Is it natural to want to kill somebody out of jealousy, according to our modern scientific paradigm?

[XIII-Legion]

According to biological anthropology, evolutionary biology, and evolutionary psychology etc. do you think it would be 'natural' to want to kill somebody out of envy or jealousy?

Is such behaviour consistent with Darwin's theory of evolution?

Is there any scientific evidence at all to suggest that such behaviour is 'natural' and consistent with Darwin's theory?

NOTE: But here, in this example, to 'kill' another person may well refer to one's character assassination; but it doesn't necessarily mean to mortally wound another person to whom you are jealous.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Everything is natural and, as I have explained to you before, envy makes perfect sense within natural selection.

 

[Alceste]

Whatever happens in nature is natural. That has nothing at all to do with Darwin.

 

[HonestJoe]

It strikes me as fairly straight forwards. This is all ultimately about a desire to have something beneficial and if there is a limited supply of that resource, a desire to get it from those who have it. If you're "strong" enough (in general terms, not necessarily just physically) you'll be able to get it off them and thrive, if you're not you won't. If you're really "strong", you might find a way to share the resource so you both thrive.

I don't see why you'd need scientific evidence to see this concept aligns with Darwinian evolution. I'm not even sure what that evidence could be.

 

[chlotilde]

According to biological anthropology, evolutionary biology, and evolutionary psychology etc. do you think it would be 'natural' to want to kill somebody out of envy or jealousy?

Is such behaviour consistent with Darwin's theory of evolution?

Is there any scientific evidence at all to suggest that such behaviour is 'natural' and consistent with Darwin's theory?

I said this in another of the other places you posted this. What is it that you think is evolving that would make it consistent with Darwin's theory? Because as far as I can tell, all animals kill, seems to me like nothing changes.

 

[ScottySatan]

What's the alternative to it being natural?

edited to add:
It makes a lot of Darwinian sense to me. Someone has something that you covet, something that improves his reproductive success. So you kill him and take his **** so that it improves your reproductive success instead. The fights for territory or group dominance you see in the nature documentaries are examples of this.

 

[XIII-Legion]

What is it that you think is evolving that would make it consistent with Darwin's theory? Because as far as I can tell, all animals kill, seems to me like nothing changes.

But the motive behind such killing must be consistent with natural selection and competition for scarce resources.

An answer based on science seems more credible than religious faith, which is no more than wishful thinking.

But in answer to your comment to the other section: "Why did Cain kill his brother Abel" I think your comment is one-sided, which is invariably the case when you try to summarise a topic based on a few sentences.

By definition, each person's argument is only one-sided argument, which will never contain ALL the facts; but there is always more than one side to an argument.

What you've said may well be true; but it doesn't invalidate my contention that in the long term, Jesus Christ the Son of Man will always have the MORAL HIGH GROUND over Satan and his minions. By this, I mean that Jesus will always have the moral high ground over the Anti-Christ (of which there are many), who is servant of the devil (Revelation 17:14).

Although the "drive to procreate can be motivated by jealousy", there is none more jealous than the Anti-Christ himself; as from the foundation of the world he is cut off from the true body of christ, which is the lineage of Jesus; a spiritual aristocracy which will rule over the earth for the next thousand years (Genesis 25:23; Zechariah 14:9; Romans 9:21; Revelation 20:6) .

 

[Gjallarhorn]

...does this really have anything to do with science? Or are you just looking for a religious debate better suited for a DIR?

 

[XIII-Legion]

What's the alternative to it being natural?

edited to add:
It makes a lot of Darwinian sense to me. Someone has something that you covet, something that improves his reproductive success. So you kill him and take his **** so that it improves your reproductive success instead. The fights for territory or group dominance you see in the nature documentaries are examples of this.

Or instead of kill him to take his sexual partner, you could well deprive him of his reproductive success by a process called "levelling the playing field"; such as detente between America and Russia based on both countries having approximately the same number of nuclear weapons, or neither side should have any at all. But he doesn't have to take your mate to level the playing field; instead, the only requirement would be for him to deprive you of a SUPERIOR mate, which otherwise would improve his reproductive success.

Your adversary/enemy/rival doesn't have to mortally wound you to reduce your chance of reproductive success; but such a result can often be achieved by a process of stealth, fraud, and deception to deprive the other person of a SUPERIOR mate.

