For example, let us examine a boy who steals a toy at a store. A matter of fact about this situation is that a young human male has taken an item from a store. This is what happened. The senses and reason tell us a few other things too: the toy was a plastic squirt gun; the boy used his hands to take the toy; it took only a second for the boy to do this. Hume argued that no matter what we find about the situation with our senses and our reason, we will never find the actual existence or quality of vice. So then, if morality is not intrinsic to objects in a situation, what is morality?

Hume said that morality can be found within. When you observe an immoral act, you do not find any right or wrong about the situation when you consider only the objects involved in the act. “Only when you turn your reflexion into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation” will you find a right or wrong about the situation. Hume said that this was only a feeling or sentiment though.

Therefore morality is not something of our reason, for we could not find the existence of good or bad while examining the situation with our reason. Our reason only told us facts about what happened and how it happened. Morality then must a sentiment or feeling. Hume uses the example of the philosophical view of colors, heat and other such “qualities”. Hume says that modern philosophy considers such things as colors, heat and sound as simply perceptions and not definite qualities of any object. Colors and heat are objects of our observation, to be sure, but it can not be said for sure that such things are properties of an object. Take an apple for example. We see red, but red is our perception and is not necessarily an actual quality of the apple. To go even further we cannot even say for fact that an apple exists, and if the apple does not exist than surely red can not be a quality of it. All we really know is that we perceive an apple and in our perceptions it is red. This does not also imply the existence or qualities of the apple. Hume compares this type of thought to morality. Hume is trying to show that like observations of color and heat, morality is not something that can be found, for us, in an object, but instead morality is something which only exists within our world and comes from the sentiments in us.

Hume seems to be correct in declaring morality cannot be judge through the senses. We can only know what is afforded to us by our senses and our senses do not tell us when something is wrong or right. Something only becomes wrong or right when someone applies their feelings about certain actions to what they have seen or heard. The evidence for this is the disparity in people’s moral beliefs: what offends one person’s moral sentiments does not always offend another. While many people believe it is morally offensive to commit suicide in any situation, but in many cultures thought it more honorable to kill oneself than to admit defeat in a battle. These people did not see suicide in that situation as immoral. Morality is not something that is intrinsic in the objects or the action, since two different people would come to two different conclusions about the action of suicide. Instead it must be as Hume says; morality must be within us as a personal sentiment

The spread of the most powerful culture to the rest of the word has been occurring for all of history. Those without power mimic those who have it to improve themselves. The Mayans, Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Hindus, Arabs, Romans, French, British etc ad infinitum have all been mimicked at one point in time or another in the past 4,000 Years. At no point did the world’s cultures fuse into a super-organism: coliseums were built and gladiators were trained, but provinces didn’t cast off their traditions and become purely Roman — had they done so the Roman Empire would have lasted beyond 1,500 C.E. As anyone who has listened to Hindi Pop will notice, just because the world mimics American popular culture, it does not destroy the cultural influences. Drinking Coke and eating a Big Mac does not mean a person abandons their culture.

While not specifically stated, it is a subtext of most discussions of globalism. Culture is often seen as a static institution that should not be allowed to change lest some “unique” features of it are lost to history. However, cultures have come and gone for millennium because its practitioners have changed or found a “better” way to live. The spread of the internet and globalism does not damage cultures, but allows them to adapt to the changing world. While one may bemoan the passing of cultures, sociology as a whole should not forget that its origins are based on “rapid social change.” The way cultures adapt reveals far more about a society than the way it stagnates itself.

Globalism has beneficial effects on societies, as information spreads it is able to penetrate all corners of the world instantaneously. It took 5 centuries for the concept of a ’0′ to spread from India to Europe: a distance than can now be covered by a person in only a couple hours. Now it takes an hour for the latest news from Tibet — and most of that is because it takes time to write an article. The negative aspects of globalism are far outweighed by the positives, and although the anthropologist can bemoan the lose, sociologists should revel in it.

Image credit: woodleywonderworks

Martin says that mentioning ones religious beliefs in public are part of the evidence for American politician’s extremist views, but I disagree. The way a politician follows their religion is extremely important, and before making any decisions, it is better to know for sure that a politician is going to follow all 10 commandments and most of Leviticus than have them ignore the issue whilst they campaign, and eventually force their secret beliefs on their constituents who didn’t have the chance to hear them. European politicians are more private in their beliefs, but all of one’s beliefs — either in the open or in private — affect their decisions. He mentions the Christian Democrat party in Sweden as evidence of private beliefs, but their beliefs are literally the banner under which they run; they may not mention them, but they are there, and they do affect the decision-making process.

Beyond this point, the issue devolves into Socialism vs. Liberalism vs. Conservatism — for simplicity I’ll define liberalism as the half-way mark between socialism and conservatism even though, as Martin notes, it isn’t. The American and European countries have always had one humongous difference: the European countries have a lineage and a population who is often part of the same country for generations, America doesn’t. America is quote unquote a “melting pot” where diverse groups come together to work and play, but often keep to themselves. There is an overreaching American culture through which people are united, but on a deeper more social level, many Americans couldn’t care less about the rest of America: more people vote for American Idol than the next president, and relatively few people vote in local elections. It can often seem that the way America is run only matters for a few short weeks and it is back to focusing on one’s own life with a few “bursts” of charity and caring, so one feels good about themselves. It seems that Americans tend to not have a good reason to care about all the other Americans, so in the American mindset there is no reason to take from oneself to ensure everyone is happy.

However, the issue is deeper than perceptions of a people. American politics are heavily based on Equality of Opportunity while European politics are based on Equality of Outcome. In America, the individual overrules the group, but in Europe, the group overrules the individual. America favours the hard-luck cases where someone drags themselves out from a lowly start into positions of wealth and influence — before tearing them down for daring to overreach the rest — because this is the ideal on which America was founded. So, yes, America has lower taxes, and Europeans have free health care or all, but it is the philosophical foundations of a society that dictates how it is run, not any egotistical desire or innate “betterness.” It is only time that can say which one is preferable.

The first question in this series comes from an American using Windows and Internet Explorer, and they ask “What religion did the People of the Roman Empire follow?” Well I’m glad you asked that… um…let’s call you Fred… while your search landed on a very popular article entitled Causes and Effects of the Popularization of Christianity in the Roman Empire, I’m afraid that it won’t answer your question entirely.

Yes, for a portion of its history the Roman Empire was Christian, but for most of its history Rome itself (including the period of the Republic and the Empire) followed a mythopoeic religion that was closely related the classical Greek religion. It wasn’t until Constantine realized that a single unified religion could revitalize the Roman empire that Christianity actually became a quasi-official religion. Prior to this the Roman Empire as a whole did not have an official religion: each culture was allowed to worship their own gods as long as they paid tribute to the gods of Rome and did not deny their existence. Even this requirement was ignored for a time and the Jewish peoples were allowed to live peaceably under Roman rule for many years. However, as the Roman economy degraded and the Empire spread to encompass many different cultures, it began to fracture and there was little to integrate the different groups or the classes. Read that article if you want to know more.)

