Are we less violent than we were before?
February 14, 2011 9:33 PM
My friend has commented that the world is getting less violent as we progress. He states that that the 20th century is less violent than all the previous centuries. My question is this.
Considering all forms of violent action against humans in the Western world is the 20th century less violent than previous centuries. Are we becoming more peaceful as a species as we evolve?
Paul Fussell argues in The Great War and Modern Memory that World War One is the worst war ever fought, and worse than any war will ever be. I can't point to any studies on violence, but Fussell makes plenty of compelling arguments why this 20th century event was absolutely and totally devastating. Thinking about the Holocaust and WWII, plus events more recently like Rwanda and Darfur, I can't really say if we are getting more peaceful or anything like that.
posted by DeltaZ113 at 9:45 PM on February 14, 2011
posted by DeltaZ113 at 9:45 PM on February 14, 2011
Today in Chicago, a man was hit by car. He exchanged words with the driver and then the driver shot and killed him. So no, we aren't getting less violent.
Nor are we getting more violent; I could name you a dozen similar incidents in 18th-century London.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:45 PM on February 14, 2011
Nor are we getting more violent; I could name you a dozen similar incidents in 18th-century London.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:45 PM on February 14, 2011
The 20th century was the most mind-blowingly violent century in history.
'This filthy twentieth century. I hate its guts.' A.L. Rowse
posted by facetious at 9:46 PM on February 14, 2011
'This filthy twentieth century. I hate its guts.' A.L. Rowse
posted by facetious at 9:46 PM on February 14, 2011
The 20th century was the most mind-blowingly violent century in history.
Wars are not the only measure of violence.
There were other centuries in which, in most of the world, the penalty for almost any criminal infraction was public execution.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:49 PM on February 14, 2011
Wars are not the only measure of violence.
There were other centuries in which, in most of the world, the penalty for almost any criminal infraction was public execution.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:49 PM on February 14, 2011
Five Ways to Kill a Man
There are many cumbersome ways to kill a man.
You can make him carry a plank of wood
to the top of a hill and nail him to it.
To do this properly you require a crowd of people
wearing sandals, a cock that crows, a cloak
to dissect, a sponge, some vinegar and one
man to hammer the nails home.
Or you can take a length of steel,
shaped and chased in a traditional way,
and attempt to pierce the metal cage he wears.
But for this you need white horses,
English trees, men with bows and arrows,
at least two flags, a prince, and a
castle to hold your banquet in.
Dispensing with nobility, you may, if the wind
allows, blow gas at him. But then you need
a mile of mud sliced through with ditches,
not to mention black boots, bomb craters,
more mud, a plague of rats, a dozen songs
and some round hats made of steel.
In an age of aeroplanes, you may fly
miles above your victim and dispose of him by
pressing one small switch. All you then
require is an ocean to separate you, two
systems of government, a nation's scientists,
several factories, a psychopath and
land that no-one needs for several years.
These are, as I began, cumbersome ways to kill a man.
Simpler, direct, and much more neat is to see
that he is living somewhere in the middle
of the twentieth century, and leave him there.
--Edwin Brock
posted by bardophile at 9:50 PM on February 14, 2011
There are many cumbersome ways to kill a man.
You can make him carry a plank of wood
to the top of a hill and nail him to it.
To do this properly you require a crowd of people
wearing sandals, a cock that crows, a cloak
to dissect, a sponge, some vinegar and one
man to hammer the nails home.
Or you can take a length of steel,
shaped and chased in a traditional way,
and attempt to pierce the metal cage he wears.
But for this you need white horses,
English trees, men with bows and arrows,
at least two flags, a prince, and a
castle to hold your banquet in.
Dispensing with nobility, you may, if the wind
allows, blow gas at him. But then you need
a mile of mud sliced through with ditches,
not to mention black boots, bomb craters,
more mud, a plague of rats, a dozen songs
and some round hats made of steel.
In an age of aeroplanes, you may fly
miles above your victim and dispose of him by
pressing one small switch. All you then
require is an ocean to separate you, two
systems of government, a nation's scientists,
several factories, a psychopath and
land that no-one needs for several years.
These are, as I began, cumbersome ways to kill a man.
Simpler, direct, and much more neat is to see
that he is living somewhere in the middle
of the twentieth century, and leave him there.
--Edwin Brock
posted by bardophile at 9:50 PM on February 14, 2011
"Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence."
posted by Anatoly Pisarenko at 9:57 PM on February 14, 2011
posted by Anatoly Pisarenko at 9:57 PM on February 14, 2011
Are we becoming more peaceful as a species as we evolve?
No, we are becoming more peaceful due to the progression of civilization. It is a social, not a biological, evolution.
At the same time, the progress of civilization equips us with vastly more power to change the world than ever before, so when incidents of violence do occur, they are often far more devastating, which goes a long way towards nullifying the gains.
