Has Violence Declined Over Time?

[Angela]

See:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-battle-over-whether-violence-has-declined-over-time



"Contrary to a popular idea among researchers, modern states haven’t dulled people’s long-standing taste for killing each other in battle, a controversial new study concludes. But living in a heavily populated society may up one’s odds of surviving a war, two anthropologists propose."

"Increasing absolute numbers of war dead in human societies have resulted from the invention of ever-more-lethal weapons, from stone axes to airborne bombers, the researchers suspect. But Falk and Hildebolt show that states, which centralize political power in a bureaucratic government, are less likely to lose large portions of their populations to war than are small-scale societies, such as hunter-gatherers. That’s a consequence of large populations acting as a buffer against war casualties among noncombatants, not a lesser appetite for violence, the researchers contend."

"Falk and Hildebolt’s data don’t support a blanket argument for safety in numbers, Pinker says. “For an average person, life was far more dangerous in nonstate societies.”

 

[Jovialis]

I think it makes sense. Smaller less organized societies are more easily bullied for their resources. While large ones are able to intimidate rivals; dissuading them from attacking. It is peace through strength.

 

[LeBrok]

I think it makes sense. Smaller less organized societies are more easily bullied for their resources. While large ones are able to intimidate rivals; dissuading them from attacking. It is peace through strength.

It is more like a mind set or tradition. Remember WW2, and the carnage people did to each other with modern weapons?
We have peace through freedom and prosperity mostly now. Prosperous free people don't have much reason to attack others. They already have what they need. This also changed the old mindset and tradition of attacking others to conquer, steel and enslave, or for ambitious leaders to show how great they are.

 

[Jovialis]

what?serious?

where do you think all the western resources come from? peaceful agreements? we still conquer and submit other people on various continents for resources and power. all the middle eastern invasions are wars for resources. so are the psyops to overthrow governments in south america etc. to gain power and resources. we never stopped conquering because of prosperity. we prosper because we never stopped to conquer.

So people that went through neolithization (Europeans and Middle Easterners) were able to conquer hunter-gatherer societies (N. American, and African aboriginals)?

Sorry, but I think it is a mostly a baseless cliché/ noble-savage fantasy to assume that hunter-gatherers are somehow physically superior, especially when they are finding some with diseases from malnutrition (i.e. scurvy and rickets). Agro-pastoralists are the ones that conquered the world; HGs tended to be the conquered.

 

[Jovialis]

anthropology proves hunter gatherers were more physically robust. agriculturalists did win because of large armies and better weaponry. hunter gatherers are not able to supply a large army cause you have no animal husbandry or surplus food/grains. agriculturalists had grains surplus to feed large armies. this was an important factor which enabled agriculturalists to dominate HGs. neolithic societies changed phisically more to neoteny. compare a gracile neolithic face to a high brow ridge of a neanderthal. you see this phenomenon also in the UFC where archaic types are the best fighters with strong archaic high testo faces. compare to modern low testo gracile long narrow agriculturaöl faces of hipsters....
i cannot post links yet. put into google: We're all getting smaller and our brains are shrinking... is farming to blame?

we got definitely smaller framed and more gracile due to neoteny caused by switching to nutrient poor grain diets

There is a pyramid-like hierarchy in agro-pastoralist societies with every graduation increasing in fitness. So you cannot make a blanket statement like this in my opinion. I believe it is more nuanced.

Also, populations metabolize food differently.

 

[Jovialis]

weston price talked about this. several studies also confirmed the more wealthier asian countries get, the taller the population gets due to replacing nutritionally low rice/grains for meat/eggs/fish ergo more animal protein.

and yes youre right neolithic agriculture is the cause of pyramidal societies. starting with the first pharaoh/pharmer who got rich by surplus grains. grains become first money and fuedalism was born. what we live now is just the 4.0 version of ancient feudalism. Hunter gatherers were more egalitarian. monocrops, monogamy, monotheism etc all came with neolithic agriculture. jared diamonds book "guns germs and steel" explains it well. capitalism is the invention of neolithic pharmers/pharaohs who built wealth on grain surplus and established the first pyramids/castles/zigurrats. this is the beginning of large armies, conquests etc. because agriculturalists must always conquer new land since the soil is losing quality.

Consider that the need for more resources, will eventually bring us to colonize new worlds. We constantly need to move forward and upward. It is the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that is truly sedentary.

 

[Angela]

Consider that the need for more resources, will eventually bring us to colonize new worlds. We constantly need to move forward and upward. It is the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that is truly sedentary.

