Why is there less violence today than in the past?

[Danmark]

In a response at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 659#647659
McCulloch cited a very interesting book:
The Better Angels of our Nature

Pinker presents some astonishing numbers. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. The murder rate of Medieval Europe was more than thirty times what it is today. Slavery, sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were unexceptionable features of life for millennia.....What led people to stop sacrificing children, stabbing each other at the dinner table, or burning cats and disemboweling criminals as forms of popular entertainment? ....Pinker argues the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, bargain rather than plunder, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

http://stevenpinker.com/publications/be ... our-nature
The questions for debate are: Has there been a dramatic decrease in violence and if so, to what do you attribute it?

[McCulloch]

Personally I think the world is very close to war right now.

I disagree.

First reason is that war is probably cyclical. We are losing the memory of the horror of the wars of last century. So we might be nearing the next war. I find this reason a bit depressing if it is true.

Our collective memory is better than it ever has been. Not only do we have a greater written record of the events of the twentieth century than any other century, we have photos, movies and television. Furthermore, we have the horrors of Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, Yugoslavia and other more recent wars to remind us.

Second reason I think is nukes. It's hard to win through war when they can nuke you.

Nuclear capability, while scary, has been a deterrent to actual fighting.

Fourth would be global trade is probably at an all time high.

Trade is also a deterrent to war. We are less likely to fight if we see them as a potential source of income.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 16 by McCulloch]


You may find this reference useful
http://soci.ucalgary.ca/brannigan/sites ... -crime.pdf
Eisner was one of the people who did the hard work behind some of Pinkers stats.
What Pinker does not mention (because that would be embarrassing) is that Eisner in part attributed much of the softening of the human propensity towards violence, to the Reformation in the underlying ethics of the bible and the transference into general society in the workforce and specific causes.

Except that what you've just stated about Eisner is at best misleading. If you read the section in http://soci.ucalgary.ca/brannigan/sites ... -crime.pdf on Culture and the Conclusion you will note Eisner discusses the works of several authors who posit that the internalization of Protestant values may be one of several factors in play, along with individualism, higher rates of literacy, increased power of the State, changes in economic and social status, and so forth.

[Ooberman]

Personally I think the world is very close to war right now.

Personally, I think we are really close to being visited by benevolent aliens:

First, if aliens are going to visit, we'd have to be closer to a time of them visiting than further.

Second, it's never happened before, so it would be exciting

Third, aliens are smart.

Fourth would be global trade is probably at an all time high. Encouraging aliens interested in trade.

Fifth socialism has been at an all time low since the end of communism.

[Beth1]

I think that there is more violence today then in the past. Look at how many murders are being committed each year, or how many fights there are. We just might not be hearing about it as much.

[bluethread]

I think this is myopia. History has been primarily about violence and control. I am sure that in the past there were all kinds of nonviolent activities going on, but there was little reason to record it in a form that would stand the test of time. Yes, there is a lot of information out there, but how much of it is in long term storage. We are quickly moving to less and less durable storage. A few well placed EMPs and we are back in the preindustrial age, with little history beyond monuments and books, which are quickly turned into toilet paper.

[Cephus]

Certainly the Second World War killed very many people. But the later half of the twentieth century has seen a decline in deaths due to war.

Only because we have better weapons, not because we have fewer wars. In fact, the better weapons tend to involve us in more wars because we don't have to watch our men and women in uniform coming home in body bags in large numbers. The other side, that's something else.

[99percentatheism]

In a response at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 659#647659
McCulloch cited a very interesting book:
The Better Angels of our Nature

Pinker presents some astonishing numbers. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. The murder rate of Medieval Europe was more than thirty times what it is today. Slavery, sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were unexceptionable features of life for millennia.....What led people to stop sacrificing children, stabbing each other at the dinner table, or burning cats and disemboweling criminals as forms of popular entertainment? ....Pinker argues the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, bargain rather than plunder, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

http://stevenpinker.com/publications/be ... our-nature
The questions for debate are: Has there been a dramatic decrease in violence and if so, to what do you attribute it?

Evangelical Christian life.

It is envied and copied.

