Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Over all, this is a less brutal age. But we now have newly -forged varieties of violence.

How long is this "age"? Since Vietnam? Or Korea? Or WW2? How sure are we that we have detected a permanent trend?

In human history, there is a steady correlation between increased technological means for war and violence, on the one hand, and an exponential increase in the number of maimed and dead. The sword has killed many more than the club, but gunpowder far, far more than both. And the last century was by far the bloodiest in all of human history.

So has our technology increased in regard to our ability to do violence, or are we less able to do violence than we were in the 20th Century? I suggest we have capability to build things the last century never dreamed of...missiles with warheads many times the power of previous ones, drones, robotic tanks, new disease agents, and so on. We haven't used most of these new weapons yet....

What's the reason for your confidence that we won't? It seems to me that the new war technologies only exist because of the prospect they will be used. Why haven't we "beaten all our swords into plowshares," if the age of permanent peace and happiness is now upon us?

Or are we only experiencing a brief calm before the real storm?

To be on topic read the OP and the following posts related to Steven Pinker's book.

[Belinda]

Over all, this is a less brutal age. But we now have newly -forged varieties of violence.

True there are different forms of evil and violence, but the basic consequences their pain and sufferings to all human is the same [physiologically and psychologically] within human nature.
E.g. there would be no great difference in the intensity of pains suffered by a person burned on the stake 10,000, 2000 years ago in comparison to a modern man suffering the same torture.

But note the book mentioned [..I agree..] that it is instinctual for humans that the current evil, violence and the pains and feelings toward them is always greater than the past experiences. This has survival values.
However if we are to talk about trends and comparisons we need the relevant data for all the times concerned.

Violence now mostly goes on as roadkill,i.e. 'collateral damage' , an epiphenomenon of the military industrial complex.

Policemen who are personally brutal are brought to justice when their actions are made public. However I suspect some police forces are institutionally racist. If policemen are properly trained professionals only a very few criminal psychopaths will be personally brutal. Racism is a form of violence that sometimes causes personal brutality.

[Immanuel Can]

To be on topic read the OP and the following posts related to Steven Pinker's book.

I know Pinker. But we're here to discuss his ideas, not merely to bow at the shrine of his name.

What gives you, or Pinker, any certainty that the first part of the 21st Century is not merely a hiatus a setup for WWIII, or something worse? What's your justification for thinking that human beings have "evolved" so far in the last 30 years or so that they are no longer capable of the violence, intrigue or murder that they were obviously capable of throughout the 20th Century?

[FrankGSterleJr]

Remove the greatest difference among humans—race/color—and left are less obvious differences over which to clash, such as sub-racial identity (i.e. ethnicity), nationality, religion and so forth down that scale we tumble.

(Add, say, a contemporary deadly disease to the ugly equation for a really hateful fire.)

Therefore, what humankind may need to suffer in order to survive the long term—indeed from ourselves!—is an even greater nemesis (perhaps a multi-tentacled ET?) than our own politics of difference, against which we could all unite, attack and defeat—all during which we’d be forced to work closely side-by-side together and witness just how humanly similar we are to each other.

Albeit no Stanley Milgram, I believe that if the U.S. and Canada were to hypothetically revert back to a primarily-white populace, if not some VDARE whites-only utopia, the stereotypically thick Slavic-accented Eastern Europeans would inevitably again become the main target of the dominant Euro-Canadian/-American ethnicity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Over all, this is a less brutal age. But we now have newly -forged varieties of violence.

True there are different forms of evil and violence, but the basic consequences their pain and sufferings to all human is the same [physiologically and psychologically] within human nature.
E.g. there would be no great difference in the intensity of pains suffered by a person burned on the stake 10,000, 2000 years ago in comparison to a modern man suffering the same torture.

But note the book mentioned [..I agree..] that it is instinctual for humans that the current evil, violence and the pains and feelings toward them is always greater than the past experiences. This has survival values.
However if we are to talk about trends and comparisons we need the relevant data for all the times concerned.

Violence now mostly goes on as roadkill, i.e. 'collateral damage' , an epiphenomenon of the military industrial complex.

Policemen who are personally brutal are brought to justice when their actions are made public. However I suspect some police forces are institutionally racist. If policemen are properly trained professionals only a very few criminal psychopaths will be personally brutal. Racism is a form of violence that sometimes causes personal brutality.