For the rest of Roman history, the Romans followed a pagan religion and allowed people to believe whatever they wanted. That was the long way of saying: there was no one religion of the Roman empire, there were many.

My next question comes from … let’s say Sarah … who hails from Canada and also uses Windows and Internet Explorer. Sarah asks Did the church unite the Roman Empire?” Sarah landed on the same page as Fred and again the question is not fully answered. The real answer is both yes and no because individually the Eastern Empire and Western Empire were united through Christianity, but because they both had a slightly different view of Christianity (this is the divide between the Greek Orthodox and Catholic sects) the two parts of the empire slowly separate because of the religion.

You see Sarah, as Christianity spread in its early days, certain cities became the founding cities of the religion think Québec and Toronto or New York City and Boston, so they had a relatively large Christian population with widespread influence. However, in what was to become the Western Roman Empire, there was only one city: Rome, but in the Eastern Roman Empire there were several cities such as Jerusalem and Antioch.

Each of these major cities basically had someone, think a bishop, who was sort of a guide to the people under their influence, so while the Eastern Empire had several religious leaders to look up to, the Western Empire had only one: the Pope. As the two empires split the Western side looked only to their Pope for religious guidance and over time the two churches separated because the Western Pope was seen as the single most influential person in the religion by his own people, but the Eastern Empire was used to following several different religious leaders, so the religious structure of the two sides slowly separated.

So the short and sweet answer is yes, Christianity did unite the Roman Empire, but it united it in two slightly different styles.

In non-human mammals, the family group is a heterologic system. Only three percent of mammalian species are monogamous with their mates and have both parents involved in the raising of the young. Humans rank in this three percent. Humans require both parents to ensure the survival of the young and humans, across all cultures, form pair bonds. This leads to a family group far removed from the groups of other mammals. The creation of the human family rests on three foundations: (1) the cultural phenomenon of the human family group evolved because of the instinct to protect ones genes; (2) the basis of the family group, the pair bond, is the result of the female desire to have an economically supportive mate during the developmental years of her offspring’s lives; it is also a result of the males desire to have a suitable mate for multiple children and ensure all offspring are genetically his, and (3) the extended family group is a result of the desire to pass on ones genes through any means available even if it means helping blood relatives to reproduce [kin selection], the extended family is also preferable because social and instinctual taboos prevent mating with blood relatives, thus further protecting the pair bond. The result of these instincts for modern humans is the cultural family unit, the provision of resources for offspring, and to pass on genes.

Outline

I. Culture through instinct
    A. Instinctual Basis
        a. Instinct Defined
        b. Instinct to protect your genes
    B. Culture transcended Instinct
        a. Define Culture
        b. Define Family
        c. How culture relates to family based on instincts
II. Family groups in non-Homo Sapiens
    A. Family groups in non-human primates
        a. Differences between human and primate families
        b. Chimpanzee family structure
        c. Gibbon family structure
    B. Family groups in human ancestors
III. The Pair Bond
    A. The evolution of the pair bond
    B.  Female desire for a pair bond
        a. Why the female would want a pair bond
        b. Genetic support for the female pair bond
        c. The cultural basis of the female pair bond
    C.  Male desire for a pair bond
        a. Why the male would want a pair bond
        b. Genetic support for the male pair bond
        c. The cultural basis of the male pair bond
    D. Exception to the rule, the human polygamist
        a. Genetic reasoning for polygamy in the male and female
        b. Cultural basis for polygamy
        c. Is polygamy in humans a result of culture or genetics?
        d. Is polygamy the future of humankind or the past?
IV. Interactions of Extended Family
    A. Instincts to protect the Families Genes, altruism
        a. Why would anyone decide to do this?
        b. Why does nature allow for this action?
    B. The inbreeding factor in extended families
        a. How culturally and instinctually inbreeding is taboo
        b. The exceptions to the rule
V. Conclusion
    A. Effects of the Pair bond on Natural Selection
        a. Why is the pair bond so ingrained in humans?
        b. Would humans be capable of being humans without pair bonding?
    B. Effects of the Family Group on Natural Selection
    C. Final Thoughts

I. Culture through instinct
An eternal debate exists that questions if humans are born with instincts that are comparable with the instincts possessed by other non-human species. It takes a certain amount of ego to declare humans are completely free of instincts. The term instincts is not generally used in reference to humans; because of this, humans are said to have innate predispositions although the terms are nearly interchangeable. However, the term instincts, in reference to humans, is generally defined as any innate predisposition including but not limited to the desire to eat, sleep, and reproduce. This is the definition that this paper will use.

Of all the instincts that humans share with each other arguably the most important instincts are the instinct to mate, reproduce, and protect ones offspring. The passing on and protecting of ones genes, and in turn ones offspring, is a universal trait throughout the human species. Humans are not alone in this desire to protect their genes; most other animals have this same driving urge to procreate. The instinct to procreate is the lifeblood of all species. Without a driving urge to pass on their genes most species would be incapable of long term survival; because over time, the number of individuals would diminish to a point where the gene pool is no longer diverse enough to support a healthy population. The human urge to pass on ones genes is a result of millions of years of evolution in which the ones that had the strongest urge to procreate passed on their genes far more successfully than those who did not. The success of the human species use of these instincts without having the ability to intellectually interpret them shows that a human’s innate predispositions are indeed valid (Merriman, 2000).

Culture is the manipulation of both the environment and instincts because of want rather than need. Most animals have a form of culture, although animal culture is based entirely on their instincts rather than on the modification of instincts, this primitive culture are the social dos and do nots that allow members to live together in a harmonious fashion. Other than humans, the only other animals to have routinely discovered culture in the human definition are primates. Primates are able to modify their environment with tools, and their instincts to adapt to a myriad of new situations; however, even this form of culture is extremely primitive when it compared to the human form. Human culture not only allows humans to interact with each other but it also governs the very essence of human lives. Culture is the entirety of the instinctual forces of humans channeled into institutions that allow for good and bad behavior, where those who follow the guidelines are good and the violators are bad (Titiev, 1959). Therefore, human culture is not completely separate from innate human desires or instincts; rather, it is an extension of human instincts that allows humans to manipulate their instincts to fit within whatever society, group, or environment they currently inhabit.

The term family does not contain as much controversy as instinct and culture does; although, the exact standards for determining family change, the basic definition does not. Because of what and of whom families consist has no set guidelines across all human cultures, this essay will use the most basic definition; therefore, any group whose members are related by blood to the other members of the group or are accepted as such are defined as a family. Due to cultural variations the term nuclear family refers only to one set of parents (male and a female) and their children; while the term extended family will refer to all other members of the family.

