Second, evolutionary forces have made us value nonviolence in the first place. If they hadn't, we wouldn't have any notion of the reason or means to overcome what we see as a never-ending cycle. If we are able to even conceive of violence as something negative then it means we are already able to "overcome" it to some extent, but then we find that the question itself is circular.
Essentially, to be able to think that the world is shitty you already need a framework in place where members of your species are influenced by a widespread desire to make it less shitty according to criteria determined by their biological needs.
Species act to adapt to their environment and provide for their needs. Nature necessitates violence for adaptation and survival. In species with no natural predators, an abundance of natural resources, and no problems with genetic propagation, violence might not be necessary for survival. But in many species, even ones with no natural predators (or very little risk of predation), they may commit violence upon themselves, usually to enforce a social order, or eventually pass on their own genetic material. Or they may commit violence for fun, I believe as a sort of practice for real-life predation.
And violence isn't negative. You're ascribing with morality (a human construct) or are diminishing (it's actually constructive) a natural and productive act that supports virtually all life on the planet. To escape it we would need to escape nature itself.
I'm not sure what you thought I wrote but it's the opposite of what I outlined. My whole argument is indeed that morals are indeed a human construct, so that if someone laments the amount of violence, they should realize that to be able to make such a complaint you already need to have arrived to a point where avoiding violence has granted you evolutionary advantages and thus been selected for to some extent, hence making the question a closed loop. Otherwise, the question would not even be conceivable to our minds.
>I don't know who thinks that humans value nonviolence but they clearly don't read the news.
Just because we engage in violence very frequently doesn't mean it is not valued. There are many different evolutionary pressures coexisting together. At the largest end of the scale, having a less violent society is very much an evolutionary advantage, otherwise we would not have an ingrained sense of fairness, the notion of morality, or as you mentioned the desire to inflict normative violence if that standard of fairness is violated by another individual. These emotions and constructs exist because they bring an advantage, and they do ironically bring on a state of lesser violence through the applied threat of violence.
>a natural and productive act that supports virtually all life on the planet. To escape it we would need to escape nature itself.
Violence doesn't have a special status in the sense that it will be productive in any environment. Just like any other trait, if the conditions change to a sufficient extent, it will become obsolete. It's only positive due to the way things are currently working. We're by definition part of nature so we can't escape it, but that doesn't mean nature will necessarily remain the way it has been in the past.
I don't see how this is the case. We have a lot more violence than is necessary for adaptation or survival. I don't think our 'ingrained sense of fairness' is an advantage, I think it is similar to what already exists in nature, but is then broken down by our fragile emotional state and confused by our higher brain functions clashing with our evolutionary simple heuristics. It's like running a web app in AWS to control a shopping list and it's source code consists solely of algebraic expressions. It's cumbersome and problematic. I'm sure developing our higher brain functions was useful in our survival, but it clearly conflicts with our instinctual survival traits.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say.
It seems like you're attributing some mysterious intentionality to our violent impulses, as if there's some benevolent entity somewhere in there.
It sounds like you're talking about God.
In the meditation style I prefer, it's useful to think of the subconscious/primitive brain as an elephant that is somewhat under control of the driver (the modern brain).
b) I bet that we'll have wars even if everyone has all they need. I'd like to be wrong.
This. Not because scarcity isn't present, but because it is fundamental and inevitable; distribution isn't he thing that can be addressed, and scarcity is not.
b) I bet that rich countries, where people have all they need, will not provoke wars or engage on unprovoked wars (unless for humanitarian reasons).
a) scarcity of resource (oil) / humanitarian reasons (whichever you prefer to believe)
b) was provoked into it (because of cold war or terrorists)
Yes, they do. They may not have what you view as critical shortages, but if thode things weren't scarce, in economic terms, they would be free of cost.
> Things do become more abundant
Yes, but they continue to be scarce.
That seems confused to me, but I can't speak for anyone else in the thread.
We humans are the most intelligent species and still can't overcome it, as a civilization whatever political system or religion we tried no matter how hard we try we can't seem to overcome it, we still have wars and violence.
When few succeed to inspire people to overcome it and fight without violence like Mahatma Gandhi did they inspire humanity and are called saints by their nation.
When an individual can control his own feelings to such an extent that violence or anger feelings can no longer touch him we call him enlightened.
Maybe this force is not only trying to help us evolve but wants to teach us something marvelous if we overcome it.