3 ms·
> Why compare it to 'perpetual' violence? I don't see a basis for that in historical data or arising out of first principles. Most of human history has been a
by darawk 9y ago
> Why compare it to 'perpetual' violence? I don't see a basis for that in historical data or arising out of first principles.
Most of human history has been a state of relatively perpetual violent conflict. Compared to that, modern times are certainly more 'peaceful'. As you rightly point out, that peace may come through state domination, which we may qualitatively assess as good or bad (or perhaps more appropriately, 'worth it' or 'not worth it'). But in general, I think justice is dispensed more fairly than it ever has been at any time in history. People are more fairly represented by their governments. There's less violence, and generally speaking less suffering. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that feudal pre-democratic societies offered better lives to their citizens than modern first world democracies. I certainly wouldn't trade places with them.
- ABCLAW 9y ago>Most of human history has been a state of relatively perpetual violent conflict. No it hasn't. Even the worst figured in Pinker's own cherry picked data show that's the case. Next, even if we jump fully onto the Hobbesian boat, conflict resolution and alignment is literally the raison d'etre of the state. Finally, we can compare judicial effectiveness (albeit somewhat crudely) across societies (and within differential groups/industries )and the delta between them doesn't lead us from 'everlasting peace' to 'perpetual violence' either.
- darawk 9y agoI'm not sure what point you're making. Calling something 'perpetual violence' is fairly relative, I suppose. So we could quibble about that. But the point that society is substantially less violent than it was seems pretty clearly true. I don't really understand what point you're trying to make about judicial effectiveness either.