alt Hacker NewsNo. We simply engage in cost-benefit analysis, because we have limited resources.
Entirely wiping out an enemy population can be incredibly risky as they'll try to also wipe you out in response. It consumes enormous resources as people on your own side get killed, your resources get used up, etc. It weakens your group making you more vulnerable to attack from third parties.
Most of the time, it's just bad strategy.
You don't need to invent instincts or tendencies or claim something is more subtle or targeted when the vastly simpler explanation is just that it's all just cost-benefit.
Replies
You kinda missed part of my specific point,
Mostly that there's a lot that goes on in society where a single person can't necessarily genocide a 'race' but a single person can certainly fuck up a single person of family's life over the long term intentionally and not care, even if doing so does not gain them any real advantage.
But hey if you want to look at 'bigger picture', 'societal' cruelty...
Reaching even further back than WW2, we may look at the Armenian Genocide and the circumstances.
> You don't need to invent instincts or tendencies or claim something is more subtle or targeted when the vastly simpler explanation is just that it's all just cost-benefit.
Part of the human condition used to be the idea that we had evolved beyond short term cost-benefit, however the last 15 years, might be proving you right.
> Entirely wiping out an enemy population can be incredibly risky as they'll try to also wipe you out in response
Which is why you either wipe out the whole population, or not at all.
If you have the type of enemy that holds a grudge across generations, that is.
Should be true for hominids. I have no theory for the wolves.