I am posting this question just out of curiosity. I don't support any side of the aisle of the answers it may receive, unless it is too convincing. But, I personally think we should start thinking about this kind of futuristic problems. May be someone can even make a good movie around this theme.

I personally think anger is an adaptive trait, mainly for competition leading upto survival. But, in the species capable of creating a civilization (like humans) this trait has led to crimes and lots of sociological problems, competition over unnecessary issue, etc. So, there is a modern notion that anger isn't good (philosophically and sociologically). But, as the human civilization become more progressive, calm and altruistic in the future, won't it be creating a pitfall for it's own existence should anger, rage and grudge be the only trait needed for survival, when there is a dire need for population control, confrontation with another civilization, etc.

closed as off-topic by Swami Vishwananda, virmaior, John Am, user19563, Nick R Apr 28 '17 at 4:50

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site." – Swami Vishwananda, virmaior, John Am, Eliran, Nick R
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Seen Zardoz? – Mr. Kennedy Apr 18 '17 at 2:29
  • Adaptive trait is a trait "with a current functional role in the life of an organism". The problem with your argument is that who is to say that crimes and social problems are not themselves "adaptive traits" that prevent society from going stale and degenerating. Evolution cares not for human notions of "good" and "bad". Your calm and altruistic civilization may very well be an evolutionary dead end afflicted by what Nietzsche called slave morality. – Conifold Apr 18 '17 at 2:42
  • That's a good comment by @Conifold. But, why should you punish a criminal if crimes are part of natural ecology not a deterrent human behaviour. – everestial007 Apr 18 '17 at 2:50
  • Because punishment is equally a part of natural ecology, it helps crime serve its "adaptive" purpose. According to Durkheim, crime "affirms our cultural values and norms and clarifies moral boundaries. It also promotes social unity and encourages social change... a society without crime is society without any progress", see Durkheim's Normality of Crime. And keep in mind that evolutionary arguments are often circular: it is not the fittest who survive, but those that survive who are the fittest. – Conifold Apr 18 '17 at 3:06
  • Are you making the assumption that what is called "anger" does not adapt to the society as the society changes? I think there are many different "flavors" of anger in our society already, and they keep evolving with society. – Cort Ammon Apr 18 '17 at 20:23

Anger is entirely necessary and functional part of the human psyche. The entire point of this emotion is to make things fair, something that a progressive civilisation definitely needs. Like all other emotions, anger unchecked and uncontrolled is destructive, but still very necessary. Without anger, humans would start dying out. Losing anger would remove a large part of one's will to live, to protect, to fight injustice, to punish.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.