"They tell a story of a world moving away from violence."

[piece-itpete]

Good news for everyone. I think.

.-.-.-.-.-.

Yes, thousands of people have died in bloody unrest from Africa to Pakistan, while terrorists plot bombings and kidnappings. Wars drag on in Iraq and Afghanistan. In peaceful Norway, a man massacred 69 youths in July. In Mexico, headless bodies turn up, victims of drug cartels. This month eight people died in a shooting in a California hair salon.

Yet, historically, we've never had it this peaceful.

.......

— The number of people killed in battle — calculated per 100,000 population — has dropped by 1,000-fold over the centuries as civilizations evolved. Before there were organized countries, battles killed on average more than 500 out of every 100,000 people. In 19th century France, it was 70. In the 20th century with two world wars and a few genocides, it was 60. Now battlefield deaths are down to three-tenths of a person per 100,000.

— The rate of genocide deaths per world population was 1,400 times higher in 1942 than in 2008.

— There were fewer than 20 democracies in 1946. Now there are close to 100. Meanwhile, the number of authoritarian countries has dropped from a high of almost 90 in 1976 to about 25 now.

Pinker says one of the main reasons for the drop in violence is that we are smarter. IQ tests show that the average teenager is smarter with each generation. The tests are constantly adjusted to keep average at 100, and a teenager who now would score a 100 would have scored a 118 in 1950 and a 130 in 1910. So this year's average kid would have been a near-genius a century ago. And that increase in intelligence translates into a kinder, gentler world, Pinker says.

"As we get smarter, we try to think up better ways of getting everyone to turn their swords into plowshares at the same time," Pinker said in an interview. "Human life has become more precious than it used to be."

Pinker argued his case in a commentary this past week in the scientific journal Nature. He has plenty of charts and graphs to back up his claims, including evidence beyond wartime deaths — evidence that our everyday lives are also less violent:

— Murder in European countries has steadily fallen from near 100 per 100,000 people in the 14th and 15th centuries to about 1 per 100,000 people now.

— Murder within families. The U.S. rate of husbands being killed by their wives has dropped from 1.2 per 100,000 in 1976 to just 0.2. For wives killed by their husbands, the rate has slipped from 1.4 to 0.8 over the same time period.

— Rape in the United States is down 80 percent since 1973. Lynchings, which used to occur at a rate of 150 a year, have disappeared.

— Discrimination against blacks and gays is down, as is capital punishment, the spanking of children, and child abuse.

But if numbers are too inaccessible, Pinker is more than happy to provide the gory stories illustrating our past violence. "It is easy to forget how dangerous life used to be, how deeply brutality was once woven into the fabric of daily existence," Pinker writes in his book.

....

The average annual battle death toll has dropped from nearly 10,000 per conflict in the 1950s to less than 1,000 in the 21st century. And the number of deadliest wars — those that kill at least 1,000 people a year — has fallen by 78 percent since 1988.

Mack and Goldstein emphasize how hard society and peacekeepers have worked to reduce wars, focusing on action taken to tamp down violence, while Pinker focuses on cultural and thought changes that make violence less likely. But all three say those elements are interconnected.

Even the academics who disagree with Pinker, Goldstein and Mack, say the declining violence numbers are real.

"The facts are not in dispute here; the question is what is going on," John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics."

"It's been 21 years since the Cold War ended and the United States has been at war for 14 out of those 21 years," Mearsheimer said. "If war has been burned out of the system, why do we have NATO and why has NATO been pushed eastward...? Why are we spending more money on defense than all other countries in the world put together?"

What's happening is that the U.S. is acting as a "pacifier" keeping the peace all over the world, Mearsheimer said. He said like-minded thinkers, who call themselves "realists" believe "that power matters because the best way to survive is to be really powerful." And he worries that a strengthening China is about to upset the world power picture and may make the planet bloodier again.

.....

.-.-.-.-.-.-.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...d001760f5b3142

Pete

[merrylander]

That's allright Pete the way population is growing we soon will have screwed ourselvess out of a place to lie down. Of course if they have to resort to knee tremblers maybe fewer women will get pregnant.

[piece-itpete]

I don't want to know. I don't want to know.....



Pete

[d-ray657]

Thanks for the link, Pete. I hear the author on the radio last week. This is fascinating stuff.

There must be something that has developed in our species that makes that majority of us anti-violence.

Could Gandhi have succeeded with his peaceful resistance if his actions did not appeal to a broader sense of justice - or injustice?