If no one had ever figured out how to farm, there'd have been no excess food, no specialization, so no writing, no books, no computers, no internet, no scientific advancement at all. Plus, mankind would always have been on the verge of extinction. Goodness only knows how they kept their numbers so low that they wouldn't outstrip their finite resources; probably a lot of infanticide.

Instead of sitting in caves telling stories about the stars, we will go to them and become such a multitude that we can never go extinct. There will be no limit to the resources or what we can do with them.

 

[Jovialis]

If no one had ever figured out how to farm, there'd have been no excess food, no specialization, so no writing, no books, no computers, no internet, no scientific advancement at all. Plus, mankind would always have been on the verge of extinction. Goodness only knows how they kept their numbers so low that they wouldn't outstrip their finite resources; probably a lot of infanticide.

Instead of sitting in caves telling stories about the stars, we will go to them and become such a multitude that we can never go extinct. There will be no limit to the resources or what we can do with them.

Indeed, and only in our society, that stemmed from farming, can people best exploit their abilities. Most of the successful and wealthy people I know are not only smart, but physically fit. They also tend to be a lot more assertive, and pro-active (dominant), than most others.

 

[Jovialis]

anthropology proves hunter gatherers were more physically robust. agriculturalists did win because of large armies and better weaponry. hunter gatherers are not able to supply a large army cause you have no animal husbandry or surplus food/grains. agriculturalists had grains surplus to feed large armies. this was an important factor which enabled agriculturalists to dominate HGs. neolithic societies changed phisically more to neoteny. compare a gracile neolithic face to a high brow ridge of a neanderthal. you see this phenomenon also in the UFC where archaic types are the best fighters with strong archaic high testo faces. compare to modern low testo gracile long narrow agriculturaöl faces of hipsters....

i cannot post links yet. put into google: We're all getting smaller and our brains are shrinking... is farming to blame?

we got definitely smaller framed and more gracile due to neoteny caused by switching to nutrient poor grain diets

Bigger brains do not mean they are better. For example Neanderthal had a bigger brain than Homo sapien. Neanderthal had a larger occipital lobe, thus giving them better vision. However, Homo sapien had a larger cerebellum, which is the area of the brain that has to do with learning.

Discussed here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35993-Neanderthal-vs-human-brain-using-computational-anatomy

 

[Jovialis]

tacticus also has written about this. the meat eating germans were much taller and larger than grain eating romans. you see it also metaphorically described in the asterix tale. look at how small rice eating asians are compared to a german or dutch. food is a big factor since it is the building block of your growing body. the second factor is ancient elites used artificial selection to favor more docile/tame individuals since it makes a better slave. civilised is another word for domesticated. studies also prove modern humans have much less testosterone than archaic man

The Dutch were among he smallest in Europe up until relatively recently, when they started consuming more dairy, and fish. Now they are the tallest in the world.

Diet is important, thus the Dutch became taller, because they were able to harness these resources because of civilization. Had they remained HGs, they would probably be as big as Khoisan.

Speaking of which Khoisan, who are HGs are barely 5 feet tall on average. While the Bantu speaking people, are much bigger in size, and were agro-pastoralists. Bantu, like other agro-pastoralists were much more successful in proliferating throughout Africa as well.

Like I said before within civilization, there is hierarchy. Aristotle in his book Politics, said that those of a servile and barbaric disposition were best fit to be slaves. This has remained true in a de facto way, throughout human history. It is the natural order of things, because only very few people in the world possess high intelligence.

Thus, the pyramid-like hierarchy is not a product of civilization, but of nature. Civilization, is how humans best utilize those differences to facilitate our own evolution as a species.

 

[Northener]

The Dutch were among he smallest in Europe up until relatively recently, when they started consuming more dairy, and fish. Now they are the tallest in the world.

Diet is important, thus the Dutch became taller, because they were able to harness these resources because of civilization. Had they remained HGs, they would probably be as big as Khoisan.

Speaking of which Khoisan, who are HGs are barely 5 feet tall on average. While the Bantu speaking people, are much bigger in size, and were agro-pastoralists. Bantu, like other agro-pastoralists were much much successful in proliferating throughout Africa as well.

I'm not aware that the Dutch were among the smallest. This is the line:

https://images.app.goo.gl/sBgrmZcVDLo5LuaaA

What I'm well aware of is that eating diary products like....predictable: consuming milk and cheese and fish was certainly not recent but since time immemorial. Especially in the so called Dutch Golden age (17th century) was the prosperity there, a kind of modern frontrunner, and spread through broad strata of the society.