But overall, I think most people have better chance of not being a victim of crime, and having a vastly more encompassing set of human rights respected today, than in equivalent societies of the past.
posted by -harlequin- at 9:59 PM on February 14, 2011
No, we are becoming more peaceful due to the progression of civilization. It is a social, not a biological, evolution.
At the same time, the progress of civilization equips us with vastly more power to change the world than ever before, so when incidents of violence do occur, they are often far more devastating, which goes a long way towards nullifying the gains.
But overall, I think most people have better chance of not being a victim of crime, and having a vastly more encompassing set of human rights respected today, than in equivalent societies of the past.
posted by -harlequin- at 9:59 PM on February 14, 2011
No, human nature is such that we are not evolving into a more peaceful species. I wouldn't say we are getting more violent, it's just better reported (or not if you count Darfur).
We are however, becoming ever more inventive in ways to inflict violence on each other.
posted by arcticseal at 10:03 PM on February 14, 2011
We are however, becoming ever more inventive in ways to inflict violence on each other.
posted by arcticseal at 10:03 PM on February 14, 2011
Are you referencing biological evolution? If the level of violence among human beings is in fact changing, it's not because of biological evolution.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:11 PM on February 14, 2011
posted by mr_roboto at 10:11 PM on February 14, 2011
I think the only difference between "then" and "now" is that there is an increasing segment of society to whom violence is utterly unfathomable. Western(ized) countries today can barely imagine the kind of violence that took place in their own territories within the past 150 years. To be sure there are exceptions today- there are plenty of veterans having seen unspeakable horror in combat- but for the most part, they are a proportionately smaller and smaller percentage of our populations, and modern warfare has in many ways become more impersonal and less threatening even to our own fighters. For the US at least, war is increasingly done by bomb/drone/missile, and fewer soldiers than ever are actually in harm's way.
Countries that are still developing (or have a long way to go until development) may be no better or worse than what Europe was a few hundred years ago. Leaf through "A Distant Mirror" by Barbara Tuchman to get an idea of the horrific and pointless death people faced back in the 1300s (like execution for minor offenses, as Sidhedevil mentioned). The West has, for the most part, moved forward. Our growing distance from the horrors of war had made us especially sensitive to the individual incidents of violence that are much harder to eradicate within their societies.
So in general, yes, at least some parts of the world are getting better. Others are still the same.
posted by holterbarbour at 10:15 PM on February 14, 2011
Countries that are still developing (or have a long way to go until development) may be no better or worse than what Europe was a few hundred years ago. Leaf through "A Distant Mirror" by Barbara Tuchman to get an idea of the horrific and pointless death people faced back in the 1300s (like execution for minor offenses, as Sidhedevil mentioned). The West has, for the most part, moved forward. Our growing distance from the horrors of war had made us especially sensitive to the individual incidents of violence that are much harder to eradicate within their societies.
So in general, yes, at least some parts of the world are getting better. Others are still the same.
posted by holterbarbour at 10:15 PM on February 14, 2011
It's MUCH less violent today. Worldwide lifespan is one indicator, even allowing for better medicine. Also just google how much of a given population died in Wars in the 20th century vs the past. The trend is way less violent death.
posted by Patbon at 10:25 PM on February 14, 2011
posted by Patbon at 10:25 PM on February 14, 2011
Assume that proportion and age-chart of deaths due to non-violent causes (stuff that is basically beyond human control) have remained pretty much the same. Now, given that life expectancy has seem an upward trend, I would tend to infer that deaths due to violent causes are down in general.
posted by vidur at 10:31 PM on February 14, 2011
posted by vidur at 10:31 PM on February 14, 2011
There are two countervailing trends in large-scale conflict over the past 150 years.
One is the role of technology, not just on the battlefield, but in terms of logistics. Mass conscription, deployment and supply became possible, allowing for campaigns of a ever-greater range and extent. (Compare Napoleon's Grande Armée, huge by the standards of the time, to the Union and Confederate armies, mobilised and supplied through railways.) The infrastructure of the industrial revolution allows for the execution of violence with industrial efficiency.
The other is the development of modern laws of war, which, though often honoured more in the breach than the observance, establish the concept of 'war crimes' and set benchmarks for conduct of such total wars.
'Evolution' is the wrong word for it, but I think that the experience in the developed world is one of decreased tolerance to small-scale interpersonal and state violence, accompanied by a cushioned tolerance for industrial/technological warfare, and a basic human inability to process mass slaughter. (I'll quote Eddie Izzard again: 'We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym!') That said, the wars that developed nations fight today tend to have more in common in terms of personnel with early modern wars than the mass deployments of the 20th century, and are made possible by those technological force-multipliers.
posted by holgate at 10:40 PM on February 14, 2011
One is the role of technology, not just on the battlefield, but in terms of logistics. Mass conscription, deployment and supply became possible, allowing for campaigns of a ever-greater range and extent. (Compare Napoleon's Grande Armée, huge by the standards of the time, to the Union and Confederate armies, mobilised and supplied through railways.) The infrastructure of the industrial revolution allows for the execution of violence with industrial efficiency.