Martin Luther King's peaceful resistance was considerably more successful than the more militant forces who would have resorted to violence to cause change in the US laws regarding racial equality.

The Arab Spring drew world-wide support to the peaceful efforts of citizens to stand up to tyranny. Peaceful resistance might need powerful support - or considerable patience - and courage. The Arab Spring would not have occurred if people had not been willing to risk their lives to demand change. More lives are at risk in Jordan, Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc. The pressure of worldwide opinion is, however, weakening several of the totalitarian regimes. The peaceful resistance draws attention to the underlying issues.

Obviously, the transition in Libya was far from bloodless - and Libya is far from being free of bloodshed in attempting to establish order and unifying a government - but is is clear that international support will be at least partially dependent of the ability of the rebels to establish a non-oppressive regime.

The negative public reaction to violence is playing out on our turf as well. The OWS was barely a blip on the radar until some cops got rougher than necessary. That drew attention to the movement - both negative and positive - but it did change the discussion about priorities in addressing the economic problems. At a minimum it re-energized a downtrodden and frustrated left.

As far as the rest of the public? Even those who haven't fallen in love with the protesters are voicing agreement with the message.

The proven success of non-violent movements seems to reinforce the author's conclusion that we live in a kinder gentler world.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Great post D. However our peace is enforced at the point of a gun.

OWS, they're crude and vulgar in many ways. King was a gentleman.

Pete

[Dondilion]

Nuclear equilibrium has also contributed to peace. The essence of MAD doctrine.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

OWS, they're crude and vulgar in many ways.
Pete

And screwing people out of their life savings is not?

I don't recall hearing a Thank You when my 401k becames a 201k.

I have a couple of good 2x4s here I would like to use on the 1%ers.

[piece-itpete]

I understand that, but I don't think 'F*CK [this or that]' is in the same league as King.

Pete

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Thanks for the link, Pete. I hear the author on the radio last week. This is fascinating stuff.

There must be something that has developed in our species that makes that majority of us anti-violence.

Could Gandhi have succeeded with his peaceful resistance if his actions did not appeal to a broader sense of justice - or injustice?

Martin Luther King's peaceful resistance was considerably more successful than the more militant forces who would have resorted to violence to cause change in the US laws regarding racial equality.

The Arab Spring drew world-wide support to the peaceful efforts of citizens to stand up to tyranny. Peaceful resistance might need powerful support - or considerable patience - and courage. The Arab Spring would not have occurred if people had not been willing to risk their lives to demand change. More lives are at risk in Jordan, Yemen, Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc. The pressure of worldwide opinion is, however, weakening several of the totalitarian regimes. The peaceful resistance draws attention to the underlying issues.

Obviously, the transition in Libya was far from bloodless - and Libya is far from being free of bloodshed in attempting to establish order and unifying a government - but is is clear that international support will be at least partially dependent of the ability of the rebels to establish a non-oppressive regime.

The negative public reaction to violence is playing out on our turf as well. The OWS was barely a blip on the radar until some cops got rougher than necessary. That drew attention to the movement - both negative and positive - but it did change the discussion about priorities in addressing the economic problems. At a minimum it re-energized a downtrodden and frustrated left.

As far as the rest of the public? Even those who haven't fallen in love with the protesters are voicing agreement with the message.

The proven success of non-violent movements seems to reinforce the author's conclusion that we live in a kinder gentler world.

Regards,

D-Ray

I'd argue the expansion of industry and capitalism has done much more to flatten the difference amongst people than the words, very good words, of protest leaders or the argument that today people are simply smarter; ergo, less likely to partake in violence. Pinker's assertion of the differences in IQs over time is not convincing. I thought these IQ tests had been discredited years ago. The tests are not even a good indicator for comparison between contemporaries, let alone, trying to make comparisons over different time periods and different cultures. Psychologists, like Steven Pinker, have a penchant for creating correlations that may or may not be significant. I'll need to read the Nature article which I should have here shortly.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Great post D. However our peace is enforced at the point of a gun.

OWS, they're crude and vulgar in many ways. King was a gentleman.

Pete

Some in the OWS are crude and vulgar - others are logically discussing problems with the economic system. I guess I didn't mention the anti-war movement. It succeeded in bringing the war issues to the forefront without all of the members being model citizens. The films I have seen of the King marches did show some well-behaved protesters. I would suspect that much of the pristine behavior was motivated by fear. There were a number of people observing the Civil Rights marches looking for any excuse to mow some people down - and some who did without any excuse.

Another perspective on the image of the OWS protesters:





Regards,

D-Ray