Greetings to thee,

and give thanks for the reasoning,

i suppost this is the fundamental difference between our views of history and genetics. While i agree that european folks have pushed the environmental and socio-political evelope about as far as it can go (and possibly further) over the past 500 - 600 years, I would argue that they were for the vast majority of history no more or less prone to evil than any one else from any where else.

The case for genetic influences on complex behaviours is at best a sketchy one (though one I am a fan of) and I dont beleive the time fame from the period of the ice ages to the present is simply insufficient to have resulted in the kinds of very complex behavioural adaptations that you are refereing to.

yes their european environment was harsh in places, but in others they thrived, and given comparitivley low population densities and relitivley abundant game their lifeltyle was obviously sustainable, or i wouldnt be sitting here typing this would i? I agree that at times starvation would have pushed them to do things that were appaling by conventional standards, but I have not seen any evidence that this was some sort of wide spread endemic practice, most midden heaps are full of animal bones, not human ones. Canabilism due to extreme starvation is something that has happened in every corner of the world, and still happens from time to time now... As have things like infanticide for similar reasons.

I believe that you know this anyway, but i had best avoid unwarrented fyah from others.... None of this is intended to deny that europeans have done some truly evil and destructive things. Our treatment of the environment has been so bad that the damage may well be irreperable. But i dont believe this is a genetic thing, but has more to do with history and opportunity.

Irrespective of the causes though, and how interesting they are to reason upon, it is the problems themselves that perhaps deserve the focus.

love and life
paul