The family group is a logical offshoot of the innate desire in humans to protect ones genes. In a group, it is easier to fend off predators, find food, and raise offspring. It is also logical because the long period of gestation and post natal care required by humans and human ancestors wold ensure that many members of a single group would in some way be related. For all these reasons, and many more, the human family evolved. As with all human cultural and social groups, the family began as an instinctual group that one was born into and left upon maturation; as humans evolved the family group also evolved eventually the family became the cultural facet of human society as it is today.

II. Family groups in non-Homo Sapiens
Although humans and primates are closely related the human family structure is dissimilar to the general primate family structure. Of the parts of the human family group there are two features which are the most important to the human family group as a whole. The first of these features is the pair bond which is the basis of the family and society; the second is the altruism that exists between family members. Primates, the closest human relatives, for the most part do not participate in pair bonds as humans do. In fact, there are only five primate species where pair bonding is the normal behavior; these species include gibbons, siamangs, indris, titi monkeys, and tarsiers. This is not only important to the evolution of the family but also interesting because gibbons and humans split from a common ancestor nearly 40 million years ago, yet chimpanzees, who separated from a common ancestor with humans less than 5 million years ago, do not participate in pair bonds. This evidences that pair bonding is not an isolated event. The human pair bond evolved in humans because it was required for survival rather than always existing. Although most primates do not pair bond, nearly all primate species practice altruism (such as sharing food) with members of their group. The specific ways altruism plays out varies from species to species but generally includes an act such as one primate helping to raise another primates offspring so in the future when the benefactor has given birth to its own offspring the favor can be returned (Griffin and West, 2002). However, this is not the only way it plays out. Other examples are sharing food, banding together for protection, or one primate attempting to “rescue” another primate from a predator. For our purposes the two most similar primates to humans are the chimpanzee and the gibbon. The latter because the gibbon pair bonds for life, and the former because while the chimpanzee does not pair bond, it is the closest human relative.

In chimpanzees the community does not stay the same for long periods. The communities, rather than being a single male with several females or several breeding pairs, is open bordered from which members can leave or join almost at will. Female chimpanzees are, for the most part, more likely to leave or join the community; male chimpanzees however, stay within the same group, generally the one they are born into, for their entire lives. Chimpanzees do not have any form of pair bond; members of a group can freely mate with any other member (assuming the dominate male and the female do not object) and extra-group mating is common. Instead of genetic pair bonds, chimpanzees frequently form complex social pair bonds between males and females, with one male watching out for a particular female and her offspring. The only human-chimpanzee equivalent social group or function is the mother to child bond because unlike human males, male chimpanzees have little to no contact with except through the social pair bond with the mother (Geary, 2000). As a result chimpanzees lend credence to the fact that it is possible that the human family is a cultural rather than a solely instinctual institution.

Unlike the chimpanzee which lives in an extremely loose social family, the gibbon families consists of a pair-bonded male and female and their immature offspring. Upon maturation of the offspring, it will leave, either willingly or forcefully, at which point it forms its own pair bond. The gibbon does not live within a larger community; rather, each small family claims and protects its own territory. The pair bonded adults will protect and care for the young; the mother cares for the infants while the father cares for the juveniles (Immerman, 2003). This superficially nuclear family is one of the few examples in the natural world and is an extreme rarity in primates. In contrast to chimpanzees the gibbon family evidences that the human family is not entirely cultural and that there is evidence of instinctual families.

The human family has evolved along with the human body and mind. Although it is hard to be certain about the type of family groups human ancestors lived in, paleoanthropologists assumed that australopithecines lived in social groups, and most early theories suggested that australopithecines lived in groups much like chimpanzees. However new information suggests that because A. afarensis had less pronounced sexual dimorphisms than previously thought, that A. afarensis and other australopithecines lived in semi-monogamous groups (Reno and Meindl and McCollum, 2003). Anthropologists believe Homo habilis and early Homo erectus to be both monogamous and polygamous. However by 1 million years ago Homo erectus, with its significantly less sexual dimorphism – females were around eighty percent the size of males -, was mainly monogamous and lived in groups of bonded pairs (Wrangham and Jones and Laden and Pilbeam and Conklin-Brittain, 20003).

III. The Pair Bond
In human ancestors, the pair bond originally formed to allow the female to raise offspring without continually putting herself and her child in danger, which in turn allowed the male to ensure the survival of his genes into the next generation. Evidence of this is as early, as 2.5 million years ago Homo habilis used a form of base camp where food was brought back to and prepared. For a pregnant or nursing female, it would be extremely dangerous to scavenge on the savannahs of Africa with a wailing infant in her arms. Because of this, the females would stay local to a central area with or without other females and gather tubers, berries, or nuts in relative safely while the males would scavenge for meat from the kills of other predators. Upon returning, the males would share the meat with their mates and the females would reciprocate with tubers (Pennisi, 1999). This model provides protection for the female and offspring as well as food and nourishment for all concerned parties. As time went by, culture took over where instinct left off and the cultural overlay of marriage was conceived (Immerman, 2003).

For the female in the pair bond the benefits are numerous, the pair bond provides food for both her and her offspring, it provides a measure of protection, and provides a climate that makes child rearing easier. The economic support for the female would allow her to spend more energy raising her offspring, and in turn, increase the chance of survival for the offspring . Furthermore, having a single permanent mate would allow her to raise a single offspring without worrying about infanticide from other males competing for her attention. There are various other reasons why a pair bond is beneficial to a female, however they are far less important than the preceding ones.

The female hominid has several genetic and physical attributes that supports the pair bond. The first of these is the lack of visible estrus. For a non-monogamous species hidden estrus holds no evolutionary advantage; in fact it is a disadvantage. However, for a monogamous species the lack of visible estrus encourages the male to stay near the female to keep other males from cuckolding him. Another advantage of a lack of estrus is that sexual activity can take place throughout a female’s life, even after menopause, this creates a lasting pair bond because the male does not need to find a younger and more receptive female to satisfy his more base urges (Merriman, 2003). Historic female choice also promoted the pair bond mentality. Female’s instincts compelled them to specifically choose males who would be both good economic providers and loyal. If the female chose a mate that did not stay and provide for her, her offspring would be less likely to survive than the offspring of a female who did pick a stable mate. This female choice not only steered female evolution to be more likely to choose loyal mates, but also steers male evolution to become loyal mates.
The cultural basis of the female pair bond is the desire for companionship, economic support and a loyal mate. Economic support in modern human populations allows for the fulfillment of the females instinct to find a supportive and loyal mate so in turn she can fulfill her desire to protect her genes. The culture of the pair bond varies from culture to culture but a successful pair bond helps a females social standing, as she is not seen as an immediate threat to the pair bonds of other females.

