Tweet
I've been reading a book on ethology and its extension from animal to human life. The author makes a case for territorial defense in many species. Whether one's individual territory or collective territory is invaded, it requires enormous force for the owner to be evicted. With many animal species from invertebrates to the highest mammals, the owner almost invariably beats the intruder into submission, all other things being equal.
This book was written in the 1960s and the US author quotes similar behaviour to animals in quite a number of incidents in WWII. I won't catalogue them all, but there are numerous animals living in collectivities which, when a "foreign" alpha male tries to take over a herd, he usually fails 90% of the time. If he does succeed, he may impregnate some of the females (new gene stock), but he is usually not accepted and is often driven away by the younger males in a concerted effort. He drew a parallel with this in the way that countries like Norway, Netherlands, Yugoslavia and, above all France organised a resistance to the German invader in the defense of their territory. The faster a collapse of a country, the stronger was the resistance.
Another problem that he evoked was that, theoretically, Germany should have walked over Russia and Russia should have walked over Finland, but a long, fierce, defence of a territory will almost always result in defeat of the invader, no matter how strong his superior power.
OK, the terminology is different, but the war-time Resistance in France and elsewhere caused Germany to deploy more resources than should have been necessary, which weakened the invader's ability to attack/defend elsewhere, so defeat, in the long term, becomes almost inevitable. Draw a parallel with this in Iraq: insurgents = Resistance/help for the Resistance was provided by the Allies and help for the insurgents is provided by other countries allied to the cause. Only the names change.
Another point that the author brings up is that major attacks occur most where complacency is rife: the invasion of Czechoslovakia after Munich and Pearl Harbor and he shows that when some animal species become complacent (e.g., plenty of food and no territorial aggression by neighbouring animals), they are more likely to become much more aggressive in the event of a sudden attack and even the females of a herd will defend the attack. He cites Pearl Harbor, in particular, as a human example of a nation suddenly waking up to become aggressive from a very complacent mood, almost overnight. Compre this with 11 September.
I'm not citing this for it to become Temp forum material but as something to discuss as to whether we can closely parallel the behaviour pattern into the innate behaviour of homo sapiens when stress is applied, either as the invader or the invaded. If so, can we draw any conclusions? Note that ethology is not an exact science and there are always exceptions to the rules, so don't, please, quote the exceptions to "prove" it is bullshit - let's just look at the generalities. Any thoughts?
This book was written in the 1960s and the US author quotes similar behaviour to animals in quite a number of incidents in WWII. I won't catalogue them all, but there are numerous animals living in collectivities which, when a "foreign" alpha male tries to take over a herd, he usually fails 90% of the time. If he does succeed, he may impregnate some of the females (new gene stock), but he is usually not accepted and is often driven away by the younger males in a concerted effort. He drew a parallel with this in the way that countries like Norway, Netherlands, Yugoslavia and, above all France organised a resistance to the German invader in the defense of their territory. The faster a collapse of a country, the stronger was the resistance.
Another problem that he evoked was that, theoretically, Germany should have walked over Russia and Russia should have walked over Finland, but a long, fierce, defence of a territory will almost always result in defeat of the invader, no matter how strong his superior power.
OK, the terminology is different, but the war-time Resistance in France and elsewhere caused Germany to deploy more resources than should have been necessary, which weakened the invader's ability to attack/defend elsewhere, so defeat, in the long term, becomes almost inevitable. Draw a parallel with this in Iraq: insurgents = Resistance/help for the Resistance was provided by the Allies and help for the insurgents is provided by other countries allied to the cause. Only the names change.
Another point that the author brings up is that major attacks occur most where complacency is rife: the invasion of Czechoslovakia after Munich and Pearl Harbor and he shows that when some animal species become complacent (e.g., plenty of food and no territorial aggression by neighbouring animals), they are more likely to become much more aggressive in the event of a sudden attack and even the females of a herd will defend the attack. He cites Pearl Harbor, in particular, as a human example of a nation suddenly waking up to become aggressive from a very complacent mood, almost overnight. Compre this with 11 September.
I'm not citing this for it to become Temp forum material but as something to discuss as to whether we can closely parallel the behaviour pattern into the innate behaviour of homo sapiens when stress is applied, either as the invader or the invaded. If so, can we draw any conclusions? Note that ethology is not an exact science and there are always exceptions to the rules, so don't, please, quote the exceptions to "prove" it is bullshit - let's just look at the generalities. Any thoughts?
Comment