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/st..._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 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/st..._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=denuseri;920912]

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.

[quote]

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?

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]

[QUOTE=thir;922018]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.

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).