I have friends who are completely non-violent or try their best to be.  Though a noble thought in the real world this just isn't practical.  I believe that violence should always be the very last option but there are times when it is the only option and should be delivered with shock and awe.  It is unfortunately a violent world.  Life has taught me that on certain occasions it is totally necessary to answer back.
   

It’s not available anymore but UC Berkeley used to have a set of course lectures on non-violence available online. By lecture #2 the professor was advocating preemptively shooting a person you suspect of being violent in the name of non-violence.

I define violence as the bullet going through the attacker and hitting my car behind him.

If anything the world could use some more strong pacifists. I am not one. I doubt I ever will be nor will I teach my children to be. I will teach them that violence is the sledgehammer in the toolbox of life. A rarely used but vital tool. A tool more often misused than properly used but nonetheless a tool they may someday need.

Unfortunately while it should be the last option.
It's quite often the first and only one that some people and nations indulge in.

Humans are aggressive by nature, and that's not going away any time soon.

Curious Aardvark wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 10:09am:

Unfortunately while it should be the last option. It's quite often the first and only one that some people and nations indulge in. Humans are aggressive by nature, and that's not going away any time soon.

I disagree.  Wars make up most of the history books and crime makes up most of the news; but that's because those are actually very rare events.  And thus more interesting.

Humans became the dominant species on the planet by being peaceful and cooperative with each other.

That’s one of my countries biggest failings IMO; wars of agression. The amount of suffering this country has wrought in the name of “operations” “peacekeeping missions” and “spreading democracy” is very saddening.

The usual rebuttal to this is “these people had it worse off before we came.” Sure sometimes, but there’s 3 problems with that,

1 that’s not always the case and Libyia is a prime example. According to what sources have said from behind the scene Obama himself called it a “poopy show”.

2. these countries often regress to what their current level of culture and civility will allow them to maintain. Western civilization didn’t become what it is because people came in and forced it on us. We rebelled against tyranny and set up systems of democracy because our cultures had evolved to the point of seeing the benefit. We demanded it. It wasn’t forced on us. That’s the big difference.

3. Democracy doesn’t seem to matter to us where there is little benefit to our intervention. Actions speak louder than words. Rwandan genocide is a prime example.

Love my country, love our military, hate the politicans that are trying to screw both up. Oh well.

Annnnnnd...damnit this thread is about to go nuclear. Youre Welcome Friends!

Against the powerless it's easy to say an eye for an eye. But when a cop is the one being aggressive what do you do?
It's easy to choose violence against a dehumanized or weak enemy.


NooneOfConsequence wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 1:54am:

the professor was advocating preemptively shooting a person you suspect of being violent in the name of non-violence.

when suspicion of thoughtcrime is punished by death... :-X

Sarosh wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 12:10pm:

Against the powerless it's easy to say an eye for an eye. But when a cop is the one being aggressive what do you do? It's easy to choose violence against a dehumanized or weak enemy. NooneOfConsequence wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 1:54am: the professor was advocating preemptively shooting a person you suspect of being violent in the name of non-violence. when suspicion of thoughtcrime is punished by death... :-X

Preached by those who call themselves "tolerant."

Oxnate wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 10:18am:

Curious Aardvark wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 10:09am: Unfortunately while it should be the last option. It's quite often the first and only one that some people and nations indulge in. Humans are aggressive by nature, and that's not going away any time soon. I disagree.  Wars make up most of the history books and crime makes up most of the news; but that's because those are actually very rare events.  And thus more interesting. Humans became the dominant species on the planet by being peaceful and cooperative with each other.

I disagree with your disagreeing.  As far back as you want to go human history was shaped by war.  It's not rare at all.  Take any piece of inhabited land on earth and check out it's past... one tribe after another killing the other off and taking over.  We are Killer Chimps, evolved to make war. The United States has been at war in some form or another for 222 out of 239 years of its existence. Amazingly the six years I served in the army we were completely at peace. What are the odds?  We even fought a war against ourselves.  Prior to that we fought England for independence. Prior to that we were murdering off the native inhabitants to steal their land.  Prior to that the native inhabitants were constantly warring with each other.  Pick anywhere on earth where humans live and it's the same story.  Not to be a downer but history is history. 
     Here is one thousand years of European border changes.  Practically all of these changes were brought about by war.  And this is just Europe and just one thousand years.  The story is the same everywhere and as far back as you want to go. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzXoc8y2G0k ; Take it back twenty five hundred years:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI

perpetualstudent wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 9:20am:

If anything the world could use some more strong pacifists. I am not one. I doubt I ever will be nor will I teach my children to be. I will teach them that violence is the sledgehammer in the toolbox of life. A rarely used but vital tool. A tool more often misused than properly used but nonetheless a tool they may someday need.

This

Rat Man wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 12:42pm:

Oxnate wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 10:18am: Curious Aardvark wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 10:09am: Unfortunately while it should be the last option. It's quite often the first and only one that some people and nations indulge in. Humans are aggressive by nature, and that's not going away any time soon. I disagree.  Wars make up most of the history books and crime makes up most of the news; but that's because those are actually very rare events.  And thus more interesting. Humans became the dominant species on the planet by being peaceful and cooperative with each other. I disagree with your disagreeing.  As far back as you want to go human history was shaped by war.  It's not rare at all.  Take any piece of inhabited land on earth and check out it's past... one tribe after another killing the other off and taking over.  We are Killer Chimps, evolved to make war. The United States has been at war in some form or another for 222 out of 239 years of its existence. Amazingly the six years I served in the army we were completely at peace. What are the odds?  We even fought a war against ourselves.  Prior to that we fought England for independence. Prior to that we were murdering off the native inhabitants to steal their land.  Prior to that the native inhabitants were constantly warring with each other.  Pick anywhere on earth where humans live and it's the same story.  Not to be a downer but history is history.       Here is one thousand years of European border changes.  Practically all of these changes were brought about by war.  And this is just Europe and just one thousand years.  The story is the same everywhere and as far back as you want to go.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzXoc8y2G0k  Take it back twenty five hundred years:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI

Well, you're free to be wrong if you want.

