for sure that it can overwhelm the other thanks to its numerical advantage and minimal risk compared to the other group. For example, observations have shown that conflict between adjacent chimpanzees communities is more likely to occur when a lone individual from one group accidentally encounters a group of three or more males from another group. This leads to border avoidance behavior among chimpanzees as they spend 75% of their time circling around 35% of the territory center, thus not being able to safely exploit 65% of the resources in their territory. Although the available data are not sufficient to quantify resource use precisely at all chimpanzees study sites, it can be seen that only extracting food resources in the central region leads to food shortages, especially when the dry season is prolonged.

Calculating the benefits and risks of a territorial invasion by neighboring groups led to the formation of various adaptive strategies such as allying and carrying out deepstrike attacks into the territories of other groups; or establishing peaceful interaction between groups and common use of resources from the constituent territories. Depending on the context, chimpanzee or bonobos communities choose appropriate adaptation strategies. It can be seen that intra-species deadly violence is clearly an indispensable survival instinct in the animal world.

2. Is human violence natural instinct?

The prevalence of deadly conflict across mammals suggests that the levels of violence observed in humans can be explained by our position in the mammalian branch of the evolutionary tree. In Professor Gómez’s project, in addition to more than 1,000 species of mammals, the team collected data, analyzed, and compared the levels of deadly violence in more than 600 human populations from the Stone Age to the present. The death rate from internal violence in human ancestors is estimated at 2%, suggesting that our species in prehistoric times also had similar levels of deadly violence as aggressive primates. This result seems to suggest that the violent character of humanity today is a “legacy” inherited from its ancestors. However, this view is currently facing a lot of controversy in academia.

Based on archaeological, palaeontological, ethnographic, and statistical almanac evidence from more than 600 human populations from 50,000 BC to the present day, Professor Gómez’s team shows that the rate of violence lethality has varied over specific historical periods, from 3.4–3.9% in the Stone Age to more than 5.8% in the Iron Age and peaking at more than 12% in the Middle Ages, and then decreased over the past few centuries down to 1.3% in the contemporary period. Research data also shows that the rate of deadly violence also varies according to the forms of human social organization, with the highest levels of violence when people live in the age of kingdoms (chiefdoms — non-industrial societies is stratified, hierarchical with rank often based on kinship) and lowest when building state regimes (states — complex societies with political organization).

Talking about this difference, Harvard University professor Steven Pinker argues that as people form large states, “institutions like the rule of law have reduced the rate of lethal violence to below expectations for a mammal with our ancestry and ecology, and lower than that observed in human societies in earlier periods and with simple social forms. 5]. These results suggest that the level of lethal violence in humans may be influenced by factors other than genetics.

However, before the emergence of specific social forms in humans, the violent behavior of our ancestors still showed many similarities with other mammals. Drawing on paleontological, archaeological, and ethnographic data on lethal violence among hominids, Dr. Richard Wrangham observes that natural selection also favors similar human propensity to hunt and kill fellow hominids as in the chimpanzee community. The records of the Andaman islanders are a particularly relevant example in this regard [6]. The scarcity of resources recorded here leads to increasingly fierce competition for food. Conflict over access to resources is more frequent between the Andaman and neighboring hunter-gatherer groups, where resources are reported to be more abundant than the population. The simultaneous occurrence of resource scarcity and resource conflict is consistent with Wrangham’s explanations.

However, the benefit-risk balance in human conflicts is very different from that described in the chimpanzee community. The difference lies in the tools within human hands, or more precisely, the ranged weapons. With weapons capable of killing at a distance and mastery of the terrain, even a lone hunter of the possessing party would not be at a numerical disadvantage when facing a group of intruders, as long as he doesn’t get detected. Thus, the lone hunter could completely track down and kill a few trespassing individuals before fleeing to alert others. In short, if two hunting parties at the same time realized each other’s presence, the weaker group in numbers would retreat and give the disputed food source to the stronger side. However, if one side ensures an undetected advantage, they can completely use this advantage to ambush the other group. Similar to the chimpanzee community, the risk of encountering hostile neighborhood groups also leads to border avoidance behavior among humans. Thus, in the southern part of the Andaman Islands, where there are endemic hostile groups, the population density is only 73% of that achieved in the North Andaman, where periodic general meetings and activities are conducted. socio-cultural to promote peace among neighboring groups and to permit the joint exploitation of food resources located in border areas.

Although there are many notable similarities and differences between chimpanzee communities and human members of hunter-gatherer societies, intraspecies deadly violence can be seen as a biological instinct and an indispensable contextual feature in the evolution of man (hominid) from the early Paleolithic to present day humanity. However, the ability to form and maintain friendships, and to share and access common resources with neighboring countries sets humans apart from chimpanzees and other non-human primates. These partnerships played an important role in the territorial expansion of the Paleolithic human population to all environments around the globe.

