OK -- I actually read the article.
Pinker does NOT seem to be propounding a genetic basis for violence.
On the other hand, there's a lot of speculation there.
In particular, using modern hunter-gatherer societies as a proxy for
our ancestors presents problems.
These are marginal groups living under marginal and stressed conditions.
In many cases, they have 'culturally devolved' from agriculturalists
to hunter/gatherers as a result of being driven off of more
productive land into the jungle.
One explanation for the current decrease in violence that has not
been raised is that our capability of mass destruction has
effectively scared the shit out of us.
Before WWI there was little mass destruction in the current sense.
When the Romans 'decimated' (killed every tenth person) a city, they
did it one by one with swords.
The gas warfare of WWI, and of course Coventry, Dresden, Tokyo and
Hiroshima brought an impersonal element of destruction far beyond
starting fires in a city with a balista.
Another small matter:
Pinker talks a good deal about violence prevalence in Europe, but
does not compare it with the United States.
On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Paul Brandon wrote:
But a better question is:
Is modern society more violent than it could be?
Is Pinker arguing that human violence is unavoidable (genetic)?
I would guess that that would be an implication of his argument
(which I've seen before).
The other point is that our potential for annihilation is greater
than it was in the past.
On Jul 16, 2009, at 4:37 PM, sbl...@ubishops.ca wrote:
Steven Pinker asks whether modern society is more violent than in
earlier supposed idyllic times. His verdict is no.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/2009april/Pinker054.php
Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
paul.bran...@mnsu.edu
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
