Differences Between Old Earth And The Vereal Union

My operational definition of violence is any kind of physical action where the intention is to hurt, damage or kill someone or something. There is the question of whether violence is a part of human nature or simply some people way of interacting with the world around us, were we always violent or is it a more pronounced feature of the modern era? I believe that violence is a key part of human nature and has contributed to our survival and evolution on many occasions, however it can also a major drawback and has led to some of humanities most devastating mortality rates, wars and atrocities. It is widely accepted that violence is present in at least some humans, and so where does this violence originate from? The nature vs nurture debate explores whether people are born with this violent gene or are raised by their parents or guardians to act in a violent way but are not born with it. The nature vs nurture debate is a key part of violences origins in humanity and so will be explored in this essay.

History has a tendency to repeat itself.  One of humanity’s most popular ways of getting its point across is through violence.  When words are no longer enough to argue a point, human casualties not only directly solve the problem, but symbolically send a message to all those affected as well.  Just as the American colonies fought against the British for Freedom when their voice was no longer heard, and just as the Islamic extremists used terrorism to send an evil message to America, both V and Chancellor Sutler used violence to gain a voice in a world of chaos.

Instinctivist theories on human aggressiveness often promote the notion that warfare is in the nature of humankind and therefore cannot be prevented. However Margaret Mead eloquently refuted this idea in her renowned essay Warfare: an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity. Mead states, “War is inevitable unless we change our social system and outlaw classes, the struggle for power, and possessions; and in the event of our success warfare would disappear, as a symptom vanishes when the disease is cured.” Through this statement Mead makes it clear that because aggression and subsequently warfare is a learned invention, it can be avoided. For the purposes of this essay, aggression will be defined as “a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism.” This essay will outline how and why aggression, and thus warfare, is not biological and is rather a behaviour that is learned as a reaction to social stimuli. Furthermore, it will be explained that violence is used by societies as a political weapon to achieve ostensible objectives.

Starting with the premodern society and moving on to our modern society I will compare and contrast the two societies.

There are many societies from ancient time to present time that have similarities and differences from one another. Amongst the many societies in the world, are Egyptian and Mesoamerican societies. There are many similarities as well as differences among Egyptian and Mesoamerican societies.

David Nirenberg talks about two types of violence, “cataclysmic violence” and “systematic violence”. The first part of the book discusses “cataclysmic” violence, while the second part of the book focuses on “systematic violence.”

Throughout the history of Earth, there have been many fascinating developments, the most prominent being the first civilizations, Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. They had many similarities, such as characteristics of early civilizations and social structures, but they also had their differences. The most embossed differences included the divergent geography, prior belief, trade, relations with other civilizations, and politics.

The first category of culture is religion. There were several similarities between the Mesopotamians and Egyptians. The Mesopotamians and Egyptians had their own religion and beliefs. Both were polytheistic, meaning they believed in numerous gods or goddesses instead of one god or goddess. There were also several differences between the Mesopotamian and Egyptians. While the Mesopotamians and Egyptians worshiped thousands of deities, there were four main essential deities for the Mesopotamians: An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursaga. An was the god of heaven. Enlil was the god of wind and became the power of energy, force, and authority on the earth. Enki was the god of

Violence and war is notable throughout history. However, it is lazy to say that this proves humans are naturally violent. Rather than using nature as an excuse for those who chose to act violently it’s important we recognize that we have a choice to decide how we act. In Howard Zinn’s, “Violence and Human Nature” He shows that violence is not an instinct but that the environment in which they live in provokes them to act violently or peacefully depending on their choice (43). In City of God, a film concentrating on the gangs of Rio de Janeiro during the 1960’s to the 1980’s, specifically the township of Cidade de Deus, we are introduced to various characters who all make different choices under different motivations. Rocket, the little brother to a member of the Tender Trio, who are essentially the Robin Hood’s of the City of God, to act non-violently despite his environment and the influences around him.

Religion was an important factor in the everyday lives of Mesopotamians and ancient Egyptians. Both civilizations were polytheistic which meant they worshiped multiple gods. Many elaborate temples were built to praise them. The leaders in both regions were believed to be related to the gods because of the great power they held and wealth under their control. Mesopotamians and ancient Egyptians believed in the afterlife. When people died, they were buried with items to take along.

In order to discuss the modes of violence inherent in any symbolic order, a discussion of violence must precede its effects. It is easy to observe what I will call ‘subjective’ violence; however, doing so taints an ‘objective’ assessment. By subjective violence, I mean acts that we can describe as breaking the status quo or utterly unacceptable; spewing a spit ball, punching a friend, engaging in armed conflict, and so on. Objective violence is the status quo, or systemic acts maintaining the existing order; profit schemes enabling the last recession, government institutions that motivate resistance, etc. For the sake of brevity, I only wish to note that I am conceptualizing the notion of violence in an operative sense, as, I believe, it is the only way to provide an effective critique of

In 1986, the Seville Statement on Violence was convened by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Part of this statement says that “it is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature”. Though this may be a widely accepted idea, it is quite obvious that Glover rejects it. He does not let our species off easily; he specifically says that, “We need to look hard and clearly at some monsters inside us. But this is part of the project of caging

Violence can be described as a behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Violence has been around from the beginning and can be seen through history in writing and events that occurred. In Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, violence’s jarring effects on societal members are evidenced through various relationships and partnerships, portraying society’s corrupt ideologies and ethics.

The history of human nature has been bloody, painful, and even destructive. Nonetheless, before understanding their environments humans used to kill each other based on their own mindset on the ideal of violence, and what it actually meant. Pinker describes narratives of violent acts from the past, that today are foreign to us. He gives us a tour of the historical human violence and how the violence in human nature has changed throughout time. The main idea from Pinker’s book,“The Better Angels of Our Nature ', is “for all the dangers we face today, the dangers of yesterday were even worse.” He provides its readers with explicit violent stories beginning from 8000 BCE to now, and describes how violence has evolved from a blood lost to more of a peaceful existence.

Another reason that it is natural to compare them is their economic growth has mirrored one another. Both emerged from a war with its economy devastated and its infrastructure in ruins. Both countries changed with the economic climate of the time and took advantage of