The Myth of Increasing Violence

[TantricSoul]

It seems that I hear all the time about how we humans are becoming more and more violent over the course of history. This "fact" seems to be making its way into "common sense" knowledge, yet this idea that we, as a species, are becoming more violent over time hasnt ever really felt like truth to me. I believe the opposite, that over time we have become less violent and more tolerant of eachother and that we will continue to do so. Maybe im just an optimist ... or maybe not, here is an interesting video from Tedtalks (A recent interweb discovery that has me glued to my computer these days, I highly reccomend it) ... anyway for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Love to hear your thoughts on the subject whether you watch the vid or not.

respectfully,
Tantric

[denuseri]

I watched it and thought it was spot on with what Ive been learning in th objective study of history, archeology and anthropology.

This "new age" idea of promoting primativism as being the "natural peaceful state of man" is basically a hopin fiddle filled "movement of pure political agenda subjectivness".

[Thorne]

Interesting talk. Thanks for that, TS.

It's nice to hear someone say many of the same things I've been saying, and have the data to back it up. Rates of violent crime have been dropping steadily for some time. What has been increasing, as the speaker noted, is the reporting of violence. In our modern world, with virtually instantaneous communications, the murder of an old woman in a small town becomes world-wide knowledge within hours. The story of the capture of her killer is likely to be far less widespread, leaving the impression to many people that he's still "out there", ready to pounce.

I have to disagree with denuseri, though (gee, anyone really surprised?). I encourage people to "go back to nature" and embrace a primitive lifestyle. It's a Darwinian win-win situation. We remove the kooks from civilization and reduce the surplus population.

[denuseri]

I didnt say anything about going back to nature or leaving behind some of the trappings of modern society as being bad, my statement was directly in reference to the new age primatives being wrong and misleading in making assumptions from a purely subjective contemporary view and applying them to create a general misunderstanding about what is and isnt natural for mankind based upon our past.

In so far as living like we did in the past goes, I believe mankind responds to different levesl of prosperity and technological inovation based upon how our biological programing is set up. Place us in truely primative conditions for any real length of time and we would revert to what worked best in those situations.

In so far as whats best for people in todays world, I dont believe abandoning our modern amenities is any kind of real answer, so much so as finding a happy medium between the two.

I just spent the better part of my day weeding the garden we have going outback in our own attempt to return to nature and stick it to wallmart. We have a well for all our non-drinking water needs, and an old windmill for some of our outdoor electrical and hopefully someday soon we will get even more self sufficent with solar panels so we can stick it to the power company as well.

[IAN 2411]

Yes, a very interesting talk.

Yes I have to agree with Thorn, it is the spotlighting of individual crime on a daily basis that leads us to believe it is getting worse. I read an article a few months ago about Paedophiles in the UK and per 100,000 people there is still the same amount as there was 55 years ago when I was a child. It is the media that leads us to believe that we are being swamped by the filth.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Place us in truely primative conditions for any real length of time and we would revert to what worked best in those situations.
Yes, and our general health and life expectancy would plummet to match that of those who lived in those conditions, too.


In so far as whats best for people in todays world, I dont believe abandoning our modern amenities is any kind of real answer, so much so as finding a happy medium between the two.
I just spent the better part of my day weeding the garden we have going outback in our own attempt to return to nature and stick it to wallmart. We have a well for all our non-drinking water needs, and an old windmill for some of our outdoor electrical and hopefully someday soon we will get even more self sufficent with solar panels so we can stick it to the power company as well.

I can't argue with that, but that happy medium is going to be different for everyone. While you might enjoy working in the garden and relish the vegetables you will hopefully grow, I'd rather pay the few extra dollars to WalMart and use vitamin supplements. I hate working in the garden. The few pennies I might save on my electric bill just isn't worth the inconvenience and aggravation of installing my own generating station. For my part the happy medium is weighted heavily on the side of technology.

[Ozme52]

It's also been my perspective that what's been on the increase is information sharing (duh) and our fascination with "train wrecks" whether they be actual disasters or human misanthropy. There is more violence now because there are more of us in the world... but, as Ian pointed out, the rate is the same.

I make the same contention (anectdotally as I have no statistics) that the net is no more dangerous, per capita, than any other venue for meeting people. Just more of us here to prey on and therefore more predators... but no more than your local pick-up bar... and perhaps a better opportunity to weed out the wheat from the chaff because you don't have to make snap judgements.

btw... Thorne... most life expectancy figures include infant and childhood mortality dragging the numbers down for times past. I would suggest that those who made it to adulthood (13 y.o.?) lived a relatively long life.

[Thorne]

btw... Thorne... most life expectancy figures include infant and childhood mortality dragging the numbers down for times past. I would suggest that those who made it to adulthood (13 y.o.?) lived a relatively long life.
You're right, of course, in that childhood mortality would have made a big difference. But this table (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html)shows that the life expectancy at specific age groups has also increased. For example, at my age in 1904 I could have expected to live another 14 years. In 2004 that expectancy was almost 21 years. That's nearly a 10% increase!

[Ozme52]

Cool info Thorne. Thanx.

Of course, when you made the comment and I replied, in the context of primitive conditions, I was thinking more like going back to what life was like a thousand years ago, not merely a hundred. It's too bad we don't have those kinds of statistics available because I suspect that people lived longer, on the whole, before the industrial revolution... the plague years not withstanding. (lol)

[Snark]

Plaque years or not, the rate of longevity in centuries past relied on the vagaries of climate. Mortality during the potato famine climbed, due to the lack of nourishment. The famine was created by the long cold rainy weather. When the Vikings colonized Greenland and were able to raise sheep, things went well. When the climate turned, so did their longevity. Ironically, "global warming" would do what it has done every time in the past - increase the available arable land for the production of food. Of course, then we'll burn it as alcohol...but that's a different thread. Then, during the next normal, natural downturn in temperatures the excess human crop that results from the increase in food supply would be eliminated. We are currently well past late in the next ice age cycle; not that they keep a tight schedule. People's peaceful attitudes tend to wander when they or their children are starving. I doubt that we will see this in the US...but in less agricultural areas things could get grim.

[denuseri]

Actually we do have a great deal of information on how things were before the industrial revolution, as well as a lot of well documented accounts from over a thousand years ago, not only in so far as overall mortality rates go, but in how people viewed violence , its amount per population groupings and good estimations of how many died due to it. They are pretty much a matter of historic record in many cases.

Sometimes plague was even directly linked to violence as in the case of overcrowded conditions which contributed to the sudden sickness that killed off a good bit of the besiedged Athenian population (including the City's leader Pericles) during their last big war with Sparta, so one has to eaither exclude or include such considerations in one's conclussions depending on the situation.

Before the medical advances of the modern era people were in general dependent on their civiliazations only being able to achieve successfully sustained rates of personal longevity amongst all but the most affluent in agricultural times of plenty alone.

If a civilization prosperd long enough it allowed the pursuit of more sophisticated benificial technologies and situations that increased lifespans though sanitation and medical improvments as well.

When these civilizations fell, and such practices were for the most part abandoned we see populations and longevitey rates decline accordingly.

Objective modern cross disiplinarian studies have shown that enviromental factors played a much more dominant role in this than most people realize. From the sudden downfall of the anicent pyramid building civilizations of the nile and mesopotamian regions over 4000 years ago mainly cuased by a severe drought, to the falls of the Mycean, Minoin, Roman, several Chinese dynasties and several american indian Civilizations, higher levels of violence seem to be directly related to the enviromantal stressors that cuased their eventual falls.

Warmer conditions did not always mean it was good for everyone across the board eaither, often times it meant drought, flooding, and famine as well.

It all depended on "location, location, location."

[thir]

It seems that I hear all the time about how we humans are becoming more and more violent over the course of history. This "fact" seems to be making its way into "common sense" knowledge, yet this idea that we, as a species, are becoming more violent over time hasnt ever really felt like truth to me. I believe the opposite, that over time we have become less violent and more tolerant of eachother and that we will continue to do so. Maybe im just an optimist ... or maybe not, here is an interesting video from Tedtalks (A recent interweb discovery that has me glued to my computer these days, I highly reccomend it) ... anyway for your viewing pleasure:[/COLOR]
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Love to hear your thoughts on the subject whether you watch the vid or not.


Ok, here are mine.

It has been discussed a lot that the news people seem to think that only bad news are news, and that they simply swim in war, catastrophy, crime and the like. In fact one can get absolutely depressed by listening to them! And it is certainly also true that we hear a lot more about what is going on than ever before in our history as humans, and it is worth discussing whether this gives the idea of increasing violence, or at least that the world is a violent place despite the many, many quite ordinary people simply living a normal life.

So far I am with him - there may not be more violence, just more knowledge of violence. But his is trying to prove that violence has been decreasing all over the world ever since the gather-hunterers.That is quite a statement!

How does he do this, then? His argumenst rests on one archeologist, the bible, one criminologist, unnamed non-governmental sources, and FBI files. During his talk he goes from topic to topic with wars, cruelty in general, laws, and from area to area. Scientific it isn't, but is it convincing?

I am in doubt. He has an archeologist, Lawrence Keely, who, according to SP, claims to be able to establish how many percent of male deaths in that period is owing to violence from others rather than natural causes. This is quite obviosly not possible. I do not even know where to start here - but noone knows how many there were, much less how many died of what. There simply isn't enough left of them to even begin claims like that.

As for the bible, that is certainly a violent story, if we are to believe it. But I am not at all sure that the same kind of thing isn't happening in our world today, in various kinds of the world. So I am not sure that a claim that it is on the decrease is right, I believe that it will depend on where you are, and I see it is as very difficult job to find out if what is going on now is more or less than what was going on then. I am not saying he is wrong here, but I am not convinced by his bible quotations.

Likewise the medieval times were cruel in our eyes today, no doubt about that. In Western parts of the world the laws have certainly changed. But not in all parts of the world - we know that. Burning of women whose dowery has not been paid, stoning, whippings, cutting of of hands, killing of children, incredible animal abuse..we know it is all still out there in places. Whether it all put together spells less cruelty totally now than before I think is very hard to say - it is a big world out there, outside our western societies.

Then there is Manuel Eisner. Here I feel more convinced, we are talking actual scientific research here. He is counting homocides as reported by authorities 'across Europe' and has calculated the pattern in homocides per 100.0000 people per year and comes ot the result that it has fallen from 100 to 1 'in seven or eight European countries'. Sounds good. But what about the rest of Europe, and what about the rest of the world?? Can we conclude from 'seven or eight' countries in Europe to all the world?

Last comes his statistics from 1945 onwards - bypassing a couple of world wars - but otherwise back to wars again. He refers to statistics from un-govermental sources to show that thre are fewer deaths per conflict - in fact from 65.000 to less than 2000 per conflict per year - seemingly no matter what conflict and how many are involved??

And finally FBI, who claim a fall in violent crime of 90%, apparently in USA. I can't say anything about that, not knowing things so well in USA, but does that sound credible? A fall of 90% in crime?