For the male in a pair bond, the pair bond provides him with the ability to reproduce without spending energy fighting with other males for the right to mate, it also gives him an advantage over bachelors as he has someone to help him to watch for danger and gather food. A pair bond also allows him to repeatedly impregnate the same female providing for multiple successful offspring and removes the danger of infanticide from competing males. The pair bond also allows him to be sure of his paternity therefore he does not waste energy caring and providing for non-genetic offspring.
The human male also has many traits that suggest pair bonding behavior is preferable for the species. The first of which is the minor sexual dimorphism between males and females. Although males are in general 10% larger, it is common for females to be larger than the male average. The male testes is also made for semi monogamous behavior, in chimpanzees the testes are 4 ounces, but in humans are only about 2.5 ounces (Gallup, 2004) although humans are two to three times as large by body weight, this evidences that humans are not anywhere near as promiscuous as chimpanzees, but not completely monogamous. Other evidence of the male predisposition to pair bond is the preoccupation human males have with paternity. In a group that is similar to chimpanzees or bonobos males do not worry about paternity because females mate with most males. In gorillas the alpha male gorilla is also not worried about paternity because he has the entire harem. However, in humans, the male is preoccupied with paternity because the lack of paternity would require as much energy to provide for the offspring without the benefit of passing on his genes. In human males, testosterone also decreases when they are in pair bonds, allowing them to become satisfied with the single pair bond and lessen the desire to procreate with multiple partners (Burnham and Chapman and Gray and McIntyre, 2003).

In human males, status and loyalty in a mate are the cultural drives behind male pair bond. For human males the status drive is a major part of their lives; one of the forms of thestatus drive coincides with a female’s desires in a mate. The economic stability that males strive for is also one of the most important issues for females when choosing a mate; this facet of human culture coincides exactly with the natural instincts. The second cultural drive for the male pair bond is loyalty in a marriage; across most of human kind becoming a cuckold has a major effect on the male status drive. Therefore, the male uses a cultural pair bond to ensure paternity and avoid becoming a cuckold; this cultural pair bond has the overlay of marriage.
Humans are not solely monogamous; some physical features that promote polygamous behavior in humans remain even after 2.6 million years of primarily pair bonding. Although human males are very close in size to females by weight, there is still a big enough difference that sexual dimorphism would promote occasional polygamy (Merriman, 2003). In addition in human males, the size of the testes is smaller by ratio to the body than it is in chimpanzees but not as small by ratio as gibbons, who are monogamous. This demonstrates that although humans are less promiscuous than chimpanzees they still have some physical features that promote sperm competition with other males with whom the female may have recently copulated with (Gallup, 2004). Females also have physical traits that promote occasional polygamy, in the female an orgasm takes much longer than in males; promoting copulation with multiple males in succession as is common with chimpanzees or bonobos.

Some cultural concerns also promote polygamy in humans. The most common of which is the infant survival rate. In societies where the offspring’s survival rate is low, and a single female’s offspring are not likely to survive to maturity; polygamy is more common. For this reason polygamy effects warm climates the most (Merriman, 2000). In these climates multiple wives allow for not only more children and a higher chance of the families genes being passed on, but also allows a further division of labor in hunter/gatherer communities; which in turn, provides more food for offspring increasing their chance of survival (Hayase, 1997). Another cultural pressure behind polygamy is the status drive; in most human societies, the individual culture’s form of aristocracy uses multiple wives and mistresses (including concubines, female slaves, harems) as a status symbol. Because the average member of a community cannot afford five, ten or more wives and mistresses it becomes a display of a man’s wealth and power to be able to provide for so many wives and offspring. Other cultural pressures for polygamy are in areas where a larger number of females survive to breeding age than males, or where daughters are married disproportionately to men that are more successful or higher in class for the female’s families economic gain. Other cultural reasons for women accepting or preferring polygamy includes that many women see men who are already married as “successful” and “more likely to be good husbands” than men who have not been previously married (Hertrich, 1997).

However even in human societies where polygamy is allowed and practiced, the majority of people live in monogamous pair bonds. In the Middle East, only twelve percent of marriages are polygamous and in Africa, only thirty percent of marriages are polygamous (Hayase, 1997). The majority of humans have never practiced polygamy although the majority of cultures have allowed it; some studies have shown as many as 85% out of 859 recorded cultures accept polygamy (Merriman, 2000 and Titiev, 1959). Yet, out of these 859 cultures most are small tribal groups where the elders/chiefs/aristocracy are allowed polygamous relationships but where it is extremely rare for the other members. The fact that most humans even in cultures that allow polygamy are monogamous proves that it is not a genetic trait; genetically humans are predisposed to be monogamous with occasional adulterous affairs rather than lifelong polygamists.

As human evolution has continued from our primate ancestor’s polygamy, it has slowly become less common, while monogamy has become more common. This trend has resulted in the small sexual dimorphism that humans have currently, and as time progresses the females desire to mate and procreate with males who are genetically loyal will continue the human male’s trend toward monogamy. Culturally fewer societies support polygamy because of its drain on the human breeding populations, because humans have a nearly equal birth and survival rate for males and females, thus polygamy is a losing numbers game……. Also societies as a whole as they modernize look on polygamy as being necessary in the past where a larger labor forces were needed in families and more offspring died before maturity, but are no longer needed in modernizing societies where large families are a liability.

IV. Interactions of Extended Family
The desire to protect the family’s genes (also know as kin selection) is as important to the human species as is the instinct to protect ones own genes. Although the altruism aspects of putting members of the family before oneself seems like a losing arrangement for the altruist who risks his own genes, and thus does not pass on the gene for altruism. However the altruist does gain benefits. In insects like ants by helping the queen to breed a worker will on 100% of her own genes. If the same worker had her own offspring the worker could only pass along 50% of her genes (Griffin and West, 2002). In more complex species, altruism is a favor system; by helping a relative to raise their young, build their house, or hunt the altruist can later expect that the family member will return the favor. However, even if the altruist dies before the favor is repaid it helped to ensure the survival of the relative’s offspring and in turn a portion of the altruist’s genes (Griffin and West, 2002). This ensures that a portion of the altruist genes continue into later generations and satisfies the altruists urge to protect their own genes at the same time it satisfies their altruistic tendencies. Although this form of altruism is present in most social groups, it is most effective in family groups where the members are born into their role and the dominant member and hierarchical structure is firmly in place, which replaces the waste of an altruists efforts because of infanticide or challenges to the hierarchy.

Evolution favors the altruist, even though altruism puts the altruist at a disadvantage. By helping to ensure the survival of multiple members of the family’s group the altruist is helping to increase the numbers of members in the group. This increase in populations allow for more altruists to be born and in turn more helpers to help increase the overall population of the group. Even if a altruist is killed, the population of the group still increases enough that the family group as a whole benefits.

