I already explained this.
Energy availability and cost had been low.
Resources and food availability had been good.
Now trend changed and energy, food and resources per capita started to decrease.
So, wars will be more violent and more frequent.

"Pinker says one of the main reasons for the drop in violence is that we are smarter. IQ tests show that the average teenager is smarter with each generation. The tests are constantly adjusted to keep average at 100, and a teenager who now would score a 100 would have scored a 118 in 1950 and a 130 in 1910. So this year's average kid would have been a near-genius a century ago."

Those points are addressed in the links. I think it would be worth finishing the text.

@cosmio_bullo I read a physiology paper a few years - I'll try and find it again - talking about this measured rise in IQ. It's been the focus of a far bit of study, because if the increases measure were correct than our grand parents generation would seem mentally retarded to us, which they clearly aren't.

There were about seven or eight areas in which increases are recorded, but IIRC the main theory behind it is that our education system now teaches us to process and categorise information in a way that favours higher IQ scores.

I've wondered about repeatedly sitting IQ tests - would practice and exposure increase my score? Could I get the highest IQ score in the world? :)

On a related note: Given limited space, and increasing availability of increasingly destructive weaponry (often wielded by individuals), is it possible we might see an evolutionary selection towards pacifism? I.e. If this doesn't happen we wipe ourselves out.

@cosimo_bullo I agree that it's a very good thing that the chances of suffering and dying for any one individual born into the world (not knowing exactly where he / she will live) have lowered. And it is worth celebrating. So, from a personal perspective, we've improved at least for the time being.

I'm unsure whether the absolute numbers have dropped. They certainly haven't dropped on a per century basis I'd wager.

Absolute numbers are important. Here's a toy example: take a city in which 1 out of a 100 people will die as a result of war. Now take a different city in which 100 out of 10,000 people will die. Clearly there is at least *one way* in which the second city is worse than the first: more people died!

Or put it another way: take two possible worlds. Both pose the same risk to you in terms of dying from violence. But the one world just has way way way more deaths than the other (in absolute numbers). Other things equal, I'd much prefer the world with fewer deaths. I'm guessing most of us would.

i posted this on another thread, it should be informative, a masterclass recorded, via the edge.com:

violence is in historical decreasing, and we are living in the most peaceful time in the entire human history

http://blip.tv/play/hvFkgsvxBwA.html

statistics and this masterclass says so

@johnnym
nope,
(and i´m not laughing, i´m just being realistic and not thinking as an idealist)
wars will go on
beacuse the people has never been able to choose,
is the people with power following an interest the ones that makes the call,
war is just an awful way of making politics,
but it is a profitable way, nonetheless (in political terms),

only if we live in a real democracy perhaps wars will cease their existance, but, we do not live in a real democracy,

and my definition of democracy, is a definition made by a chilean filmmaker,
the real democracy is a system in wich everyone can say L'État, c'est moi
(The state, it is I; an iconic phrase by Louis XIV of france)

so until that happens,
and that probably will never exist (at least in my lifetime)
i would say that wars will go on

"Global trade wars have already started."

There have been trade wars since time immomorial. How are the current trade wars contributing to peace or contributing to violence?

"Resource wars... of course."

The earth is really big. Global climate change may be a real problem, but the resources to feed/cloth/house all are here.

"Global warming or cooling theory is growing the global tension instead of global cooperation."

I think global climate change - whether a huge problem or not -might be said to be the one thing most bringing people together at this point in human history. It is the borderless rallying cry.

"Globally facism and nationalism are rising."

I'd like to see any evidence of this compared and contrasted with the size of the current population. I'd say the walls are eroding because of technology and the ability to travel/share experiences in distant places.

"More radical movements in both islam and christianity."

No offence, but Christianity must be at a low ebb... go back to the crusades for the love of god... that was radical fanaticism! Islam is finally waking up, joining the rest of us as individuals.

"I'm afraid that we are likely to witness more
wars... including domestic ones."

The research says no and seems to show the opposite. Other than a gut feeling, what leads you to this theory. I'm genuinely curious! I'm going to include a chart that I found just shocking.

I guess it comes down to how 'violence' is defined. Today there exists a violence that is much more diffuse. It's like having lethal cancer compared to being shot in the head.
It often isn't directly physical but can result in physical harm. For example take the financial markets and it's recent trend to gamble on prices of staple food like corn, tofu, wheat - the effect is that while a few people make huge profits, millions of people are pushed into poverty, hunger or even death.

There are many phenomena today which I think are a new quality of violence, but they're anonymous and happen through complex systems and are harder to detect when, where, what and who.

Henry Ford once said:
'It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.'

Rich versus poor is our next global war?!

@stip
you are defining structural violence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence

@johnnym
as you said, you can´t see people wanting to go to war, but as i said earlier, is not up to them (us) to decide that

@stip - your points are really interesting, but I don't think it's fair to move the goalposts at this stage of the conversation. I'm talking about a predefined set of things called violence and measurable as violence: Rape, Murder, Beatings, etc.

You're talking about something equally valid, but that cannot possibly be measured in the same way (at least not for now). And that all said, the fact that corporations may be colluding against the weak/poor at this point in time cannot compare with previous time of slavery, lack of rights for many (all women until very recently), and the like: these things are also hard to measure and not a part of this study (or this current conversation we're having).

I would ask you personally to read this article as it hits a major issue on the head for me. Why we can't seem to accept our modern day improvements (and there may be good reasons we don't, it turns out)

http://www.vancouversun.com/Attached+pessimism/5555511/story.html

For what it's worth, I felt, I believe, much like you for much of my life.

cosimo_bullo,
I too think that mankind clearly improved in the last 2000 years. 'human rights', an international court of justice. It will take a lot of time but I do think we're on a good way. That's why I think that 'structural violence' (thx lolo) will become more severe in these times as globalisation feeds it and it needs to be adressed like conventional violence because it's just as dangerous.