All in all I feel that his material is extremely shaky if you want to see it as proof, but very interesting to discuss.

As for me I am not convinced by his material, but it is a good thought and it might well be right in some parts of the world.

SP then goes on to speculate why this might be the case, that violence is on the decline. Noone knows, he speculates four reasons.

First, Thomas Hobbes claims that life in primordial times life was cruel and anarchistic and everybody must have wanted to invade your territory before he invades you. Actually, thimas Hobbes lived in England and died in 1679 (!) according to Wikepedia, and he seemeed to have believed in a strong and absolute monarchy.
I sincerly doubt that he actually knew much about 'primordial humans' and their life, since we don't even today, but it is hard for me to imagine this constant nervousness and warfare in a time where there were so few humans and so much space compared to today.

I just wonder that SP ahd to go back this far to find support for his ideas? I remember he started with the indians, and made sweeping claims about what their life was not, quite as if 'indians' were, or are, one homogenous mass. But they were as different as people in Europe, and some were war like, others not at all.

Second SP suggest that while before life was considered cheap and as death was ever present, it was easier to inflict death on others, while, with more technology and better economy, life in general is better and longer, and that that is why we do not want to inflict death on others.

Life is better in certain parts of the world, but that is the minority compared to who are still striving under perhaps much the same circumstances as always. Statistically speaking this argument must fall, even if the general argument holds, but I am not so sure that it does. Does a gang war kill less people? Does a war? Is greed less? Rather, it seems proven that the more you have the more you want, and is prepared to do to get it.

Third, he argues that trade is better than war and means that you want to keep people alive. I think he has a good point here, except for certain nations who'll rather make war on their creditors than pay them..But all in all, in Europe at least this has been seen as a good reason for preventing war. I have to agree with him here.

Fourth, he says that we have developed empathy with, in the beginning, just the ones closest to us, later fon urther and further out. He says that the more we know about each other, the more this empathy comes into play. I think this is right. But he totally forgets all the power structures that has been during times, where a few people decided and an whole lot had to do. I believe that for this empathy to work, people have to have freedom to do what they think right. It is a good thought that if they can, most will.

How this empathy comes into play is another story.

[thir]

embrace a primitive lifestyle. It's a Darwinian win-win situation. We remove the kooks from civilization and reduce the surplus population.

Hm, yes. However, it is a fact that we have become rather overcivilized and are depending on technology to an extent that makes for a very vulnerable society, not least in the cities. Should anything drastic really happen, as it will if we keep going this way, it will not be the people from the incubators of technology that make it.

[thir]

[quote]In so far as whats best for people in todays world, I dont believe abandoning our modern amenities is any kind of real answer, so much so as finding a happy medium between the two.

I agree. It is not about 'turning the clock back' as much as controlling what is going on instead of going aimlessly with the flow.


I just spent the better part of my day weeding the garden we have going outback in our own attempt to return to nature and stick it to wallmart. We have a well for all our non-drinking water needs, and an old windmill for some of our outdoor electrical and hopefully someday soon we will get even more self sufficent with solar panels so we can stick it to the power company as well.

Sensible ;-)

[thir]

Yes, a very interesting talk.
Yes I have to agree with Thorn, it is the spotlighting of individual crime on a daily basis that leads us to believe it is getting worse. I read an article a few months ago about Paedophiles in the UK and per 100,000 people there is still the same amount as there was 55 years ago when I was a child. It is the media that leads us to believe that we are being swamped by the filth.
Be well IAN 2411

No doubt the spotlight makes everything sounds like more than it is, and it is good to have that pointed out, no doubt about that. However, is it really, in itself, proof as such that crime is positively decreasing? Isn't it rather a good support for the idea that it isn't rising, as it may seem because of all the attention to it?

I think you need some sort of change in society for crime to decrease. Maybe better economical circumstances and jobs are in plenty? More and better educated police? Someone invents an easy and safe cure for addictions? A new and better educational system? Or something like that.

I believe a statement like that needs something substantial to back it up.

[thir]

It's nice to hear someone say many of the same things I've been saying, and have the data to back it up.

We are all tempted to listen to whoever says what we want to hear - don't I know it! ;-)

But I am surprised at you when you say he has the data to back it up, you who go so much for science and searching for and proving the truth which, I admit, is a very sound principle.

SP is making a rather sweeping statement that violence is decreasing all over the world. Even if he actually means the Western world, you'd need substantial evidence for such a claim, and someone else would have had to repeat your research with the same result, right?

Now, if you had had a proper reserach, saying investigaitng murders through time, or wars through time, or laws through time, in a specific area, and you had sources (rather than a source) to back up your findings, then there would be reason for others to repeat that result and thereby confirm it.

But SP is all over the place, with all kinds of violence, here and there through history, both in times with written accounts, and in times where no such material is available. And it is all based on two sources whose results are not themselves confirmed, FBI files, and unnamed un-governmental sources (which government?)

Steve P comes across as convincing, because he is convinced. But there is not much evidence for his claims, and I wonder how he is not bothered that there is, as he says, no explanation for why it should be so. He offers various psychological or philosophical explanations, which I are think are unsuited to explain such a claim on their own. I would like substantial social changes to back it up.

[leo9]

No doubt the spotlight makes everything sounds like more than it is, and it is good to have that pointed out, no doubt about that. However, is it really, in itself, proof as such that crime is positively decreasing? Isn't it rather a good support for the idea that it isn't rising, as it may seem because of all the attention to it?He wasnt advancing this as proof that violent crime is decreasing: the evidence for that is in the statistics, which have been studied in great detail by a lot of people, all of whom have reached the same conclusion, that violent crime has been falling for as far back as detailed records go, with a year on year fall in recent decades. The only people who disagree with this are the campaigners for draconian crimimal laws (such as the expansion of the death penalty), who have an obvious reason to want to claim that crime is rising not falling.

What he was discussing was the secondary but important question of why, if this is so, popular belief says the exact opposite - that violent crime is more prevalent than ever. And I agree that the main reason is media focus. Another reason is contrast. If your everyday life is a jungle of threats and minor tussles, the occasional killing is just the way it goes. If normality is peace and safety, a murder in the next street makes you feel the world is falling apart.


I think you need some sort of change in society for crime to decrease. Maybe better economical circumstances and jobs are in plenty? When I lived in Chapeltown in Leeds, which a few years before had been a crime jungle, a man who had lived there all his life told me firmly that what had changed it was jobs. The young men who used to hang out on the corners looking for a fight were working and bringing in a wage, and ready to call the cops if they thought someone was going to upset their new quiet life.
More and better educated police? Someone invents an easy and safe cure for addictions? A new and better educational system? Or something like that.To a certain extent, all these things have happened. But one thing the original lecturer touched on, but which I think he underestimated, was the increase in life expectancy. "Expectancy" is an important word. In ages when a man in his '50s knew that he was living on borrowed time, that most of his contemporaries were dead of disease or violence and the Reaper would catch up with him soon, he had little motive to work for a better future. These days, a man of that age can realistically expect to see that future.

But I think the most important factor is the enlargement of the circle of what we consider "us" rather than "them." For example, it's been observed that anti-immigrant prejudice is not (as you might at first assume) highest in those areas that are having practical difficulties (housing, jobs, services etc.) with a large immigrant population. For real widespread biggotry, you have to go to places that never see a foreign face and get all their information through the media and gossip. The best cure for prejudice, always, is getting to know the Other: and the most continuous technological change throughout history has been improved communication. I think these two facts come together to suggest an explanation.

[leo9]

We are all tempted to listen to whoever says what we want to hear - don't I know it! ;-)

But I am surprised at you when you say he has the data to back it up, you who go so much for science and searching for and proving the truth which, I admit, is a very sound principle.
So far as I can see, he does have the data to back it up. Of course one has to either take his figures on trust, or go back to his original sources and check them; that goes for any academic paper. But he does give specific sources, so anyone can check his figures, and I have not seen any of his detractors accusing him of falsifying or inventing them.


SP is making a rather sweeping statement that violence is decreasing all over the world. Even if he actually means the Western world, you'd need substantial evidence for such a claim, and someone else would have had to repeat your research with the same result, right?He quotes specific figures from specific sources for specific populations (in this case, the whole world.) I'm not sure how much more evidence you want. You can argue with the interpretation of the data, but you can't say it's not there.


Now, if you had had a proper reserach, saying investigaitng murders through time, or wars through time, or laws through time, in a specific area, and you had sources (rather than a source) to back up your findings, then there would be reason for others to repeat that result and thereby confirm it. But that's exactly what he does have. Eisner's work sounds like a prime example of the value of statistical history, and how it can illuminate trends that aren't obvious without quantitative study.

Of course it's possible that Eisner is a bad statistician, that he has selectively chosen his data or wrongly analysed it. It would be ideal if someone were to replicate his work from the original sources, and I'm sure someone will, though it would take a long time; that kind of research is like sorting a barn full of corn grain by grain, and few people have the patience or the funding. But again, I don't see anyone criticising his accuracy.


But SP is all over the place, with all kinds of violence, here and there through history, both in times with written accounts, and in times where no such material is available. And it is all based on two sources whose results are not themselves confirmed, FBI files, and unnamed un-governmental sources (which government?)The FBI files are in the public domain, so anyone can check his figures. For the other, he quotes non-governmental agencies, which is to say charities, relief agencies and suchlike. He doesn't give names in his talk, because that's not the place for such detail, but presumably he gives them elsewhere, or he'd be soundly trashed for that; and again, the data from such organisations is available for anyone to check if they doubt his figures.


Steve P comes across as convincing, because he is convinced. But there is not much evidence for his claims, He has quantitative studies from a large chunk of European history, the recent past of Europe and the US, and the recent past of the whole world. I would say that was a body of evidence deserving of attention, at the very least.
and I wonder how he is not bothered that there is, as he says, no explanation for why it should be so.You are suffering from an illness for which nobody has a definite explanation. That does not, thank goodness, stop people from studying it and making practical suggestions based on what can be known about it.
He offers various psychological or philosophical explanations, which I are think are unsuited to explain such a claim on their own. I would like substantial social changes to back it up.But he is not offering these as proof of his thesis: his proof is in the evidence. The explanation is a secondary question.

I guess, like Thorne, I agree with him because he's saying what I have always said, and it's nice to have someone come along and put hard figures behind our beliefs. But I am trying not to let that blind me to his faults. I agree that his style is too manipulative, and his use of data on present-day hunter-gatherers to draw conclusions about the Neolithic is a major mistake. In the first place the list he gives is cherry-picked for the most notoriously violent tribes, and in the second place it's a classic fallacy to assume that present day "primitives" are living fossils; they have the same thousands of years history as the rest of us, and even if they are still using something like the same tools for the same jobs as the Neolithics, that is no evidence that they haven't changed in other important ways. But his evidence from real archaology is impressive, and surprised me.

[leo9]

He wasnt advancing this as proof that violent crime is decreasing: the evidence for that is in the statistics, which have been studied in great detail by a lot of people, all of whom have reached the same conclusion, that violent crime has been falling for as far back as detailed records go, with a year on year fall in recent decades.



