Violence and civilisation

[Audley Strange]

You cannot have civilisation without violence. For to be civilised means to behave in a way that is considered civilised. To create such a situation one must use violence, discipline and punitive measures against people who do not adhere to the rules of such a group in order to create a cohesive civil structure in the first place.

Unless they use... the comfy chair!!!!

Cardinal Fang actually told me they found that it was ineffective and have moved on to such modern torture techniques as memory foam mattresses and jacuzzis.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You cannot have civilisation without violence. For to be civilised means to behave in a way that is considered civilised. To create such a situation one must use violence, discipline and punitive measures against people who do not adhere to the rules of such a group in order to create a cohesive civil structure in the first place.

Unless they use... the comfy chair!!!!

Cardinal Fang actually told me they found that it was ineffective and have moved on to such modern torture techniques as memory foam mattresses and jacuzzis.

Fiends!

[rainbow]

Tribal peoples have terribly violent societies, with a murder rate of 500 killings per 100,000 people per year, or more.

I'd like to know how Pinker comes up with this number. It certainly may be true of some tribal societies, but not all or most.

Of course, we don't consider eating anthropologists to be an act of violence, but one of mercy.

[JimC]

You cannot have civilisation without violence. For to be civilised means to behave in a way that is considered civilised. To create such a situation one must use violence, discipline and punitive measures against people who do not adhere to the rules of such a group in order to create a cohesive civil structure in the first place.

Yes, but the end result is significantly less violence overall.

[Tyrannical]

3. My contention was, and I quote, "What unites us is our shared humanity and it is massively bigger than anything that divides us."

That's just a fluff statement, you can't quantify some shared humanity characteristic in relation to unifying or dividing. The fact that most conflict is ethnic, even when religion is involved should hint to you that we are not united by some shared humanity. Some of these group differences are substantial enough to preclude unity, such as six times more likely to commit a violent crime or five times more likely to be mentally retarded are huge differences. Some of these groups seem absolutely incapable of self ruling themselves in a civilized manner as they fail at it in every case. However I do believe an aggressive eugenics approach could eventually solve this.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

3. My contention was, and I quote, "What unites us is our shared humanity and it is massively bigger than anything that divides us."

That's just a fluff statement, you can't quantify some shared humanity characteristic in relation to unifying or dividing. The fact that most conflict is ethnic, even when religion is involved should hint to you that we are not united by some shared humanity. Some of these group differences are substantial enough to preclude unity, such as six times more likely to commit a violent crime or five times more likely to be mentally retarded are huge differences. Some of these groups seem absolutely incapable of self ruling themselves in a civilized manner as they fail at it in every case. However I do believe an aggressive eugenics approach could eventually solve this.

Wow. What a lot of unsupported claims in one post!

"most conflict is ethnic"
"Some of these group differences are substantial enough to preclude unity"
"six times more likely to commit a violent crime"
"five times more likely to be mentally retarded"

I would love to see the independent, peer-reviewed papers that support this bollocks - sadly though, I expect it is either purely ex recto or from some racist group-wank pamphlet!

[rainbow]

However I do believe an aggressive eugenics approach could eventually solve this.

If your parents had been part of such a programme, perhaps.

[Pappa]

Does Pinker provide a source for his statistics on tribal peoples? The phrase "tribal peoples" is an extremely broad brush.

[Rum]

By the definition suggested in the OP some of the more 'civilized' countries would include Sweden, Norway and of course Japan. Japan, for centuries highly conformist and ordered but at times externally very aggressive.

..after which I googled 'least violent countries'. There is a so called peace index available here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

[Pappa]

By the definition suggested in the OP some of the more 'civilized' countries would include Sweden, Norway and of course Japan. Japan, for centuries highly conformist and ordered but at times externally very aggressive.

..after which I googled 'least violent countries'. There is a so called peace index available here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

Yeah, well, Blind Groper has consistently used his own (incorrect) definition of the word "civilisation".

[Tyrannical]

Wow. What a lot of unsupported claims in one post!

"most conflict is ethnic"
"Some of these group differences are substantial enough to preclude unity"
"six times more likely to commit a violent crime"
"five times more likely to be mentally retarded"

I would love to see the independent, peer-reviewed papers that support this bollocks - sadly though, I expect it is either purely ex recto or from some racist group-wank pamphlet!

Well Xamonas, I am here to educate, though learning does require an open mind I sometimes wonder if you are trolling me by feigning ignorance or if you really are that ignorant on the subjects. There is such a thing as being knowledgeable but disagreeing instead of pretending that you don't believe the source exists.

Do you honestly believe that most conflict is not ethnic in origin? Until recently war by definition was assumed to mean between ethnic groups. Civil war may be class or politically based, but is also often ethnic based also.

The term "ethnicity" as it is used today arose in the mid 20th century, replacing the terminology of "races" or "nations" used for the concept in the 19th century. Regular warfare was formerly conceived as conflicts between nations, and only with the rise of multi-ethnic societies and the shift to asymmetric warfare did the concept of "ethnic conflict" arise as separate from generic "war".

