http://www.guardian.co.uk/...angels-violence-interview

very interesting.

I don't take exception to any of the work he's done. I think its pretty commonsensical that violence has been going down worldwide over the centuries. However, as he states, it does not mean it will continue down that path as societies continue and weapon systems evolve. What would seem more likely in the future is that violence will continue on its current downward path, and then there will be a sudden increase (nukes/etc) followed by a slow downward trend until it repeats.

If Scode already has 10 sheep, it makes no sense for him to kill you to take yours?

I've studied the nature and decline of violence in 18th century England and it is a very interesting topic. One of the most radical shifts was attitudes towards domestic violence.

radical shift? explain more, please.

It used to be the case that men were paraded through the steets and abused if people thought he was subservant to his wife. Yet, even before the industrial revolution came about there were men being paraded for beating their wife too much. There is a lot of work about attitudes towards women between the Industrial Revolution and Universal Suffrage, but there was a shift before this in practice (although certainly not law). There are lots of explainations given and the whole concept of Paternalism is pretty skewed. Other topics that 18th century historians like to talk about is the decline of duels etc.

any chance that i can just write it off as an effect of religious viewpoint?

never:P

Some argue that the Stuarts were very Paternalist, while the suceeding dynasties brought a more continetnal attitude that filtered through society. Some attribute it to a growth in Liberalism and rationalism. Economic changes/proto-industrialisation.. blabla

well, i hear rumors about this maternal type goddess that existed before Christ. but it shoulda gone out of style long before they dragged men thru the streets because he was fluff-whipped, err, grateful.

gf

This has been a topic of discussion in political science (those who studied it will understand) for quite a while now. There are lots of different explanations. A popular one (that has been both heavily criticized and praised) is Fukuyama's "End of History".

He basically posits that democracy is the most stable and peaceful form of government, and basically, no two democracies will ever attack each other. As more and more countries adopt this mode of government, the less prone they are to waging war on one another.

Obviously, the problem with that is the spheres of influence of other forms of government. For instance, China is no more violence-prone than the USA. So Fukuyama's democracy theory obviously has flaws, but it has some interesting points.

If you disregard that though and just look at the larger picture of the current state of affairs in the world, you see that the rise of the nation state has instilled patriotism/nationalism, forcing individual governments to monopolize the use of violence.

Borders are secure, nations have, for the most part, clearly delineated boundaries, there's technology...even with this monopoly of state violence, there's no where to really focus it without fear of direct consequences.

Also, as technology improves, we are able to shorten "time" and "space". It used to take years to travel the globe - now you can do it in hours. No longer do you need a carrier pigeon - you can skype instantly. These technological advancements make the acquisition of resources and the ability to trade relatively easy (compared to what it was in ye old times).

So in sum, think about the reasons empires used to war. Over successions? Monarchies are largely dead, replaced by democracies and other stable governments. Territory? There's no more territory to take without severe repercussions. Resources/wealth? Transnational corporations can acquire this without bloodshed.

It doesn't surprise me to hear that violence has waned. Violence and the nature of man is always a fun topic to talk about.

Really? How many countries has China invaded lately?

Huh? None.

Not sure if the author's methods are really really relevant. Scaling the numbers of deaths to the total world population (arbitrarily picked by him as the mid century population) might be misleading. For example, the Khmer Rouge regime doesn't even make his list when in fact the death toll of 'only' some 1 million represents about 10-15% of Cambodia's total population at the time.

I also doubt that his sources are very accurate and objective. Stalin is 'credited' with 20m total, but he killed around 10 million in Ukraine alone. In 1 year. During peace time.

The last country China actually tried to invade was Vietnam back in the late 1970s I believe.

@Rufus: his point is mostly regarding the size and scope of wars relative to the total human population in an attempt to measure overall violence in the world and not get hung up on one particular area. 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 idea of wiping out entire cities via total war is not unique to the 20th century. The mongols did a lot of it (for example). The Chinese wars he mentioned were particularly brutal based on what record there are, but part of that was that was because most of the male population was mobilized for war and participated in it. They also leveled entire cities.

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.

Regarding democracies not fighting each other, I would say not directly, but certainly indirectly it happens.

@tan:
"So in sum, think about the reasons empires used to war. Over successions?" Sure. But lets redefine succession as replacement of government. Now you simply use a black ops operation of some kind to get a government removed that you may not like. This doesn't have to involve violence though. The russians do it as much as the americans. Not quite as blatent. At least internally with democracies the replacement of one government with another is much more peaceful (mostly).

"Territory?" Too difficult these days. Although there are parts of the world where it is still going on. But much less so.

"Resources/wealth". This still goes on. A lot of the violence in Africa and South America ends up ultimately concerning this. Replacing a government with a multinational doesn't really help things..

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.