Reporting crime is a good part of his argument and, as seen from the responses here, what people have put weight on.

As for the statistics, they concern Europe from about the middleages if I get him right, and they conclude that crime has decreased in 7 or 8 countries in Europe.

As for US his sources concern from 1945 and onwards ( conveniently after two world wars - a volume of violence unheard of on the world until then) and the un-govermental resources are 'from 1950 to the present.'

In other words, we can scale down the thing from 'the world' from G-H to present time, to Europe in medieval, and US and South America from 1945 and onwards.

Not that that is not important, and he may have a point, but it is quite hard to get an idea when he keeps going from wars to crime to laws as it suits his message. He has left out the two world wars and the present wars in his ideas - apparently they do not as much as 'blip'.



The only people who disagree with this are the campaigners for draconian crimimal laws (such as the expansion of the death penalty), who have an obvious reason to want to claim that crime is rising not falling.


I beg to differ, as it claims that if I disagree with him, I also go for draconian laws!
I do disagree with him on a number of issues, but I do not go for that kind of laws and never have, except that I feel that punisments for GBH and animal abuse are too low - 4 months prison for a 10 hours prolonged torture of a girl seems unreasonable to me. But I am not for draconian laws of death sentences, and I resent that kind of argumentation.



What he was discussing was the secondary but important question of why, if this is so, popular belief says the exact opposite - that violent crime is more prevalent than ever. And I agree that the main reason is media focus. Another reason is contrast. If your everyday life is a jungle of threats and minor tussles, the occasional killing is just the way it goes.


True, this talk is in the section of why, but you will note that the header is 'the myth of increasing violence', and that people respond to that more than to the statistics.



But one thing the original lecturer touched on, but which I think he underestimated, was the increase in life expectancy. "Expectancy" is an important word. In ages when a man in his '50s knew that he was living on borrowed time, that most of his contemporaries were dead of disease or violence and the Reaper would catch up with him soon, he had little motive to work for a better future. These days, a man of that age can realistically expect to see that future.


I do not see what this is an argument for? Do you mean that if you think you have a future, you do not do violence? I guess it depends. What is the life expectantcy in ghettos? Meaning you have to have a futture for the argument to hold.

What about wars? And if you scrape money together by way of drugs because you can retire early and have a good life, the argument works in reverse.

I have heard this argument before, and I do not really see it?



But I think the most important factor is the enlargement of the circle of what we consider "us" rather than "them." For example, it's been observed that anti-immigrant prejudice is not (as you might at first assume) highest in those areas that are having practical difficulties (housing, jobs, services etc.) with a large immigrant population. For real widespread biggotry, you have to go to places that never see a foreign face and get all their information through the media and gossip. The best cure for prejudice, always, is getting to know the Other: and the most continuous technological change throughout history has been improved communication. I think these two facts come together to suggest an explanation.

I am totally in agreement that the Us-Them waycan so ealisy pave the way to violence, depending on how violent the society already is. But I believe that you have to have more than 'screen-contact' with people to get out of that way of thinking. At least that is what I have seen around me. Butthere are face-to face encounters organised by people realising the value of it, only they are not so many as yet.

But of you start your attention on the 50's an onwards, it is hard to use that to explain the perptual decreasing of violent crime that is postulated.

[leo9]

Oops! That last one was thir answering me without remembering to log out and in again. Can't blame her, as I've done exactly the same the other way round!

[leo9]

So far as I can see, he does have the data to back it up.OK, I was far too sweeping here. Some of his claims have data to back them up: some are based simply on drawing conclusions from one historical source; and all of them are partial, covering one aspect of the general theme of violence while saying nothing about others.
But he does give specific sources My mistake: he does not detail the NGOs who are the source of the world statistics.
But his evidence from real archaology is impressive, and surprised me.My mistake again. That evidence isn't part of the original paper, it's not even his: I had been reading the book he got his chart of hunter-gatherers from. Nothing to do with this thread.

That post was a mess, I'm sorry. I've been having a tiring week.

[denuseri]

Giggles....Thats why my owner has me log off the site and un- check the remember me box each time I leave here.

Again, I have to say that most all of what the guy is saying is backed up by my contemporaries in the cross disiplinary approach to historical consensus, its even refered to in the latest text books ~ philosophy, phycology, medicne, science, history, archeology, biology, and anthropology.

[thir]

Giggles....Thats why my owner has me log off the site and un- check the remember me box each time I leave here.


Good idea! I will be more careful, it is to confusing for others otherwise.


Again, I have to say that most all of what the guy is saying is backed up by my contemporaries in the cross disiplinary approach to historical consensus, its even refered to in the latest text books ~ philosophy, phycology, medicne, science, history, archeology, biology, and anthropology.

I must say that I am confused by this. I do not know what all your sources say, but am only looking at SP's lecture.

He is making a big claim, and should have substantial evidence to back it up. After 1945 he may have it, I cannot judge that. But before that, it is more than flimsy!

Leo9 explained about HG's fault in source, which makes his point of start and his first graf invalid.

His next stop is from coming of agriculture right up to medieval times, and here his entire support for his ideas during this vast span of time is quoting the bible's Hebrew laws. Apparently he thinks that All civilisations around the globe are the same, and wars are not mentioned at all.

Medieval times: 'Europe' has draconian laws, but 7 countries have decline in crimes. We must assume that this is representative for the whole globe regardless of culture, as this is all we have.
As for wars, which went on and on all during that period, they are not mentioned at all.

Medieval to 1945: No evidence of anything. What about slave trade, for instance, in which millions of people were killed?

As for the two world wars, they do not matter, he says. One wonders what exactly he thinks violence is, and how he arrives at this conclusions: what is counted in, and what not?

He has nothing, and that's a fact. His claim is much, much too sweeping!

What he has after 1945 is another thing, but here he changes his viewpoint to the Western world, which is apparently to be taken as representative for all the world. I find that more than hard to believe.

Believe me, I do not want a violent world, and if violence is in fact going down after 1945, I would be extremely glad to hear it. But judging from how he goes on in the first part of his lecture, I am really not believing him.

I would tend to assume that violence is not on a steady curve, (more of less) any more than any other thing to do with humanity. I think things work up and down and in and out according to what happens with wars, science, religion, politics, economy and so on.

I believe that what we do with technology will tell the tale about the future, whether it will be used aggressively or in the real service of peace and survival. But I do not believe in any curve going automatically downwards.

[Thorne]

I was under the impression that what was under discussion here was more along the lines of interpersonal violence, or criminal violence. Warfare, while still violence, is a different type of violence. You generally aren't afraid to leave your home at night because of a war (unless it's right in your backyard, of course). By ignoring warfare, and other types of culturally sanctioned violence, the author is dealing more with personal violence against our selves by our neighbors.

[denuseri]

I must say that I am confused by this. I do not know what all your sources say, but am only looking at SP's lecture.

Fortunately I dont have to be limited to such a narrow view.

My sources are saying that in general, as humanity reaches certian degrees of social sophistication and freedom to pursue more utopian ideals coupled with intregation of one's neighbors with whom one previously made war with in times of distress...due to increasing in technological achievents coupled with atvantageous enviromental conditions in any given area for the period of time in which those conditions are sustainable that violence in general seems to taper off, IE: decline for so long as those conditions are maintained or improved upon.

Then when things upset the balance or a civilization become stagnated and regressive and or too internally focused on headonistic pursuits at the expence of eaither a portion of its own populace or its nieghbors, depending upon a combination of different circumstances, violence levels go back up accordingly as the conditions that allowed its decline are no longer at work.

Its basically the rise and fall of civilizations 101.

He is making a big claim, and should have substantial evidence to back it up. After 1945 he may have it, I cannot judge that. But before that, it is more than flimsy!

Your only viewing an excerpt in the link of a seminar to present some of his ideas, not looking directly at the reaserch, (which btw has several other peoples work involved accross a variety of fields). I agree though his direct source matierial being cited would perhaps have provided more credibility for layman in this area of study. I am sure his peer group is as I am looking into things in more detail from differeing angles.

Leo9 explained about HG's fault in source, which makes his point of start and his first graf invalid.

Idk who really posted what between you all above.

His next stop is from coming of agriculture right up to medieval times, and here his entire support for his ideas during this vast span of time is quoting the bible's Hebrew laws. Apparently he thinks that All civilisations around the globe are the same, and wars are not mentioned at all.

Again I believe your over focusing on a single tree at the expense of missing the forrest.

Medieval times: 'Europe' has draconian laws, but 7 countries have decline in crimes. We must assume that this is representative for the whole globe regardless of culture, as this is all we have.

Pretty much, human beings act like human beings when exposed to the same stimui since we function for the most part in the same ways.

As for wars, which went on and on all during that period, they are not mentioned at all.

Medieval to 1945: No evidence of anything. What about slave trade, for instance, in which millions of people were killed?

As for the two world wars, they do not matter, he says. One wonders what exactly he thinks violence is, and how he arrives at this conclusions: what is counted in, and what not?

He has nothing, and that's a fact. His claim is much, much too sweeping!

Not according to his contemporaries.

What he has after 1945 is another thing, but here he changes his viewpoint to the Western world, which is apparently to be taken as representative for all the world. I find that more than hard to believe.

Believe me, I do not want a violent world, and if violence is in fact going down after 1945, I would be extremely glad to hear it. But judging from how he goes on in the first part of his lecture, I am really not believing him.

I would tend to assume that violence is not on a steady curve, (more of less) any more than any other thing to do with humanity. I think things work up and down and in and out according to what happens with wars, science, religion, politics, economy and so on.

I believe that what we do with technology will tell the tale about the future, whether it will be used aggressively or in the real service of peace and survival. But I do not believe in any curve going automatically downwards.

The main difference here is that so long as the current cycle is maintained with continual advancment the curve should prove itself to be valid and continue. More reaserch is being done all the same of course. But I dont reccomend anyone dismiss the mans assertations outright just becuase they discredit the new ager groups pc view.

[thir]

I was under the impression that what was under discussion here was more along the lines of interpersonal violence, or criminal violence.


SP is talking about 3 things: draconian laws changed into our much more moderate laws ('our' as in Western societies, anyways), wars, and death crime and death penalties.



Warfare, while still violence, is a different type of violence. You generally aren't afraid to leave your home at night because of a war (unless it's right in your backyard, of course). By ignoring warfare, and other types of culturally sanctioned violence, the author is dealing more with personal violence against our selves by our neighbors.

Well, war is in somebodys back yard, you know! It does not exist in a vacuum!

He is dealing with some warfare, actually, and he specifically states that the 2 WWs does not alter his message that violence is down.

[thir]

I am not convinced that violence is going down in one steady curve.

Nevertheless it would be interesting to discuss what does make violence go down.

I get the impression from SP that although he says that noone knows why violence may be going down, it has to do with becoming more civilized.

So, what, IYO, is civilization?

Has it to do with cities? Do big cities make crime go down?

Are civilized societies bigger, and does that mean fewer wars, or just bigger ones?