Peace among human groups in hunter-gatherer societies lasted until the emergence of the first forms of hierarchical social organization. The changing social morphology led to the emergence of warrior classes — adult male members trained to participate in pre-planned raids to give tactical advantage in surprise and quantity. Archaeological records show that the earliest attack on settlements was at the Nubian cemetery near the present-day town of Jebel Sahaba in Sudan sometime between 12,000 and 14,000 BC, or originated independently from different parts of the world at the end of 4,000 BC [7].

According to Dr. Wrangham, the history of deadly violence between human groups up to the present day spans out to three main periods: (i) the era of killing alliances, (ii) the era of intrinsic defensive advantage, and (iii) the era of war. The development of weapons technology, especially of long-range weapons, made the first transition, while the advancement in military organization and tactics led to the second. The decisiveness of these factors is easily seen from all those bloody chapters of human history.

3. The meaning of similarity

In general, the gentle view on violence in the living world has been significantly shaken, because in addition to primates, researchers have observed deadly violence, killing of fellow human beings, killing of young also occurring in many species such as leopards, lions, hyenas … especially ants with their sophisticated, large-scale and long-term wars are the clearest evidence of war in nature. From the point of view of the Theory of Evolution, frequent internal conflicts are understandable, since they are species in direct competition with each other for similar resources: living space, food, and mates. However, internal violence itself does not represent evolutionary advantages as clearly as one of the other worrisome acts of violence, which may well be the source of internal conflict. : killing the young [8].

Indeed, killing young in the flock not only ensures control of the number of individuals with as little energy as possible, it also minimizes the possibility of future competition, both for themselves and for their next generation. The pack leaders are more often worried about the young healthy wolves than the beta individuals of their generation, as they are potential challengers. At the same time, if the goal is to preserve one’s own genetics, killing other’s young ones also helps increase the advantage for one’s own. Not to mention the female will recover better, stop lactation, be ready for mating and resume pregnancy, when separated from her offspring — and this is what males need in this female scarcity context.

However, this issue was not seriously considered until the second half of the 20th century. People often avoid talking about it, because it creates a feeling of disgust. After the development of science, especially the Theory of Evolution and the views that man is only a part of nature, while religious views still prevail in the foundation of social morality , studies on killing young were either evaded, or safely inferences. In particular, people reasoned their inadvertent observations on captive species that confinement created stress and distorted the animals’ behavior, leading to inadvertent killing of their own offsprings — and not because of instinct.

Because if you think that killing young is instinctive and necessary in the living world, of which man is a part, it will lead to a moral crisis about our own species. The theory of evolution says that we are worthy and that our genetics are the best for survival, but it would be difficult to accept, at least at a time when the view of genetic evolution still prevails, that these genes have been inherited from generations of child killers most of the time. But attitudes about reality can’t stop the way the world actually moves. Therefore, the diversity and frequency of pedicide has been continuously observed and has forced researchers to take it seriously. The image of an innocent living world, therefore, gradually faded.

But this moral crisis did not happen, because after that people developed something more than theories to answer each question. Only when we accept that killing our fellow human beings is the greatest crime, will we meet an insurmountable hard limit. Because if it was a radical crime, then war would not have happened, and no one should be allowed to use the death penalty to punish lawbreakers — because to do so would be to make himself a criminal. As it is known in the article “How Views of Crime and Punishment Have Changed in History”[9], French philosopher Michel Foucault argues that crime is fundamentally about affecting social structures. in modern society: it was the daring to distrust the gods in theocratic society, the disobedience of the king in feudal society, and the disruption of order in industrial society. Meanwhile, murder is a kind of crime, but not the greatest crime, and it is still sometimes used as punishment to punish those who dare to commit the radical crimes just mentioned.

But even if violence and crime are an option, or become even common in the living world, it is not the only option, much less an optimal choice. Violence and crime have never been dominant or superior in any community of creatures, including humans. They appear sporadically and are only prominent in a few specific moments, but for the most part, humans are communal creatures good at living and building together, while chimpanzees are not without love for their own kind. It seems impossible to say that one extreme (such as moderation) has been invaded and threatened by the other (such as violence).

Paradoxically, aggression and physical strength will help an individual better compete for resources and mates, but if aggression gradually accumulates exponentially, this will be detrimental. Suppose that every aggressive elk takes possession of all the offspring, and produces equally aggressive offspring. Thus, the descendants of aggressive fathers will be in the majority, and they will always slam their horns together to death. These battles for survival will ensure that the number of aggressive males is kept under control, while the female deer keep the ratio steady. Meanwhile, the gentler individuals will probably quickly flee from encounters, and still have the opportunity to surreptitiously mate with an abundant number of female deers, and continue to grow. Thus, while aggression is an individual optimal choice, it is no longer optimal when viewed from the species as a whole.

Therefore, when balancing the problem of cost — opportunity, especially in a normal context (resources are not too scarce), always fighting to the death or becoming the leader is not the only option. This order is ensured not only because we are conscious beings, but also because of the design of the games, so that even unconscious creatures know how to behave in moderation despite violence is always an option. For example, according to the theory of Stable Evolutionary Strategy, specifically the eagle-dove game, extreme violence is never a good option, even if in the short run it is an effective option. [10].

