In which, it is proven that we are a pessimist.

The world's populace is becoming less violent.

Uh-HUH.

Steven Pinker, the University of Harvard psychologist who brought this topic up, presents some interesting points, referring to war casualties and torture stats over the last several thousand years. It's relatively simple to see how less people die in combat, torture isn't sanctioned (Unless we're speaking of Guetalemo Bay. We're not even going to talk about that.), and genocide rates are down, after the horrendous events of the Holocaust and Rwanda. All well and good, no?

Perhaps I'm just a cynical person, but my thoughts are that these stats are not JUST due to literal deaths in battles or deaths from violent crime. Yes, according to Pinker's statistics, 1.2 million people died in the Old Testament of the Bible. That was also six thousand years ago in the Middle East, when medical treatment was highly lacking and it was easy for people who lost limbs or blood in battle to die after the war was over. The same is true for Middle Ages wars and the World Wars. God only knows how many soldiers suffered and died from conditions in the trenches without fighting. The wars in the world today could potentially have the same amounts of violence (whether on the battlefield or in a POW camp), but just have better medical aid to prevent deaths.

This topic came up on a discussion forum that I am on. One of the other posters commented that the lack of deaths like this is because as people get smarter, we learn how to psychologically damage and abuse people- therefore, physical harm is no longer required to make someone else's life miserable. Violence is not only to the body, but to the psyche as well. And really- why kill people, when one can merely take over their lives? Is that, perhaps, the thought behind the reduced levels of violence?

Another person commented that Pinker is correct, and we're raising a generation of pacifists. I facepalmed at this- because if Pinker IS correct and we're becoming less violent as a whole, then we're teaching our children that it's all right to run at the first sign of danger. Fine. Running is good. But what happens when there's no choice but to turn and fight? What are the weaklings that we're raising going to be?

Disclaimer time! I don't like violence. Really. I wish I weren't so cynical- then I might believe this article. But I am far from a pacifist- considering I have a brown belt in Shotokan Karate and am considering training in Hapkido or Ninjitsu (or both?) and consider it an asset that I can disarm, seriously injure or kill someone in defense if I need to, I'm not a non-violent person. And if I ever have children, they will not grow up pacifists- they'll be in martial arts by the time they're five years old, not because I want them to grow up starting fights, but because I want them to be able to stop fights if they need to, especially if they're a target.

Where was I going with this? Oh, right. Non-violence.

The stats may have some weight to them, but I don't think it's from people becoming less violent. I think it's because people learn how to be violent without being physical, or from unreported stats, or from a psychologist who views the world through rose-coloured lenses. My pessimistic, slightly-grouchy (and undercaffeinated) self thinks that we're just coming up with new, creative ways to destroy people? Why? Because humanity sucks.

Second disclaimer time: I just had two midterms and six hours' sleep. Pardon this post for crankiness and a lack of quality.