What about religion, are civilized societies more or less religious?

What about personal freedom? Thomas Hobbes, from 1670s, mentioned by SP, apparently thought that witout strong central control it would be the jungle law, which he saw as 'everybody against everybody else.'

So, do we need strong control and centralization, or would de-centralization and bigger personal freedom be better?

[thir]

Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
I must say that I am confused by this. I do not know what all your sources say, but am only looking at SP's lecture.


Fortunately I dont have to be limited to such a narrow view.



Well, this 'narrow view' was in fact the topic of this thread, remember ;-)



My sources are saying that in general, as humanity reaches certian degrees of social sophistication and freedom to pursue more utopian ideals coupled with intregation of one's neighbors with whom one previously made war with in times of distress...due to increasing in technological achievents coupled with atvantageous enviromental conditions in any given area for the period of time in which those conditions are sustainable that violence in general seems to taper off, IE: decline for so long as those conditions are maintained or improved upon.


So, I read this as when times are good, and we can afford to relax and know our neighbours and experiment socially, then we are less inclined towards violence.
I agree with that, absolutely

Then, when times chance, so does this. I agree with that too, which is why I do not agree in a steady curve. Things do change.

The other reason I do not agree with it is that I don't think that we sort of represent the pinnacle of human developement. There is no straight line there either, I think we are what we are, and various parts of what we are will be expressed according to circumstances. My guess is that we have had cultures and civilisations better than the ones we have now, as well as worse. And so the curve of violence will fluxuate.




Then when things upset the balance or a civilization become stagnated and regressive and or too internally focused on headonistic pursuits at the expence of eaither a portion of its own populace or its nieghbors, depending upon a combination of different circumstances, violence levels go back up accordingly as the conditions that allowed its decline are no longer at work.
Its basically the rise and fall of civilizations 101.


I agree, and so it cannot be a steady down wards curve.





He is making a big claim, and should have substantial evidence to back it up. After 1945 he may have it, I cannot judge that. But before that, it is more than flimsy!

Your only viewing an excerpt in the link of a seminar to present some of his ideas, not looking directly at the reaserch, (which btw has several other peoples work involved accross a variety of fields). I agree though his direct source matierial being cited would perhaps have provided more credibility for layman in this area of study. I am sure his peer group is as I am looking into things in more detail from differeing angles.


The discussion was about his lecture, to, as I understand it, what you call laymen.
However, his peer group, if I understand you correctly, are in agreement that the curve of violence drops and rises with circumstances?

Though it does not say how, that is, if it goes up with civilisations, as in wars, or down, as in less crime?





Leo9 explained about HG's fault in source, which makes his point of start and his first graf invalid.

Idk who really posted what between you all above.


Sorry again about the confusion. But the point is, that his starting graf is not valid.





His next stop is from coming of agriculture right up to medieval times, and here his entire support for his ideas during this vast span of time is quoting the bible's Hebrew laws. Apparently he thinks that All civilisations around the globe are the same, and wars are not mentioned at all.




Again I believe your over focusing on a single tree at the expense of missing the forrest.


But Denuseri, I have to go with the text I have! He simply does not even try to make a case for anything except laws. And rightly too, I do not see how anyone can make a claim of counting or assessing deaths by crime or wars in all antique civilisations.



[quote]
Medieval times: 'Europe' has draconian laws, but 7 countries have decline in crimes. We must assume that this is representative for the whole globe regardless of culture, as this is all we have.




Pretty much, human beings act like human beings when exposed to the same stimui since we function for the most part in the same ways.




Human beings may be the same (I think so too) but civilisations and cultures are not, thus different stimuli and therefore different results.

Or do you really mean that during this time, Europe, Amerika, India, Japan and inner Africa had the same kind of culture and civilisation?

[quote]
He has nothing, and that's a fact. His claim is much, much too sweeping!



Not according to his contemporaries.



His contemporaries? Do you mean that later ideas are different? In what way?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe his contemporaries are psychologist and philosophers, not historians or anthropologists. If so, their theories must by and large be based on ideas, more than historical knowlegde?



I would tend to assume that violence is not on a steady curve, (more of less) any more than any other thing to do with humanity. I think things work up and down and in and out according to what happens with wars, science, religion, politics, economy and so on.
I believe that what we do with technology will tell the tale about the future, whether it will be used aggressively or in the real service of peace and survival. But I do not believe in any curve going automatically downwards.



The main difference here is that so long as the current cycle is maintained with continual advancment the curve should prove itself to be valid and continue. More reaserch is being done all the same of course.


The key words being 'as long as'. As you said, civilizations rise and fall, 101 of civilizations. SP thinks we are in an downward curve at the moment - I cannot see it that way. To me the world is a place of many kinds of societies and ideas levels of tech, and so must violence be. The good part of that is that we can continue to exchange ideas with each other, and all learn.



But I dont reccomend anyone dismiss the mans assertations outright just becuase they discredit the new ager groups pc view.


I am sorry, I did not understand that at all. Could you explain?

[denuseri]

Its a cross disiplinary approach when it comes these kinds of studies or human history and where its heading now days that prevails becuase it looks at events from several diferent perspectives.

The trend alltough cycilic in many ways when looked at by a certian perspective: still follows a general "curve" sugesting that human beings overall are gradually evolving in a manner that says "violence" bad, " cooporation" good, out the over all expanse of human experience things seem to be pointing to a trend of decreasing violence in the modern era that is unprecedented compared to violence levels that decreased during the rise and fall of our predessesor's civilizations and could perhaps be a false assumption to make until all of the data is verified (sometimg we wont be able to do until many hundreds of years after the events of our modern era are long gone) by us surviving as a species long enough to reach a kind of human wide consensus of thought and purpose.

In other words even though humanity has many lapses into dark age periods due a wide variety of factors, we at least in localized areas (and collectively when those localized prosperous areas spill over and intergations occur later) have a tendency to all learn from our mistakes and evolve in a more cooporative manner if possible or die out.



I am not convinced that violence is going down in one steady curve.

Nevertheless it would be interesting to discuss what does make violence go down.

I get the impression from SP that although he says that noone knows why violence may be going down, it has to do with becoming more civilized.

That is the general consensus in this field of study, to an extent.

So, what, IYO, is civilization?

The opposite of barbarism.

Has it to do with cities? Do big cities make crime go down?

Urbanization alone is perhaps a spurious association in so far as trying to identify a "single" reason. Its more like a sympton of prosperous conditions. I don't think there is any one single reason for the overall reduction of violence brought on by our latest cycle of civilizations growth so much as it is how human beings respond to these paticular set of circumstances.

Urbanization, outside of it being a natural tendency of humanity for organziational purposes and consolidation of rescource exchanges once they develope in conditions that allow for it is in and of itself the byproduct of nessesity due to many factors. We have a historical trend to urbanize under the right conditions. Like I was saying above, if the location coupled with enviromental conditions develope in a manner that allows for a greater degree of prosperity our population rises, cuasing the need for certian things like cities as opposed to villiages, as opposed to tribal enclaves, as opposed to a few huts inside a palisaide etc etc.

Are civilized societies bigger, and does that mean fewer wars, or just bigger ones?

They tend to be larger than their less civilized counterparts.

Fewer wars, and bigger wars is a whole other issue.

Initially cities were considered harder to attack and overwhelm than their smaller and less well defended counterparts, so in some ways they serve as a deterent. However, they also create a situation where those outside of a city may wish to come into it to take as opposed to trade (as evidenced by all of human history). Population consolidation occurs for a wide variety of reasons though and sometimes urbanization can result in over crowding which can lead to violence under the right conditions depending on resource availability and headonistic diversion levels (bread and circus delima).

What about religion, are civilized societies more or less religious?

That all depends in which part of a given civilizations developmental stage your looking at.

Initially cities and civilizations ussually evolve from a homeogenous group who allready shares a common faith and purpose , but as conditions change to increase overall prosperity and a cicilization becomes larger and begins to rub up agisnt other populations groups who may or may not share the same common belief systems they can cuase divisons to become further reason for defence and keep a given population together for the purposes of opposition and later during an expansion phase, conversion or intergration occurs as people become more acepting of the other group due to familiarity.

When civilizations develope under the right circumstances and such needs of security change or are not as nessesary and its possible to become more focused on individual pleasures and liberties the external factors that make organized religions a desireable standard for providing a common purpose appear to decrease.

Though the individuals need for faith (being to a large degree a biological function) in in their own belief system (what ever that may be or devlope into or change into as time goes by) seems to remain the same.

IE the % of people who have faith in their own personal belief systems and philosophies doesnt change all that much as the nessesity to have a given populations organzied in a social contract lessens (under the right conditions) so much as the people dont feel the need to have a common outside guilding force.

What about personal freedom? Thomas Hobbes, from 1670s, mentioned by SP, apparently thought that witout strong central control it would be the jungle law, which he saw as 'everybody against everybody else.'

One should keep in mind that altough Hobbes assertations in many ways are correct in so far as explaining what people had a tendency to do in history (sacrifce their own personal needs for the good of the group when nessesary, sometimes even quite naturally consolidating authoprity in the hands of a singularly powerful individual)he lacked the same level of hindsight we today have developed and he was making his synopsis in support of the King he liked in opposition to Cromwell and the others who wish to get rid of said King or take away his power over them.

So, do we need strong control and centralization, or would de-centralization and bigger personal freedom be better?

That all depends on the citiation imho. Sometimes Central authority is desired, as when a group needs to get all on the same page to survivve and doesnt have the time or liberty to discuss things forever until coming to a consensus. Its why the Roman Senate and voting comitas during the Republic used to temporarally ceed total authority to a Dictator in times of crisis.

Sometimes its detrimental, as many societies in history have allready determined, it breeds cooruption when the power is held for too long and promotes the propogation of inequalities of classism which all to often cuases revolts and rebeliions.

Modern representative democracies (like their republican (Roman) and democratic (Greek) predessesors of the past which developed during times of past prosperity) try to do both at the same time by placing restrictions on who holds what kinds of authority and for how long and over what areas.

[denuseri]

Well, this 'narrow view' was in fact the topic of this thread, remember ;-)

Not from my perspective, not when his presentation is addressing wide sweeping subjects like overall violence levels etc.



So, I read this as when times are good, and we can afford to relax and know our neighbours and experiment socially, then we are less inclined towards violence.
I agree with that, absolutely

Then, when times chance, so does this. I agree with that too, which is why I do not agree in a steady curve. Things do change.

Yep, but where knowledge of what worked so good before isnt lost, once times allow for things to be prosperous again the population having evolved from the previous experience as a "social animal with a group mentality" also changes, hence why violence levels are decreasing when properisty allows more and more. In other words, human beings in general are also changing on a gradual curve (evolution) and we retain those things that benifited us where possible too.

The other reason I do not agree with it is that I don't think that we sort of represent the pinnacle of human developement. There is no straight line there either, I think we are what we are, and various parts of what we are will be expressed according to circumstances. My guess is that we have had cultures and civilisations better than the ones we have now, as well as worse. And so the curve of violence will fluxuate.

