QC

E.g. cycles of violence. Blues hurt Greens in the past, so Greens get Blue-trauma that makes them hurt Blues back; this gives Blues Green-trauma. And it is *correct* for both to view the other as an enemy, because the others' trauma makes them hostile.

Or, if a culture has grown up to cope with *and exploit* a particular trauma, so that removing the trauma would make things temporarily worse. E.g. people who motivate themselves with guilt, may at first have a lack of motivation when the guilt is removed.

Or the thing where people initially refused to do repetitive work in factories, until schools were set up to traumatize kids to submission and willingness to do industrial work. Trauma offered a solution to a problem, and Western civilization then built itself around it.

It comes down to scarce resources, I think. If there was no competition and unlimited resources, it would always be better to have no trauma. Trauma offers mechanisms for avoiding, killing, and exploiting others, whether as an individual or a civilization.

("Trauma is a mechanism for aggression" in the Coherence Therapy sense of a mechanism - it's part of the causal structure in the brain which creates the aggressive behavior.)

Of course, there's trauma that causes you to submit too, which may in turn be a necessary behavioral adaptation in an environment where others are aggressive. (though it easily flips to aggression when the situation allows it - see the super-aggressive social justice communities)

There's a twisted sense where, if you are in a trauma-based culture, parents passing their trauma to their kids is actually a part of teaching the kids what they need to know. If trauma is a necessary mechanism in the culture, your kids are worse off if they don't have it.