Why The World Is More Peaceful By Steven Pinker Analysis

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

In the novel, Peace Like a River by Leif Enger, one of the major connection is to the Bible. The title itself is an allusion from the Bible, Isaiah 14:14, God told the people, “Now if only you had paid attention to my commandments! Then your peace would have been like a river, and your success like the waves of the sea.” The title has a connection to the novel through the characters. I believe Leif Enger is showing the reality of biblical truth through the events in the novel.

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

While Pinker does an efficient job substantiating these claims with abstract examples of our “bloody history” drawn from sources like the Old Testament and feudal lifestyles, his argument rests upon a narrow denotation of violence that only looks at human death and no other manifestation of aggression. Though Pinker organizes his argument to prove each development process’s impact on peace, he fails to acknowledge the price society has paid in ways like global warming, diplomatic inadequacy and weak national governments. The data Pinker uses to prove his point obscures the collateral damage social change has generated by creating new forms of violence that are as destructive as wars but disproportionately affected certain communities.

What has America come to? Although the articles, “We’re No.1(1)!” written by Thomas Friedman, and the article “Violence is Who We Are,” by Steven Crichley, have different overall subjects, they have a similar arguments. The world isn’t as great as it used to be, we are lacking good leadership, and we happily invite wrong doings into our lives.

Steven Pinker implied that, “As long as your ideology identifies the main source of the world's ills as a definable group, it opens the world up to the mass murder of people” (1). Steven Pinker revealed an interesting side to the controversial topic of mass murders and the causes of them. He revealed that as long as people in this world believe that they are better than other due to their race, religion, and everything else that defines a group of people as different from another group of people. People are and have been wrongfully treated differently due to the incompetence of some to realize that everyone is equal. They often believe that they were superior to others because of their physical attributes and beliefs that they had. The

Violence is an unavoidable terror that has played one of the, if not the most, important roles in all of history. Without violence, lands wouldn’t be conquered, empires wouldn’t fall, and people wouldn’t have any limits or restrictions. The French Revolution is one example of a violent uprising because the people of France revolted against the rule of King Louis XVI by raiding, storming, and slaughtering for their natural equal rights. The revolution marked the end of a government ruled by monarchy and the start of the Republic of France. One important reason of why the revolution was successful in bringing political change was because it was violent.

In this TEDTalk, Steven Pinker introduced an interesting trend in societal violence. The talk began by presenting fax that showed a dramatic decrease in the amount of violent crime beginning as far back as the earliest human hunter-gatherers. In many places during that time period, the chances of dying at the hands of another human were as high is sixty percent. Although the media and people tend to believe we are living in a time of extreme violence, we are actually living during one of the most peaceful times in human history. Even though the 20th Century witnessed tragedies such as the Holocaust, Rwanda, Stalin’s mass executions, and two World Wars, the chances of a human by violent means was less than three percent.

It is said that up to thirty thousand men may have died at the battle of Hastings, a conflict that occurred almost one thousand years ago. World War II, which lasted less than seven years, has been estimated to be responsible for up to forty million deaths. Thus, many people often ask the question why? Why does such conflict occur? Who or what is responsible? The culprit does not hide nor has it escaped scrutiny and blame. It comes in many shapes and sizes, faces and places. It is called violence and the potential for it resides in every single person on this earth. Whose violence conquers all? It is hard to measure the significance of violence, especially when it can cause so much destruction and death as well as stimulation. However,

The idea that Steven Pinker discussed in his Ted Talk was that over time our world has become a more peaceful place to reside in. Breaking his evidence down into the viewpoint of millenniums, centuries, and decades, he utilized mortality rates due to warfare, homicide, and death penalty. Furthermore, Pinker analyzes the history of warfare from a social perspective that investigates the effect that anarchy, the value of life, and the expanding of one’s circle of acceptance.

World peace is a topic chosen to prove that there is currently no possible way for us, humans, to achieve peace between all the nations without us having to deal with current problems we have now. The study of the topic has been quite hard, but fascinating as the research forehand has to lead me to discover more unknown problems that are likely to be preventing us from world peace. With evidence from credible articles, the paper determines that a solution to a war-free world without any problems is quite impossible. The evidence in the paper includes overpopulation effects, current arguments that can be possibly leading on to fatal war, and the design of the human brain which may be the direct cause of the violence that goes on in the world today. The evidence gathered will help assist that World Peace will not be happening in the world anytime soon.

Violence is an issue in human nature. Everyone has their own definition and their own interpretations of violence. The big question is if the world is still growing in its violent nature, or is it finally reaching its solemn, peaceful generation. The evolution of violence has grown in many different paths from survival of the fittest, genocide, slavery, etc. According to Steven Pinker’s article “Violence Vanquished,” he explains how the world is entering an era of peace because we do not deal with the same violence our ancestors did in the past. That is true. We abolished slavery, stopped brutal wars, and revolutionized with strategies such as commerce. Pinker analyzes his arguments very well, but negates common issues of violence that we still

With time violence may become such a commonplace that even seemingly sane people will see no problem murdering a store clerk, opening fire on someone that cut them off on the highway, or killing a disobedient child. "A society that chooses violent death as a solution to a social problem gives official sanction to a climate of violence." (Prejean, 57)

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.

2. There are different theories that seek to explain why humans still fight in war. Some of the individual, state and global level theories of conflict are based on: Human Nature or Individual Leaders, States’ Internal characteristics, and Global Level System (Turetzky lec 11). Human Nature arguments for the causes of war are based in Sigmund Freud idea that “aggression is simply part of human nature that stems from humans’ genetic programming and psychological makeup.” Realists also “argue that violence is a product of bad human nature” and that there is not anything to eliminate this bad human habit. I believe that it is true that humans’ nature is composed with an instinct of violence (War). However, society has a lot to do with the expansion of this bad habit. Today aggression is embedded in everything, which enforces our acceptance and practice of violence. Obviously, as realists argue, it is almost impossible to eliminate this bad habit from human nature. In contrast, the individual Leader arguments blame the state leaders for wars. However, we can’t blame a country’s leader for war. The author Stoessinger, stated in his book that a state head’s perceptions are decisive in war (Stoessinger 65). I believe that a leader’s