ALL humans are programmed with the potential to be evil, violent, aggressive inherently with is directed to the 'other'. This is catalyze by the primal instinct of tribalism, i.e. 'us versus them' which was necessary for survival then.

Because this necessary 'tribalism' is deeply embedded in the DNA and brain, humanity cannot get rid [erase to recycle bin] of it.

Since the tribal days [>10,000 years ago] with progressive evolution of the human psyche, the tribalism instinct has been slowly inhibited.
This progress, i.e. the decreased in violence is reflect in Steven Pinker's thesis as above.
Steven Pinker merely claimed there is a reduction but not the potential to violence has been eliminated.

However the inhibition of evilness and violence is not effective for everyone.
A minority, Conservatively 20% of all humans do not have effective inhibitions and modulation over their inherent instinctive tribalistic instinct, thus they have an active evil and violent tendency.
It is from these 20% that we still have evil_ness and violence at present.
This is why we have evil and violent people in all aspects of human activities, organization and governments, thus the evident brutality, racism, and other evil acts by the few from the pool of a natural 20% of evil prone.

What must be noted is, the natural 20% of evil prone cannot be reduced immediately, not perhaps until >100 or 200 years until we have the right knowledge and ability to reduce the % of naturally born evil prone people.

So the point is, evilness and violence has relative decreased since the past >10,000 years ago to the present.
However, there is only a relative decrease [so we must ensure no complacency] but the potential to evil and violence is still existing within the 20% of naturally born evil prone humans. Their "relatively lesser" evil and violent deeds are so evident.

This is why Morality and Ethics [proper] is so critical at present and that it must be effectively organized so as to expedite a greater decrease in evilness and violence as soon as possible.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be on topic read the OP and the following posts related to Steven Pinker's book.

I know Pinker. But we're here to discuss his ideas, not merely to bow at the shrine of his name.

What gives you, or Pinker, any certainty that the first part of the 21st Century is not merely a hiatus a setup for WWIII, or something worse? What's your justification for thinking that human beings have "evolved" so far in the last 30 years or so that they are no longer capable of the violence, intrigue or murder that they were obviously capable of throughout the 20th Century?

What give you and your likes, that I had asserted WWIII is an impossibility given that violence had decreased in the present relative to the past >10,000 years.

Note I stated above,

• So the point is, evilness and violence has relatively decreased since the past >10,000 years ago to the present.
  However, there is only a relative decrease [so we must ensure no complacency] but the potential to evil and violence is still existing within the 20% of naturally born evil prone humans. Their "relatively lesser" evil and violent deeds are so evident.

So I did not assert humans at this point in time is no longer capable of violence. Thus my point;

• This is why Morality and Ethics [proper] is so critical at present and that it must be effectively organized so as to expedite a greater decrease in evilness and violence as soon as possible.

Theism has contributed but it is not effective for the future, thus we cannot rely on theistic precepts on human conduct based on the threats from a God [which is illusory]. Worst, there are theists whose God command believers to kill, suppressed and commit all sorts of evil and violence upon non-believers.

[Belinda]

True there are different forms of evil and violence, but the basic consequences their pain and sufferings to all human is the same [physiologically and psychologically] within human nature.
E.g. there would be no great difference in the intensity of pains suffered by a person burned on the stake 10,000, 2000 years ago in comparison to a modern man suffering the same torture.

But note the book mentioned [..I agree..] that it is instinctual for humans that the current evil, violence and the pains and feelings toward them is always greater than the past experiences. This has survival values.
However if we are to talk about trends and comparisons we need the relevant data for all the times concerned.

Violence now mostly goes on as roadkill, i.e. 'collateral damage' , an epiphenomenon of the military industrial complex.

Policemen who are personally brutal are brought to justice when their actions are made public. However I suspect some police forces are institutionally racist. If policemen are properly trained professionals only a very few criminal psychopaths will be personally brutal. Racism is a form of violence that sometimes causes personal brutality.

ALL humans are programmed with the potential to be evil, violent, aggressive inherently with is directed to the 'other'. This is catalyze by the primal instinct of tribalism, i.e. 'us versus them' which was necessary for survival then.

Because this necessary 'tribalism' is deeply embedded in the DNA and brain, humanity cannot get rid [erase to recycle bin] of it.

Since the tribal days [>10,000 years ago] with progressive evolution of the human psyche, the tribalism instinct has been slowly inhibited.
This progress, i.e. the decreased in violence is reflect in Steven Pinker's thesis as above.
Steven Pinker merely claimed there is a reduction but not the potential to violence has been eliminated.