The other is the development of modern laws of war, which, though often honoured more in the breach than the observance, establish the concept of 'war crimes' and set benchmarks for conduct of such total wars.
'Evolution' is the wrong word for it, but I think that the experience in the developed world is one of decreased tolerance to small-scale interpersonal and state violence, accompanied by a cushioned tolerance for industrial/technological warfare, and a basic human inability to process mass slaughter. (I'll quote Eddie Izzard again: 'We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can't even get down the gym!') That said, the wars that developed nations fight today tend to have more in common in terms of personnel with early modern wars than the mass deployments of the 20th century, and are made possible by those technological force-multipliers.
posted by holgate at 10:40 PM on February 14, 2011
It's much easier for a single person to cause a lot of destruction in modern society. At the same time, the amount of people (in terms of total population) seeking to cause such destruction has likely gone down significantly.
posted by fishmasta at 10:48 PM on February 14, 2011
posted by fishmasta at 10:48 PM on February 14, 2011
The best book I've ever read on this subject is James Payne's A History of Force. He looks at actual rates of homicide, assault, war death, and other forms of violence in societies all over the world for as far back as there are records in any form. He has actual data, not merely anecdotes or assertions. His conclusion is that by every available measure, human society is continually becoming markedly less violent over time. The 20th century doesn't even come close to the level of death by war hundreds or thousands of years ago. Domestic violence, dueling, rape, battery, gun violence, and state-sponsored warfare are all down dramatically. I highly recommend the book.
(I will note that there's one section in which the author expresses his own opinions about modern Islamic societies, which is not favorable and seems fairly biased. It doesn't appear to be supported by his own evidence. But I don't like to recommend the book, which I believe is overall excellent, without noting that I disagree with his predictions about the future of the Muslim world.)
posted by decathecting at 10:57 PM on February 14, 2011
(I will note that there's one section in which the author expresses his own opinions about modern Islamic societies, which is not favorable and seems fairly biased. It doesn't appear to be supported by his own evidence. But I don't like to recommend the book, which I believe is overall excellent, without noting that I disagree with his predictions about the future of the Muslim world.)
posted by decathecting at 10:57 PM on February 14, 2011
Also came in to recommend the Pinker link. He says "If the death rate in tribal warfare had prevailed during the 20th century, there would have been two billion deaths rather than 100 million."
posted by AlsoMike at 10:57 PM on February 14, 2011
posted by AlsoMike at 10:57 PM on February 14, 2011
A pretty elementary test of this theory would be the 20th century against the 19th. And the 20th surely wins big on violence: two world wars, the Cold War and all its proxy wars, the horrors of several totalitarian regimes. The 19th century had one major European war, plus the US civil war; other wars were fairly low scale.
posted by zompist at 11:03 PM on February 14, 2011
posted by zompist at 11:03 PM on February 14, 2011
Q: would your friend consider a person peaceful if the only reason that person wasn't launching nukes left and right was the very high probability of mutually assured destruction? Avoidance of MAD might mean that no one will die, but it certainly doesn't mean that no one wants to kill.
posted by astrochimp at 11:12 PM on February 14, 2011
posted by astrochimp at 11:12 PM on February 14, 2011
Assume that proportion and age-chart of deaths due to non-violent causes (stuff that is basically beyond human control) have remained pretty much the same.
Not all deaths due to non-violent causes were due to things beyond human control. Given the vast numbers of deaths caused by disease, and the huge advances in medicine, I don't think you can make this assumption.
That said, the proportions of people who seek to resolve personal conflicts by violent means has probably gone down considerably. The biggest difference is probably in the proportion of people who regard the use of violence as a legitimate means of achieving an end.
posted by bardophile at 11:15 PM on February 14, 2011
Not all deaths due to non-violent causes were due to things beyond human control. Given the vast numbers of deaths caused by disease, and the huge advances in medicine, I don't think you can make this assumption.
That said, the proportions of people who seek to resolve personal conflicts by violent means has probably gone down considerably. The biggest difference is probably in the proportion of people who regard the use of violence as a legitimate means of achieving an end.
posted by bardophile at 11:15 PM on February 14, 2011
Violence has decreased because scarcity has decreased. If violence is not necessary to survive and reproduce, then you have no need to resort to it. Similarly, in the world of justice, if society is able to support unlimited human lives, then the value of all life becomes paramount, and the use of cruelty or death to end lives will decrease. This is not a progression, it's a bubble. In the next century or two, scarcity will increase, and violence will increase with it.
posted by shii at 12:00 AM on February 15, 2011
posted by shii at 12:00 AM on February 15, 2011
A pretty elementary test of this theory would be the 20th century against the 19th. And the 20th surely wins big on violence: two world wars, the Cold War and all its proxy wars, the horrors of several totalitarian regimes. The 19th century had one major European war, plus the US civil war; other wars were fairly low scale.
