Ask Lemmy

A good point, but I personally see it like this: a small percent of humans created weapons of extreme destruction, then the small percent of humans with access to them still did not kill as many as they did back then. The faceless violence sucks, but weapons development was set to outpace peace development before every living human was born. Pretty soon everyone with access to those weapons will have simply inherited it, making them more capable of war but not more warlike.

Your graphic doesn't go past 2011.

Ok you probably won't hear this from an AI bot trained to repeat the ideology of the ruling class that this book tries to justify (and for which it gets praised in mainstream media, which I imagine make up most the training data).

But in reality lots of professional historians have argued this is a very bad book from a historical/scientific perspective. The research is not actually best described as "meticulous".

And from a moral perspective, pinker does not see deaths from engineered starvation/malnutrition and displacement (for a more modern equivalent see also the so called "deaths of despair") as "violent" because they don't fall into the war/criminality criteria he sets for himself.

For a compilation of critiques from historans see for example the book "the darker angels of our nature" (link to a review) https://www.counterfire.org/article/the-darker-angels-of-our-nature-refuting-the-pinker-theory-of-history-and-violence-book-review/

Your answer here is the best one so far for me. Are chimpanzees some of those frequently raiding other groups (tribes) ?

Better education will always be a major part of the solution ... but i don't think education alone will be sufficient to make us good.

Like 99% of people you will (probably) disagree with me on the following, but eventually (in 50 years ?), i believe that many people will volunteer to have genetic therapy to decrease their aggressivity and that of their descendants.

We have to change in a fundamental way since we are still waging wars while climate change will likely kill a majority of us in the next few decades.

It's really not necessary to shame someone who is willing to learn.

Sources i give in the body of my post indicate an evolution of the knowledge since the BBC series of 1973 and also that even today archaeologist // historian disagree on this topic.

... if only I could find that source again ...
i believe they were explaining that there was an archaeological discovery where there was a village not so far away from the shore where they discoved huge piles of shells that showed that, for a very long time, there was a settlement connected to an other settlement near the shore and that for many thousands of years, there would have been people to stay near the shore bringing those shells to be eaten by people at the higher settlement further up, away from the cost and it was a proof (an example) of a stable settlement for tens of thousands of years so demonstating that, at the time, there was no war ...

i believe they were also saying (and this we now know it isn't true) that war was invented sometimes like 10,000 years ago, and mostly at the same time in many parts of the world. (Jericho's fortifications being the first example of large war)

i am quite sure it's not something I have invented because on some topics I have a good memory.