Re: The coalitional enforcement hypothesis and human uniqueness
- From: "Peter H.M.Brooks" <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:42:08 +0200
"Lance" <LanceGary@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageI'd have thought that the better argument was that the Russians managed to 'take on' Napoleon without any help from Stalin.
On Sep 15, 11:33 pm, Dave Smith <da...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:This theory seems highly speculative, grandiose and implausible toYes it is highly speculative. What S J Gould called a "just so story".
me. What evidence is there to support it? Surely the 'cognitive
explosion' must already have been under way, in order that humans were
bright enough to make weapons?
I think theories about human origins tend to wonder between nobility
and evil, and this one sees the possibility of force at a distance as
the being the source of human socialness. There is some truth in it,
though it is certainly not the whole story. But it would be stupid not
to recall, for example, the terror in which Stalin bound the Russians
and which enabled that country to take on the Nazis. Force and terror
are powerful aspects of human social life. And not just the life of
"civilized" people. After all think Shaka of the Zulus. Anyway, thank
goodness tehre are other aspects too.
Did Stalin's terror really enable the Russians to take on the Nazis? I was under the impression it came close to disabling them by leaving the armed forces short of experienced officers.
- Prev by Date: Do We really Know What Makes Us healthy?
- Next by Date: Re: The coalitional enforcement hypothesis and human uniqueness
- Previous by thread: Re: The coalitional enforcement hypothesis and human uniqueness
- Next by thread: Re: The coalitional enforcement hypothesis and human uniqueness