Are human beings more aggressive than animals?

Question

Man must be the most aggressive and cruel of all living creatures. We may say a violent man is behaving "like a beast", but, in fact, no beast behaves as violently as man. When a territorial animal or bird intrudes on the territory of another creature of the same species, the latter will only perform some hostile gestures to warn off the intruder. Nevertheless, should a fight follow, neither creature will be badly hurt, for the loser will save himself by making a gesture of submission. Normally one animal will only kill another for food, and rarely does an animal kill a member of its own species.
2 If, however, an animal finds itself in abnormal conditions, it may show abnormal aggressiveness. A tiger that once came out of the jungle into a village and attacked a man was later found to have an injured paw that had evidently prevented it from hunting its usual prey. If it had not had this disability it would have undoubtedly stayed in the jungle and hunted for food in the customary way. Animals in zoos are kept in cages and often become more aggressive than they would be in the wild. If the caged lion, for example, were free to wander on the grassy plains of Africa, it would be continually active, ranging over long distances, hunting in family groups. In the zoo it is probably better fed and cared for, but it is evidently bored and frustrated for lack of company.
3 Some zoologists and psychologists compare modern man to a caged lion. Living conditions in crowded cities, they say, are similar to those of animals in a zoo and make the inhabitants unusually aggressive. If the human population had not increased so rapidly, people would have had more space and freedom. In prehistoric times a group of about 60 people had many kilometres of empty land to wander and search for food in. If conditions had remained thus, man might have been no more aggressive than his fellow creatures. As it is, it is possible for as many as 30,000 people to be working in a single office-building. It is not surprising if in these conditions people behave aggressively towards each other. In fact, it is almost impossible for them to behave otherwise. Man must have become more aggressive over the years as the world population has increased.
4 However, aggression in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Some psychologists believe that aggression is a basic human instinct that must be satisfied. If constructive means are not available to satisfy this instinct, man will turn to destructive means. The impulse to assert himself has enabled him to survive in a dangerous world, but, ironically, he is now likely to destroy his own species unless alternative, non-violent ways of expressing aggression can be found. In fact, it is growing more and more difficult for people to assert themselves as individuals, as towns, nations and organizations become steadily bigger, with authority increasingly centralized and remote. A man who may once have been a self-employed craftsman, master of his own trade, might now have a boring job in a factory. A small firm that once worked as a team to produce high-quality goods is likely to be absorbed into a vast organization where their work is mechanical and there is no possibility for personal expression. Unable in these conditions to channel their aggression into creative work, people will probably express it through resentment and anger. At the international level an accumulation of hostile emotions finally finds expression in large-scale impersonal warfare. A man who would hesitate to hit another person in front of his eyes may kill thousands of people by dropping a bomb from a plane; to him they are too remote to be human beings, but are merely figures on a chart of his routine job.
5 Nevertheless, it might be possible at least to improve the situation. The encouragement of competition in all possible fields should tend to diminish the likelihood of war rather than increase it. In his book Human Aggression, Anthony Storr suggested that the United Nations should organize international competitions in sports and also for the best designed house or hospital, or the safest car. Even the enormous amount of money and energy devoted to the space race is, he says, to be welcomed, for this kind of competition can be regarded as similar to the ritual conflicts of animals. Only if hostility and aggression can be expressed in constructive activity and non-violent competition, will the human race be able to survive.

Answer 1

I agree with your manuscript in which you answered your own question. We have had violence for millions of years. The animals do become violent to protect themselves, and for food, however, the chimps are forming gangs and going after and ganging up on some unfortunate one that they do not like. Are they becoming humanized on their own? This is something that has been developing in the wild recently, you figure. I do believe that it is connected with crowded areas, but it is no different than other areas that were not so crowded as well. Violence is everywhere.

Answer 2

You seem to have the idea that "Normally one animal will only kill another for food, and rarely does an animal kill a member of its own species."

This is wrong. Chimpanzees and other social animals have been observed waging territorial battles in which they kill members of their own species.

We only seem to be more violent than other animals because there are many of us, so our wars are fought on a larger scale.

But all of our "animal" instincts when it comes to aggression are exactly that - something that we have as animals, just like all the other species on this planet.

The only thing unique about us is our vast population.

Next time you're walking barefoot in the grass, watch out for those warring armies of ants, fighting and killing members of their own species from different nests.

If you have trouble telling which ant is which in that battle, you could try assigning arbitrary labels to the two warring factions. For example, ants from a nest in the western part of your yard could be called "Christians", while those from the eastern part could be called "Islamics".

Similarly, warring Chimpanzees from northern and southern sections of the Congo rain forest could be called "Union" and "Confederate".

Who knows? Maybe if ants and Chimps had space programs, they'd stop fighting each other.

Answer 3

Yes. Animals don't build weapons of mass destruction, but all you say is mostly your opinion. Animals of one species frequently kill members of the same species. Males frequently kill the offspring of males they have killed or run off. And cannibalism is also frequently found in the animal kingdom.

And you obviously want everyone to know how erudite you think you are by placing your post in several different categories which is against the the Yahoo Answers rules.

Answer 4

You are so liberal we worry about you.
Many animals will attack and kill for no reason. Bears are well known for attacking without provocation. They are also known to kill male cub bears (as ar many animals) to keep down competition.
Male Cats, squirrels and other animals will also kill the young (even thier own) to keep themseves the top dog.
Wolves wil often band togethe and kill another wolf for sport. it's quiet common.
Killer whales wil hunt sometimes seals and penguims for hours taunting them before killing them and leaving them as it wasn;'t for the food but sport.

Answer 5

We are. We kill each other for sport. We should be ashamed and embarassed as a species. We get joy out of watching other creatures suffer...


Animals rule! Save the animals!

Answer 6

Hi,

Man is a social Animal .

Answer 7

some humans are, which should not be.

Answer 8

⌂⌂...2...much....2 READ.....æ☼╝

Answer 9

you ask , you answer, and then? then i clap. lol.