Violence and the growth of peacefulness

There's a few contemporary myths biting the dust if Stephen Pinker is right. And he may well be.

Pinker tells us, “Our ancestors were far more violent than we are.” We’re probably living in the most peaceful time of our species’s existence, a statement that seems almost obscene in light of Darfur and Iraq.

The decline of violence, he tells us, is a fractal phenomenon - we see it over the centuries, the decades and the years. That said, we see a tipping point in the 16th century - the age of reason - particularly in England and Holland.

Until 10,000 years ago, all humans were hunter gatherers. This is the group that some believe lived in primordial harmony - there’s no evidence of this. Studying current hunter-gatherer tribes, the percent of male adults who die in violence is extraordinary - from 20 to 60% of all males. Even during the violent 20th century, with two world wars, less than 2% of males worldwide died in warfare.

The interesting thing biblically is that the spread of sin in Genesis is accompanied by a rise in violence. And violence is clearly a major underlying issue in the older testament more generally.

It all prompts a further consideration, viz.

why is violence becoming less common? He offers four explanations:

1) ... In anarchy, there’s a temptation towards preemptive violence, hurting the other guy before he hurts you. But with the rise ... the State - there’s a monopoly on violence. ...
2) In the past, we had a widespread sentiment that life was cheap. As we’ve gotten better at prolonging life, we take life more seriously and are more reluctant to take life.
3) We’re seeing more non-zero sum games, as people discover forms of cooperation that can benefit both parties, like trade and shared peace dividends. These zero-sum games come with technology, because it allows us to trade with more people. ...
4) ... By default, we empathize with a small group of people, our friends and family. Everyone else is subhuman. But over time, we’ve seen this circle expand, from village to clan to tribe to nation to other races, both sexes and eventually other species. ...

I think I would add that we should not discount the 'leaven in the lump' and the salt and light effects. With the rise of religions that promote the 'sanctity of life', and their secular derivatives, cultures of violence are challenged and the peace dividend can be seen and potentially shared. Justice, therefore is part of the picture as well as the expansion of the notion of who is our neighbour.
A further interesting reflection is to be had, however, by comparing the levels of violence among our nearest genetic relatives, chimpanzees. Chimps, I gather, would be unable to live in cities because the levels of routine violence among them would threaten the infrastructure requiring co-operation. Maybe it's not only the state's nationalising of violence but the necessities of co-operation and neoteny?

Theologically, I think we have to take the idea of corporate humanity more seriously if we are to take on board this kind of debate. But that's my pet project and I won't bore you with it now.


Technorati Tags: violence, history, fall