The Taiping Rebellion itself was responsible for between 20 and 30 million deaths. And the world's population was a lot less then. And comparing two centuries by themselves isn't all that instructive without looking at larger trends. The Mongol conquest was responsible for between 30 and 60 million deaths. The Thirty Years War wiped out a huge chunk of Europe. Hell, the Anlushan Rebellion is estimated to have killed 15% of the world population at the time.
posted by kmz at 12:04 AM on February 15, 2011
The Taiping Rebellion itself was responsible for between 20 and 30 million deaths. And the world's population was a lot less then. And comparing two centuries by themselves isn't all that instructive without looking at larger trends. The Mongol conquest was responsible for between 30 and 60 million deaths. The Thirty Years War wiped out a huge chunk of Europe. Hell, the Anlushan Rebellion is estimated to have killed 15% of the world population at the time.
posted by kmz at 12:04 AM on February 15, 2011
The Twentieth Century started out with what was, for a while, billed as "The War to end War". At the end of the First World War, the Western public felt, to some noticable extent, that war had been largely eliminated because no-one would ever risk so terrible a thing ever again.
Then we had the rest of the Twentieth Century.
Raw numbers aside, I do not believe 'we' are becoming less violent as a species.
posted by pompomtom at 12:10 AM on February 15, 2011
Then we had the rest of the Twentieth Century.
Raw numbers aside, I do not believe 'we' are becoming less violent as a species.
posted by pompomtom at 12:10 AM on February 15, 2011
Violence has decreased because scarcity has decreased. If violence is not necessary to survive and reproduce, then you have no need to resort to it.
Shii has it. The technological exploitation of natural resources, especially fossil fuels, has allowed (many of) us to live in a world where we don't need to compete very hard for the basics of life. Freed from the constant threat of starvation, we're able to carry out economic struggle in the rule-bound arena of the market rather than by crushing our enemies and seeing them driven before us (and taking all their stuff), because near-constant economic growth makes the risks and rewards of peaceful struggle far more attractive than those of violence. Why kill your neighbours and raid their granaries when you can be richer by working in an office all day riding the upwards curve of the marginal productivity of labour (then go home and play video games which provide riskless simulacra of exotic forms of struggle)?
It can't last - we'll run out of something essential (oil, phosphorus, natural gas to make fertiliser, etc - the least favourable condition controls the growth rate), the world's economies will stop being able to expand, and peaceful forms of economic struggle will become relatively ineffective compared with violence. Look at what happens in a wealthy country like the US when times start to get hard: you get the Tea Party, which from my point of view on the other side of the Pacific looks like the end of the beginning of a wounded polity's long crawl towards populist fascism. Just imagine what it will be like when Saudi Arabia's oilfields start to run dry and there is actual famine in the First World.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 1:49 AM on February 15, 2011
Shii has it. The technological exploitation of natural resources, especially fossil fuels, has allowed (many of) us to live in a world where we don't need to compete very hard for the basics of life. Freed from the constant threat of starvation, we're able to carry out economic struggle in the rule-bound arena of the market rather than by crushing our enemies and seeing them driven before us (and taking all their stuff), because near-constant economic growth makes the risks and rewards of peaceful struggle far more attractive than those of violence. Why kill your neighbours and raid their granaries when you can be richer by working in an office all day riding the upwards curve of the marginal productivity of labour (then go home and play video games which provide riskless simulacra of exotic forms of struggle)?
It can't last - we'll run out of something essential (oil, phosphorus, natural gas to make fertiliser, etc - the least favourable condition controls the growth rate), the world's economies will stop being able to expand, and peaceful forms of economic struggle will become relatively ineffective compared with violence. Look at what happens in a wealthy country like the US when times start to get hard: you get the Tea Party, which from my point of view on the other side of the Pacific looks like the end of the beginning of a wounded polity's long crawl towards populist fascism. Just imagine what it will be like when Saudi Arabia's oilfields start to run dry and there is actual famine in the First World.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 1:49 AM on February 15, 2011
Violence in the Twentieth Century by James Payne (pdf)
posted by vidur at 1:58 AM on February 15, 2011
posted by vidur at 1:58 AM on February 15, 2011
"Not all deaths due to non-violent causes were due to things beyond human control." bardophile is right. That was really poor framing and thinking on my part.
posted by vidur at 2:00 AM on February 15, 2011
posted by vidur at 2:00 AM on February 15, 2011
kmz: The Taiping Rebellion itself was responsible for between 20 and 30 million deaths.