However the inhibition of evilness and violence is not effective for everyone.
A minority, Conservatively 20% of all humans do not have effective inhibitions and modulation over their inherent instinctive tribalistic instinct, thus they have an active evil and violent tendency.
It is from these 20% that we still have evil_ness and violence at present.
This is why we have evil and violent people in all aspects of human activities, organization and governments, thus the evident brutality, racism, and other evil acts by the few from the pool of a natural 20% of evil prone.

What must be noted is, the natural 20% of evil prone cannot be reduced immediately, not perhaps until >100 or 200 years until we have the right knowledge and ability to reduce the % of naturally born evil prone people.

So the point is, evilness and violence has relative decreased since the past >10,000 years ago to the present.
However, there is only a relative decrease [so we must ensure no complacency] but the potential to evil and violence is still existing within the 20% of naturally born evil prone humans. Their "relatively lesser" evil and violent deeds are so evident.

This is why Morality and Ethics [proper] is so critical at present and that it must be effectively organized so as to expedite a greater decrease in evilness and violence as soon as possible.

I doubt if there is a gene for violence. There is a genetic source for fear, disgust, sexual attraction, and faces, and suchlike general motivations; thereafter general motivations are refined by learning during the lives of individuals. Genes don't learn.

[Immanuel Can]

To be on topic read the OP and the following posts related to Steven Pinker's book.

I know Pinker. But we're here to discuss his ideas, not merely to bow at the shrine of his name.

What gives you, or Pinker, any certainty that the first part of the 21st Century is not merely a hiatus a setup for WWIII, or something worse? What's your justification for thinking that human beings have "evolved" so far in the last 30 years or so that they are no longer capable of the violence, intrigue or murder that they were obviously capable of throughout the 20th Century?

What give you and your likes, that I had asserted WWIII is an impossibility...

I certainly never did this, nor have any of my "likes" ever been in doubt about the violence in the nature of mankind.

So I did not assert humans at this point in time is no longer capable of violence.

The OP implies humanity is becoming thus. Belinda optimistically assumes they are. But if you do not, we are not disagreeing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Violence now mostly goes on as roadkill, i.e. 'collateral damage' , an epiphenomenon of the military industrial complex.

Policemen who are personally brutal are brought to justice when their actions are made public. However I suspect some police forces are institutionally racist. If policemen are properly trained professionals only a very few criminal psychopaths will be personally brutal. Racism is a form of violence that sometimes causes personal brutality.

ALL humans are programmed with the potential to be evil, violent, aggressive inherently with is directed to the 'other'. This is catalyze by the primal instinct of tribalism, i.e. 'us versus them' which was necessary for survival then.

Because this necessary 'tribalism' is deeply embedded in the DNA and brain, humanity cannot get rid [erase to recycle bin] of it.

Since the tribal days [>10,000 years ago] with progressive evolution of the human psyche, the tribalism instinct has been slowly inhibited.
This progress, i.e. the decreased in violence is reflect in Steven Pinker's thesis as above.
Steven Pinker merely claimed there is a reduction but not the potential to violence has been eliminated.

However the inhibition of evilness and violence is not effective for everyone.
A minority, Conservatively 20% of all humans do not have effective inhibitions and modulation over their inherent instinctive tribalistic instinct, thus they have an active evil and violent tendency.
It is from these 20% that we still have evil_ness and violence at present.
This is why we have evil and violent people in all aspects of human activities, organization and governments, thus the evident brutality, racism, and other evil acts by the few from the pool of a natural 20% of evil prone.

What must be noted is, the natural 20% of evil prone cannot be reduced immediately, not perhaps until >100 or 200 years until we have the right knowledge and ability to reduce the % of naturally born evil prone people.

So the point is, evilness and violence has relative decreased since the past >10,000 years ago to the present.
However, there is only a relative decrease [so we must ensure no complacency] but the potential to evil and violence is still existing within the 20% of naturally born evil prone humans. Their "relatively lesser" evil and violent deeds are so evident.

This is why Morality and Ethics [proper] is so critical at present and that it must be effectively organized so as to expedite a greater decrease in evilness and violence as soon as possible.

I doubt if there is a gene for violence. There is a genetic source for fear, disgust, sexual attraction, and faces, and suchlike general motivations; thereafter general motivations are refined by learning during the lives of individuals. Genes don't learn.

You need to remove the above doubt by doing some research on the topic.