In this game, there are two roles as eagle and dove. When they clash, the eagle always wins and the pigeon always runs away, no one gets hurt. But if an eagle encounters an eagle, there is a 50% chance of winning, and a 50% chance of being seriously injured. In contrast, when pigeons encounter pigeons, the chance of winning is 50%, but never get hurt, it just costs time. If this game only takes place in one turn, you should choose the eagle, because it always wins when facing pigeons and has a 50% chance of winning when encountering eagles. Also, since eagles always win against pigeons, no one chooses pigeons in this one turn game, as it leads to a certain probability of losing.

But the life cycle of an individual is not a one turn game. Therefore, when you have to play this game in many turns and play with many people, you should choose pigeons, because there is still a possibility of winning, while failure does not have to be too costly. The more people choose to play the dove strategy, the greater the total win for both sides: no one gets hurt, while the win is split equally between everyone. Meanwhile, if everyone chooses the eagle, the probability of winning is not higher than choosing the pigeon (still 50%, because no one chooses to play the pigeon anymore), while the price to pay is much more expensive. Therefore, this theory indicates that the living world has chosen to follow the dove strategy, both without affecting the victory of the individual, while ensuring increased benefits for all players.

Basically, life is not only a game with many choices, many players, taking place in many turns, the number of choices each player can make is also extremely diverse. So, while aggression is one option, there are many other options — and they all affect each other — that doesn’t always lead to all being radically aggressive. A hasty visualization is easier to understand, that if there are two ways to resolve a conflict, one is to choose to fight, the other is to choose to argue, the person who chooses to argue always leaves and accepts defeat when meeting the person who chooses to fight. If all choose to fight, each will only win half of the fights, while being badly injured in the other half. Meanwhile, if they all choose to argue, each still wins half of the arguments, while not being hurt when they lose. Thus, although violence in the human world is an option, and even quicker to solve problems than arguing, arguing is still more common, because each individual is not only thinking about winning, They also pay attention to the risk of failure — especially when there is always the possibility of failure.

Thus, understanding the cruelty of nature should not therefore lead us to a species-scale moral crisis, when we realize that the genes we have inherited from our ancestors are associated with violence, conflicts, and pure killing instincts. After all, negative events are just one type of event. A self-driving car, also causing death, though this is by no means “instinct” or a deliberate desire. Therefore, people need to pay more attention to minimizing the occurrence of adverse events, than to write a story about “what is instinct” and “what is my instinct”, to find out if the cause of such events is justified. “Reasonable” is probably something that has haunted people since they have consciousness, and it is most likely something that does not exist.

Therefore, knowing that the cruelty of the living world arises from competition for resources, hierarchical conflicts, scarcity of the female… we can improve our own social structure, and reduce the emergence of violence, as well as crime. The design of the natural game itself did not make the world a fiercely and deadly place, humans themselves can improve its level of safety through man-made inventions, such as the moral-ethical, legal system or social structure. The only way to avoid having to find out if a crime is “reasonable” is to prevent it from happening in the first place.

That is if humanity really wants to prevent the occurrence of evil. But is that the case here?

___________

References:

[1] J. M. Gómez, M. Verdú, A. González-Megías, and M. Méndez, “The phylogenetic roots of human lethal violence,” Nature, vol. 538, no. 7624, pp. 233–237, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1038/nature19758. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19758

[2] Konrad Lorenz, “On aggression,” New York, 2011. https://www.worldcat.org/.../780742201&referer=brief_results

[3] J. Van Lawick-Goodall, “The Behaviour of Free-living Chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream Reserve,” Animal Behaviour Monographs, vol. 1, pp. 161-IN12, Jan. 1968, doi: 10.1016/s0066–1856(68)80003–2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/.../abs/pii/S0066185668800032

[4] Wrangham R. W. and Peterson D., “Demonic males: Apes and the origins of human violence.,” Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1996. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-97019-000

[5] Steven Pinker, “The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined,” New York, NY: Viking, 2011.

https://law.yale.edu/.../Intellectual_Life/LTW-Pinker.pdf

[6] R. C. Kelly, Warless societies and the origin of war. Ann Arbor: University Of Michigan Press, 2004. https://www.press.umich.edu//11586

[7] G. Clark, World prehistory. Cambridge Eng ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

https://www.cambridge.org/.../world-prehistory-new...

[8] C. P. van Schaik and M. A. van Noordwijk, “Infanticide,” Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, pp. 484–489, 2019, doi: 10.1016/b978–0–12–809633–8.20703–6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/B9780128096338207036

[9] Monster Box, “How the view on crime and punishment changed over the course of history,” Monster Box, Jul. 2021. https://www.facebook.com/teammonsterbox/posts/2980649498882463

[10] K. Sigmund, “William D. Hamilton’s Work in Evolutionary Game Theory,” Theoretical Population Biology, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 3–6, Feb. 2001, doi: 10.1006/tpbi.2000.1501. ‌https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(99)80321-2.pdf‌