Dyer has felt, through his experiences as a soldier, his genes at work as he says; Aggression is certainly part of our genetic makeup, and necessarily so, but the normal human being’s quota of aggression will not cause him to kill acquaintances, let alone wage war against strangers from a different country….The overwhelming majority of those who have killed…have done so as soldiers in war, and we recognize that that has practically nothing to do with the kind of personal aggression that would endanger us as their fellow citizens. (8) Here a regular serving soldier spoke with experience of seeing the numerous soldiers that "[derived] their greatest satisfaction from male companionship, from excitement, and from the conquering of physical obstacles." Those men were most likely part of the 2 percent of combat soldiers (as noted by Swank and Marchand’s WWII study) are predisposed to be "aggressive psychopaths."(8) Men can be compared to animals concerning this apparent predisposition to aggression. For example, in most species it is the best hunter, the best fighter, the most aggressive male who ends up passing on his genetic data unto a female and thereby an offspring. An offshoot of this aggressive psychopath, is another genetic predisposition, the presence or apathy of empathy for others. Life magazine printed in their latest magazine that, "the heritability of most personality traits is about 50 percent."(4) Thus showing the strong predisposition to certain behaviors, namely aggression. Furthermore, "aggression…[is a trait] with high heritability."(4) As a result of this there has been recent debate in some states, like Minnesota, who have been trying to obtain a sort of genetic cleansing by not allowing the "riff-raff" of society to breed. This ethical question shoots back to days of 19th century anthropologist Francis Galton who also recommended breeding quotas to weed out the "unfit."(4) It also sounds ...
