Originally
posted by
martian:
Part of the problem with that comparison though is that with the advent of medical technology and antibiotics in the 20th century, war casualties were cut down dramatically. I read somewhere that even though the casualty rates for WW1 and WW2 are comparable (European theatre only), if there were no antibiotics during WW2, the death rate (from combat) would probably be 50% higher.
(...)
The scale point doesn't really doesn't change things much if you go back prior to before the 19th century. Of course there is the issue of accurate records and population estimates.
Very good points but I disagree that the scale point doesn't change things. The scale point change things dramatically. The same progress in medicine that saved so many lives during WW2 alongside the advance in technology, especially in agriculture, is also responsible for the surge in population growth.
Also, the huge amount of lives lost in WW1 has another and probably more important cause than lack of antibiotics. In WW1 incompetent commanders (on both sides) used centuries old tactics against XX century weapons. Like bold cavalry charges, swords drawn or close formations bayonette attacks against machine guns and artillery barages. Casualties in WW1 would have been way lower, even with lack of medicine, if they only knew what were they doing.
Ironically WW3 had (still has?) so few casualties because both sides have THE BOMB and both sides
fluff their pants at the thought of what would become of them if they dare to use it first.
That study by no means proves that the humankind became less violent, but proves that we became more efficient in waging war and destruction.
------------
Tan, yes, a democracy won't attack another democracy. Maybe. Thing is that a vast part of the world is ruled by theocracies, tyrannies and dictatorships.