I feel that the truth isn't actually on that spectrum at all. The Human drive to solve conflicts with more conflicts is probably traceable to our evolution. So

I feel that the truth isn't actually on that spectrum at all. The Human drive to solve conflicts with more conflicts is probably traceable to our evolution. Society has moved much faster than the standard genetic evolutionary feedback loops can deal with. Unfortunately, this leaves us with situation that people who "follow their instincts" are likely to behave more like chimpanzees than the "ideal human". Violence leads to the desire to achieve retribution. Those who achieve retribution almost invariably do so through more violence. Catch 22. Logically, this can be solved in two ways (hopefully there are others, but I can't identify them). Firstly, the majority (of the world population) recognizes this and agrees to stop violent solutions to problems in favor of mediation and rehabilitation (education, isolation etc.) of those who refuse to to "play by the new rules". This is unlikely to happen. Secondly, one side decides to do the Gandhi approach of non-violent civil disobedience, refuses to be part of the violent retribution, and lets the situation unfold. This also, is unlikely to happen. Humans have the ability to solve conflicts in many ways. We can compete in games of mental skill (Chess or Go), we can compete in games of physical prowess (Soccer or arm-wrestling), but I've yet to see a real attempt to compete in terms of compassion and understanding. Until we can debate our differences, decide and agree on who has the best solution for the species as a whole, then we're bound to keep repeating the mistakes of history. Mainly due to looking for the solution in the wrong place.