The Slow Death of Violence
A fascinating, counterintuitive article by Steven Pinker on the slow decline of of violence over the ages:
Our seemingly troubled times are routinely contrasted with idyllic images of hunter-gatherer societies, which allegedly lived in a state of harmony with nature and each other. The doctrine of the noble savage—the idea that humans are peaceable by nature and corrupted by modern institutions—pops up frequently in the writing of public intellectuals like, for example, Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset, who argued that "war is not an instinct but an invention."
But now that social scientists have started to count bodies in different historical periods, they have discovered that the romantic theory gets it backward: Far from causing us to become more violent, something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made us nobler. In fact, our ancestors were far more violent than we are today. Indeed, violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth…
When the archeologist Lawrence Keeley examined casualty rates among contemporary hunter-gatherers—which is the best picture we have of how people might have lived 10,000 years ago—he discovered that the likelihood that a man would die at the hands of another man ranged from a high of 60 percent in one tribe to 15 percent at the most peaceable end. In contrast, the chance that a European or American man would be killed by another man was less than one percent during the 20th century, a period of time that includes both world wars. If the death rate of tribal warfare had prevailed in the 20th century, there would have been two billion deaths rather than 100 million, horrible as that is…
When the criminologist Manuel Eisner scoured the records of every village, city, county, and nation he could find, he discovered that homicide rates in Europe had declined from 100 killings per 100,000 people per year in the Middle Ages to less than one killing per 100,000 people in modern Europe.
And since 1945 in Europe and the Americas, we've seen steep declines in the number of deaths from interstate wars, ethnic riots, and military coups, even in South America. Worldwide, the number of battle deaths has fallen from 65,000 per conflict per year to less than 2,000 deaths in this decade. Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, we have seen fewer civil wars, a 90 percent reduction in the number of deaths by genocide, and even a reversal in the 1960s-era uptick in violent crime.
There's a terrific book by political scientist James L. Payne (who's also mentioned in Pinker's article) called A History of Force that documents all of this in much more detail.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ok Radley, now you can go back to posting the depressing articles since you've got the positive one out of the way. 🙂
Maybe my fascination with tribe/clan style existence, and the reading I have done on it enlightened me, but it always cracks me up when I hear someone refer to the Indians as some sort of ideal. Sure, if you want to be cold, hungry, frequently engage in very life threatening activities out of necessity, you could reduce your environmental impact. But for most tribe/clan life was hardship mixed with a fair amount of raiding and brutality. It was a life dominated in most situations by the strongest, and inordinately rough on the weak, even if they managed to survive. But people still think we'd be better off living like that. Never mind that they think they could get by without meat, or hunting. Never mind the closest many of them come to a dead animal is in the grocery store.
I suspect, it's the same type of almost willful delusion that makes liberalism/socialism so popular.
Exactly. People love to idolize the Greeks and Romans as some kind of higher breed of man when they were, in fact, very fond of murder and mayhem.
"Indeed, violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth..."
Not on my block. On Saturday, a woman six houses down took three bullets from a 44. Damn it was loud. Blood all over the alley.
I blame video games and violent movies.
"Worldwide, the number of battle deaths has fallen from 65,000 per conflict per year to less than 2,000 deaths in this decade"
Darfur?
Coyote, I concur. It's a nice outlet for out darker sides... 🙂
Alabama--- there's a lot of conflicts that are very obscure, even if they have stupendous body counts.
There's still plenty of fighting in the Congo, for instance, even though that war has been "over" for years now.
Basically there's a plenty of chances to move the the average down with a bunch of small, poorly documented conflicts.
Since 1945 ... can you cherrypick the data any more blatantly? 1945, what happened just before that? WW II, nuclear weapons, firestorms in Japan and Germany. Not long before that, WW I. Also, the mass starvation caused by government policies in Communist China and the former USSR - no obvious wounds, but still inflicted by man - was presumably not counted. We have a long way to go, baby!
If I were a statist, I would point to the correlation between the increase in state power/size, and the decline in violence. Perhaps, I would argue, the state really can legislate morality.
Also, they use the term battlefield deaths, which probably does not include genocide, death from disease or starvation, etc. Which has historically been where you really start stacking corpses, not the actual stabbing/shooting bits.
My pain level is substantially elevated today, which may be the reason for my mood in this comment.
I, personally, am not convinced that society is better off since we slowed down on the culling of the herd.
Apparently Pinker hasn't seen a Tarantino flick.
From the article:
'from the Middle Ages to modern times, we can see a steady reduction in socially sanctioned forms of violence.'
As an example of violence-reduction in the Middle Ages, let us take a look at the medieval death penalty in England.