You could describe it as like being the branches of a tree, but being trapped here on the same island in space for the time being we will eventually start to recombinate back unto ourselves. So in many ways we, becuase of our very presence here at this moment in time, are much more advanced than many of our predessesors in so far as what we know with certiantly about them (alien origens for humanity theories aside of course).




I agree, and so it cannot be a steady down wards curve.

Oh its capable of going into a full relapse if situations develope that somehow make violence more productive than cooperation and tolereance ever come back into existance for any extensive period of time.



The discussion was about his lecture, to, as I understand it, what you call laymen.

However, his peer group, if I understand you correctly, are in agreement that the curve of violence drops and rises with circumstances?

Yes, and that overall it has a tendency to drop each time a new level of prosperity is reached that exceeds its predessesors. At least thats what the data shows us, its an exponetial curve too, just like technological progrsssions. So we should start to see (as evidenced by modern views changing about female rights in the past 100 years) a much more rapid series of changes coming in the next couple hundered years if we can maintain this current hieght long enough. Especially as we continue to develope and improve upon mind to technology intregration technology that will allow us to communicate more effectively with each other and perhaps one day reach a collective "consensus" of individual thoughts.

Though it does not say how, that is, if it goes up with civilisations, as in wars, or down, as in less crime?

So long as the human brain sees violence as a potential successfull solution to its problems it will seek that solution when it believes all over solutions will fail or the benifit there of is preceived to exceed the consensquences.

Its Why Hawkins and others think that if aliens come knocking on our door the tech and culture difference will be so great that we will be in the same boat the indians were when the conquestidors came a knocking on the "new world".



Sorry again about the confusion. But the point is, that his starting graf is not valid.

[quote]

I dont know what you mean at all about a starting graf?



But Denuseri, I have to go with the text I have! He simply does not even try to make a case for anything except laws. And rightly too, I do not see how anyone can make a claim of counting or assessing deaths by crime or wars in all antique civilisations.

[quote]

Its not all that difficult now that we have computers that can do complex fractal equations rapidly and such a wide array of archeological data collected.




His contemporaries? Do you mean that later ideas are different? In what way?

As humanity becomes more advanced, so too does our ability to understand things. If we tried to oh say pluck someone from history and have a discussion with them, we would be quite shocked at the differences in their reasoning capabilities and our own when it comes to these kinds of discussions depending upon just when and where in hisotry we plucked them from of course.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe his contemporaries are psychologist and philosophers, not historians or anthropologists. If so, their theories must by and large be based on ideas, more than historical knowlegde?

Not anymore, its all moving too cross disiplinarian approaches in these types of study. The way we do science is changing too...on a curve even.




The key words being 'as long as'. As you said, civilizations rise and fall, 101 of civilizations. SP thinks we are in an downward curve at the moment - I cannot see it that way. To me the world is a place of many kinds of societies and ideas levels of tech, and so must violence be. The good part of that is that we can continue to exchange ideas with each other, and all learn.

Ahh but see, here is where we differ in our thinking, when humans learn violence doesnt get as good a result as cooporation does, we have less of a reasoned nessecity to resort too it as a solution as a by product of human social evolution.



I am sorry, I did not understand that at all. Could you explain?

I explained that way back up in the begining, though perhaops not in enough detail and with too much sophistry becuase I personally dislike their hypocracy...the latest form of the "rebellion against technological progrssion movements in the academic world took the form of a newage pc movement that evolved mostly from wishful thinking hippie commune types that tried to propogate a return to huntergatherer/low level agricultural ways of living as being what was the most peacful and socially desierable of ways of life who was running on misguilded assumptions due to their viewing things subjectively through rose colored contemporary glasses.

They are ussually the first ones to gripe about the amish and others like them though even though they promote a world view where we would all end up living just like them, but becuase the amish have a strongly organized religious approach that didnt fit with their own world views they get bent about them in paticular.

They cuased a lot of misconseptions in the academic world that have for the most part been laid bare by historians and other peers in science due to cross disiplinary methiods of reaserch. (most of them were sociologists and anthropoligists who grew up with the whole hippie movement) that still liked to cling to a narrow, internal approach to their own field of study of local modernized tribal societies).

[Thorne]

So, what, IYO, is civilization?
In my view, civilization is, quite simply, people learning to get along with one another. People accepting their differences from one another. People realizing that skin color, or religious beliefs, or sexual orientation do not in and of themselves make people bad.


Has it to do with cities? Do big cities make crime go down?
Not necessarily, nor do they necessarily make crime go up. Cities which become well integrated, with people mingling and learning from one another, will tend to reduce crime, I believe. Segregating people into different color groups, or different religious groups, or different cultural groups, tends to make things worse, though. People in such situations tend to cling to old hatreds and rivalries, simply because they aren't taught not to.


Are civilized societies bigger, and does that mean fewer wars, or just bigger ones?
I think that, as societies grow larger they do tend to become more civilized, simply because you have more and more people, and more diverse groups of people, living in close proximity to one another. And just like society, wars become bigger because there are more people to fight them. But I think they also tend to become less common, in general, and shorter. It's unlikely that we will ever see something like the Hundred Years War, with rival kingdoms squabbling incessantly over nothing. On the other hand, modern technology (which does not, in and of itself, define civilization) makes wars far more expensive, and deadly, and thus less acceptable to civilized societies.


What about religion, are civilized societies more or less religious?
Whew! Talk about opening a can of worms! Well, since this is all about opinion, No! I don't think civilized societies are more religious. In fact, I think religion is a major obstacle to true civilization. Unless, of course, you want your civilization to be completely homogeneous. Too many religions promote hatred of others, rather than love for all, as they want to claim. Hatred of gays, hatred of other religions, hatred of women, hatred of non-believers. These teachings are antithetical to civilization. They tend to divide groups rather than bring them together. Of course, by bringing groups together and learning other peoples ways I think we learn to step back from religious thought and become far more secular. People, we learn, are far more important, and interesting, than gods.

Here's a little piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html) that may explain this better than I can:

A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.


What about personal freedom? Thomas Hobbes, from 1670s, mentioned by SP, apparently thought that witout strong central control it would be the jungle law, which he saw as 'everybody against everybody else.'
Personal freedom is paramount in a truly civilized society! (One more mark against religion, IMO.) But people do have to realize that your freedom ends where it interferes with my freedom, and vice versa. When people accept personal responsibility for their actions you reduce the need for strong central control. But there must always be some way to protect the people from those who, despite every opportunity, reject a moral life and embrace a criminal one. Some central control is desirable, but this is one case where, for the most part, less is better. To a point.

[leo9]

In my view, civilization is, quite simply, people learning to get along with one another. People accepting their differences from one another. People realizing that skin color, or religious beliefs, or sexual orientation do not in and of themselves make people bad.

I think that's too narrow a definition, though it's complicated by the fact that we use "civilisation" in two senses, one practical, one moral.

Sticking strictly to the practical, I would define civilisation as any system of social mechanisms that allow people to co-operate on a larger scale than the clan or tribe. The great success strategy of humans is co-operation plus variability. Plenty of species co-operate at all doing the same thing, but humans achieved something greater by co-operating while doing a load of different things - hunting, gathering, making tools, preparing food, minding childen etc, all co-ordinated by a level of social communication so detailed that it needed a special kind of brain to handle it.

But there's a limit to the number of people that can be organised that way. It has been observed that hunter-gatherer clans, once they get past a certain size, will split and some of them move on. It's assumed that this is because their territory won't support more people, but I suspect it's more that the social structure breaks down when there are too many people, and subgroups form spontaneously.

But we know from the Neolithic farming towns that at some point people learnt to hold a bigger group together. They developed structures, ways of organising that didn't depend on everyone knowing everyone else, so that a community could go on co-ordinating its efforts while growing beyond the limits of a tribe and spreading beyond a closed group. The benefit was to enlarge the power of co-ordination plus variability. The bigger the group, the more different specialists it can support, and the better they can get at their specialty; the wider the group's territory, the more different natural resources it can exploit at once. Cultural natural selection favoured the groups that could find ways to stay co-ordinated while growing even bigger and wider spread, from village to town, from town to city with its hinterland of towns, from city-state to nation (and, if the gods spare us, from nation to world.) And those methods of co-ordination are what we call civilisation.

As I said at the start, this is a strictly pragmatic definition and says nothing about whether those methods are good or bad. In practice, they have ranged from democracy to tyranny. But the verdict of history is that tyrannies, though they look superficially more efficient, do not make the best use of human potential, and therefore eventually either fall to or evolve into systems that leave more space for individual growth and initiative.

[Thorne]

we know from the Neolithic farming towns that at some point people learnt to hold a bigger group together. They developed structures, ways of organising that didn't depend on everyone knowing everyone else, so that a community could go on co-ordinating its efforts while growing beyond the limits of a tribe and spreading beyond a closed group.
Which deflates your suspicion that the hunter/gatherers broke up more due to population pressure than because of the amount of food they could extract from an area. The biggest difference was that the farming communities could support larger groups of people on a comparatively smaller territory.

And those methods of co-ordination are what we call civilisation.
Which is basically the point I was making when I said, "people learning to get along with one another." I think that morality evolves from these mechanisms, gradually changing the way people think. Of course, technology plays a big roll, too. Better technology means more and more people can live together as a community, while demanding a higher level of education of the people in order to utilize the technology.

Is there an upper limit to how many people can form an effective community? I don't know. But I think if we can look past our cultural and (yes, I will say it) religious differences, I think it's possible that the world-wide community might be possible. Better education and better communications will help make that possible, as the Internet is showing us already. When you can chat with someone halfway around the world you quickly learn that he is not the demon you've been told he was. And that leads to tolerance and understanding.

[thir]

I was sorry to leave this interesting discussion, but due to a minor accident with my eye I was barred from the pc for a while, and then had to catch up with stuff..I hope it hasn't gone out of interest at this point.

So, trying to find the thread again:

thir:
Then, when times chance, so does this. I agree with that too, which is why I do not agree in a steady curve. Things do change.


]Yep, but where knowledge of what worked so good before isnt lost, once times allow for things to be prosperous again the population having evolved from the previous experience as a "social animal with a group mentality" also changes, hence why violence levels are decreasing when properisty allows more and more. In other words, human beings in general are also changing on a gradual curve (evolution) and we retain those things that benifited us where possible too.

I read you like this: the theory you describe says that we keep getting more social, even if we screw up underways. I still feel that there is no real evidence that things are going that way. I'll get back to that.

thir:
The other reason I do not agree with it is that I don't think that we sort of represent the pinnacle of human developement. There is no straight line there either, I think we are what we are, and various parts of what we are will be expressed according to circumstances. My guess is that we have had cultures and civilisations better than the ones we have now, as well as worse. And so the curve of violence will fluxuate.


You could describe it as like being the branches of a tree, but being trapped here on the same island in space for the time being we will eventually start to recombinate back unto ourselves. So in many ways we, becuase of our very presence here at this moment in time, are much more advanced than many of our predessesors in so far as what we know with certiantly about them (alien origens for humanity theories aside of course).

