violence increasing worldwide

[Michchamp]

Last year saw a spike in the number of people killed in conflicts around the world. Link.

It's a little unclear but this is apparently part of a trend going back to 2007, when violence began increasing; not clear what this "trend" recorded because that article, and this one both refer to the 2014 spike in violence by number of deaths; I think the trend back to 2007 tracks the number of conflicts, not necessarily deaths.

the 2nd article lists the number of deaths in each conflict. Yay for us: we're more or less directly responsible for #'s 2 & 3 each year, and have played a role to some degree in most of the others.

 

[grandy]

 

[zyxt9]

every year there are more people on the planet. that in itself increases the probability for violence big and small. less resources, from food to land, water to energy, so many factors go into why violence is increasing, but IMO they all trend toward the ever increasing population as a foundational reason.

 

[tinselwolverine]

every year there are more people on the planet. that in itself increases the probability for violence big and small. less resources, from food to land, water to energy, so many factors go into why violence is increasing, but IMO they all trend toward the ever increasing population as a foundational reason.

It's television and the video games.

 

[Michchamp]

every year there are more people on the planet. that in itself increases the probability for violence big and small. less resources, from food to land, water to energy, so many factors go into why violence is increasing, but IMO they all trend toward the ever increasing population as a foundational reason.

well, the article claimed for most of human history, violence has been decreasing, even though the human population has grown considerably over the same time period.

it could be though that the Earth really is hitting it's carrying capacity for human beings.

there are certainly peaceful ways to resolve the struggle for resources, (as some have documented) although in most cases, over-population and over-use of resources is resolved through violent societal collapse.

I don't think America compares favorably with the few societies that managed to live within their means and avoid collapse, but that's because of Jesusland.

 

[JScottWriter]

It's television and the video games.

Don't forget rap and heavy metal music.

 

[TheVictors]

I'd say it's along the lines of Zyxt's post but also that technology is changing violence and how it's coordinated and carried out. To be sure some violence has been prevented by improved technology, but more people with more access to how to carry out violence can't help.

And video games or course.

My son called the computer bad guy on Mario Cart a 'friggin moron' while playing Wii yesterday. Had a chat about 'friggin' and yelling angry things like that.

He must be paying attention while I'm driving after all

 

[grandy]

Just a couple thoughts I had on the subject, along the lines of...the "increase of violence" may not necessarily be because of more violent acts. I won't say there isn't an increase in violence, but I just wanted to look for potential explanations behind the numbers.

Technology/Communication - It's far easier today to report violent crimes today than in the past. Knowing that a decent chunk of the world has cell phones and internet access...more people, more eyes, and quick reporting, it can contribute to a higher number of reported violent crimes. A lot more efficient than running to a payphone or police station. One might also consider better forensic technology, a homicide today may have been considered a suicide or accident years ago.

Definition - I can think of several things that are more common today that may have gone unreported in the past, whether due to culture or changes in the law. Things like rape, marital rape, various types of abuse, assault, hate crimes. Crimes that may have been covered up or people kept quiet about in the past.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I was surprised until I saw it was a stat about wars. I suspect that violence is actually going down in the world on a % basis...like % of people that experience whatever level of violence you want to characterize. Overall, things are getting better.

 

[Michchamp]

I was surprised until I saw it was a stat about wars. I suspect that violence is actually going down in the world on a % basis...like % of people that experience whatever level of violence you want to characterize. Overall, things are getting better.

yes, they aren't talking about a mugging on the corner of State and Main, or the number of road rage incidents; they're talking about violent conflicts between and within states. those are on the rise. to the extent we're "the world's policeman" we must be losing our grip. or another way to look at it, we're helping to further the interests of our arms exporters.

 

[Gulo Blue]

yes, they aren't talking about a mugging on the corner of State and Main, or the number of road rage incidents; they're talking about violent conflicts between and within states. those are on the rise. to the extent we're "the world's policeman" we must be losing our grip. or another way to look at it, we're helping to further the interests of our arms exporters.