English criminal law was very bloody, with all felonies (which included many kinds of nonviolent stealing) being punishable by death. Under the influence of the Church, however, the death penalty became riddled with so many exceptions that mercy came to be almost the rule. Specifically:
-By taking sanctuary in a church, the criminal could avoid arrest. He could then 'abjure the realm' by basically getting his death sentence commuted to exile.
-The criminal could avoid the death penalty by invoking 'benefit of clergy,' which ended up simply requiring the recital of an easily-memorized Psalm.
The Church's influence was so merciful toward capital offenders that Parliament kept passing law-and-order petitions demanding that the monarchs get tougher on crime and curb the pernicious influence of sanctuary and benefit of clergy. After Henry VIII renounced the Pope, the Reformation Parliaments were finally able to eliminate the Church's merciful influence and allow the English criminal law to be enforced in all its bloodthirstyness.
I, personally, am not convinced that society is better off since we slowed down on the culling of the herd.
Well, we're all against the CPSC around here, so get rid of that and we should start culling teh st00pid pretty quick.
brotherben,
You are a Darwinian dead end. You would have been culled by nature a long time ago.
Me too, so you know I'm not just being mean.
In contrast, the chance that a European or American man would be killed by another man was less than one percent during the 20th century, a period of time that includes both world wars.
The key data point in the article is not post-1945.
They're just saying that even including the world wars, we're already less violent - and that since 1945, we're really, really less violent.
I think that the data here, if they're accurate, understate how much less violent we are now. Because "deaths" is the data point that makes the past look the best. For a couple of thousand years of European and Middle Eastern history, if your tribe or statelet lost the battle and you had the luck to survive, you were likely to be cast into chattel slavery. If your city lost a siege and you lived, you were likely to have all your property taken or destroyed and, if you were female, to be gang-raped. We really undercount the horrific violence of the past if we only count deaths.
Pinker omits to notice that the bloodthirsty passages in the Old Testament were not the final word as far as the Jewish and Christian traditions are concerned. As my Medieval example showed, the Christian Church blunted the edges of the Old Testament's bloodthirstiness with its teachings of a New Covenant via Christ (who specifically moved beyond the bloodthirstiness of the Old Testament law).
Also, in Judaism, the rabbis, from a very early date, imposed such strict rules of evidence as to make it all but impossible to convict anyone of a capital crime under the Old Testament law. Indeed, the only way the rabbis were able to allow for an *enforceable* death penalty was by allowing the king to impose a utilitarian, extra-Biblical form of justice.
That was an unpleasant bit of reality Suge. A pox on your hoes.
Not to mention that the Church was sometimes able to curb the murderous tendencies of the Germanic peoples with concepts like the 'Peace of God' - that is, bans on warfare during designated periods.
And that St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, excommunicated the Emperor Theodosius for massacring a few thousand people in a rebellious area - which by pagan Roman standards would be considered fairly modest.
I blame video games and violent movies.
These are a response to the safety of modern life.
Psst, brotherben and Sweet'n'Low: when civilization collapses, i'll protect your weak asses. There may be some chattel slavery involved, though.
I wonder if we're more prosperous because we get along better or if we get along better because we're prosperous.
Mad Max, is that why no one expected the Spanish Inquisition?
I wonder if we're more prosperous because we get along better or if we get along better because we're prosperous.
Yes
X, I'll be your huckleberry;}
I wonder if we're more prosperous because we get along better or if we get along better because we're prosperous.
Both. Once you reach a certain level of food stability, you don't have to worry about whacking out the next door neighbor so you can feed the kids. Then it's an upward spiral.
Nick,
As I have pointed out before, the Spanish Inquisition has become very predictable, especially in Internet discussions.
the Spanish Inquisition has become very predictable, especially in Internet discussions.
What an odd and hilarious complaint on your part.
There may be some chattel slavery involved, though.
As soon as you turn your back, I will take your pancreas and sell the rest for pig food and fuck toys.
I'm a breed that will turn on any master.
What an odd and hilarious complaint on your part.
Cardinal Ximinez will no doubt be crushed to hear the Inquisition has become predictable.
Because "deaths" is the data point that makes the past look the best.
Fluffy, as usual, makes a great point.
This is similar to the data-picking that ignores *shootings* per se when reporting murder rates.
Many things confound the "less violent" asserion: judicial systems, population density, (dare I say it) health care, ....
Even time I post here to defend my policy views, everyone is all with the "Yeah, but what about the Holocaust?" and the "Hey, what about the invasion of Poland?"
It's all very unfair and predictable.
SugarFree,
I was simply suggesting that invocations of the Spanish Inquisition are the very opposite of unexpected.