A new study identifies 40 genes related to aggressive behavior in humans and mice -2018
The origins of the violent behavior are multifactorial and respond to the interaction of several factors --biological, cultural, social, etc. -- which can modify the expression of the human behavior. Now, an international study has identified forty genes related to aggressive behavior in humans and mice.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101117.htm

Therefore aggression and violent elements are genetic and inherent in all humans but there are also inherent inhibitors [moral elements] to suppress those violent tendencies.

Whether individual turn out to be aggressive and violent in life is dependent on whether the inhibitors are not functioning properly at birth [born malignant psychopaths and the likes] or damaged in its nurturing environment and social circumstances.

Note, the generally constant feature of evolution is that whatever is adaptive is added and stacked on top of the old 'program' by either adding new inhibitor or new stimulator neurons. This is why all human beings still possessed some of the old programs from our ancestors 4 billion years ago.

If the new inhibitors and stimulators that made one a human-being is defective, then one become a wild animal that is naturally instinctively aggressive and violent. What is defective comes in degrees and at the very extreme we have mental cases, e.g. psychopaths [genocidal] and others are people with different degrees of evil and violent potentials to the other extremes of people committing petty crimes.

It is too late at the present to correct people who are born with neural defects that trigger them to be aggressive, evil and violent. Some may be counselled and the extreme ones has to be dealt medically and curtailed with the threat of imprisonment [which don't work effectively].

That is why when I discussed the subject of 'morality' the focus is always in the future [next 50, 100 or >150 years] such that humans are naturally [fool proof] born with the proper and working neural inhibitors and stimulators so they will manage their inherent evil and violent potentials efficiently.

[Belinda]

Over all, this is a less brutal age. But we now have newly -forged varieties of violence.

How long is this "age"? Since Vietnam? Or Korea? Or WW2? How sure are we that we have detected a permanent trend?

In human history, there is a steady correlation between increased technological means for war and violence, on the one hand, and an exponential increase in the number of maimed and dead. The sword has killed many more than the club, but gunpowder far, far more than both. And the last century was by far the bloodiest in all of human history.

So has our technology increased in regard to our ability to do violence, or are we less able to do violence than we were in the 20th Century? I suggest we have capability to build things the last century never dreamed of...missiles with warheads many times the power of previous ones, drones, robotic tanks, new disease agents, and so on. We haven't used most of these new weapons yet....

What's the reason for your confidence that we won't? It seems to me that the new war technologies only exist because of the prospect they will be used. Why haven't we "beaten all our swords into plowshares," if the age of permanent peace and happiness is now upon us?

Or are we only experiencing a brief calm before the real storm?

To be on topic read the OP and the following posts related to Steven Pinker's book.

Fear causes both anger and intimidation, sometimes in the same subject. Human personalities are much more various than the personalities of wild animals such as mice. Human responses are much more caused by learned beliefs than are the responses of wild animals which are mostly instinctive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A new study identifies 40 genes related to aggressive behavior in humans and mice -2018
The origins of the violent behavior are multifactorial and respond to the interaction of several factors --biological, cultural, social, etc. -- which can modify the expression of the human behavior. Now, an international study has identified forty genes related to aggressive behavior in humans and mice.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101117.htm

Fear causes both anger and intimidation, sometimes in the same subject. Human personalities are much more various than the personalities of wild animals such as mice. Human responses are much more caused by learned beliefs than are the responses of wild animals which are mostly instinctive.

Originally you claim you doubted there are genes for aggression and violence in man.
The above link indicate otherwise.

The above mentioned humans and mice.
You can just ignore the term 'mice' and the research finding is still applicable to humans.

Humans responses to learned-beliefs is a question or Nurture, but what is critical is the foundation, i.e. the Nature elements.
Thus it is critical humanity understand both the nature and nurture elements that has contributed to the decrease in violence to enable humanity to expedite the decrease and ensure there is no relapse.

[Belinda]

Fear causes both anger and intimidation, sometimes in the same subject. Human personalities are much more various than the personalities of wild animals such as mice. Human responses are much more caused by learned beliefs than are the responses of wild animals which are mostly instinctive.

Originally you claim you doubted there are genes for aggression and violence in man.
The above link indicate otherwise.

The above mentioned humans and mice.
You can just ignore the term 'mice' and the research finding is still applicable to humans.

