Violence: what can we do about it?

[leviathan13]

There is violence throughout the animal kingdom and, as we are animals, violence is embedded in each and everyone of us in some way. We all have the capacity to be violent and harm others, but most don't let these feelings come to the surface unless pushed.

 

The violence of humans may be viewed as unnecessary when compared to other animals - they will fight for food and preservation, we will fight for little bits of paper. However, to that individual person, the violence seems necessary, no matter how much we struggle to understand why they act like they do.

 

Want to rid the world of human violence? Rid the world of humanity.

 

Removing just one species of insect from the planet can massively affect the food chain and eco-system. Remove all humans, the rest of the animal kingdom will thrive. Like Bill Hicks said 'we are a virus with shoes'.

[Cyclone]

Quite a few animals though don't kill in conflicts amongst their own species.

They fight, or sing or dance or bash antlers, or see who's mouth opens the largest, but rarely kill (amongst themselves).

[L00b]

I disagree, it was the other way around. The government was driving the social change, not the social change driving the government.

My turn to disagree.

 

In general terms, social change happens irrespective of governments, and at timescales significantly greater than (successive-) governments' time in power.

 

That's how regime changes happen, from the benign (parliamentary majority flipping at GEs) to the drastic (revolutions); likewise the recognition of very fundamental changes (abolition of slavery, of death penalty, of homosexuality as a crime, <etc, etc.>).

 

(Successive-) governments essentially ride those changes and manage them practically (through legislation as and when it becomes opportune), seeking to influence them to a greater or lesser extent of course.

Social engineering is something practised by most governments. It's not authoritarianism as such because they never stop someone doing the thing. They just make it less convenient, or make it more costly, in order to cause an overall behavioural shift.

I certainly agree that most governments have long made assaulting, stabbing and other violent-ing other people less convenient and more costly to perpetrators, in order to cause an overall behavioural shift

 

So is more social engineering needed, do you think? Or is it already the social norm, that people should not assaulting/stabbing/murdering other people?

You might as well argue against female emancipation through the mechanism of education then. Because education was the authoritarian means through which women were empowered to demand equal rights.

Not sure I manage to follow the logic of your strawman there, C, sorry. Not that it matters though, since I made no such argument

 

(in any case, women were being educated en masse long before they gained 'emancipation' to the extent that we understand this word today: what it really took, was not so much education, as the very fundamental social change associated with the abandonment of their traditional homemaking role for work in factories and fields during WW1 and subsequently, on a very massive scale).

Edited January 5, 2018 by L00b

[tinfoilhat]

If prison sentences, or the threat of them could be classed as social engineering, what does the release - by choice a parole board - of the rapist of over 100 women (that we know of) after only 8 years?

 

Given the #metoo movement, is the message being sent out that if you abuse enough women/kids it doesnt matter after a certain amount? Or do we think waybhoys is rehabilitiated?

[Cyclone]

I thought you'd suggested L00b that social engineering such as educational campaigns and taxation (with regards to smoking) was akin to authoritarianism.

But it's education specifically that gave rise to the emancipation of women.

 

I certainly agree that social change can happen much faster than governments and legislation can keep up.

But equally, governments ARE able to drive social change, and smoking is one such example.

 

As to whether anything can be done regarding violence. I believe I already said that education was the key. I posted some anecdotes about which groups of people commit violence, you didn't agree, so I looked up the proof for you.

Those of a lower SEC are the most likely perpetrators of violent crime. Specifically poverty is linked to violent crime.

Alleviate poverty through education, and violent crime will fall.

There's also a strong correlation between perceived equality and violent crime. So improve equality (hopefully by lifting those in poverty up, rather than lowering everyone else down) and violent crime will fall.

 

One last thing that no-one has mentioned is leaded petrol. There are some fascinating studies about the rise in the use of leaded petrol and (with some 15 - 20 year lag) a very closely correlated rise in violent crime. One postulated methodology is the fact that lead inhibits and damages the part of the brain that allows us to self control and to control our emotions... Google it, they're really interesting.

[tinfoilhat]

I thought you'd suggested L00b that social engineering such as educational campaigns and taxation (with regards to smoking) was akin to authoritarianism.

But it's education specifically that gave rise to the emancipation of women.

 

I certainly agree that social change can happen much faster than governments and legislation can keep up.

But equally, governments ARE able to drive social change, and smoking is one such example.

 

As to whether anything can be done regarding violence. I believe I already said that education was the key. I posted some anecdotes about which groups of people commit violence, you didn't agree, so I looked up the proof for you.

Those of a lower SEC are the most likely perpetrators of violent crime. Specifically poverty is linked to violent crime.

Alleviate poverty through education, and violent crime will fall.

There's also a strong correlation between perceived equality and violent crime. So improve equality (hopefully by lifting those in poverty up, rather than lowering everyone else down) and violent crime will fall.

 

One last thing that no-one has mentioned is leaded petrol. There are some fascinating studies about the rise in the use of leaded petrol and (with some 15 - 20 year lag) a very closely correlated rise in violent crime. One postulated methodology is the fact that lead inhibits and damages the part of the brain that allows us to self control and to control our emotions... Google it, they're really interesting.

 

I havent responded to any of your posts.

[Halibut]

I havent responded to any of your posts.

 

There's nothing in Cyclone's post that suggests he thinks you have, so I don't understand why you think you need to comment.

[L00b]

I thought you'd suggested L00b that social engineering such as educational campaigns and taxation (with regards to smoking) was akin to authoritarianism.

No, my contention was -and remains- that society designs itself (evolves its moral, behavioural, <etc.> standards) constantly, governments in and of themselves just formalise society's design (and changes to same) as legal codification (and updates to same).

 

So long as that remains the case, there is no authoritarianism involved. When that ceases to be case, corresponds to authoritarianism.

But it's education specifically that gave rise to the emancipation of women.

Education no doubt helped it.

 

But it's the fundamentally-changed role (brooding mare for millennia -> independently-earning worker) of very many (a critical mass of-) women within Western societies early in the XXth century, that brought it mostly about, initially and particularly in the US in the 1920s.

 

One last thing that no-one has mentioned is leaded petrol. There are some fascinating studies about the rise in the use of leaded petrol and (with some 15 - 20 year lag) a very closely correlated rise in violent crime. One postulated methodology is the fact that lead inhibits and damages the part of the brain that allows us to self control and to control our emotions... Google it, they're really interesting.

Will do so and thanks for the suggestion. In the meantime, I'll reciprocate with a passing reference to Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, of which I was reminded earlier today

[tinfoilhat]

There's nothing in Cyclone's post that suggests he thinks you have, so I don't understand why you think you need to comment.

 

He said I didn't agree with his posts. I never commented on them.

 

Anything else I need to run past you?

[Anna B]

Football hooliganism seems to have improved a lot since the 70s and 80s.

 

How was that achieved?

 

Can we learn from that and apply it in different contexts?