The Better Angels of Our Nature discussion

Empirically, don't you think so?

Interesting point Chris - do you think it changes the underlying premise (which I found compelling, if not completely convincing)? There are certainly lots of factors to consider, so is this a case of one of those which slipped through?

It's an interesting point. But, the Afghanistan war, for example, has had about 2,300 US losses, and yet it's spanned thirteen years. Surely you can't attribute such dramatic difference in numbers between that and the American Civil War purely down to better healthcare?

And by a similar token, couldn't you argue that the (non-war) murder-rates should have risen astronomically due to better detection rates? Surely it wasn't that long ago, before effective policing, that people simply disappeared and were never heard of again, and the disappearance went uninvestigated. Would the effect of better healthcare not have been lost in the noise of better crime detection rates?

It's interesting to consider that reader's who have challenged Pinker's main argument that we are living in a less violent world than we have ever done before during the history and prehistory of the human race, have done so because it is in our nature (perhaps even our instinct) to hold to whatever view we have already formed. It is also our nature to be disproportionally pessimist in regard to the world in general but absurdly optimist in regard to our place in that world. What a shame such people can't just accept this brilliant book as the breath of fresh air that it is.