And that wasn't all. At the same time the Nien, Dungan and Panthay rebellions all went on. And there's also the Zulu expansion in southern Africa in the early part of the 19th Century. That was extremely bloody (not just the Zulu, but the people they displaced attacked others as well).
posted by Kattullus at 2:14 AM on February 15, 2011
And that wasn't all. At the same time the Nien, Dungan and Panthay rebellions all went on. And there's also the Zulu expansion in southern Africa in the early part of the 19th Century. That was extremely bloody (not just the Zulu, but the people they displaced attacked others as well).
posted by Kattullus at 2:14 AM on February 15, 2011
So far most of the commentators are focusing on public violence. Violence between individuals has gone down, in part because it is no longer socially acceptable and is now illegal. Men can longer beat and rape wives who were forced to remain victims. Children are no longer routinely beaten and their sexual abuse is believed possible and taken seriously. Offenders can actually be put in jail, reducing their ability to harm for a time. The diffetence I have seen in my lifetime is phenomenal.
posted by saucysault at 3:05 AM on February 15, 2011
posted by saucysault at 3:05 AM on February 15, 2011
Mass violence is more efficient. We mistake efficiency for peace.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:51 AM on February 15, 2011
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:51 AM on February 15, 2011
So you're excluding violence committed by the West against other parts of the world? If you want to restrict to intra-West violence, you need to historically restrict the question to comparable societies in the past (like Athens; maybe the Pax Romana).
posted by J. Wilson at 5:57 AM on February 15, 2011
posted by J. Wilson at 5:57 AM on February 15, 2011
Bear in mind that until somewhere in the 18th Century, it was considered unthinkable in Europe and North America for a man to go outdoors without a weapon. Gentlemen carries swords. Ordinary men carried knives. They were not for show.
If you look at death rates among the Yanomami, often used as an example of a tribe living in fairly primitive conditions, the highest cause of death among men is homicide.
When the Romans attacked the Helvetii, according to Caesar, they killed about 75% of the entire nation. The Mongols massacred cities, sparing only the artisans; Arab civilization never recovered.
Anecdotes aren't data, but the percentage of people dying peacefully has gone way, way up in the past century compared to prior centuries. Moreover, we have segregated violence: if you're not a soldier in a war or a civilian in certain wars, you're unlikely to be murdered. That wouldn't have been true 500 years ago.
posted by musofire at 6:04 AM on February 15, 2011
If you look at death rates among the Yanomami, often used as an example of a tribe living in fairly primitive conditions, the highest cause of death among men is homicide.
When the Romans attacked the Helvetii, according to Caesar, they killed about 75% of the entire nation. The Mongols massacred cities, sparing only the artisans; Arab civilization never recovered.
Anecdotes aren't data, but the percentage of people dying peacefully has gone way, way up in the past century compared to prior centuries. Moreover, we have segregated violence: if you're not a soldier in a war or a civilian in certain wars, you're unlikely to be murdered. That wouldn't have been true 500 years ago.
posted by musofire at 6:04 AM on February 15, 2011
...as we evolve?! Aside from technology, by all means we are "de-evolving"....
Look at school requirements just 50 years ago from today. Humanity is quickly "slouching towards Gomorrah"...
posted by TeachTheDead at 6:06 AM on February 15, 2011
Look at school requirements just 50 years ago from today. Humanity is quickly "slouching towards Gomorrah"...
posted by TeachTheDead at 6:06 AM on February 15, 2011
In A History of Warfare, John Keegan concludes we are becoming less prone to war:
posted by scottreynen at 6:35 AM on February 15, 2011
I am impressed by the evidence. War, it seems to me, after a lifetime of reading about the subject, mingling with men of war, visiting the sites of war and observing its effects, may well be ceasing to commend itself to human beings as a desirable or productive, let alone rational, means of reconciling their discontents...My instinct would be to say that we're becoming more violent, but I think the evidence convincingly shows that's false. Something about violence makes us consistantly think it's rising, even when it's actually falling, for example.
posted by scottreynen at 6:35 AM on February 15, 2011
Look at school requirements just 50 years ago from today.
Yep, schools sure were a lot more racist, sexist, homophobic, etc back then.
posted by kmz at 6:44 AM on February 15, 2011
Yep, schools sure were a lot more racist, sexist, homophobic, etc back then.
posted by kmz at 6:44 AM on February 15, 2011
Society is evolving to become more peaceful. (Citing crime statistics and the book mentioned above- there is no reason to believe that violence is under-reported more now than before.) The reason it doesn't seem that way is that we are connected to everyone much more readily and cheaply. Our perception of violence is increasing, because we hear about a larger percentage of it.
(This is the reason for all the "oh, the 50's were SO wonderful" talk we hear about. Bad stuff was happening all over the place, we just didn't hear about it. Either because we were kids and our parents didn't tell us, or because the newspaper just wasn't putting in as many stories about far-away violence.)
As a species, we *might* be evolving toward non-violence, but that is a much slower process. Society can decide that violence is unacceptable and contain the violent people. But they still manage to reproduce and pass on whatever violence genes they might have. In a society where violence doesn't gain you anything, natural selection doesn't have to require that you choose mates who are violent or capable of violence.
The mention of scarcity above is apt, I think. Even if you are doing well, in a society where scarceness looms, people will choose mates that they believe will be able to provide and protect for them. In the old days, that meant someone willing and able to knock the other guy down and take his stuff. Even if that meant accepting that the mate might knock you down from time to time.