What do you mean by recombining into ourselves? I took that the idea was that we started as violent and went less so?




Oh its capable of going into a full relapse if situations develope that somehow make violence more productive than cooperation and tolereance ever come back into existance for any extensive period of time.

It seems that the theory sees 'humanity' as one homogeneous group, all the same all over the world, and no difference between rulers and ruled either. This is where I do not see it at all, because the greedy and the power mongers - individual people or groups - will always use violence on various levels to attain their goals, while real people usually do not.



So long as the human brain sees violence as a potential successfull solution to its problems it will seek that solution when it believes all over solutions will fail or the benifit there of is preceived to exceed the consensquences.

Same argument: 'the human mind' is not the same thing repeated a certain number of billions of time, nor do each mind have equal influence on how things will go. It all seems to taken out of context


thir:
But the point is, that his starting graf is not valid.



I dont know what you mean at all about a starting graf?

SP started his journey through history with H-Gs and went through the ages to present day, trying to proof with his first graf that H-g society were the most violent of all ages, and that it went less violent from then on. But since that graf is clearly invalid, his starting point is false.

[denuseri]

I dont think that the validity of such a graph is very far at all from how people were back then based on the evidence Ive seen during my own reaserch.

The theory is looking at human group behavioral trends in general over a long period of time, as opposed to giving focus on individual actions.

In other words the focus is on the entire forrest, not a few tress here and there.

Taking things out of that context to focus on specific areas becuase one loves the new age ideal of peacful primitive societiy being preferable to modern scoiety as somthing to be sought after (which history shows us to be way off the mark) will of course make one think that the pattern isnt there, even if its a spurious coorelation.

Its like the difference between making an argument based on looking at the behavior of an individual cell in the body thats been attacked by a virus instead of looking at the overall responce of the entire immune system over the life span of an organism's homeostatic proccess.

[Thorne]

Taking things out of that context to focus on specific areas becuase one loves the new age ideal of peacful primitive societiy being preferable to modern scoiety as somthing to be sought after (which history shows us to be way off the mark) will of course make one think that the pattern isnt there, even if its a spurious coorelation.
There is SOME validity to this kind of thinking, though. In small groups the more primitive societies did tend to be more peaceful amongst themselves. Interpersonal relationships within the tribe tended to be polite and non-violent. So there is something to say for the peaceful primitives. Of course, when you went outside the tribe all bets were off. Intertribal conflicts were common, and brutal. Not so peaceful there.

What I think we see in the development of civilization is, to some extent, an expanding of the concept of tribe. Our tribe is larger now, and in some respects can be considered to be world wide. It's hard to think of the Chinese as the enemy when you can have real-time, head-to-head conversations with Chinese people who are just like you!

On the other hand, interpersonal violence becomes more common, to an extent. Perhaps it's just a function of population: a certain percentage of people are going to lack the empathy which restricts most people from performing criminal acts, so a larger population means a greater number of criminals overall.

Just my thoughts, though. This is way outside my field.

[thir]

The trend alltough cycilic in many ways when looked at by a certian perspective: still follows a general "curve" sugesting that human beings overall are gradually evolving in a manner that says "violence" bad, " cooporation" good, out the over all expanse of human experience things seem to be pointing to a trend of decreasing violence in the modern era that is unprecedented compared to violence levels that decreased during the rise and fall of our predessesor's civilizations and could perhaps be a false assumption to make until all of the data is verified (sometimg we wont be able to do until many hundreds of years after the events of our modern era are long gone) by us surviving as a species long enough to reach a kind of human wide consensus of thought and purpose.

As I have said, I can put no belief in any of this, it is an interesting theory but there is nothing scientific about it.

First of all you'd have to define what is meant by 'violence', as it could mean 50 different things and you cannot measure changes without first having defined what it is your measure.

Secondly, computers or not, we simply do not have the data through the ages needed to actually prove anything.

Thirdly, the whole thing is based on the idea that previous cultures were exptremely violent, and there is not proof of that either.



That all depends on the citiation imho. Sometimes Central authority is desired, as when a group needs to get all on the same page to survivve and doesnt have the time or liberty to discuss things forever until coming to a consensus. Its why the Roman Senate and voting comitas during the Republic used to temporarally ceed total authority to a Dictator in times of crisis.

A very big question with a bearing on the civilzation talk, I think.

The central authority of the Romans were not only in times of crisis, though that's how it started. But IMO 'central' is waay too central when it means trying to govern/conquer a lot of the rest of the world. One aspect of central is that it aims to make large amounts of people obey few people - sometimes by whatever means.


Sometimes its detrimental, as many societies in history have allready determined, it breeds cooruption when the power is held for too long and promotes the propogation of inequalities of classism which all to often cuases revolts and rebeliions.

Yes, that is shown throughout history. So is this system worth it in the first place?
I do not understand 'all too often'. Isn't it in the interest of people to revolt in such cases, and isn't it in your own constitution that this is a right?


Modern representative democracies (like their republican (Roman) and democratic (Greek) predessesors of the past which developed during times of past prosperity) try to do both at the same time by placing restrictions on who holds what kinds of authority and for how long and over what areas.

Yes, maybe the only way apart from more de-centralisation.

[thir]

In my view, civilization is, quite simply, people learning to get along with one another. People accepting their differences from one another. People realizing that skin color, or religious beliefs, or sexual orientation do not in and of themselves make people bad.


You are on the ideological end of the definitions. I like that, but would like to broaden it in two ways:
One is to say it is a society where fear, greed and hate can never put a hallmark on that society, but only be individual traits that does not affect the society as a whole.

Secondly, in these days, and in everybody's interest it should be enlarged to mean more than simply humans: A civilization is a society that doesn't take more from the Earth than can be recovered, and which treast not just humans, but also animals with respect. (Which does not mean that you cannot eat them.)



Not necessarily, nor do they necessarily make crime go up. Cities which become well integrated, with people mingling and learning from one another, will tend to reduce crime, I believe. Segregating people into different color groups, or different religious groups, or different cultural groups, tends to make things worse, though. People in such situations tend to cling to old hatreds and rivalries, simply because they aren't taught not to.


I take your point there. But, won't the crime rates go up (proportinally) simply because life is more chaotic in cities?



I think that, as societies grow larger they do tend to become more civilized, simply because you have more and more people, and more diverse groups of people, living in close proximity to one another.
[/quote}

How will more people make it more civilized?

I am also thinking: is there a limit to how big a society - and especially a city - can be, before it gets to complicated that no one person or group have any idea what is going on?

Or quite simply too vulnerable?

[quote]
And just like society, wars become bigger because there are more people to fight them. But I think they also tend to become less common, in general, and shorter. It's unlikely that we will ever see something like the Hundred Years War, with rival kingdoms squabbling incessantly over nothing. On the other hand, modern technology (which does not, in and of itself, define civilization) makes wars far more expensive, and deadly, and thus less acceptable to civilized societies.


So, on balance, what is your conclusion here? Because we do fight wars, not just with more people, but over a larger area.

Are we 'loosing' civilization here, becoming less civilized because of that?



Whew! Talk about opening a can of worms! Well, since this is all about opinion, No! I don't think civilized societies are more religious. In fact, I think religion is a major obstacle to true civilization. Unless, of course, you want your civilization to be completely homogeneous.


That, I think, it a great many people's vision of being civilized!
Not mine, though.



Too many religions promote hatred of others, rather than love for all, as they want to claim. Hatred of gays, hatred of other religions, hatred of women, hatred of non-believers. These teachings are antithetical to civilization. They tend to divide groups rather than bring them together.


But that is indeed a function of bringing people together with all their differencies.
So, from this point of view at least, bringing many people (and religions) togehter will not work.




Here's a little piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html) that may explain this better than I can:

Personal freedom is paramount in a truly civilized society! (One more mark against religion, IMO.) But people do have to realize that your freedom ends where it interferes with my freedom, and vice versa. When people accept personal responsibility for their actions you reduce the need for strong central control. But there must always be some way to protect the people from those who, despite every opportunity, reject a moral life and embrace a criminal one. Some central control is desirable, but this is one case where, for the most part, less is better. To a point.

The point about personal freedom is an important one, but one that as I see it goes against the ideas of big civilizations, which, being complex, will need more control and less personal freedom.

As we overcrowd the wold, more and more control is needed to survive.

I find that the thought 'your freedom ends where it interferes with my freedom' is a lot more complicated that it sounds, because some people's idea of their freedom Will in a number of cases interfere with that of others. Many people cluttered in small areas can mean a lot of rubbing against each other's freedom. I do not think that there really is more tolerance in a city, not in all areas anyway, it is just that you can easier hide with that about your life-style that would offend others.

The moral comment about the moral life versus crime is almost religious to me - it simply does not take into account anything at all about chances and life in cities - or elsewhere. We have yet to see a society where there is always enough if you work for it.

I think I digress..

So, how much central control is allowed/needed for a society to be civilized?

[thir]

I dont think that the validity of such a graph is very far at all from how people were back then based on the evidence Ive seen during my own reaserch.

As you say, that is a matter of belief, not fact. But when you 'cook' the graf to suit your purposes it becomes worse than useles, it becomes manipulation.


The theory is looking at human group behavioral trends in general over a long period of time, as opposed to giving focus on individual actions.

But this graf it a sort of individual action in that it takes a few of the H-Gs out and look at them, a very select few, insted of them all.


In other words the focus is on the entire forrest, not a few tress here and there.

My point exactly. The graf - and the whole theory - looks at things here and there, with no apparent coherence. To be valid it should be using a scentific method which would be to choose some parameters in 'everybody' - meaning the whole forrest of societies or as many as possible. And I mean societies from sufficiently recent times for there to be a reasonable amount of data to compare.


Taking things out of that context to focus on specific areas becuase one loves the new age ideal of peacful primitive societiy being preferable to modern scoiety as somthing to be sought after


Well, not being a new ager I cannot really comment of that part of it, but for the rest, what I am missing in the whole thing is exactly for SP to Not take things out of context as he is clearly doing in that graf! Tell me Denuseri, do you think it ok only to choose violent tribes of today, when there are actually more that are not violent? What about the rest of the forrest?

I mean, the man is postulating that the H-Gs were living in such a blood bath that it surpasses anything and everything that later civilazations with wars and crimes and what not could and did throw at each other! And with zero explanation too!

It is not about what I would want, or what I think the past was like. It is about that graf misrepresentating excisting tribes. In order for this whole theory to make sense, SP must prove that things were more violent in the past (any past, really) than they are today, and he is not doing that, because of his false graf but also because he completely avoids defining what is meant by violence, which leaves him free to take examples of some ways and avoid others as he chooses. Which means he can 'prove' just about anything!



(which history shows us to be way off the mark) will of course make one think that the pattern isnt there, even if its a spurious coorelation.

What does history show us? A number of more violent and less violent societies (whatever we mean by that term) after each other, and at the same time all over the globe.
To prove less violence would be a superhuman job, and would demand first of all that one defines what it is one is reseraching.


