Via Grinding comes this interesting talk by Steven Pinker on, outside of the third world, the massive decline in the level of violence faced by the average person.
The debate, of course, is why, and there are multiple factors Pinker hits on that I think have some merit. The reduction in general anarchy is one, and cosmopolitanism is another, as it tends to make identity more individualized and so reduces the tribal feuds that are a big factor in primitive societies having such a high rate of violence.
Another major factor that Pinker doesn't directly mention is one of the great unspoken achievements of modern times: the ability to change ruling political factions without massive warfare. The various mechanisms modern legislative societies have in place to do this mean that such factions (usually) use far less violent methods to gain control. If you don't like the government, it's a lot less likely a huge civil war — with all the attendant chaos, famines, etc. — will be necessary to change who runs it.
One of the main reasons, I think, that people falsely believe that modern societies are more violent is because the type of violence has changed. It's easy to look at a statistic and say "oh, I'm a lot less likely to die violently than in a hunter-gatherer band." But most of those deaths in primitive societies aren't in dramatic battles, instead they're in bushwhacking assassinations; part of feuds or low-level warfare. By contrast, outside of certain lawless areas, modern life is comparatively peaceful. But when that breaks, it does so on a large scale — huge world wars or civil breakdown — that are profoundly shocking to people unused to more sporadic conflict as a typical part of life.
All that said, "less violent" doesn't mean "nonviolent." Self defense isn't a bad skill to pick up, even if you aren't running around with other tribes looking to axe you, and thinking about how to reduce bloodshed still further remains a worthy pursuit.
Comments