The trick is to try and get the other person to buy into an ersatz substitution for improved reproductive success.

Notwithstanding, I think you've probably given the best scientific answer to the question; but what are your thoughts regarding my annotation?

 

[XIII-Legion]

...does this really have anything to do with science? Or are you just looking for a religious debate better suited for a DIR?

But I think science and religion should go hand in hand.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

But I think science and religion should go hand in hand.

You ask about evolution and then throw Cain and Abel and some loopy ideas about Messianic moral high ground into it and you expect a coherent answer?

Just because they should go hand in hand doesn't mean they do.

 

[XIII-Legion]

If you're really "strong", you might find a way to share the resource so you both thrive.

Yes, I agree with what you've said; but such a resource can be shared in ANY country, which is part of Christendom. It doesn't have to be America. (Matthew 21:43)

 

[Sunstone]

There are numerous behaviors that might afford one a reproductive advantage which are, nevertheless, not the wisest behaviors in the grand scheme of things.

 

[chlotilde]

An answer based on science seems more credible than religious faith, which is no more than wishful thinking.

If you had thought about my question a little more, I was hoping you would have answered with the word "mind"...as in...it is the mind that is evolving.
Isn't that what evolutionary psychologists attempt to hypothesize, a theory of how the mind works?
FWIW, I use the word "attempt" on purpose, as I don't believe evolutionary psychology is an actual scientific discipline (from my point of view as a chemist), it is a social science. They have a problem with testability when they base their hypotheses on various theories of mind (philosophical arguments).

But in answer to your comment to the other section: "Why did Cain kill his brother Abel" I think your comment is one-sided, which is invariably the case when you try to summarise a topic based on a few sentences.

I was hoping you would answer my question about Jungian theory. He had his own "theory of mind".

 

[chlotilde]

FWIW, I use the word "attempt" on purpose, as I don't believe evolutionary psychology is an actual scientific discipline (from my point of view as a chemist), it is a social science. They have a problem with testability when they base their hypotheses on various theories of mind (philosophical arguments).

I just wanted to add one thing...IMO, there is one theory of mind (the reductionist-deterministic one) that does make evolutionary psychology more consistent with the hard sciences.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes, I agree with what you've said; but such a resource can be shared in ANY country, which is part of Christendom. It doesn't have to be America. (Matthew 21:43)

Nothing I said has the slightest thing to do with "Christendom" or America, it's about individuals and it's about human beings.

 

[XIII-Legion]

It makes a lot of Darwinian sense to me. Someone has something that you covet, something that improves his reproductive success. So you kill him and take his **** so that it improves your reproductive success instead. The fights for territory or group dominance you see in the nature documentaries are examples of this.

But is Darwin's theory consistent with one's viewpoint that "if I can't have it, you won't have it either"?

For instance, "if I don't get straight A's, at least nobody else will have it either"?

Is it consistent with Darwin's theory of natural selection?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

But is Darwin's theory consistent with one's viewpoint that "if I can't have it, you won't have it either"?

For instance, "if I don't get straight A's, at least nobody else will have it either"?

Is it consistent with Darwin's theory of natural selection?

Sure, as long as that action isn't dooming your ability to breed and survive.

Mutually assured destruction is antithetical to evolution (before having children, of course).

 

[chlotilde]

hmmm, let me try this another way

(preface: I am not trying to be antagonistic. I'm trying to figure out what you are getting at. If I am nothing else, at least call me persistent.)

I see you as asking.........is "jealousy" an adaption that will be naturally selected for survival.

Is there any scientific evidence at all to suggest that such behaviour is 'natural' and consistent with Darwin's theory?

First, all behavior is 'natural'. But is it consistent with Darwin's theory?

There are two (and more!) points of view to take...but since you mention behavorialists and biologists...I'll make a stab at their perspectives.

A behavorialist studies individuals and small populations.
So they might ask:
Do jealous people beget jealous babies? (you have to pass your adaptions on).

The biologist studies populations as a whole species.
So they might ask:
Is there a trend of greater jealousy in the human race?(adaptions become more prevalent in a population)

 

[Skwim]

But I think science and religion should go hand in hand.

Why? What does religion have to contribute to science?