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.