Steven Pinker -- How the Mind Works - Hampshire High Italian ...

Family Values 515Tooby and Cosmides' calculations assume that a man's children cando just fine when he is dead, so the loss of fitness with death is zero, notnegative. Of course that is not true, but they point out that if the group isrelatively prosperous the fatherless children's survival chances may notdiminish too much and it still could pay men to raid. They predict thatmen should be more willing to fight when their group is secure in foodthan when it is hungry, contrary to the protein-shortage hypothesis. Thedata bear them out. Another implication is that females should neverhave an interest in starting a war (even if they had weapons or allies thatmade up for their smaller size). The reason that females never evolved anappetite to band together and raid neighboring villages for husbands isthat a woman's reproductive success is rarely limited by the number ofavailable males, so any risk to her life while pursuing additional mates isa sheer loss in expected fitness. (Foraging women do, however, encouragemen to fight in defense of the group and to avenge slain family members.)The theory also explains why in modern warfare most people areunwilling to send women into combat and feel morally outraged whenwomen are casualties, even though no ethical argument makes awoman's life more precious than a man's. It is hard to shake the intuitionthat war is a game that benefits men (which was true for most of our evolutionaryhistory), so they should bear the risks.The theory also predicts that men should be willing to fight collectivelyonly if they are confident of victory and none of them knows inadvance who will be injured or killed. If defeat is likely, it's pointless tofight on. And if you bear more than your share of the risk—say, if yourplatoonmates are exposing you to danger by looking out for their ownhides—it's also pointless to fight on. These two principles shape the psychologyof war.Among foragers, warring bands are usually factions of the same peopleand have the same kinds of weaponry, so the predictor of victory inour evolutionary past would have been sheer numbers. The side withmore warriors was invincible, and the odds of victory could be estimatedfrom the manpower on each side. The Yanomamo are obsessed with thesize of their villages for just that reason, and they often form alliances orrethink secessions because they know that smaller villages are helplessin wars. Even in modern societies, a mob of people on your side isemboldening and a mob on the other side terrifying. Mustering a crowdis a common tactic for whipping up patriotism, and a mass demonstrationcan incite panic even in a militarily secure ruler. A major principle