Its like the difference between making an argument based on looking at the behavior of an individual cell in the body thats been attacked by a virus instead of looking at the overall responce of the entire immune system over the life span of an organism's homeostatic proccess.

Which is what he is doing, taking a couple of cells here and a couple of cells here - those, and only those, that suit his purpose.

[Thorne]

Secondly, in these days, and in everybody's interest it should be enlarged to mean more than simply humans: A civilization is a society that doesn't take more from the Earth than can be recovered, and which treast not just humans, but also animals with respect. (Which does not mean that you cannot eat them.)
I don't quite get the "respect" for animals meme, personally. I don't believe we should be permitted to brutalize them, simply for our own pleasures, but I don't think they should be treated as equals, either. As much as I dislike placing controls on people in general, I realize that such controls are sometimes necessary, and placing limits on the number of "pets" people can maintain would not disturb me in the least. Just a personal preference, though.


I take your point there. But, won't the crime rates go up (proportinally) simply because life is more chaotic in cities?
Actually, I think the evidence is showing that the crime rates are DROPPING proportionately. Larger cities may mean more criminal incidents, but not necessarily more crime per capita.


How will more people make it more civilized?
For one thing you have more people keeping an eye on one another, whether as friends helping friends or as witnesses reporting criminals.


I am also thinking: is there a limit to how big a society - and especially a city - can be, before it gets to complicated that no one person or group have any idea what is going on?
Why does any one person NEED to know what's going on? That just gets back to the question of control.


Or quite simply too vulnerable?
Yes, this can be a problem. A large population in a relatively small area can be more vulnerable to attack, to disease, to food shortages, etc. But increasing technology can help to mitigate these problems, hopefully, making such large populations safer, to some degree.


So, on balance, what is your conclusion here? Because we do fight wars, not just with more people, but over a larger area.
Yes, we do still fight wars, but the primary causes of war are slowly disappearing. If you allow cultures to blend naturally, let people learn that other cultures are not evil, you help to remove one of the causes of warfare. The same with religion or race. Knowing that a nation is not evil JUST because it's people worship a certain way or are of a different color reduces the likelihood of war between those groups. Better communications and better distributions of goods and services (technology, again) help in these areas.


That [homogeneity], I think, it a great many people's vision of being civilized!
Yes, sadly, it is. Those who think they are better than others because of their color, or their faith, or their citizenship.


So, from this point of view at least, bringing many people (and religions) togehter will not work.
But it does work! Letting people get to know others outside of the restrictions of culture, race or faith has been shown to foster tolerance and acceptance.


The point about personal freedom is an important one, but one that as I see it goes against the ideas of big civilizations, which, being complex, will need more control and less personal freedom.
To a degree, perhaps, but it doesn't eliminate the need for personal freedom, just increases the need for personal responsibility. Some control is needed, yes. Keeping the highways open and moving safely, eliminating wastes, protecting the vulnerable members of society. But there is a very fine line between too much control and not enough control. It's a difficult problem, to be sure.


The moral comment about the moral life versus crime is almost religious to me
Only if you presume that morality exists as a result of religion. It doesn't.


We have yet to see a society where there is always enough if you work for it.
That doesn't mean such a society isn't possible. We have yet to see a society where all people are TRULY considered equal. There always seems to be some subset of society (blacks, Hispanics, gays, atheists) which is considered to be "less" than "real" people.


So, how much central control is allowed/needed for a society to be civilized?
As I said, it's a delicate balance. I don't claim to be an expert, but in my opinion we need only enough control to insure that things continue to run smoothly, to keep all members of a society reasonably healthy and reasonably happy, but not so much control that large portions of that society are oppressed.

[denuseri]

As you say, that is a matter of belief, not fact. But when you 'cook' the graf to suit your purposes it becomes worse than useles, it becomes manipulation.

Which is exactly what the new agers did by onl;y looking at isolated modern primatives of their own choosing. Who are not violent with outsiders anymore becuase of overwhelming threat of outside intervention or they simply live in an area thats too remote for interaction on any large scale.

But this graf it a sort of individual action in that it takes a few of the H-Gs out and look at them, a very select few, insted of them all.

You mean he used a few as examples in his presentation, just like anyone would do, just becuase he doesnt mention all the others by name doesnt mean they were not examined.



My point exactly. The graf - and the whole theory - looks at things here and there, with no apparent coherence. To be valid it should be using a scentific method which would be to choose some parameters in 'everybody' - meaning the whole forrest of societies or as many as possible. And I mean societies from sufficiently recent times for there to be a reasonable amount of data to compare.

Shrugs...Apparently what you consider to be reasonable and what other anthroplogists and related disiplinarians consider to be reasonable is different. We both watched the same presentation of his theory and apparently have completely different views on it.



I mean, the man is postulating that the H-Gs were living in such a blood bath that it surpasses anything and everything that later civilazations with wars and crimes and what not could and did throw at each other! And with zero explanation too!

All he really was saying is that in the age when primitive societies were predominant the likely hood of having a short life and dieing from violence was greater than it is today and that the over all data points to a trend that sugests that with more modernization that likely hood is actually by far decreased compared to what I call the "new agers" would like us to think.

It is not about what I would want, or what I think the past was like. It is about that graf misrepresentating excisting tribes. In order for this whole theory to make sense, SP must prove that things were more violent in the past (any past, really) than they are today, and he is not doing that, because of his false graf but also because he completely avoids defining what is meant by violence, which leaves him free to take examples of some ways and avoid others as he chooses. Which means he can 'prove' just about anything!

Everything he was saying seems to match up just fine with the data Ive seen on the subject. In fact the only people I have found trying to distort things were the new ager crowd.



What does history show us? A number of more violent and less violent societies (whatever we mean by that term) after each other, and at the same time all over the globe.
To prove less violence would be a superhuman job, and would demand first of all that one defines what it is one is reseraching.

Well thankfully science doesnt have to be restricted to any one persons demands upon it.
Especially now when cross disiplinarian reaserch has finally seen the fruit of its labors coming into focus.


Which is what he is doing, taking a couple of cells here and a couple of cells here - those, and only those, that suit his purpose.

Shrugs...again I didnt see that, what I saw was him using a couple examples for the purposes of his presentation as opposed to dragging on and on about data sets as one would do for a thesis. He was making a short presentation (a summary) of his findings, not a detailed blow by blow examination of every little detail.


If you feel so strongy about it why not write him a letter or publish a peer reviewed article that disproves his assertions?

[thir]

So, what, IYO, is civilization?

>The opposite of barbarism.

What is barbarism, then?

Has it to do with cities? Do big cities make crime go down?

>Urbanization alone is perhaps a spurious association in so far as trying to identify a "single" reason. Its more like a sympton of prosperous conditions. I don't think there is any one single reason for the overall reduction of violence brought on by our latest cycle of civilizations growth so much as it is how human beings respond to these paticular set of circumstances.

So, having plenty is civilization?
I am not trying to look for one single factor here, just - looking in general.

> We have a historical trend to urbanize under the right conditions. Like I was saying above, if the location coupled with enviromental conditions develope in a manner that allows for a greater degree of prosperity our population rises, cuasing the need for certian things like cities as opposed to villiages, as opposed to tribal enclaves, as opposed to a few huts inside a palisaide etc etc.

Do you mean that centralization is a must with bigger societies then? Or can they spread out, as it were?

Are civilized societies bigger, and does that mean fewer wars, or just bigger ones?

>They tend to be larger than their less civilized counterparts.

Do you mean spread over a larger area, with larger cities, or both?
Were the indians uncivilized, for instance, by way of being spread over a bigger area rather than making cities?

Can you give an example of a civilzed society and an uncivilzed one, and say why in both instances?

>Fewer wars, and bigger wars is a whole other issue.

Why? Are wars not part of the definition of being civilized?


>Initially cities were considered harder to attack and overwhelm than their smaller and less well defended counterparts, so in some ways they serve as a deterent.


You mean that most cities were fortified?

>However, they also create a situation where those outside of a city may wish to come into it to take as opposed to trade (as evidenced by all of human history). Population consolidation occurs for a wide variety of reasons though and sometimes urbanization can result in over crowding which can lead to violence under the right conditions depending on resource availability and headonistic diversion levels (bread and circus delima).

Is this more or less civlilized?

What about religion, are civilized societies more or less religious?

That all depends in which part of a given civilizations developmental stage your looking at.

>Initially cities and civilizations ussually evolve from a homeogenous group who allready shares a common faith and purpose ,

I am not so sure about cities, seems more diverse than that, but I can see what you mean when you say civilization.

>but as conditions change to increase overall prosperity and a cicilization becomes larger and begins to rub up agisnt other populations groups who may or may not share the same common belief systems they can cuase divisons to become further reason for defence and keep a given population together for the purposes of opposition and later during an expansion phase, conversion or intergration occurs as people become more acepting of the other group due to familiarity.

I read you as saying that this must occur, that there is a cycle in these matters. Prosperity must follow, competition between the societies, then acceptance in the form of integration or conversion. Can you give examples of that?

>When civilizations develope under the right circumstances and such needs of security change or are not as nessesary and its possible to become more focused on individual pleasures and liberties the external factors that make organized religions a desireable standard for providing a common purpose appear to decrease.

So it would seem. Is that then a sign of where you are in the cycle, if such exist?

>Though the individuals need for faith (being to a large degree a biological function) in in their own belief system (what ever that may be or devlope into or change into as time goes by) seems to remain the same.

What you are saying is contradictory - how is this to be understood?

>IE the % of people who have faith in their own personal belief systems and philosophies doesnt change all that much as the nessesity to have a given populations organzied in a social contract lessens (under the right conditions) so much as the people dont feel the need to have a common outside guilding force.

Do you mean that a belief or ideology is neccesary for people, but may change with conditions?

What about personal freedom? Thomas Hobbes, from 1670s, mentioned by SP, apparently thought that witout strong central control it would be the jungle law, which he saw as 'everybody against everybody else.'

>One should keep in mind that altough Hobbes assertations in many ways are correct in so far as explaining what people had a tendency to do in history (sacrifce their own personal needs for the good of the group when nessesary, sometimes even quite naturally consolidating authoprity in the hands of a singularly powerful individual)he lacked the same level of hindsight we today have developed and he was making his synopsis in support of the King he liked in opposition to Cromwell and the others who wish to get rid of said King or take away his power over them.

So, the answer being yes, is strong central control one of the defining factors or civilizations?

So, do we need strong control and centralization, or would de-centralization and bigger personal freedom be better?

> That all depends on the citiation imho. Sometimes Central authority is desired, as when a group needs to get all on the same page to survivve and doesnt have the time or liberty to discuss things forever until coming to a consensus. Its why the Roman Senate and voting comitas during the Republic used to temporarally ceed total authority to a Dictator in times of crisis.

> Sometimes its detrimental, as many societies in history have allready determined, it breeds cooruption when the power is held for too long and promotes the propogation of inequalities of classism which all to often cuases revolts and rebeliions.

So, how to see this in terms of civilisation, or cycles of civilisations?