Contrast that with modern western society. Birthrates and marriage rates are down. We don't have to find mates quickly nor settle for the best option available at the time. More than any other time in the past, a single person can exist in relative security and prosperity. We (as a cohort) are moving towards pairing and mating only when we are really happy with our choice. That is going to mean that the margin is shifting toward giving violent people less opportunity to mate, and non-violent people more opportunity. After a few generations, the gene pool is going to skew toward non-violence.
Moreover, we have segregated violence: if you're not a soldier in a war or a civilian in certain wars, you're unlikely to be murdered. That wouldn't have been true 500 years ago.
This is even more true than you say: just yesterday, the police chief of Chicago was on the radio, and said that thanks to some magic computer system, they are able to separate out crime statistics based on gang affiliations. Even if you live in an area with very high crime statistics, your personal risk of crime drops to about average if you and your friends and family have no connection to gangs. On the converse, if you DO associate with gang culture, your risk skyrockets. He said it was higher than that of a soldier in an active combat zone, I'm not sure if that was exaggeration or not.
posted by gjc at 6:50 AM on February 15, 2011
(This is the reason for all the "oh, the 50's were SO wonderful" talk we hear about. Bad stuff was happening all over the place, we just didn't hear about it. Either because we were kids and our parents didn't tell us, or because the newspaper just wasn't putting in as many stories about far-away violence.)
As a species, we *might* be evolving toward non-violence, but that is a much slower process. Society can decide that violence is unacceptable and contain the violent people. But they still manage to reproduce and pass on whatever violence genes they might have. In a society where violence doesn't gain you anything, natural selection doesn't have to require that you choose mates who are violent or capable of violence.
The mention of scarcity above is apt, I think. Even if you are doing well, in a society where scarceness looms, people will choose mates that they believe will be able to provide and protect for them. In the old days, that meant someone willing and able to knock the other guy down and take his stuff. Even if that meant accepting that the mate might knock you down from time to time.
Contrast that with modern western society. Birthrates and marriage rates are down. We don't have to find mates quickly nor settle for the best option available at the time. More than any other time in the past, a single person can exist in relative security and prosperity. We (as a cohort) are moving towards pairing and mating only when we are really happy with our choice. That is going to mean that the margin is shifting toward giving violent people less opportunity to mate, and non-violent people more opportunity. After a few generations, the gene pool is going to skew toward non-violence.
Moreover, we have segregated violence: if you're not a soldier in a war or a civilian in certain wars, you're unlikely to be murdered. That wouldn't have been true 500 years ago.
This is even more true than you say: just yesterday, the police chief of Chicago was on the radio, and said that thanks to some magic computer system, they are able to separate out crime statistics based on gang affiliations. Even if you live in an area with very high crime statistics, your personal risk of crime drops to about average if you and your friends and family have no connection to gangs. On the converse, if you DO associate with gang culture, your risk skyrockets. He said it was higher than that of a soldier in an active combat zone, I'm not sure if that was exaggeration or not.
posted by gjc at 6:50 AM on February 15, 2011
As another data point to this discussion, I just saw Dr. Raymond Novaco talk about workplace violence. He cited some data in his talk about how homicides back in medieval periods were roughly 100 per 100,000 people, with statistics based on coroner reports.
If this Wikipedia page is accurate, it shows the South Africa has the highest homicide rate for a country today, at 37.3 per 100,000.
Stephen Pinker also makes a similar argument in his book The Blank Slate, strongly suggesting that homicide rates have dropped dramatically over the centuries.
Of course, this only talks about homicide rates, and says nothing about the atrocities that modern states can and have done.
posted by jasonhong at 7:45 AM on February 15, 2011
If this Wikipedia page is accurate, it shows the South Africa has the highest homicide rate for a country today, at 37.3 per 100,000.
Stephen Pinker also makes a similar argument in his book The Blank Slate, strongly suggesting that homicide rates have dropped dramatically over the centuries.
Of course, this only talks about homicide rates, and says nothing about the atrocities that modern states can and have done.
posted by jasonhong at 7:45 AM on February 15, 2011
Even if you live in an area with very high crime statistics, your personal risk of crime drops to about average if you and your friends and family have no connection to gangs.
This gets to the reason that I believe (or maybe just hope) that we are actually evolving to be less violent. In much of the developed world, violence is self-selecting -- people with a propensity for violence tend to live in violent subcultures, and have a higher likelihood of being selected out of the population by them.
I also don't share what seems to be the general hostility to technology here. In my mind, technology is the equalizer that allows generally peaceful people to defend themselves. Back in the days of melee violence, the person who was trained in violence could easily take advantage of the person who was not -- so easily that it might seem foolish not to. Modern weaponry allows a fairly small investment of time and capital to give a person (or society) protection against almost any rational would-be attacker.
posted by bjrubble at 7:48 AM on February 15, 2011
This gets to the reason that I believe (or maybe just hope) that we are actually evolving to be less violent. In much of the developed world, violence is self-selecting -- people with a propensity for violence tend to live in violent subcultures, and have a higher likelihood of being selected out of the population by them.