There is although a constant factor the North Dutch above the Rhine, that are among the largest people in the world, the South Dutch stay on average 3 cm smaller. On such a short distance is this significant.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/...taller-and-heavier-but-frisians-top-the-list/

There must be a genetic factor behind this....may be higher Steppe amount? In the past more selection for length? It's quite enigmatic...
https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall/

 

[Jovialis]

I'm not aware that the Dutch were among the smallest. This is the line:

https://images.app.goo.gl/sBgrmZcVDLo5LuaaA

What I'm well aware of is that eating diary products like....predictable: consuming milk and cheese and fish was certainly not recent but since time immemorial. Especially in the so called Dutch Golden age (17th century) was the prosperity there, a kind of modern frontrunner, and spread through broad strata of the society.

There is although a constant factor the North Dutch above the Rhine, that are among the largest people in the world, the South Dutch stay on average 3 cm smaller. On such a short distance is this significant.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/...taller-and-heavier-but-frisians-top-the-list/

There must be a genetic factor behind this....may be higher Steppe amount? In the past more selection for length? It's quite enigmatic...
https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall/

A land of giants, the Netherlands is the loftiest nation on Earth: the average height of a Dutch man is 182.5cm; a Dutch woman 168.7cm. By comparison their American counterparts measure 177.1cm and 163.5cm respectively. It wasn’t always this way. A review of Dutch military records for a study published by the Royal Society of London found that in the mid-1800s, men in the Netherlands were actually among the shortest people in Europe.

http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/202...=A land of giants, the,wasn't always this way.

 

[Jovialis]

I'm not aware that the Dutch were among the smallest. This is the line:

https://images.app.goo.gl/sBgrmZcVDLo5LuaaA

What I'm well aware of is that eating diary products like....predictable: consuming milk and cheese and fish was certainly not recent but since time immemorial. Especially in the so called Dutch Golden age (17th century) was the prosperity there, a kind of modern frontrunner, and spread through broad strata of the society.

There is although a constant factor the North Dutch above the Rhine, that are among the largest people in the world, the South Dutch stay on average 3 cm smaller. On such a short distance is this significant.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/...taller-and-heavier-but-frisians-top-the-list/

There must be a genetic factor behind this....may be higher Steppe amount? In the past more selection for length? It's quite enigmatic...
https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall/

Diet is indeed a big factor, just looking at my own family history, I can tell. My mother's side was more well-to-do than my father's side, and had much better access to nutrition; they are much hardier and taller people, over 6 feet. They are from the same region of Italy, with similar genetics. I myself am 6 foot 2 inch, over 200 pounds. I think diet has a lot to do with that as well, since I grew up on the "American" diet, consuming a lot of meat and dairy.

However, I had my whole family do DNA tests, and it turns out my brother and father, who are both relatively short, have the Neanderthal gene for height. Where as, I do not.

 

[Angela]

Bigger brains do not mean they are better. For example Neanderthal had a bigger brain than Homo sapien. Neanderthal had a larger occipital lobe, thus giving them better vision. However, Homo sapien had a larger cerebellum, which is the area of the brain that has to do with learning.

Discussed here: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35993-Neanderthal-vs-human-brain-using-computational-anatomy

Not only is "where" the brain is larger matter, but it's the "density" of the "wiring", to use an amateurish word. Our brains became increasingly more complex with the passage of time.

There's a reason why language difficulties and learning disabilities are tied to Neanderthal ancestry. Those are also the areas where the most "selection" against Neanderthal genes has been going on, i.e. "cleansing", as numerous papers have told us. What we selected "for" are certain genes good against new pathogens encountered, cold tolerance, and perhaps high altitude tolerance, absolutely nothing connected to intelligence, rather the opposite.

Sorry, no time to look it up, but certain mutations also occurred just before the development of agriculture.

 

[matty74]

I'm not aware that the Dutch were among the smallest. This is the line:

https://images.app.goo.gl/sBgrmZcVDLo5LuaaA

What I'm well aware of is that eating diary products like....predictable: consuming milk and cheese and fish was certainly not recent but since time immemorial. Especially in the so called Dutch Golden age (17th century) was the prosperity there, a kind of modern frontrunner, and spread through broad strata of the society.

