So I was on reddit and this article about how Kyoto was almost nuked in WWII was trending, so I decide to click and read. As I was reading I came across this quote by a military general:
(They also described the people of Kyoto as "more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget".)
Now when I read this I was sickened to the bone. Does he not have a single shred of empathy over the tens of thousands who will be killed by this, such that he is capable to talk about it in such a manner? I started thinking and realized that through out history humans have done terrible things to each other, and we still do today, but is it any less than before?
Are we today committing less acts of violence than we did before, or is it the same? And if we are committing less acts of violence, is it due to us being more empathetic and humane, or did humans not change and it was simply the circumstances that lead to violence before. And if we are actually more empathetic, what do you think lead to this? A more connected world? More educated masses?
Discuss.

We are no more empathetic than anyone else before us. We simply have more access to information about the plight of people around us. We still perpetrate economic, philosophical, military, verbal and political violence on each other as brutally as we have always done.

Except we now feel undeservedly better about ourselves because the world is defined by a select few privileged groups. There are children dying of starvation in Africa, hundreds of thousands slaughtered in genocide in Sri Lanka, women brutally beaten and raped in certain societies. But some of us falsely consider modern society less barbaric than the ages before us because gays can now get married and you can't use the word nigger in public and we can all marvel over how brave Caitlyn Jenner is.

Quote from Salt

Are we today committing less acts of violence than we did before, or is it the same?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228340-100-steven-pinker-humans-are-less-violent-than-ever/

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143285836/war-and-violence-on-the-decline-in-modern-times

three quick articles to demonstrate that this question isn't up for debate, human violence is on a steady decline worldwide, both through warfare and interpersonal violence.

I don't think we're more empathetic as a whole, most of it is likely the result of social deterrents to violence like capital punishment and forensics technology.

Yes, it is up for debate.

You see, there are more angles to "violence" than mere blood and guts. The only reason there is less of those is because we can wage other sorts of wars (economic, technological, political, social, etc.). We do not kill because humans have fundamentally improved, we merely do not kill because it is inconvenient. We have, in fact, become drastically more heartless, however. Think about it. We do not have gladiatorial combat, so we cheer ourselves as not being barbarians. Instead, we have a plethora of graphic war games, zombie games, monster games, and the like. Our violent outbursts are virtual, verbal, or otherwise camouflaged.
We do not kill the person who insults us -- we merely take them to court, destroy their name, their honor, their livelihood, and ultimately their life.
We do not relegate those "unfit" to begging and starvation -- we merely abort them (see the abortion videos being currently released from the sting operation against Planned Parenthood yet?).

{Yes, I know there are exceptions to every circumstance in life, but I am not addressing those. I am addressing the overall social mentality of modern society.}

We kill less, but that was not the point in question. The question was if we commit less violence...and to that, I must say we commit far, far more.

Quote from Shadowolf

We do not kill because humans have fundamentally improved, we merely do not kill because it is inconvenient. We have, in fact, become drastically more heartless, however. Think about it. We do not have gladiatorial combat, so we cheer ourselves as not being barbarians. Instead, we have a plethora of graphic war games, zombie games, monster games, and the like. Our violent outbursts are virtual, verbal, or otherwise camouflaged.

simulated violence is distinctly different from actual violence and acts of verbal violence are hardly unique to modern times.

blood sports and public executions used to be a very common form of entertainment. unarmed men would be thrown to wild animals to be devoured alive in front of thousands of eager spectators. I would argue that these forms of entertainment are inherently more violent than simulated depictions of violence against fictional creatures like zombies. are you saying otherwise?

Quote from Shadowolf

We do not kill the person who insults us -- we merely take them to court, destroy their name, their honor, their livelihood, and ultimately their life.

that would be for a very serious offense. the kind of thing people used to duel over. relegating our retribution to a justice system or other third parties is far less violent than killing someone over an offense.

in Ancient Rome there was a punishment called damnatio memoriae where any and all public and private documentation that would prove you ever existed would be destroyed, permanently erasing you from history. I can't think of a more literal description of destroying someone's name than that. the things you describe are nothing new.

Quote from Shadowolf

We do not relegate those "unfit" to begging and starvation -- we merely abort them (see the abortion videos being currently released from the sting operation against Planned Parenthood yet?).

no idea what you're talking about. I would absolutely disagree with the notion that a medical procedure taken upon oneself is somehow an act of violence.