In human cultures one of the most universal rules is avoidance of inbreeding with relatives. Although each society decides how close the members can be differently and in many societies there are exceptions to the rules, the rule is still universal (Fox, 1972)vi. Inbreeding within families would be dangerous to the stability of the pair bond and the family group as a whole. Inbreeding would create a situation in families were it would put mothers in direct competition with daughters and father in competition with sons, this instability could lead infanticide in an attempt to ensure dominance. Because of this, individuals with the desire to replace the original member of the pair bond with offspring would be at a disadvantage to family groups that did not have this desire and in turn would not be able to compete effectively with the population at large. Instinctually because of this “anti-incest” gene in a large portion of the human species, incest is not an issue because the members of the family are just not sexually attractive to them. The reasoning behind this is that the human instincts lead them to find faces that are similar in appearance to be trustworthier, but also consider them less attractive than faces that are different (DeBruine, 2002). This has the double effect that humans prefer to mate with people that do not look like them and in turn spread their genes further and to keep relatives from finding each other sexually attractive.

Historically human societies have had exceptions to the taboo for incest. Generally, these exceptions were for royalty or the “divine” rulers, in ancient Maya and Egypt the leaders were expected to marry their siblings to keep the “divine” lineage genetically pure from outsiders. Incest was also allowed in farming communities in the remote parts of china, where property was passed along a matriarchal line to help to keep goods in the family when necessary (Lumsden and Wilson, 1980). Both of these forms of exceptions are to keep the family’s status as a whole in balance, culturally and instinctually the desire to protect the family’s genes and status outweighed the instinctual desire to avoid incest.

The desire to protect the family genes ties in with incest avoidance by minimizing the parent offspring competition and the resulting violence and possible death. In a significant portion of human societies brother/sister and parent/offspring pairings are forbidden except in special circumstances, but most human societies encourage first cousin marriages (Lumsden and Wilson, 1980). The first cousin marriages helps to reinforce the family ties by opposite ends of the families genes and to ensure that while the families genes are staying strongly in family they are also mixing with non-related genes. This provides for instinctually and culturally for both incest avoidance and protection of the families genes in a single bonding.
[b]V. Conclusion[/b]

The pair bond has been a large part of all human societies and species, for over 1.8 million years; throughout this time, the pair bond has evolved to become the foundation of most human societies. The pair bond over time has been breed into all humans, this instinctual desire for a pair bond is followed by a physical desire and reward system for the pair bond, which in turn, has been followed by a cultural desire for a pair bond. The reason for this breeding is the human requirement for long term care beyond gestation, without a desire to pair bond in either the female or the male their offspring would be less likely to survive until breeding age. Therefore, over time, the majority of offspring born would be born of pair bonded couples that would be able to support their offspring for the required ten or more years.

Because of the same human gestation and care periods that drove the evolution of the original pair bond, it also created a scenario were the human species could not have evolved to the point it is currently without it (Pedersen, 2004). Without the pair bond, the care of offspring would require a group effort like that of chimpanzees, however in chimpanzees constant internal strife within groups ensures that the dominant male sires a large portion of the offspring, not necessarily the most intelligent. In early humans intelligence allowed them to survive on the savannahs of Africa, human ancestors that were intelligent but not necessarily strong enough to compete were not at a disadvantage to alpha males. This allowed intelligence to determine an individuals breeding possibilities and consequently allowed the pair bond to be used as a way to allow not just the strongest individuals to breed but the most intelligent.

Culturally the extended family is universal, although slightly modified for each culture, whether it is the family-reunion-every-five-years style that is prevalent in the western family or the family of some nomadic tribes where the entire family stays together from birth to death. The family has been breed into humans just as the pair bond was. Family groups allow a group of individuals to live together and support each other without the conflict and hierarchical challenges that non-related groups would face. Even in modern cultures the family provides much support and assistance at far less economic and energy cost than the same help from a non-relative. The family also provides a measure of emotional stability and protection that cannot be afforded by people who do not share the same strong emotional bonds than most families do.

The desire or instinct to protect ones genes, is a powerful force in both human evolution and human culture, because of this desire the majority of cultures support both monogamy and supportive family groups. This allowed human and human ancestors to advance through the millennia from the Australopithecus to a point where they now are the dominant species. The instinct to protect ones genes promoted the pair bond and the family group, and consequently the culture that surrounds these institutions is also a result of the innate desire to protect ones genes. Although humans may still practice polygamy or may be genetically promiscuous at times, the future of human evolution lies in the trends human evolution has followed for millennia: permanent pair bonds, and strong family groups. The human family has slowly changed over the millennia from its creation as an instinct to survive, to the cultural institution it is today, but as all societies base their cultural around the family, it seems likely it will not be changing very much in the next few millennia.