Did you know they're working on fusion reactors at Skunkworks? If 90% of the research we do on weapons technology was directed at energy, food, and water technologies, I wonder how much that would reduce the need for weapons.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Also, with relevance to world violence levels, geneticists have been piecing together population history from genetic mutations and uncovered a real mystery from about 8,000 years ago. Through most of our species history, the ratio of women-to-men that passed on genes was about 3-5-to-1, meaning that one way or another, the average male that passed on genes, did so with 3-5 females. Why? Could be wars/skirmishes/individual violent acts tended to be directed towards males, could have been driven by power structures or slavery. Could have been different reasons in different places. 8,000 years ago, this ratio jumped to 17-to-1. All over the world.

Such a big jump...I'm a little skeptical. Like maybe there was a mutation an the y-chromosome that provided a significant advantage and ultimately wiped out everyone that didn't have it. Of course, the researcher would have thought of all those types of possibilities. It's right around the time we started getting really good at growing and storing grain and forming cities all over the place.

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-tec...une/main_feed+(Pacific+Standard+-+Main+Feed)#!

 

[Michchamp]

Also, with relevance to world violence levels, geneticists have been piecing together population history from genetic mutations and uncovered a real mystery from about 8,000 years ago. Through most of our species history, the ratio of women-to-men that passed on genes was about 3-5-to-1, meaning that one way or another, the average male that passed on genes, did so with 3-5 females. Why? Could be wars/skirmishes/individual violent acts tended to be directed towards males, could have been driven by power structures or slavery. Could have been different reasons in different places. 8,000 years ago, this ratio jumped to 17-to-1. All over the world.

Such a big jump...I'm a little skeptical. Like maybe there was a mutation an the y-chromosome that provided a significant advantage and ultimately wiped out everyone that didn't have it. Of course, the researcher would have thought of all those types of possibilities. It's right around the time we started getting really good at growing and storing grain and forming cities all over the place.

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-tec...une/main_feed+(Pacific+Standard+-+Main+Feed)#!

Yeah, I read this elsewhere.

"Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."
​

 

[Michchamp]

to the extent this represents certain males being restricted in their ability to acquire enough resources/security to raise their own families... sounds like some current Middle Eastern states.

 

[Gulo Blue]

to the extent this represents certain males being restricted in their ability to acquire enough resources/security to raise their own families... sounds like some current Middle Eastern states.

The really crazy thing is how we now see the opposite effect, where wealth correlates negatively with birth rates. Not the intended meaning of "the first shall be last/the last shall be first", but it looks like it will be the literal case. The last part of the Earth to eliminate poverty will make up a bigger percentage of the global population.

 

[Michchamp]

The really crazy thing is how we now see the opposite effect, where wealth correlates negatively with birth rates. Not the intended meaning of "the first shall be last/the last shall be first", but it looks like it will be the literal case. The last part of the Earth to eliminate poverty will make up a bigger percentage of the global population.

I think this focuses on some smaller trends (e.g. in some wealthy countries where everyone has plenty of food, new cars, and other nice things, like birth control and access to safe medical abortions, the rich have fewer kids) and ignores the bigger one here: namely that for whatever reason, wealth and political power are so concentrated in some countries that more and more have-nots are willing to resort to violence as a solution to their problems of security, hunger, thirst, etc..

and our own government was involved in propping up the power structures of those places... and has apparently simply dropped everything and ran in Yemen at least now. I wonder if that's the start of a bad trend or an aberration?

 

[Gulo Blue]

problems of security, hunger, thirst, etc..

That's the part that's getting better.

 

[turok]

Perhaps due to the fact that historical wars were fought almost exclusively by males, the females and too young/wealthy/older/unfit men stayed close to or @ home, opening the "barn doors" for lonely and whorney [sic], females to cheat on their spouses. The US lost nearly half a million men in the Civil War on both sides, leaving thousands of suddenly single widows available for the discriminating bachelors who survived or didn't get conscripted to fight.

Maybe that was why the Chastity Belt was created, but had "limited" success. Must have really sucked to be forced to wear one, especially during the times that they were menstruating and/or needed to go #1 or #2...likely very unsanitary during a period in time when cleanliness and hygene was much more difficult & scarce anyway...ewww!!