Humans responses to learned-beliefs is a question or Nurture, but what is critical is the foundation, i.e. the Nature elements.
Thus it is critical humanity understand both the nature and nurture elements that has contributed to the decrease in violence to enable humanity to expedite the decrease and ensure there is no relapse.

Yes, but it is even more important we understand the nurture elements because we can change culture whereas we cannot change our genes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fear causes both anger and intimidation, sometimes in the same subject. Human personalities are much more various than the personalities of wild animals such as mice. Human responses are much more caused by learned beliefs than are the responses of wild animals which are mostly instinctive.

Originally you claim you doubted there are genes for aggression and violence in man.
The above link indicate otherwise.

The above mentioned humans and mice.
You can just ignore the term 'mice' and the research finding is still applicable to humans.

Humans responses to learned-beliefs is a question or Nurture, but what is critical is the foundation, i.e. the Nature elements.
Thus it is critical humanity understand both the nature and nurture elements that has contributed to the decrease in violence to enable humanity to expedite the decrease and ensure there is no relapse.

Yes, but it is even more important we understand the nurture elements because we can change culture whereas we cannot change our genes.

I believe the 'nature' elements are more critical because they are foundational, i.e. the substance for which the forms [nurture] are built upon.
Note the common saying,
it is better to put out the fire at its source than fire-fighting or
it is better to pull out to weeds from its root rather than cutting the weeds.

[Belinda]

Originally you claim you doubted there are genes for aggression and violence in man.
The above link indicate otherwise.

The above mentioned humans and mice.
You can just ignore the term 'mice' and the research finding is still applicable to humans.

Humans responses to learned-beliefs is a question or Nurture, but what is critical is the foundation, i.e. the Nature elements.
Thus it is critical humanity understand both the nature and nurture elements that has contributed to the decrease in violence to enable humanity to expedite the decrease and ensure there is no relapse.

Yes, but it is even more important we understand the nurture elements because we can change culture whereas we cannot change our genes.

I believe the 'nature' elements are more critical because they are foundational, i.e. the substance for which the forms [nurture] are built upon.
Note the common saying,
it is better to put out the fire at its source than fire-fighting or
it is better to pull out to weeds from its root rather than cutting the weeds.

Would this not necessitate eugenics?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, but it is even more important we understand the nurture elements because we can change culture whereas we cannot change our genes.

I believe the 'nature' elements are more critical because they are foundational, i.e. the substance for which the forms [nurture] are built upon.
Note the common saying,
it is better to put out the fire at its source than fire-fighting or
it is better to pull out to weeds from its root rather than cutting the weeds.

Would this not necessitate eugenics?

My main point above is that we should focus on understanding the 'nature' elements of human beings so that nurturing can be more effective to ensure the well being of the individuals and therefrom the well-being of humanity.

The fundamental nature a human being is the Genome which is very complex. Even though we have accomplished the once-thought-impossible-task of mapping the full human genome, humanity at present merely dealing with a small tip of the iceberg of genetics.

The other fundamental nature element of a human being is the brain with its on average 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses. Humanity is a present embarking to map the whole human brain to understand its full neural connectivities to their respective effects and behaviors.

Thus my point is humanity must first focus on the above nature [the roots] to avoid blind actions based on the black-box approach. At the same time we have to do our best in improving the nurturing elements to deal with evil and violent acts.

Where we need to efficiently improve and reduce the states of evil and violent acts, there will be need to deal within the levels of the genes and the neural wirings. This will involve 'eugenics' but it is with genuine moral and good intents, not with blind and evil eugenics that had happened in the past, e.g. the blind superficial eugenics of Plato, Galton, forced sterilizations, Hitler, Josef Mengele, etc. see https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics#

Currently what we have is modern eugenics or modern human genetic engineering, something like;

Modern eugenics, better known as human genetic engineering, changes or removes genes to prevent disease, cure disease or improve your body in some significant way. The potential health benefits of human gene therapy are staggering since many devastating or life-threatening illnesses could be cured.

However my point is towards the improvements in moral competency via human genetic engineering and other methods in the FUTURE which must be FOOLPROOF -note the term "FOOLPROOF" which is critical to ensure there are no 'evil' consequences out of what is intended to be thoroughly good.

To improve moral competence in all humans, I would prefer not to use the term 'eugenics' because the term 'eugenics' is corrupted, stained and stuck with its history of terrible evil acts and intents.

Note, my current priority is to understand the human NATURE aspects thoroughly rather than acting on Nurture blindly in a 'black-box' approach.