Quote from Exilement

simulated violence is distinctly different from actual violence and acts of verbal violence are hardly unique to modern times.

blood sports and public executions used to be a very common form of entertainment. unarmed men would be thrown to wild animals to be devoured alive in front of thousands of eager spectators. I would argue that these forms of entertainment are inherently more violent than simulated depictions of violence against fictional creatures like zombies. are you saying otherwise?

that would be for a very serious offense. the kind of thing people used to duel over. relegating our retribution to a justice system or other third parties is far less violent than killing someone over an offense.

in Ancient Rome there was a punishment called damnatio memoriae where any and all public and private documentation that would prove you ever existed would be destroyed, permanently erasing you from history. I can't think of a more literal description of destroying someone's name than that. the things you describe are nothing new.

no idea what you're talking about. I would absolutely disagree with the notion that a medical procedure taken upon oneself is somehow an act of violence.

I never said this was new. I said it was more prevalent. Simple numbers (i.e we have many times more people living and thus by mere multiplication violence would increase) tell us that there is more violence. Studies have shown that human hormonal and subconscious processes are exactly the same for virtual events as they are for real ones. We may "know" the difference, and can therefor dismiss it, but our minds and bodies do not.

If you have not heard of the planned parenthood abortion videos, I suggest that you look them up. National Review --- The Hill
These are a couple of things to get you started (and I'm actually pro-choice, btw...).

In Rome, over 60% of the population were considered property, and thus could NEVER try to take legal action for anything. Now, not being "Politically Correct" is having tv shows pulled, people arrested, jobs lost, companies sued, etc. It is far more prevalent these days than it was then, when only a select social strata could hope to do such things as you mentioned.

Quote from Shadowolf

I never said this was new. I said it was more prevalent. Simple numbers (i.e we have many times more people living and thus by mere multiplication violence would increase) tell us that there is more violence.

then I guess the question is why do you think total amount of violence is more important/relevant than the amount of violence carried out within a society relative to its population.

if City X has 100 people and 80 of them murdered each other you wouldn't make the claim that the trend of violence was less prevalent in City X compared to the US population because more total homicides were carried out in the latter. that's what you're doing here.

Quote from Shadowolf

Studies have shown that human hormonal and subconscious processes are exactly the same for virtual events as they are for real ones. We may "know" the difference, and can therefor dismiss it, but our minds and bodies do not.

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about so a link to those studies would be nice. I would absolutely under no circumstance beat the shit out of a random passerby for sheer entertainment but it's quite fun on GTA. I'd like to know why you think a distinction shouldn't be made here because it seems plainly obvious to me that watching real people actually being killed for entertainment is inherently more violent than watching a simulated version of it.

Quote from Shadowolf

In Rome, over 60% of the population were considered property, and thus could NEVER try to take legal action for anything. Now, not being "Politically Correct" is having tv shows pulled, people arrested, jobs lost, companies sued, etc. It is far more prevalent these days than it was then, when only a select social strata could hope to do such things as you mentioned.

I'm just confused why you continue to talk about lawsuits instead of the incredibly violent trends that were accepted and commonplace in many societies up until recent history. You said "We do not have gladiatorial combat, so we cheer ourselves as not being barbarians" but the fact remains that things like that are barbaric and we no longer accept it or practice it as a society. It's one very specific example of violence being eliminated from society and there are many, many others that you seem to be glossing over in favor of focusing on how more people are sued today than in ancient Rome.

First, here are a couple of articles about "virtual violence". The first one includes a statement from the Surgeon General.

article 1

article 2

Secondly, I am not talking about percentages. I am talking about numbers. If there are only two people on an island, and one murders the other, then you can say that there is a 50% murder rate on Random Island. If 5,000 people die in a given period of time in, say, New York City, then there is merely an approximately .06% murder rate. There were 5,000 times more murders, however, thus making murder more prevalent. Hopefully that explains my thought process.

Lastly, I am talking about legal matters as opposed to vigilante justice or mere lawless vengeance, because that is the form of violence we choose today. The Slap (U.S. tv miniseries) This is an example of our supposed opposition to violence, while inflicting legal violence on someone else. It is fictional, but gets the point across. Indeed, we are "violently" opposed to violence. Look at the situation regarding the recent case of a police officer shooting a black man multiple times. That was a single act of wrongful violence. Now here is a look at people's response to that: Pictures of the Ferguson situation.
In short, there is widespread rioting and violence because people didn't like violence...makes us seem really civilized, doesn't it?
As a final note on this, here are some hilarious -- though costly and often damaging to people's lives in some way -- legal matters resulting from our obsession with a form of "politeness and civility" known as Polictical Correctness 10 ridiculous cases of political correctness.