Modern representative democracies (like their republican (Roman) and democratic (Greek) predessesors of the past which developed during times of past prosperity) try to do both at the same time by placing restrictions on who holds what kinds of authority and for how long and over what areas.

[thir]

There is SOME validity to this kind of thinking, though. In small groups the more primitive societies did tend to be more peaceful amongst themselves. Interpersonal relationships within the tribe tended to be polite and non-violent. So there is something to say for the peaceful primitives. Of course, when you went outside the tribe all bets were off. Intertribal conflicts were common, and brutal. Not so peaceful there.


How do we know this?

Theoretically I find the idea that people behave differently outside their own clan or tribe very likely, but the question is different in what way?

Some may well have had conflicts, as you say, but there'd have to be a reason, and are we not talking early days with lots of space and food? I have such trouble with this, because we keep hearing of these enormous areas with practically no people, so where is the cause for friction?

Secondly, for instance the eskimoes never had wars that I know of - none of them. I think some of the indian tribes were more warlike than others, but mainly skirmises? And some tribes had these meeting every 7. year or something like that and debated stuff, didn't they?

What I am trying to say here is that I can see the possibility very well, but by no means any universal rule.



What I think we see in the development of civilization is, to some extent, an expanding of the concept of tribe. Our tribe is larger now, and in some respects can be considered to be world wide. It's hard to think of the Chinese as the enemy when you can have real-time, head-to-head conversations with Chinese people who are just like you!


What about people who are not like us?



On the other hand, interpersonal violence becomes more common, to an extent. Perhaps it's just a function of population: a certain percentage of people are going to lack the empathy which restricts most people from performing criminal acts, so a larger population means a greater number of criminals overall.


I think the instincts for getting along and co-operation functions with a certain number and/or at a certain close distance, and when you are beyond that, you need something extra to bring them out. For instance an emergency, which often awakens the work-together feeling or a feeling of closeness, of being in the same boat.

It doesn't always have to be so much. For instance I was once on a ferry that got stuck in the ice, and it took like 5 hours to get unstuck and complete a journey of normally about 20-30 minutes. Afte a while a lot of people sat on the floor sharing tea or coffee, or playing cards, or just talking - a scenery that would have been unthinkable without the small emergency.



Just my thoughts, though. This is way outside my field.

Outside most people's field. Doesn't mean you cannot have an idea :-)

[thir]

Shrugs...again I didnt see that, what I saw was him using a couple examples for the purposes of his presentation as opposed to dragging on and on about data sets as one would do for a thesis. He was making a short presentation (a summary) of his findings, not a detailed blow by blow examination of every little detail.

If you cannot see the difference between examples being representative for the whole group or not, then there is nothing more I can say.



If you feel so strongy about it why not write him a letter or publish a peer reviewed article that disproves his assertions?

I am quite content to discuss things here.

The reason I feel strongly about is, I guess, that I fear that the idea of less violent and more 'civilised' societies coming about automatically is not true, but that such an idea will stop people working for peace and tolerance.

I do not believe that such comes by itself. I think it has been courageous, compassionate and clear thinking people who have dared work for their ideals in the face of bad odds, often putting their lives in danger because of it.

[thir]

I think that's too narrow a definition, though it's complicated by the fact that we use "civilisation" in two senses, one practical, one moral.


You have a very important point here. I believe that most people actually use the expression in the moral sense.

Throughout history, many countries have used 'teaching others to be civlized' - meaning 'like us' - as an excuse for conquest. People who consider themselves civilized feel superior to people they consider uncivilized and this is - even in recent times - still an excuse to run them over.

Civilized as in our moral, our religion, our technology, our complex societies.

But it was always about power and resources and money.

There is still this idea today that humans progress towards something better automatically - in spite of Darwin, it is seen as if there is some master plan behind it all. And of course it is our culture that is the superior one - whoever 'we' are - our culture that we must at all costs and with all methods bring to others.

In this discussion we start talking about the kind of society we would like to have, or which we think will come. Much better.

I agree with Thorne about tolerance between humans, and would add respect for other living creatures and for the earth we must all feed off. I would consider civilized a society where fear, greed and hate can only be an individual thing, not something that can for instance make leaders take a country to war. Most wars are based on greed, and some on fear or hate.

I also do not consider the extent of or absent of technology a measure of civilization or of lack of it. It is how we are with each other that will determine the future.
I consider a too technology-dependant society a society heading towards collaps. With all its advantages it also makes us much too weak and vulnerable. A civilized society is a stable society.

Freedom is all important. Without sufficient influence on our own lives we have no human dignity and life has no meaning. Too strong central control makes a society uncivilized, IMO.

But cilivizations tend to be complex, and the more complex, the less freedom. The bigger, the less personal, and the less effect of our natural tribe co-operation. So, as I see it civilizations cannot be too big without without becoming meaningless or falling apart.




Sticking strictly to the practical, I would define civilisation as any system of social mechanisms that allow people to co-operate on a larger scale than the clan or tribe.


Defined like that, are civilizations good or bad?



But we know from the Neolithic farming towns that at some point people learnt to hold a bigger group together. They developed structures, ways of organising that didn't depend on everyone knowing everyone else, so that a community could go on co-ordinating its efforts while growing beyond the limits of a tribe and spreading beyond a closed group. The benefit was to enlarge the power of co-ordination plus variability. The bigger the group, the more different specialists it can support, and the better they can get at their specialty; the wider the group's territory, the more different natural resources it can exploit at once. Cultural natural selection favoured the groups that could find ways to stay co-ordinated while growing even bigger and wider spread, from village to town, from town to city with its hinterland of towns, from city-state to nation (and, if the gods spare us, from nation to world.) And those methods of co-ordination are what we call civilisation.


As I see it, there is a limit to how far this developement should be allowed to go. You end up with using resources faster than they can be regrown, or use them up, and you end up loosing far too much individual freedom and meaning with life.

Money is probably seen as a function of civilization. Yet now that we no longer catch or grow our own individual food, money means that the economical ups and downs determine whether we live or die. Factors now so complicated that noone can overview them, and over which we have little influence, even if our politicians think we do.



As I said at the start, this is a strictly pragmatic definition and says nothing about whether those methods are good or bad. In practice, they have ranged from democracy to tyranny.

How would you characterize the Western societies?

[denuseri]

If you cannot see the difference between examples being representative for the whole group or not, then there is nothing more I can say.

Blinks...I believe I was sayng that one uses examples for the sake of expediency becuase they were representitive of what one's overall findings were. Why continously try to take what Im saying out of context and spin it thir?


I am quite content to discuss things here.

The reason I feel strongly about is, I guess, that I fear that the idea of less violent and more 'civilised' societies coming about automatically is not true, (yet a statistical analysis of history sugests otherwise, though no one said anything at all about anything being "automatic") but that such an idea will stop people working for peace and tolerance. I hardely see why coming to a better understanding of human behavior in large group settings should do that.

I do not believe that such comes by itself. I think it has been courageous, compassionate and clear thinking people who have dared work for their ideals in the face of bad odds, often putting their lives in danger because of it.

You seem to be having dificulty seperating romatic ideals from clinical observations conserning group behavior models while completely misinterpeting anything I say about the subject.

I mentioned at no time what so ever anything about individual human efforts being diminished. Nor did I even remoely suggest that they were unnessesary. Quite the contrary by definition in fact, since groups are composed of "individuals" and considering how human group behaviors are modeled on dominance hierarchies...some individual behaviors become all the more important in influencing the group.

That kind of out non-contextual thinking reminds me of how some people were so threatened by the idea of the earth going around the sun in the middle ages.

[thir]

Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
If you cannot see the difference between examples being representative for the whole group or not, then there is nothing more I can say.

Blinks...I believe I was sayng that one uses examples for the sake of expediency becuase they were representitive of what one's overall findings were. Why continously try to take what Im saying out of context and spin it thir?


A discussion of whether the chosen tribes in the first graf - which everything is based on - are representative or not is hardly to take it out of context! It is a most factual criticism of the validity of his starting point.

Would you like to discuss this point? Because that is what I have been trying to do for quite a while now.

t

The reason I feel strongly about is, I guess, that I fear that the idea of less violent and more 'civilised' societies coming about automatically is not true,


D

(yet a statistical analysis of history sugests otherwise, though no one said anything at all about anything being "automatic")


So, do you believe it is automatic or not? I am in doubt here.



t but that such an idea will stop people working for peace and tolerance.
d I hardely see why coming to a better understanding of human behavior in large group settings should do that.


As I have read you, it goes like this: when times get worse, violence gets worse, when times get better, violence goes down. Is that correct?



I do not believe that such comes by itself. I think it has been courageous, compassionate and clear thinking people who have dared work for their ideals in the face of bad odds, often putting their lives in danger because of it.




You seem to be having dificulty seperating romatic ideals from clinical observations conserning group behavior models


Ok, let's here more about that. I have studied some about group psychology in earlier days, and I would be interested to hear about how it pertains to increasing and decreasing of violence through the ages.



while completely misinterpeting anything I say about the subject.


If so, it is unententional.



I mentioned at no time what so ever anything about individual human efforts being diminished. Nor did I even remoely suggest that they were unnessesary. Quite the contrary by definition in fact, since groups are composed of "individuals" and considering how human group behaviors are modeled on dominance hierarchies...some individual behaviors become all the more important in influencing the group.


This is getting really interesting. As earlier requested,can we hear more about that?

That kind of out non-contextual thinking reminds me of how some people were so threatened by the idea of the earth going around the sun in the middle ages.

[thir]

"civ·i·li·za·tion (sv-l-zshn)
n.
1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."

"Civilization (or civilisation) is a sometimes controversial term that has been used in several related ways. Primarily, the term has been used to refer to human cultures that are complex in terms of technology, science, and division of labor. Such civilizations are generally urbanized. In classical contexts civilized peoples were called this in contrast to "barbarian" peoples, while in modern contexts civilized peoples have been contrasted to "primitive" peoples."

"War – civilisation only functions through constant expansion. That means that neighbouring lands, people and resources have to be ‘absorbed’ to fuel the growth. Our civilisation is a culture of occupation – initially absorbing the surrounding countryside, enslaving the peasants to feed the the city’s inhabitants. Then absorbing neighbouring cities – their slaves, land & resources now feeding the conquerors."

" Civilization is a form of human culture in which many people live in urban centers, have mastered the art of smelting metals, and have developed a method of writing."

"The first civilizations began in cities, which were larger, more populated, and more complex in their political, economic and social structure than Neolithic villages."

"One definition of civilization requires that a civilized people have a sense of history -- meaning that the past counts in the present."

"Civilization is social order promoting cultural creation. Four elements constitute it: economic provision, political organization, moral traditions and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. It begins where chaos and insecurity end. For when fear is overcome, curiosity and constructiveness are free, and man passes by natural impulse towards the understanding and embellishment of life."

So, does civilization have to do with art, war, record-keeping, complexity, history or the end of chaos and insecurity?

What is barbarism?

[MMI]

Deleted