yea, people always talk about how violent they are. but thats why they are still around. all the friendly people explorers onto the island and once they left, came back with guns and an army to take what they learned about.
Look around your community, or the world: Who is more likely to live a long time, the violent people or the cooperative ones? IME the violent people destroy themselves and others.
The most long-lived societies seem to be the ones that can suppress violence internally when at peace, but unleash it on a massive scale when attacked from the outside, thus deterring enemies from attempting to conquer them. Semi-isolated geographic location helps.
Both England and Japan seem to fit this description.
> The most long-lived societies seem to be the ones that can suppress violence internally when at peace, but unleash it on a massive scale when attacked from the outside,
That seems pretty fearful: the outside attacks, the inside's violence must be suppressed. Look at the country you live in (probably); internal and external violence is not something that must be suppressed; people are naturally at peace, and growing and building.
Violence is also extremely costly, on personal, community, national and international levels. It's not the natural state, as people like to imagine these days. It's at peace when we build things - and look how the world has prospered, unlike anything in human history, in the post-WWII peace.
"internal and external violence is not something that must be suppressed; people are naturally at peace"
That seems pretty optimistic. Most countries in the world have had very violent episodes in their past, indicating that chaotic or organized violence can erupt in any culture and that institutions like the police and prisons play a role in suppressing it.
I can believe that most people are naturally at peace, but a few per cent of the population are psychopaths who can spoil it for everyone else.
We have a live situation unfolding in front of our eyes in El Salvador: by imprisoning something like 1 per cent of the population, the previously hellish crime rate plunged precipitously.
I am also old enough to remember the nasty civil wars around the breakup of Yugoslavia. In the 1980s, Yugoslavia was quite a prosperous and peaceful nation, somewhat envied from the Soviet Bloc for its better living standard. In a relatively short time, it turned into a bloodbath.
> Most countries in the world have had very violent episodes in their past
Most countries were populated by hunter-gatherers for almost their entire histories. By these bizarre regressive arguments, we are doomed to be hunter-gatherers and it's 'pretty optimistic' to think otherwise.
We live in a modern world built by ancestors who believed and worked to do better, with astounding success. You couldn't have more evidence or more benefit of it. Here you are, literate, educated, speaking freely, with the leisure, wealth, peace, and technology to post on HN. That's how you and the advanced world has lived for generations, and it's spread: to Eastern Europe, to parts of east Asia, and other parts of the world have benefitted enormously - parts of Latin America, Indonesia, etc etc.
What losers we are if we quit simply because someone told us, contrary to everything we see, that it's impossible, and we left the field of battle to bad people (who are probably spreading this nonsense - who else benefits?).
> In the 1980s, Yugoslavia was quite a prosperous and peaceful nation
It was a Communist dictatorship, just not part of the Soviet bloc.
> by imprisoning something like 1 per cent of the population, the previously hellish crime rate plunged precipitously.
By the government committing crimes against its people, they have pushed out other criminals. The story of dictators is the same every time. Free societies are more peaceful, prosperous, and most importantly, free. You can see it everywhere in the US, Europe, east Asia, etc. etc.
I don't think it is that simple. If people yearned for freedom and peace intrinsically, dictators would have much harder time to rule their populations and initiate wars.
And I don't find anything bizarre about arguing from the past. Yes, the level of technology has changed, but human nature has not. Reading philosophers from Antiquity, I am always struck by the extreme psychological similarity of ancient people to us, even though they didn't even know what "reading glasses" was.
I would even turn your argument about hunter-gatherers to my purpose. Yes, we carry a burden of being hunter-gatherers for 99 per cent of human existence. It makes organizing larger units so much harder. By trial and error, after some 5000 years of statefulness, we have found some forms that don't entirely suck, but still suck quite a lot.
That's blatantly incorrect - mainly because of the use of the world "people."
While the vast majority of humanity is peaceful, a substantial minority of people are naturally inclined towards violence. That element exists in every population, and the exact percentage seems to change depending on the culture, area, etc.
One goal of civilization is to suppress and/or redirect those people's behaviors. In fact, you could probably argue that civilization is the continuing attempt to handle that segment of humanity. If you look at "the old days" you'd see a surprising amount of low-level violence directed towards pretty much everyone.
Occasionally that segment of the population takes over and you get a warrior culture.
Occasionally that segment takes over and you have a riot/uprising/rebellion.
Normally civilizations try to control them via police, or conflict, or sports. One problem in civilization is balancing the need for those people without having those people take over (a major continuing problem what used to be called the Third World).
> a substantial minority of people are naturally inclined towards violence.
What is that based on? Many other models could explain violence, and that particular explanation is used to justify all sorts of brutality and oppression (ironically, people seek to use those things against another person who they claim is 'naturally violent').
Certainly protest is a result of political oppression, as it has long been recognized in many cultures and especially in democracy. The idea that it is just a tendancy toward violence is just rhetoric to justify more oppression and disregard the protestor's interests.