If left to the whims of secularism, we would have the French Revolution played out again and again. And, probably will again in the coming years. For example, gentrification, as witnessed in the impressively academia stacked society of Chicago, shows how ruthless even the most educated among us are to the pitiless sufferings of the "other." The "Black Community" shoved ever further and further south and west by the "modernity" of the affluent, find their most peaceful and beneficial milieu's among some of the most violent poor streets in the country . . . in the "Black Churches" that "preach the Gospel."

I have witnessed this over and over again every time I visit the "Windy City." A city built on the homes of the less fortunate driven out of it.

[Danmark]

In a response at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 659#647659
McCulloch cited a very interesting book:
The Better Angels of our Nature

Pinker presents some astonishing numbers. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. The murder rate of Medieval Europe was more than thirty times what it is today. Slavery, sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were unexceptionable features of life for millennia.....What led people to stop sacrificing children, stabbing each other at the dinner table, or burning cats and disemboweling criminals as forms of popular entertainment? ....Pinker argues the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, bargain rather than plunder, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

http://stevenpinker.com/publications/be ... our-nature
The questions for debate are: Has there been a dramatic decrease in violence and if so, to what do you attribute it?

Evangelical Christian life.

I don't suppose you have any facts to back up your opinion. Apparently regular old 'Christianity' didn't count for much as an anti violence movement. So, what do you base your opinion on? Wishful thinking? What do you have that might actually be considered evidence?

[99percentatheism]

In a response at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 659#647659
McCulloch cited a very interesting book:
The Better Angels of our Nature

Pinker presents some astonishing numbers. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. The murder rate of Medieval Europe was more than thirty times what it is today. Slavery, sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were unexceptionable features of life for millennia.....What led people to stop sacrificing children, stabbing each other at the dinner table, or burning cats and disemboweling criminals as forms of popular entertainment? ....Pinker argues the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, bargain rather than plunder, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

http://stevenpinker.com/publications/be ... our-nature
The questions for debate are: Has there been a dramatic decrease in violence and if so, to what do you attribute it?

Evangelical Christian life.

I don't suppose you have any facts to back up your opinion. Apparently regular old 'Christianity' didn't count for much as an anti violence movement. So, what do you base your opinion on? Wishful thinking? What do you have that might actually be considered evidence?

First I don't kid myself that anything I present will be considered evidence to certain kinds of ideologues here or in the outside world either.

But my "Christian" answer to your demands would be:

“Sola Scriptura� (Scripture Alone); “Sola Gratia� (Grace Alone); “Sola Fide� (Faith Alone); “Solus Christus� (Christ Alone); and “Soli Deo Gloria� (To God Alone Be Glory).

The phrase "Evangelical Christianity" is redundant. That's like saying chocolate cocoa.

As evidenced from China's explosive growth of "Evangelicalism" we are seeing a rise on hope and its implementation:

China on course to become 'world's most Christian nation' within 15 years
The number of Christians in Communist China is growing so steadily that it by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America.

"It is a wonderful thing to be a follower of Jesus Christ. It gives us great confidence," beamed Jin Hongxin, a 40-year-old visitor who was admiring the golden cross above Liushi's altar in the lead up to Holy Week.

"If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime," she added.

Officially, the People's Republic of China is an atheist country but that is changing fast as many of its 1.3 billion citizens seek meaning and spiritual comfort that neither communism nor capitalism seem to have supplied.
Christian congregations in particular have skyrocketed since churches began reopening when Chairman Mao's death in 1976 signalled the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Less than four decades later, some believe China is now poised to become not just the world's number one economy but also its most numerous Christian nation.
"By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon," said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.

- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... years.html

How fascinating that a communist country would embrace a communist faith based belief system. Not surprising that they seem to be getting it right:

The Fellowship of the Believers

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

- Acts 2

[Danmark]

First I don't kid myself that anything I present will be considered evidence to certain kinds of ideologues here or in the outside world either.
....

That is because you failed to present any evidence. You call others ' ideologues' while you represent a single minded ideology yourself. You were challenge to present facts, evidence. You've presented none. In place of facts, you presented only your personal opinions, adding "I don't kid myself that anything I present will be considered evidence to certain kinds of ideologues." Complaining in advance that your opinions will not be considered as evidence does not elevate your opinions to the level of evidence.

Once again, do you have any facts? Do you have any evidence that supports your mere opinion, an opinion that is based solely on your ideology. You've accused 'others' of being 'ideologues.' Do you deny that your opinions are based upon your own ideology instead of facts?