I hope this explains my point of view better for you. :)

Quote from Shadowolf

Secondly, I am not talking about percentages. I am talking about numbers.

I know. Why? How does that demonstrate anything useful? By your metrics you're ignoring violence as a trend within a society and focusing entirely on raw statistics which don't really say anything useful on their own. If you refuse to factor in the massive population increase in modern history then we're not even talking about the same thing.

Even if you do focus on raw statistics, the kind of losses we had as recently as WW2 are unheard of today. We no longer engage in the sort of warfare that can result in 46% of the adult male population of a major country like Germany. Again, why you continue to focus on lawsuits over things like this is beyond me.

wait

Quote from Shadowolf

Lastly, I am talking about legal matters as opposed to vigilante justice or mere lawless vengeance, because that is the form of violence we choose today.

The definition of violence is "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something", legal repercussions are an attempt to right wrongs without physical violence (not including the death penalty which, spoiler alert, is also drastically on the decline), the fact that this is our system now rather than "eye for an eye" justice or duels is proof that we are less violent than we used to be.

Quote from Shadowolf

The definition of violence you gave ignores the other definitions (as copied from dictionary.com):
1.
swift and intense force:

the violence of a storm.
2.
rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment:

to die by violence.
3.
an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws:

to take over a government by violence.
4.
a violent act or proceeding.
5.
rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language:

the violence of his hatred.
6.
damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration:

to do editorial violence to a text.



As you can see, only two of six definitions relate to physical matters.

As for the percentages and violence, check this out: Cause of death by violence by country. As you can see, just under half of the worlds countries exist in a state of 10% of all deaths occurring by violence, and that is a 2011 stat. Also this stat does not included unreported deaths, thus explaining why Egypt and Iran appear as almost no violent deaths, when at the time of the report Egypt was under civil war. By area, according to the map these violent countries constitute approximately half of earths surface (with Russia's rate of nearly 1 in 5 deaths being violent helping that measure greatly.) That death rate is actually not out of measure with that of ancient times, from what we can know. Most people back then died of illnesses, not violence. Especially in Rome, due to its incredibly strict laws.

By your definition of violence, car races, rough sex, and anything of an exaggerated powerful nature are "violent". The meaning that interests us here is violence inflicted by a person to another to intentionally physically harm them, which despite being still prevalent as Nish suggests, is on a steady decline, and no where near the numbers you suggest. By the way I looked at your link. The worst country for violent deaths is Guatemala, 70/100,000. That's 0.7 percent, no where near 10 as you suggest.

Exilement you mentioned you don't think we're more empathetic, but rather more peaceful. Do you think that decreased violence will eventually lead to people being more empathetic as a whole?

That was 70% (Rate of = percent in mathematical/statistical terminology) of 100,000, not 70. Just checked it again to be sure...aka 70k.

Violence was not defined in the forum initially, thus that means the DICTIONARY definition must be used, not one select meaning.

Quote from Shadowolf

That was 70% (Rate of = percent in mathematical/statistical terminology) of 100,000, not 70. Just checked it again to be sure...aka 70k.

Violence was not defined in the forum initially, thus that means the DICTIONARY definition must be used, not one select meaning.

You apparently don't know how population statistics work. It says right on top death rate per 100,000, not per 100. 74.9/100,000 is 0.7 %. And if you had any common sense, you'd know that it isn't possible for a country to have 70% of its deaths due to violence unless we're within the bloodiest period in history, which we aren't.

Also one would imagine that if you had even read the first page, or had one shred of common sense, you would understand I was referring to violence in the form everyone else here is suggesting, not every possible dictionary meaning.

Quote from Salt

74.9/100,000 is 0.7 %.

0.07%*

the rate of international homicides in the middle ages was about 50/100,000 (source) which is more than all but 4 countries in the modern world according to the info he provided.

globally the rate is currently sitting at around 6/100k, just 15 years ago it was 9/100k. this is a clear trend in a decrease in global homicidal violence, no data exists to suggest otherwise.

Quote from Exilement

0.07%*

the rate of international homicides in the middle ages was about 50/100,000 (source) which is more than all but 4 countries in the modern world according to the info he provided.

globally the rate is currently sitting at around 6/100k, just 15 years ago it was 9/100k. this is a clear trend in a decrease in global homicidal violence, no data exists to suggest otherwise.

I stand corrected in favor of my own argument.