Some of these group differences are substantial enough to preclude unity. I suppose the vulgar term for it is white flight in the West, and demographic data over time paints an obvious picture. In blackest Africa where rainbow works, the countries there aren't exactly success stories. And they would be even worse off without Western aid or business ventures. To put it kindly.

Six times more likely to commit a violent crime might be an under estimate. The US has government records of crimes committed by race or you could compare crime rates in black African countries to crime rates in white countries committed by whites. You just believe that the cause for the discrepancies is environmental and not genetic. The same could be said for IQ.
All US students at one time took IQ tests, and a score of below 85 was considered mentally retarded back in the 70's. But with 85 the average American black IQ, that classified half of the black population as mentally retarded. They sued and forced psychologists to lower the threshold for retardation to an IQ of 70. But what ever the threshold, blacks outnumber whites vastly by percentage in mental retardation. You can again argue environment versus genetics of course.

[Blind groper]

On the difference between different peoples.

If we look at this genetically, the research has already been done, and there is an average difference of 0.1% across all individuals and all peoples. Of course, it may be more or less in individual cases, since this is an overall average.

Since 0.1% is rather tiny, I am inclined to the belief that most behavioural differences between different peoples is due to culture. Culture based behaviours can pass down many generations before it disappears.

African Americans, and New Zealand Maori both have much higher rates of violent crime than their white neighbours. Both groups are descended from peoples who were very tribal and very violent. I interpret this as being cultural behaviours passed on down to this day.
In the case of Maori, this is rather obvious, since their genetic difference to whites is minimal after massive intermarriage.

On Pinkers numbers.

The number 500 killings per 100,000 people per year, in tribal societies, is more or less a minimum. Some societies run much higher than that. Pinker's book has a very extensive bibliography showing the anthropological and archaeological papers from which these numbers are derived. It is not a single reference, but dozens.

[klr]

Tribal peoples have terribly violent societies, with a murder rate of 500 killings per 100,000 people per year, or more. Modern societies are far less violent

Which is why it is essential to keep tribal peoples out of our modern society.

I agree that tribalism is the problem. However, I would class racists and other similar, narrow-minded insular thinkers as being tribal elements within modern societies - every bit as much as immigrants that refuse to adopt the mores of their adopted country. When you divide society into "us" and "them", you join a tribe.

Indeed. Tribal violence in "primitive" societies is just proof that this happens on the small as well as the big scale.

I've read "Better Angels ..." as well - excellent book. Jared Diamond's latest book - "The World Until Yesterday" - is also worth reading.

[Azathoth]

Tribal violence is also a catalyst. Creating bigger and better weapons of war gives science massive boosts. More than any other factor

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[pErvinalia]

Wow. What a lot of unsupported claims in one post!

"most conflict is ethnic"
"Some of these group differences are substantial enough to preclude unity"
"six times more likely to commit a violent crime"
"five times more likely to be mentally retarded"

I would love to see the independent, peer-reviewed papers that support this bollocks - sadly though, I expect it is either purely ex recto or from some racist group-wank pamphlet!

Well Xamonas, I am here to educate, though learning does require an open mind I sometimes wonder if you are trolling me by feigning ignorance or if you really are that ignorant on the subjects. There is such a thing as being knowledgeable but disagreeing instead of pretending that you don't believe the source exists.

Do you honestly believe that most conflict is not ethnic in origin? Until recently war by definition was assumed to mean between ethnic groups. Civil war may be class or politically based, but is also often ethnic based also.

The term "ethnicity" as it is used today arose in the mid 20th century, replacing the terminology of "races" or "nations" used for the concept in the 19th century. Regular warfare was formerly conceived as conflicts between nations, and only with the rise of multi-ethnic societies and the shift to asymmetric warfare did the concept of "ethnic conflict" arise as separate from generic "war".

Some of these group differences are substantial enough to preclude unity. I suppose the vulgar term for it is white flight in the West, and demographic data over time paints an obvious picture. In blackest Africa where rainbow works, the countries there aren't exactly success stories. And they would be even worse off without Western aid or business ventures. To put it kindly.

Six times more likely to commit a violent crime might be an under estimate. The US has government records of crimes committed by race or you could compare crime rates in black African countries to crime rates in white countries committed by whites. You just believe that the cause for the discrepancies is environmental and not genetic. The same could be said for IQ.
All US students at one time took IQ tests, and a score of below 85 was considered mentally retarded back in the 70's. But with 85 the average American black IQ, that classified half of the black population as mentally retarded. They sued and forced psychologists to lower the threshold for retardation to an IQ of 70. But what ever the threshold, blacks outnumber whites vastly by percentage in mental retardation. You can again argue environment versus genetics of course.

The real requirement is for you to argue genetics over environment. So far, you have a belief system (presumably rooted in fear and hate) that is self reinforcing. Why do you maintain that it is genetic over environment?