Works Cited
Burnham T.C., Chapman, J. Flynn, Gray, P.B., McIntyre, M.H. “Men in committed, romantic Relationships have lower testosterone,” Hormones and Behavior 44, no. 2, (2003): 119-122
DeBruine, Lisa. “Facial resemblance enhances trust,” Proceedings: Biological Sciences 269, No. 1498, (2002): 1307-1312
Fox, Robin, “Alliance and constraint: Sexual selection in the evolution of human kinship systems,” in Sexual Selection and the descent of man, ed. B. Campbell (Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1972), pp. 282-311
Gallup, Gordon G. “Semen Displacement as a Sperm Competition Strategy in Humans,” Evolutionary Psychology 2 (2004): 12 – 23
Geary, David. “Evolution and Proximate Expression of Human Paternal Investment,” Psychological Bulletin 126, no. 1 (2000): 55 – 77
Griffin, Ashleigh and West, Stuart. “Kin Selection: fact and fiction,” TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution 17, no. 1 (January, 2002): 15 – 21
Hayase, Yasuko. “Factors on Polygamy in Sub-Saharan Africa: Findings Based on the Demographic and Health Surveys.” The Developing Economies, 35, no. 3 (September 1997): 293″327
Hertrich V, Pilon M. “Matrimonial changes in Africa.” Chronicles CEPED, 26, (1997): 1-3.
Immerman, Ronald. “Perspectives on human attachment (pair bonding): Eve”s unique legacy of a
canine analogue,” Evolutionary Psychology 1 (2003): 138-154
Lumsden, Charles J. and Wilson, Edward. “Gene-culture translation in the avoidance of sibling
incest,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77 no. 10 (1980): 6248-6250
Merriman, William. “The Evolution of the Human Family,” 2000, (accessed 10 February)
Pedersen, Cort. “How Love Evolved from Sex and Gave Birth to Intelligence and Human Nature” Journal of Bioeconomics. 6, no. 1 (2004): 39 – 63
Pennisi, Elizabeth “Did Cooked Tubers Spur the Evolution of Big Brains?” Science. 283, no. 5410 (1999): 2004 – 2005 Reno, P, Meindl R, McCollum M, and Lovejoy C. “Sexual dimorphism in Australopithecus Afarensis was similar to that of modern humans,” The National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 16 (2003): 94049409.
Titiev, Mischa. 1959. Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pp. 261 ” 286.
Wrangham RW, Jones JH, Laden G, Pilbeam D, Conklin-Brittain N. “The Raw and the Stolen. Cooking and the Ecology of Human Origins.” Curr Anthropology. 40, no.5 (2003): 567-594.
[b]Bibliography[/b]
Boesch, Christopher and Tomasello, Michael. “Chimpanzee and Human Cultures,”Current Anthropology 39, no. 5, (1998): 591-
Gabora, Liane. “The Origin and Evolution of Culture and Creativity,” Journal of Memetics ” Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission 1, no. 1 (1997): 29-57
Epstein, Marcia. “Future Perfect: “Cultural Evolution” as Intercultural Education,” History of Intellectual Culture 1, no. 1 (2001), (accessed 7 February 2005)
Hemelrijk, Charlotte. “Cooperation without genes, games or cognition.” In 4th European Conference on Artificial Life, ed. P. Husbands & I. Harvey (Cambridge MA: MIT-Press, 2004), 511-520.
Hublin, Jean-Jacques, “The Quest for Adam,” Archaeology, July/August 1999, 26 ” 35
Miller, G. F. “How mate choice shaped human nature: A review of sexual selection and human evolution,” in Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications, Eds. C. Crawford & D. Krebs, (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998), pp. 87-130.
Plavcan, J. Michael, van Schaik, Carel P. “Intrasexual competition and body weight dimorphism in anthropoid primates,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 103, no. 1, (1997): 37-68
Schradin, Reeder, Mendoza, and Anzenberger. “Evolution and Proximate Expression of Human Paternal Investment,” Journal of Comparative Psychology 117, no. 2 (2003): 166-175
Schuiling GA. “The benefit and the doubt: why monogamy?,” Journal of Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 24 no. 1, (2003): 55-61.
Sussman, Robert. “Exploring Our Basic Human Nature”, AnthroNotes 1, no. 1 (1997): 29 ” 57

As Baraka shows us there is great diversity throughout human civilization; no two are exactly alike. However, it also shows us that they are remarkably similar. In fact, they are too similar. If humans are completely separate from each other, any two cultures with little to no contact should be entirely different” as much as an octopus is from an eagle. However, elements of every culture are linked. Dances by Native Americans are similar to dances by aboriginal Africans or Pacific Islanders. Of course one could make the argument that random chance has made it this way (after all there are only so many ways one can “shake your groove thing”), but all things being equal if left to random chance only half of cultures should have a form of dance and I’ve never read of one that doesn’t (although this is specifically excluding religious groups that frown on it.)

Baraka tries to make the argument that there is no single cultural legacy but rather all aspects are important. However, the human cultural legacy is worthless. It isn’t something rare and valuable, it does not improve with time, it is destructive and it is selfish. Assuming there is other intelligent life in the universe, they wouldn’t be missing out on much if the entire planet were to disintegrate. Rather than putting our effort into improving the human race as a whole, the vast majority of the human species goes about their time not caring about anything around them. Unfortunately this is not just referring to “lazy” Americans but the entirety of the world. According to Titiev (1959) there are 859 documented cultures. Of these cultures exactly 0 put all the resources of their societies into improving the human species as a whole. It is amusing in my opinion that the only people who try to improve the human species (such as Hitler) are lunatics and murderers trying to shape the world into their perverted idea of perfection while the majority of reasonable people just go about there lives worrying only about themselves. Of course there are a few who are popularized for helping people (Mother Teresa comes to mind) however even she didn’t do anything notable. She only helped a few sick and poor people in India. To really do something worthwhile you must do something that effects the entirety of the human species even if they don’t realize it. The creation of nuclear energy didn’t have a direct effect on the lives of South American’s living in the rain forest; however, should they choose to build their own reactor, it will change their lives dramatically (not necessarily for the better.) Even if Mother Teresa saved ten million of India’s poorest and sickest inhabitants she hasn’t done anything for the human species a whole, just something for that small portion of the Earth’s population. Unfortunately the thought of self and group is inbreed into humans and thus the few that can overcome the pressures from theirs selves and society are the individuals that are worth anything. This is not to say that helping the poor and the sick is not a noble cause; it is a perfectly acceptable use of ones life and serves as a balance between the self and humans as a whole. However, everything dies. A life spent keeping away death is, in the end, a failure because one has only forestalled the inevitable. Of course one could argue that they spent their life warding off discomfort, but a hard blow to the head would have the same result.

Humans have a tendency to think of themselves as unique and as history has shown us time and time again they tend to gather around their “uniqueness” as a battle cry and as an excuse to think less of other groups. Unfortunately while this served humans in their developmental stages I believe this no longer has any place in our society. People like to magnify the differences, but the differences themselves are all artificial ” in other words just because the dance is unique doesn’t make the dancer unique. Unfortunately this is a very unpopular opinion; everything a person is told from birth to death is that they are special, humans are unique and humans are better than the animals. Even in Buddhist or Hindu societies which value all life, humans are still superior and all beings must become human before they can achieve enlightenment. However in the bigger scheme of things the way one-group dances is about as unique as a single grain of sand on the beach. It is only altogether that each grain makes anything special; similarly humans are only special when combined with others. It is not what one human can do that makes them special, but it is what all humans can do if they ever chose to work together.

In small isolated communities — those will under 100 members — resources take more work to gather and the process of gathering them requires that the entire community both gathers and consumes them. Trade between different communities is limited to a small portion of the total resources because each separate group has access to the same resources. While items such as clothing and pottery can be traded there is only a limited need for these items. Once the concept of money or valuables is introduced it is then possible to trade at all times for all goods because money can then be traded for something completely different.

Money is a requirement of large, complex societies with finite resources. In a typical modern city there are millions of who each have different skills — most of which are only useful to a select few. In a community such as this bartering is useless because there are just too many “required” goods for survival and too few barter-able goods. However to solve the lack of the ability to barter one creates a new problem : poverty. Money is nonperishable, thus people can collect as much as they wish and in doing so create the concept of the wealthy and poor.

In a small community the majority of the goods are perishable foodstuffs, utensils, live animals and clothing. Clothing is finite and is made from local fibers, utensils are carved from the trees, rocks and bones, live animals must be fed and will eventually grow old and die, and food rots. In this society the difference between the richest member and the poorest is measurable in small amounts. However if you look at the rich versus poor in a large city, one group has access to everything and can afford waste while the other must subsist on the charity of the wealthy. Therefore not only have you created a class structure by the introduction of wealth, but you have also a power base for the wealthy where many people owe them their lives and livelihoods — as an aside this is the situation that made it simple for Julius Caesar to seize power.