I also don't share what seems to be the general hostility to technology here. In my mind, technology is the equalizer that allows generally peaceful people to defend themselves. Back in the days of melee violence, the person who was trained in violence could easily take advantage of the person who was not -- so easily that it might seem foolish not to. Modern weaponry allows a fairly small investment of time and capital to give a person (or society) protection against almost any rational would-be attacker.
posted by bjrubble at 7:48 AM on February 15, 2011
I don't understand how anyone can understand what happened during the First and Second World Wars and still believe that humans in the 20th century have been less violent than previously. I do think that societal norms for peacetime are less permissive of violence; but this has no bearing on what people will do when those norms are suspended.
posted by fingersandtoes at 8:01 AM on February 15, 2011
posted by fingersandtoes at 8:01 AM on February 15, 2011
I think you need to differentiate between different types of violence. Yes, interpersonal violence in the Western world decreased significantly in the 20th century, but that was offset by massive acts of state violence -- wars, forced relocation programs, modernization schemes, genocides, etc. Every day acts of violence between citizens has reduced greatly over time, but massive amounts of people are still dying violently.
I found some statistics collected by Charles Tilly in Coercion, Capital, and European States (link should go to page 67) in support of his argument that interpersonal violence decreased as states increasingly claimed a monopoly over the right to use violence. The book was published in 1992, so it doesn't have stats for the entire 20th century, and the stats cover worldwide conflict instead of just the Western world like you asked, but:
-20th century saw 237 new wars with battles that killed at least 1,000 people per year, while the 19th century had only 205 wars of the same intensity; the 18th century had only 68 such wars
-The death rate was 46 per 1,000 in wars of the 20th century; 6 per 1,000 in the 19th; 5 per 1,000 for the 18th century.
-From 1480-1800 a new war started roughly every 2-3 years; from 1945-1992 a new war started roughly every months.
-13th century homicide rates were about 10x what they were in the late 20th century.
I think you can safely conclude that interpersonal violence has dropped dramatically over the course of Western history, but I wouldn't take that as a sign that we're becoming less violent overall as a result of evolution. Violence today just occurs within a different framework.
posted by lilac girl at 9:51 AM on February 15, 2011
I found some statistics collected by Charles Tilly in Coercion, Capital, and European States (link should go to page 67) in support of his argument that interpersonal violence decreased as states increasingly claimed a monopoly over the right to use violence. The book was published in 1992, so it doesn't have stats for the entire 20th century, and the stats cover worldwide conflict instead of just the Western world like you asked, but:
-20th century saw 237 new wars with battles that killed at least 1,000 people per year, while the 19th century had only 205 wars of the same intensity; the 18th century had only 68 such wars
-The death rate was 46 per 1,000 in wars of the 20th century; 6 per 1,000 in the 19th; 5 per 1,000 for the 18th century.
-From 1480-1800 a new war started roughly every 2-3 years; from 1945-1992 a new war started roughly every months.
-13th century homicide rates were about 10x what they were in the late 20th century.
I think you can safely conclude that interpersonal violence has dropped dramatically over the course of Western history, but I wouldn't take that as a sign that we're becoming less violent overall as a result of evolution. Violence today just occurs within a different framework.
posted by lilac girl at 9:51 AM on February 15, 2011
This gets to the reason that I believe (or maybe just hope) that we are actually evolving to be less violent. In much of the developed world, violence is self-selecting -- people with a propensity for violence tend to live in violent subcultures, and have a higher likelihood of being selected out of the population by them.
I think you may be reversing cause and effect, here. If some portion of one's personal propensity for violence is environmental or social, then it is very likely that living in violent subcultures causes a propensity for violence. If so, violent people won't be "selected out of the population" unless violent subcultures themselves disappear, and that doesn't seem to be happening.
In general, the problem with "evolving to be less violent" is that violence becomes more personally rewarding when fewer people are violent... and when behaviors are rewarding, they stick around. There's a reason why violent subcultures keep perpetuating themselves.
posted by vorfeed at 12:45 PM on February 15, 2011
I think you may be reversing cause and effect, here. If some portion of one's personal propensity for violence is environmental or social, then it is very likely that living in violent subcultures causes a propensity for violence. If so, violent people won't be "selected out of the population" unless violent subcultures themselves disappear, and that doesn't seem to be happening.
In general, the problem with "evolving to be less violent" is that violence becomes more personally rewarding when fewer people are violent... and when behaviors are rewarding, they stick around. There's a reason why violent subcultures keep perpetuating themselves.
posted by vorfeed at 12:45 PM on February 15, 2011
In order for this conversation to be meaningful, posters need to separate public or institutional violence from individual violence. Another definition problem is "evolved," which carries evolutionary or biological significance. Our social skills have not evolved, they have "developed" because any gains we have achieved could be lost in a decade.
In regards to individual violence: Prior to the middle of the 20th century, most humans witnessed injury and loss of life as a constant part of growing up. Many people slaughtered animals for food. People attended brutal entertainments, public executions, bear baiting, dog-fights and cock-fights. Young people were traumatized by violence and death, from which they never recovered-- typically exhibiting aggression, irrationality, impulsive and reckless behavior. On top of this, most drinks contained alcohol [the navy had a breakfast ration of rum for sailors.]