Alas, the most influential secularist ideologues of the past century didn't give the Spanish Inquisition its props, apparently because their crimes weren't enough to compensate for Christianity's overall merciful nature.
Consider, for example, Leon Trotsky, who said that We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life.
True to his principles, Trotsky and his secularist ilk killed so many people that by comparison, the worse excesses of the Spanish Inquisition look like a Sunday picnic.
I've just asking for a more nuanced approach here.
A lot of that killing way back then probably wouldn't have happened if they'd had universal healthcare.
True to his principles, Trotsky and his secularist ilk killed so many people that by comparison, the worse excesses of the Spanish Inquisition look like a Sunday picnic.
The data in this article prove my relative innocence!
You Christians were killing each other at much higher rates back when I wasn't around!
In fact, one reason I was so popular was because I argued against the weak and bloodless democracies, who had turned their back on the wisdom of the Middle Ages and who knew nothing of how true kultur is served by the love of battles. Those damn democracies and their liberal cosmopolitanism!
I'm a breed that will turn on any master.
Diabetics? Yeah, we don't trust you people at all.
As I have pointed out before, the Spanish Inquisition has become very predictable, especially in Internet discussions.
Are you saying it is the Godwin for Catholicism?
Seriously, though, I was right there with you on the mercy thing from the Church, but like all political events, it can revert back to asshattery at any given moment. Some popes and priests are very good and some suck (no pun intended.) Like the rest of humanity throughout the ages, the ones who "get it" have a harder time pressing for immediate betterment of society because they lack the use of force, obviously. Fortunately, the pen is mightier than the sword because the words last longer than the bloodshed.
Let's just hope Krugman doesn't outlast Jefferson.
"And since 1945 in Europe and the Americas, we've seen steep declines in the number of deaths from interstate wars, ethnic riots, and military coups, even in South America."
You could have written the same statement in 1905 and just substituted 1815 for 1945. We have had sixty years without a world war. Surely that is a good thing. But it hardly says anything about the future or man's propensity towards violence.
Thank you guns!
Hmm, I guess violence is just something we all have to deal with at one point or another.
Jessi
http://www.web-tools.us.tc
Diabetics? Yeah, we don't trust you people at all.
You shouldn't. Especially you that have tasty pancreases. Delicious.
I am not Adolf Hitler. You wouldn't believe how many times a day I have to tell people that.
"I am not Adolf Hitler. You wouldn't believe how many times a day I have to tell people that."
A lot of people who suffer from having one testicle have that problem.
I'm a breed that will turn on any master.
I forgot to mention the amputations, obviously. Your role, Sug, will be Warty-bait, a task for which limbs are unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive.
'You Christians were killing each other at much higher rates back when I wasn't around!'
Oh, Adolf, you don't give yourself enough credit. The amount of killing you were able to fit into 12 short years dwarfs anything the Church did in the previous 2,000 years.
You're just bitter because Pope Pius XI denounced your regime in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge.
How can you say the Church denounced me? I wasn't even excommunicated! I still haven't been excommunicated!
Pius and I had an arrangement. I understood his wrist-slapping was done with a wink and a nod.
Join the Catholic Church. You can be just like me.
'Adolf,'
Here's how I can tell that you're not the real Hitler (setting aside any question about Internet access in Hell):
As discussed by Rabbi David Dalin, Pius XII saved numerous Jews from Hitler's Final Solution. As estimated by Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide, the Pope saved between 700,000 and 860,000 Jews from 'certain death' at your hands.
The National Socialist regime knew perfectly well who its enemies were, and Pius XII was among those enemies. National Socialist propaganda denounced Pope Pius as a Jew-lover.
A 1936 cartoon in the National Socialist magazine Der Sturmer (published by Julius Streicher who was later hanged at Nuremberg) compared Catholic nuns to prostitutes and compared the Church's priests to (Jewish) pimps.
And if you were actually Hitler, then you would know that you were automatically excommunicated as early as 1932 - not that this would matter to you, since after growing up, you never sought to receive communion.
"...and sell the rest for pig food and fuck toys."
Goddamn that was funny.
As I pointed out after the Vatican signed its accord with me:
"I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions."
The Vatican instructed the negotiators it sent to treat with me in 1933 to "Let the Jews fend for themselves."
Link expired, try this link instead.
The caption reads: 'She [a nun] belongs to the Church; she [a prostitute] belongs to Satan. Both are lost to the German race.'
Also, I told the Vatican in 1933 that I intended to break the Versailles treaty and restore universal conscription in Germany. The Vatican agreed to keep this secret for me, as long as I promised that I would exempt priests from the draft.
They didn't care what I did, as long as I let them collect church taxes from German Catholics!