In many smaller societies the culture itself forms in such a way that it dissuades members from hording wealth even when it is available. In many smaller cultures the members of the community who in a large society would be the elite are actually in less of a position to gather wealth than those he has power over. For instance, the German Volk would be lead by the person who had the most successful in battle and who shared the resources the most. The person who lead the warrior expedition into battle would legitimately have control over all spoils, but if he did not share he would quickly lose his followers. Another example is the tribes of Papua New Guinea. The chiefs are given the most land on which to grow yams, but rather than being better off they are worse. Now they have to work a larger piece of land and give away the fruits of their labor to keep face.
All-in-all economics is the foundational issue in conflicts because all conflicts come down to gaining new things or protecting what you have — be it the intangible concept of face or something else. However, connections between groups are based on art, language and other less base and intangible things.

The Cinema Paradiso itself was the figurative and literal center of the town in the early and mid years it was in operation. Eventually, as the community was able to connect to the outside world more and more the Paridiso was slowly forgotten, until it was finally sold and demolished. During it’s early years of operation the Paridiso was for many people was the only way for them to escape the pressures of living in Sicily after the Second World War, large numbers of soldiers died leaving families broken, the land was poor and work hard to find. As with “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” the people gravitated to a single area to try to find some semblance of happiness in their lives.

Secondly, but some may argue most importantly, “Cinema Paradiso” shows just how art can effect the human condition. The Cinema Paradiso is not just the community’s center in the movie, but it is also the artistic center. Although to someone living in America the movies were considered normal nothing overly special to the people that went to the Cinema Paradiso the movies were a way of keeping in contact with the outside world and the only source of art in the town. To the townspeople as Alfredo said, “[they] think it’s the center of the world [but once you leave you realize it is not.]” In the context of the movie this idea is what lead Alfredo to push Salvatore out of town, he knew that the only way for Salvatore to grow artistically and make movies is by leaving the “backwater” town and force him to connect with the world. This is happening even today as certain types of people move across the country to other areas where more artistic is encouraged.

A minor theme in the movie is that of censor ship in artistic expression. It points out what some people consider art (such as kissing) other consider pornography and that censorship like all things is best left to the majority to decide. Censorship has a huge impact on the lives of people in a community, one can argue that censorship could be the major reason for the stagnation that effected the community and convinced Alfredo to send Salvatore away. Censorship as it pertained to the Cinema Paradiso evolved over the life of the theater from the beginnings when all kissing/romance scenes were edited out to the middle when romance/sexuality was allowed to the end when the theme of the films were specifically as evidenced by the movie posters) adult in nature. But the question is “Does censorship follow desire or desire follow censor ship?” Thats is did the censorship in the movie lessen because there was no public support for it, or was the desire for censored materials increased because they were censored? In Cinema Paradiso specifically it was the former rather than the latter because all the townspeople celebrated the first uncut movie. However in the “real” world it depends on the situation, for example in democratic societies it is frequently the former, that is people no longer want to be told what they can not do, yet in totalitarian societies it is often the latter. Censorship is a risky business in all matters not just art , the goal is to censor enough that society does not rampage and gut itself from the inside out in pursuit of pleasures, but not so much as to cause a stagnation of thought inside a community.

Art may be at peripheral of our lives but it is all around us, just look at any building for a moment, everything from the painting on the walls, to the carpeting, to the design of the grounds is art. Although the carpets are quite often ugly, they are still art, although most people just see the lanes of concrete surrounded by grass as a walkway they were designed by an artist. Even English courses are not an English course it is a course on art, the art of writing, real English courses deal with nouns, verbs and past-present participles, yet even still it is not considered an art course. Instead it is considered to be a course that teaches you how to use and understand English appropriately. Art is extremely important to very few people because frankly it doesn’t pay the bills. Unfortunately because of this art’s impact on our daily lives is very low for the majority, however what art does do is help to shape our thoughts and feelings without a conscious effort in ways that other things cannot.

Is the human propensity for violence caused by culture or our very instincts? More specifically, does “modern” cultural constructs such as video games cause aggression? The second question is easy to answer, but the first is much harder because the argument of “nature versus nurture” has existed before Darwin and is no closer to being resolved today. Their are three major sides to the debate: the first (represented here by Robert W. Sussman) claims that culture is to blame, the second (Wrangham and Peterson) argues that instinct is solely responsible, and the third (Morrell) claims that humans are subject to their genetic makeup AKA the killer ape ancestor theory; however, all sides assume much. For example, arguing that cultures the basis of human aggression assumes that human instincts and genetic predispositions are not able to influence culture, and blaming instinct for aggression assumes that modern culture has no effect on human behavior, and the genetics argument assumes that there is a gene for aggression — which as of yet none has been found. One side blames video games and violent movies and the other two sides blame the”killer ape” ancestors of humans. However, the root of the problem is that all sides declare instinct, genetics, and culture mutually exclusive. In reality, because culture is based largely on instinct, human aggression is equally the fault of both culture and instinct, and genetics is not the cause of humankind’s aggression, just that aggression of some individuals.

Not all psychologists agree that humans have instincts. The term instinct is not normally used in reference to humans because of this, humans are said to have “innate predispositions”. In the context of this paper, references to human instinct refers to the innate in-bred predispositions that all humans are born with including the desire to eat, reproduce, etc. The existence of an instinct for aggression is also highly debated. Humans would have to have some predisposition for violence when defending territory, procuring mates, or attempting to fight off predators. These “natural” and “defensive” forms of aggression are considered facts; thus, are not debated. However, the controversy lies with aggression for aggression’s sake—such as the human ability to go to war or use violence and aggression as a way of bringing pleasure to oneself. These manifest themselves through competitions, hunting for pleasure, and other forms of aggressive entertainment. These forms of violence are based not solely upon instinct, but also, on the culture that humans are born to and live in.

Culture is defined as the manipulation of the environment and instincts because of want rather than need. The human form of culture not only allows members of the human species to interact but it also governs the very essence of human lives—similar to the instincts that govern an animal’s choices. Culture is also the entirety of the instinctual forces of humans channeled into institutions that allow for good and bad behavior, where those who follow the guidelines are good and the violators are bad (Titiev, 261). Therefore, human culture is not completely separate from innate human desires or instincts, but rather, an extension of human instincts that allow humans to manipulate their instincts to fit within whatever society or group they currently inhabit.

Aggression and violence while frequently used in the same context are two very different things. Aggression is an action with the intent to create harm; however, violence refers to an action with extreme harm as the main goal of the action (Anderson and Bushman).

Note to Reader: Note to Reader: This is a survey at best; in such as small paper a topic as large and controversial as culture being based on instinct cannot be thoroughly proven, tested and contradicted. However, this paper will attempt to serve as “reasonable doubt” because it does not have enough space to do any more.
Through proving that aggression is based upon both culture and instincts and that cultural elements of aggression are based on instinct, we will prove that a small part of culture is based on instinct; thus, opening the door for the possibility that other cases exist.