Where education and communication technologies have been adopted completely, the chidren are taught to use thier words. They are coached in negotiation before they are fully verbal. People are taught to restrain their impulses, control their behavior. People line up with the placid expecation that they will be served in an orderly fashion. I guess you would call this "civil society."
Civil societies have very low violence. Violence is an aberration, an abomination. Most developed countries still possess a brutal and violent subclass, with high rates of homicide, robbery, assault, fighting and abuse of weaker people [women, children & the elderly]. Countries with high rates of alcohol abuse also see high rates of suicide, accidental death and dismemberment [Russia].
Humans know how to coexist, but the supports could be kicked out and our species would be "red in tooth and claw" as we have always been.
posted by ohshenandoah at 12:50 PM on February 15, 2011
In regards to individual violence: Prior to the middle of the 20th century, most humans witnessed injury and loss of life as a constant part of growing up. Many people slaughtered animals for food. People attended brutal entertainments, public executions, bear baiting, dog-fights and cock-fights. Young people were traumatized by violence and death, from which they never recovered-- typically exhibiting aggression, irrationality, impulsive and reckless behavior. On top of this, most drinks contained alcohol [the navy had a breakfast ration of rum for sailors.]
Where education and communication technologies have been adopted completely, the chidren are taught to use thier words. They are coached in negotiation before they are fully verbal. People are taught to restrain their impulses, control their behavior. People line up with the placid expecation that they will be served in an orderly fashion. I guess you would call this "civil society."
Civil societies have very low violence. Violence is an aberration, an abomination. Most developed countries still possess a brutal and violent subclass, with high rates of homicide, robbery, assault, fighting and abuse of weaker people [women, children & the elderly]. Countries with high rates of alcohol abuse also see high rates of suicide, accidental death and dismemberment [Russia].
Humans know how to coexist, but the supports could be kicked out and our species would be "red in tooth and claw" as we have always been.
posted by ohshenandoah at 12:50 PM on February 15, 2011
I don't have any facts to back this up, this is just my opinion, but between global/international incidents, violent events that occur in the US alone, and local violent acts (very noticeable if you live in or close to a major city), I have a hard time accepting that we are less violent as a society today than we were in the past. Maybe the violence that occurs is a different sort of violence from that of earlier decades (a mindless, meaningless violence?). Something I've noticed among my generation (and the generation following mine) is a lack of feeling, a numbness.. a lack of.. concern. I suppose that's from growing up in an age where we watch wars in our living rooms and watch news broadcasts that are nothing but local shootings and rapes (well, definitely in the Philadelphia area). Maybe it's a coping mechanism, but I find that people my age (that I know personally, at least) don't seem to actually feel and have any real sympathy for the victims of violent crimes (I know this doesn't apply to everyone). So, I don't agree that we're becoming less violent. I think we're becoming more passive and accepting of violence, so maybe we're even redefining 'violence' and, from that sense, we're thinking that we're less violent. Yes, this is the modern argument against violent (fictional) tv/movies and video games.
posted by Mael Oui at 8:55 PM on February 15, 2011
posted by Mael Oui at 8:55 PM on February 15, 2011
Does he mean just direct violence or structural violence? Does the suffering of more people by number rather than a perceived percentage of the population not matter as much?
posted by tarvuz at 1:17 AM on February 16, 2011
posted by tarvuz at 1:17 AM on February 16, 2011
Or, it could just be that Humans are getting more docile / domesticated from their ever shrinking brains.
Over the last 30,000 years Humans have lost about a tennis ball sized chunk of gray matter.
posted by TheOtherSide at 5:14 AM on February 16, 2011
Over the last 30,000 years Humans have lost about a tennis ball sized chunk of gray matter.
posted by TheOtherSide at 5:14 AM on February 16, 2011
I think that the 'violence' has simply become more insidious.
Much of it is hidden, it wears a new, friendlier face on the surface of things, especially in the west.
We seem to have perfected the art of dressing violence up to appear less obvious.
Plus, (again i am referring to the west) we seem to be less reactionary as a culture, more passive and accepting of media mind control, more believing of propaganda in general.
For instance, child sex slavery is on the increase across the globe, and many people are simply afraid to look at it. Perhaps we have become more apathetic, instead of evolved.
posted by noella at 3:58 AM on February 20, 2011
Much of it is hidden, it wears a new, friendlier face on the surface of things, especially in the west.
We seem to have perfected the art of dressing violence up to appear less obvious.
Plus, (again i am referring to the west) we seem to be less reactionary as a culture, more passive and accepting of media mind control, more believing of propaganda in general.
For instance, child sex slavery is on the increase across the globe, and many people are simply afraid to look at it. Perhaps we have become more apathetic, instead of evolved.
posted by noella at 3:58 AM on February 20, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by NoraReed at 9:38 PM on February 14, 2011