Hacker News Reader

Comment by corey_moncure | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't the result be the human male that is the most adept at warfare?

Rather, the result would have the males less likely to die in war, which may include those most adept, those completely unable to partake, and those smart enough to find a way to skip it.

What happens to the men left at home of a conquered tribe?

Many would be killed, some would be spared as useful, skilled labour like smiths, some would be spared. All would drop substantially in social status and likelihood of leaving descendants, bar skilled labour, if that.

It's more correct to say that the "society" is the most adept at warfare, because warfare is largely when two groups compete, not individuals.

And yes, societies which are better at warfare tend to also have better agriculture, tools, etc, to support their military machine.

Is it? Were males not the primary fighters? Men are more built for combat (higher testosterone, more muscle mass, endurance etc.).

ggggtez is not disagreeing with that. He is saying that when one society beats others at warfare, it is not because its males had more testosterone and larger muscles, rather because it had better agriculture and so on.

That is not how I read it.

> And yes, societies which are better at warfare tend to also have better agriculture, tools, etc, to support their military machine.

He states that there tends to be a correlation, but not causation.

It's an argument of semantics at this point. I'm saying war isn't won by bigger muscles alone. If you can't feed your troops, or equip them with more efficient weapons and armor, and train them with better tactics, then you'll lose at "war" to a society which can.

You had a caste system in these civilizations. Warrior/hunters, farmers, priests, etc.

Neolithic civilization wasn’t just a band of 50 and a few yurts. There were complex societies, but they had scale limits due to technology and knowledge constraints.

There's also the possibility that the human male who is less prone to aggression and warfare is the most adept at warfare.

An interesting parallel would be Starcraft AI. It excels at micro, but fails at macro, like tricking the opponent into building the wrong units.

I read a book on survival techniques when I was a teenager and it had a chapter on street fighting. It was prefaced with something like: the best way to win a fight is to not have one; pay attention to your surroundings and avoid getting into a situation where you have to fight. Run away if you can.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com