The Myth of Increasing Violence

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

[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).

[thir]

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

So, trying to find the thread again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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