II. Genetics as the cause for aggression; the problems that surround it.

Testosterone in humans was considered the cause of aggression and violence for many years; however, recent studies have shown that testosterone can only be blamed for a small portion of human aggression. While studies do show that in adults and post-pubescent males testosterone does play a role in aggression, it does not explain the aggression that can surface in prepubescent children (Constantino et al.; Hudziak et al.). Testosterone can be linked with violence; however, the amount of testosterone in ones bloodstream can be influenced by feelings and emotions. Studies done with prison inmates concur that violence and testosterone have a link, yet in non-incarcerated groups no real link is found (Zitzmann and Nieschlag, 185). Testosterone has also been shown to only cause or affect the intramale form of aggression such as competition and the resident’s response in an intruder-resident conflict, but it does not explain the intruder’s aggression or other forms predatorial aggression (Simpson, 33). To say that testosterone is the catchall for human behavior is an over-simplification of its effects. There are too many other functions in the human body that tie in with the production and use of testosterone as a result to blame testosterone for every abnormality is irresponsible (Zitzmann and Nieschlag, 183). Simpson continues this line of thinking saying that although testosterone is part of aggression it does not cause the aggression; there must be some outside influence to cause an aggressive response (33). Therefore, while testosterone does play a role in human aggression it is only a small portion of the cause.

Serotonin is another naturally produced chemical that can cause aggression in humans. Both humans and primates test subjects with anti-social behavior showed low levels of serotonin. Although serotonin has been shown to cause aggression, not all causes of low serotonin are genetic in origin. Serotonin levels can be raised and lowered because of diet and in many individuals, the levels of serotonin are either raised or lowered depending on their upbringing (Harper-Jaques, 806). However, even though serotonin levels can affect some people’s behaviors on a day-to-day basis, many people who have a habit of long term anti social behavior have abnormally low levels of serotonin. A low level of serotonin mainly affects people that are impulsive in their aggression rather than those who premeditate their actions (Harper-Jaques, 807). In one study, 721 men and women were tested for blood serotonin levels; the results showed that men with high levels were more apt to behave violently yet in women no such relation was found (McCawley). However, because serotonin can be raised and lowered over a lifetime serotonin as with testosterone cannot be blamed for all occurrences of aggression in humans, as it may cause some part of the aggression it is influenced by both innate and cultural behavior.

Genetics is not fully responsible for aggression in humans, however it is frequently used as a societal scapegoat for those who are overly aggressive (Gest) Physical conditions only effect the aggression in normal humans, yet it can be the cause of aggression in psychopathic individuals. Research continues to find the elusive gene for aggression, but so far, no definitive gene has been found (is it”) that can be linked to a large population, yet on a small scale some success has been achieved (Morrell). Although genetics and physiological conditions can effect the occurrence of aggression in humans, it is just a small part of the overall cause.

III. Instincts as the basis of aggression, the trouble with solely instinct based studies

For many years, chimpanzee behavioral studies have been used as a way to explore the instincts of modern and pre-modern humans. Tied together with human based research, the studies show a nearly complete picture of the way human instincts relate to aggression. However, in some cases theories such as the “Selfish Gene Theory” are used to prove that just because instincts or behaviors exist in Chimpanzees that they exist in humans (Wrangham and Peterson), yet, many times the theories are stretched and it is assumed without supporting evidence that Chimpanzees make a good model for human behavior (Sussman). Even though Chimpanzees are good models for human behavior one cannot assume that because chimpanzees seem to have a trait that humans will also have the trait. Proving that humans share the same trait must be confirmed through other means.

IV. Cultural displays of aggression as caused and effected of instinct

Although aggression is considered a primitive act not suited for the modern world, this idea is wishful thinking at best and a falsehood at worst. Aggression plays a key role in society; humans praise those who are able to “aggressively pursue their goals” or that are “aggressive managers.” Higher status is given to those who can aggressively fend off all those who challenge them, be this through fist fights outside a bar, sports such as boxing or football, politics or even chess. The human status drive is one innate cause of aggression; this drive results in human competition both male and female. Whether it is in the office competing for a bigger office or fancier title or playing sports on the weekends, human activity is largely affected by the status drive (Loch). The status drive, as displayed through aggressive activities, has become two main categories in modern societies: real sports and virtual sports (video games). The status drive is also the basis of war, where the individual’s status is not affected but rather the groups status is endangered, and thus the individual helps to protect the status of the group as a whole.

Followed closely behind the human propensity for aggression is the human ability to go to war with other humans. Although humans are peaceful within their own group, they show near limitless capacity for violence to those of another group. However, the human ability to war is not limited to humans at all, chimpanzees like humans have been known to war with other groups (Wrangham and Peterson; Allman). In chimpanzees as with humans “wars” are generally fought to procure resources, mates or to elevate the status of the group. All of these reasons tie in with the human desire to protect their own and their families/groups status. Even though some detractors from this idea claim that human ancestors were not violent and that because of this human violence must be cultural (Sussman). Wrangham and Peterson evidences that because all groups of humans do “war’ in some way to protect the status of their group, aggression and violence cannot be purely the result of culture. Related to the situations human ancestors faced modern wars do not seem so alien, early humans would have had to protect their territory from invasions from predators and other groups, they would have had to protect their groups status by attacking any groups that had attacked them. In this context, modern human’s wars seem to be less new creations but rather the old ways of fighting with new tools. Therefore, culture now accepts what instinct necessitated.

V. Conclusion

Human aggression has many causes, but it can easily be narrowed down to three. The first of which is the status drive, this innate drive effects everything done by humans, the cultures that most humans live in promotes the propagation the use of the status drive as a reward system. The status drive has its basis in instincts, an instinct that has spurred and guided human evolution for millennia; today, culture just reflects this instinct. The second cause of aggression is genetic or biological, the use of testosterone, serotonin and countless other chemicals in the human bloodstream all contribute to the human ability to become aggressive, while not specifically cause or creating aggression. The third and final cause is the culture that humans live in, each culture has different standards as to what is acceptable, and these standards are a result of the propagation of a specific set of instincts.

Understanding that aggression is not just caused by events in a single persons life or by physical abnormalities is an important step to being able to treat individuals that show extreme amounts of aggression. It also allow for understanding of why humans act as they do, allowing psychologists and other professionals a better understanding of how and what must be done to allow the human species to live in some semblance of peace. It helps to explain how humans are a remarkably peaceful species with those of their own social group, yet have no trouble killing other humans. It can also allow professionals to discover who is at risk of becoming overly aggressive, before they become violent. This will result in fewer violent crimes and help take the strain off the world’s overburdened prison populations.