There is although a constant factor the North Dutch above the Rhine, that are among the largest people in the world, the South Dutch stay on average 3 cm smaller. On such a short distance is this significant.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/...taller-and-heavier-but-frisians-top-the-list/

There must be a genetic factor behind this....may be higher Steppe amount? In the past more selection for length? It's quite enigmatic...
https://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall/

Seems like a lot of the Dutch/NW German/Ostfriesian immigrant communities here in the upper midwest have very tall, large people. My great-grandfather was 6'6" and that was very tall for his generation. Almost everyone I know of Dutch/Osfriesian ancestry here is over 6' tall. I'm the shortest male on both sides of my family and I'm 6'2"

Most of the Dutch communities around here have very good basketball and girls volleyball teams

 

[Northener]

Seems like a lot of the Dutch/NW German/Ostfriesian immigrant communities here in the upper midwest have very tall, large people. My great-grandfather was 6'6" and that was very tall for his generation. Almost everyone I know of Dutch/Osfriesian ancestry here is over 6' tall. I'm the shortest male on both sides of my family and I'm 6'2"

Most of the Dutch communities around here have very good basketball and girls volleyball teams

Yes in Roman times there lived along the North See Coast besides the Frisians also the Chauci/ Chauken in nowadays Ost-Friesland. In migration time the people went to the North Dutch area.

There is a theory that the name Chauken, Old German: Hauhōz in which we can recognize English high, German hoch, Dutch hoog. Beowulf mentions the Hugas they are probably the same people. So they already then the North Dutch/ NW Germans were called the high ones.

By the way I'm 6 feet 4.

 

[Angela]

Not only is "where" the brain is larger matter, but it's the "density" of the "wiring", to use an amateurish word. Our brains became increasingly more complex with the passage of time.

There's a reason why language difficulties and learning disabilities are tied to Neanderthal ancestry. Those are also the areas where the most "selection" against Neanderthal genes has been going on, i.e. "cleansing", as numerous papers have told us. What we selected "for" are certain genes good against new pathogens encountered, cold tolerance, and perhaps high altitude tolerance, absolutely nothing connected to intelligence, rather the opposite.

Sorry, no time to look it up, but certain mutations also occurred just before the development of agriculture.

The Chinese grew to a population of [FONT=&quot]1,392,600,000[/FONT] for one reason: rice. They have no lactase persistence genes, and don't eat huge quantities of meat. No, they're not very tall, the men being on average 5'7-5'8 even today. Who cares? It's brains that matter today, and if you believe IQ tests they're brighter than Europeans.

Reading these posts is like falling into a time warp from five to ten years ago. We've learned a lot since then.

 

[MOESAN]

A land of giants, the Netherlands is the loftiest nation on Earth: the average height of a Dutch man is 182.5cm; a Dutch woman 168.7cm. By comparison their American counterparts measure 177.1cm and 163.5cm respectively. It wasn’t always this way. A review of Dutch military records for a study published by the Royal Society of London found that in the mid-1800s, men in the Netherlands were actually among the shortest people in Europe.

http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/202...=A land of giants, the,wasn't always this way.

I know it's not directly linked to the topic principal aspect (violence) -
Bur don't believe everything you read. In fact stature is linked to heredity AND lifestyle + food.
Europe as a whole knew a decline in statures since around the XIII° Cy. The times of lowest statures were the XVII° and XVIII° Cies. In the XIX° Cy french recrues were around 1m60/1m62, the Swede ones about 1m68, so the Dutch ones were not the smallest ones. And we have to be careful with the statures collected by the military authorities even if as a whole, this sketche of firstly decreasing and then increasing statures seems very accurate. I have in mind a statement that the highest people in the world were the Scottish Galloway men (1940's: 1m78): in fact it was based on a limited survey of professional recrues of Galloway. In France, the smallest stature authorized to go into the police was 1m70 when the France mean was around 1m65/66.
Concerning strength an robusticity (little in common with health, in fact) it's seems that HG's men were better armed than Neolithic farmers; but in conflicts (fights and tactics), a lot of factors is at work: number, strength, indurance, courage, strategy, arms, logistic and so on... Gauls were a bit higher statured than early Romans, and considered as good warriors and later good soldiers when well formed, but Romans defeated them regularly after some time of fear in front of them. Even more evident with Germanics who were higher statured than Celts.
&; besides this, we have to interprete tha fact that, when seemingly at least partly acculturated, the HG's males (Y-I2 for the most) took some revenge in mating inside the last Neolithic pops... What reason? Strength, northern lands knowledge, resistence to plagues?

Sorry for this "disgression"