Are humans less prone to violence now then in the past, and why?

[Reluctant Republican]

Really bad title, but I have a point I’m trying to make here and could not think of a better way to phrase it.

Anyway, about a year ago I read some of the old slave narratives, where the slaves basically wrote about what they went through. And you know, reading about how they were constantly beaten by not only the men but also the women and children got me to thinking about us as a species. I started to wonder if we by are nature need violence as a stimulant, and I believe we do.

Let me be clear, I think looking at the world today, we here at least in the first world are not quite as brutal as our ancestors were 200 years ago. But look at the kind of entertainment we as a culture devour. We love violent movies and video games, and I think we’ve seen a shift from actually committing the violence ourselves to living in a society that thrives on it and causes it to passively absorb it ourselves. In other words, what I’m getting at is that our ancestors did not have as much in the ways of violent media and they were a lot more violent then ourselves. So I’ve come to the conclusion that if we actually banned violent media we’d see a surge in actual violent crime due to many people needed a “fix” of it. So what I’m really wondering is, do you all generally agree we’re less violent then our ancestors, and if so, do you think this has anything to do with us possessing more artificial violent outlets that let us get our homicidal urges out of our system without us needing to actually hurt anyone.


[Forgive me if I make no sense there. Hopefully you all get what I mean though.]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That would be a "no", btw.

[John Dibble]

No. We're just as prone to violence now as we were before. Human nature hasn't changed, though the conditions in which we live have. Certainly you might argue that first world countries have less violence than they had historically, but this is because humans don't generally feel the need for violence when they are at least moderately comfortable. Take away all our creature comforts and ready access to food and violence will increase. Still, even with our comfortable existences there are times when we become violent.

[Reluctant Republican]

Point taken, Solidarity and one I failed to consider. However, not to downplay the significance of the atrocities committed during WW2, I do not think we had quite the same level of violence displayed by the media during that time, and it was at least not as widespread in our culture as it is now. My theory here is that all the violence we are able to witness today on TV, in films, and in video games acts as a “release” from man’s natural urge to kill. I mean. today people would be sickened if a cat was tortured and killed, but even 100 years ago we were doing this to our fellow humans, so why the sudden shift and disdain for violence in the first world? Although as you point out, that urge to violence could still be present in us, I suppose. Maybe nowadays it is just directed at foreigners, such as the middle easterners rather then any particular minority in one‘s own country.

And that's a rather bleak view of humanity Dibble, though one I put some stock in myself. Look at what happened in New Orleans when everything went to hell, for instance. Okay, thanks everyone, You've both convinced me, more or less. Though I still think these outlets we have at least make us a tiny bit less violent in our everyday lives.

[JSojourner]

Societally, we are making minor progress.  But it's not appreciable.  And at the individual level, it's as bad as ever.  I do a news story every single day about a child or an elderly person being murdered, brutally beaten or severely neglected.

Usually by random punks or thugs or the mother's boyfriend. 

[John Dibble]

However, not to downplay the significance of the atrocities committed during WW2, I do not think we had quite the same level of violence displayed by the media during that time, and it was at least not as widespread in our culture as it is now. My theory here is that all the violence we are able to witness today on TV, in films, and in video games acts as a “release” from man’s natural urge to kill.

You believe in cathartic release basically? I think science is still out on that one. For instance, some studies show that violent video games might increase aggression slightly after they are played, but there's no link to actual increased violence. However, I do think that they provide nice distractions - if you're watching TV or playing a video game, you have less opportunity to commit violence.

As far as the Holocaust goes, that's the result of the squalid economic conditions that Germany went under when the Allies insisted on reparations. The Nazis took advantage of the people's desperation, and since at the start striking at the Allies was impossible they used the Jews as a scapegoat for the people to vent their pent up frustrations on. After that it was only a matter of keeping the people angry enough at the Jews and the Allies and we got WWII and the Holocaust.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's been no sudden shift to disliking violence. Most people don't start off liking blood and gore. It's just in violent times people become desensitized. A soldier doesn't hesitate to kill his enemy if he's killed a hundred other enemies, but someone who's never killed another person is much more likely to falter. Yeah, we don't like seeing animals killed, but a guy who has worked at a slaughterhouse for twenty years won't bat an eye when he has to kill a cow. It's similar with war and killing people.

As far as who it's directed towards, historically it's always been directed at "foreign" people - people prefer to hang around people similar to themselves, be it people of the same religion, country, ideology, skin color, economic class, etc. They see more of themselves in similar people, and conversely less in people who differ. The more you see in common with someone, the more you empathize with them, making violence towards them more difficult. That's why sociopaths have no problem with killing people - they don't have empathy.

[The Mikado]

The stakes are much higher.  In the post-1945 era, Great Power Wars would end up depopulating the planet.  Plus, within our own society, there is no longer a group who it is "safe" to persecute/victimize.  As recently as the thirties, lynching was an easy thing to get away with.  After the war, lynching, though still prevalent in the South, was much harder to rationalize and successfully accomplish (Emmett Till being the ultimate example: that wouldn't have even been news in 1925, but it was an international firestorm in 1955).  It's very hard to beat and kill someone and "get away with it" in 21st century America (yes, I'm aware of the domestic violence epidemic, but the fact that more and more of those assholes get what they deserve is a major change).

So yes, in 1808 you could beat, rape, and kill slaves with impunity, murder and steal from Natives, duel at will, and come home and thrash the old lady, and you couldn't do that today.  And in that period, you could (like l'Empereur Napoleon I) declare simultaneous war on four major European powers and fight them all pretty much constantly for 23 years.  (With substitutions and a series of shifting coalitions), another thing one couldn't do today.

[minionofmidas]

On average and in longterm trends, demonstrably yes.

[Aizen]

No. We're just as prone to violence now as we were before. Human nature hasn't changed, though the conditions in which we live have. Certainly you might argue that first world countries have less violence than they had historically, but this is because humans don't generally feel the need for violence when they are at least moderately comfortable. Take away all our creature comforts and ready access to food and violence will increase. Still, even with our comfortable existences there are times when we become violent.

I pretty much completely agree with this.