So, I've been reading "The Origin of Species". Has anyone else read this book? It's not a very thick book. Figured it's been referred to often enough, I may as well read it myself. Everything in it so far refers to natural selection of plants and animals. But humans are also a species, so on average at least some of what I read should apply. So lets not delude ourselves, and simply assume these principles refer to humans:

Humans "started" in one location, and spread into other regions. Conditions in those regions were somewhat different, and those humans who benefitted more from local resources passed their traits on to their progeny, while less endowed humans failed to populate the region.

After some time, noticeable differences arose, allowing the identification of "varieties" of humans. Each variety exhibited a subset of traits of the original protohuman species which allowed them to prosper in their respective environments. All of these varieties of humans could interbreed, and yield the original protohuman. But since "like is attracted to like" they did not interbreed, but competed with each other. In nature a species will produce more offspring than can possibly survive. This intensifies the competition between varieties, and in fact guarantees it.

Individuals of the same species tend to compete most fiercely with each other, since they are most alike, and compete for the same resources. Only those who are sufficiently different are spared. Thus we have the following "spectrum" of human varieties:

A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z

At one end we have the recent ancestor of modern humans, and at the other we have the recent ancestor of chimpanzees. Originally they could interbreed and produce a common ancestor. But tribal wars among the apes then wiped out varieties N thru Y, leaving variety Z, which developed into modern chimps. Tribal wars among hominids wiped out varieties B thru M, leaving variety A, which developed into modern humans. What remains are humans and chimpanzees, which are so different that they will not normally interbreed, and can no longer produce a common ancestor, since the genes of varieties B thru Y are extinct. This is erroneously referred to as the "missing link", but are actually extinct varieties which co-existed at some time in the past. Apes survived simply because their needs are so different from humans.

Now humans have spread around the world, producing new varieties in each region. As a cross-roads of sorts, the most historically travelled regions of the world are in the Middle East. As with animal species, most interbreeding of humans took place there. Hence an earlier variety of the human species may live there. In the ancient past tribal conditions were the natural (wild) state, where different families wiped out those who competed for the same resources. Only one variety survived, and the rest became extinct. Only those with sufficiently different needs could co-exist in equilibrium.

So enough with the summarization. What is happening in the middle east (and elsewhere) is not new. It is simply a continuation of past competition for resources. The kicker is that without this competition, no species would ever improve, no variety would arise that is better at utilizing resources. Also, no variety would become extinct. This fundamental tradeoff is the biological way of improving a species. Since a species will produce more offspring than can possibly survive, persistent conflict over resources is guaranteed. We could wipe out the competition, but 1000 years down the road, our own offspring would again be at each other's throats!

What say ye to that? Does it suck?