I've heard of appeals to authority, but appealing to the authority of Adolf Hitler is certainly a new departure.
You cite Adolf Hitler, I cite a rabbi (David Dalin) and an Israeli diplomat (Pinchas Lapide). Decide for yourself who is a more credible source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
Ah, but the Vatican staff write everything down, and save every toll booth receipt.
Their diplomatic instructions were recorded and are well documented.
And the secret annex to the treaty related to conscription has been released and verified by the Vatican itself!
The Vatican is not ashamed of its embrace of me! They know better than to set much score by the ephemeral passions of the modern press. They know that all the bad press I have received will blow over some day!
The worst Pope Pius's critics have been able to say against him is that 'the Pope, like so many others in positions of power and influence, could have done more to save the Jews.'
According to this 'critical' Web page, Pius XII 'merely'
-intervened 'act behind the scenes' to prevent proposed murderous actions against Jews
-made public broadcasts declaring that 'The horror and inexcusable excesses committed on a helpless and a homeless people have been established by the unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses' and that 'hundreds of thousands [of people] . . . through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction.'
-Sought in May 1940 to alert the Allied powers to a German operation against then-neutral Holland.
-As the web page fails to acknowledge] alerted the British to an anti-Nazi plot, passing the info on to British intelligence.
As the web page fails to acknowledge
You know what else they fail to acknowledge? The hats. Popes get great haberdashery. You don't see any other world leaders with such an excellent selection of headgear, although the default beanie is a little lame.
Adolf,
Like your namesake, you are willing to disregard the truth on behalf of your crusade against the Church.
The very article to which you provide a link gives the lie to your efforts to cite Hitler as a credible source. After the Hitler quote which you cite, the article cites a source who points out the obvious: '[O]n this occasion, as always, Hitler was concealing his true intentions.' Like, duuh.
And you seem to assume that the Versailles Treaty is so self-evidently righteous that the Catholic Church's neutrality on the issue (and its willingness to arrange for protection of its priests in the event that Hitler violated the treaty) is self-evident proof of the National Socialist proclivities of the Church. Under that type of 'reasoning,' then John Maynard Keynes was also a Nazi, since he criticized the Versailles Treaty as soon as it was concluded (long before Hitler came to power). The democratic Weimar regime, which Hitler denounced and overthrew, was also National Socialist according to your logic, because Germany's democratic Weimar governments evaded the treaty as much as they could.
And the very article to which you link acknowledges that the National Socialist regime violated the Concordat, prompting protests by the Church, including the encyclical to which I've already linked.
Some excerpts from that encyclical (which, remember, is a year before the Munich Accords and Neville Chamberlain's 'peace in our time' remark):
'7. Take care, Venerable Brethren, that above all, faith in God, the first and irreplaceable foundation of all religion, be preserved in Germany pure and unstained. The believer in God is not he who utters the name in his speech, but he for whom this sacred word stands for a true and worthy concept of the Divinity. Whoever identifies, by pantheistic confusion, God and the universe, by either lowering God to the dimensions of the world, or raising the world to the dimensions of God, is not a believer in God. Whoever follows that so-called pre-Christian Germanic conception of substituting a dark and impersonal destiny for the personal God, denies thereby the Wisdom and Providence of God who "Reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom viii. 1). Neither is he a believer in God.
'8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.
'9. Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side.'
They're just saying that even including the world wars, we're already less violent - and that since 1945, we're really, really less violent.
Agreed. The implication of the article is that the reduction in violence is a good thing for mankind. Selective pressures are what made mankind. Reduction in selective pressures certainly dirties up the gene pool. It is not clear that this emerging civility is a good thing in the long run.
wayne,
I guess the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life doesn't appeal to you, either.
MM, I like Quaker oats, but not Quaker oaths.
T,
I protest against your hat speech.
wayne,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to equate 'civility' with 'not killing people.'
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to equate 'civility' with 'not killing people.'"
Well, not killing people is usually an important part of civility.
But I don't think that the sanctity of anything is necessary for people to see that killing each other is not really a good idea, generally speaking.
Not to cast aspersions on your point, Fluffy, but deaths are almost always the only statistic available. It is not like they generally had substantial infrastructure for maintaining and processing detailed demographic data.
Just feeding folks, building and maintaining their tools, and defending the borders pretty near saturated the labor supply in most places through most of history.
You know what else they fail to acknowledge? The hats. Popes get great haberdashery.
Nice shoes, too.
Shame about the dresses, though. But hey, c'est la vie, non?
"I blame video games and violent movies."Coyote
ya..and thats like blaming spoons for fat people.
"ya..and thats like blaming spoons for fat people."
Is your sarcasm detector busted? You should have it checked out, it's dangerous on the intertubes without one.