You think that because there's a war "somewhere" then that's not perfect peace and therefore not peaceful.  I disagree.  In any given year most of the earth is at peace.  In fact, well over 90% peaceful in the era of Pax Americana.

Humans are social animals. We don't do well alone and are actually very good at getting along with each other if you consider just how many interactions are happening at every moment every day. The main problems, as I see it, are greed (truly the root of all evil) and the failure of people to recognise our shared humanity. Lots of stupid reasons are invented to split us up because our brains, which developed, in the grand scheme of things, very recently, are having to deal with a world they just weren't designed to cope with. It's not a surprise if our stupid monkey brains react with violence in situations that perhaps don't require it.

...which is to say that yes, unfortunately, there are situations that require violence. Which sucks.

Oxnate wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 2:47pm:

Rat Man wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 12:42pm: Oxnate wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 10:18am: Curious Aardvark wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 10:09am: Unfortunately while it should be the last option. It's quite often the first and only one that some people and nations indulge in. Humans are aggressive by nature, and that's not going away any time soon. I disagree.  Wars make up most of the history books and crime makes up most of the news; but that's because those are actually very rare events.  And thus more interesting. Humans became the dominant species on the planet by being peaceful and cooperative with each other. I disagree with your disagreeing.  As far back as you want to go human history was shaped by war.  It's not rare at all.  Take any piece of inhabited land on earth and check out it's past... one tribe after another killing the other off and taking over.  We are Killer Chimps, evolved to make war. The United States has been at war in some form or another for 222 out of 239 years of its existence. Amazingly the six years I served in the army we were completely at peace. What are the odds?  We even fought a war against ourselves.  Prior to that we fought England for independence. Prior to that we were murdering off the native inhabitants to steal their land.  Prior to that the native inhabitants were constantly warring with each other.  Pick anywhere on earth where humans live and it's the same story.  Not to be a downer but history is history.       Here is one thousand years of European border changes.  Practically all of these changes were brought about by war.  And this is just Europe and just one thousand years.  The story is the same everywhere and as far back as you want to go.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzXoc8y2G0k  Take it back twenty five hundred years:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI Well, you're free to be wrong if you want. You think that because there's a war "somewhere" then that's not perfect peace and therefore not peaceful.  I disagree.  In any given year most of the earth is at peace.  In fact, well over 90% peaceful in the era of Pax Americana.

   My point is that there has been war EVERYWHERE literally countless times and EVERYWHERE there will be war again.  Until we finally wipe ourselves off of the planet. I very much prefer your point of view to mine.  It is a much more pleasant way to see things.  But I am a realist.

Rat Man wrote on Feb 24^th, 2021 at 8:22am:

Oxnate wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 2:47pm: Rat Man wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 12:42pm: Oxnate wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 10:18am: Curious Aardvark wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 10:09am: Unfortunately while it should be the last option. It's quite often the first and only one that some people and nations indulge in. Humans are aggressive by nature, and that's not going away any time soon. I disagree.  Wars make up most of the history books and crime makes up most of the news; but that's because those are actually very rare events.  And thus more interesting. Humans became the dominant species on the planet by being peaceful and cooperative with each other. I disagree with your disagreeing.  As far back as you want to go human history was shaped by war.  It's not rare at all.  Take any piece of inhabited land on earth and check out it's past... one tribe after another killing the other off and taking over.  We are Killer Chimps, evolved to make war. The United States has been at war in some form or another for 222 out of 239 years of its existence. Amazingly the six years I served in the army we were completely at peace. What are the odds?  We even fought a war against ourselves.  Prior to that we fought England for independence. Prior to that we were murdering off the native inhabitants to steal their land.  Prior to that the native inhabitants were constantly warring with each other.  Pick anywhere on earth where humans live and it's the same story.  Not to be a downer but history is history.       Here is one thousand years of European border changes.  Practically all of these changes were brought about by war.  And this is just Europe and just one thousand years.  The story is the same everywhere and as far back as you want to go.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzXoc8y2G0k  Take it back twenty five hundred years:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI Well, you're free to be wrong if you want. You think that because there's a war "somewhere" then that's not perfect peace and therefore not peaceful.  I disagree.  In any given year most of the earth is at peace.  In fact, well over 90% peaceful in the era of Pax Americana.    My point is that there has been war EVERYWHERE literally countless times and EVERYWHERE there will be war again.  Until we finally wipe ourselves off of the planet. I very much prefer your point of view to mine.  It is a much more pleasant way to see things.  But I am a realist.

You are right RM that the capacity for violence is in all of us, but you also have to consider how much training is required even for professional soldiers before they are in a position where they are willing to commit violence against someone who is trying to kill them... and for a front line soldier, it is specifically their job to be violent.

Some people find it easier than others to be violent, and this can be conditioned into or out of a person too.  The caveat, which I think you are speaking about RM is this:  Even the most passive person can snap and fly into a rage if you push their buttons in all the wrong ways.  You don't have to be violent all the time.  You just need enough people to snap at the same time to have a really terrible situation.

Wasn't it found that most of the time during the World Wars the soldiers were deliberately missing? I might just be remembering false information but I recall hearing the soldiers would often just shoot over the enemies heads and rarely aimed AT the enemy. I could Google I guess but I'm busy at work right now.

Kick wrote on Feb 24^th, 2021 at 11:44am:

Wasn't it found that most of the time during the World Wars the soldiers were deliberately missing? I might just be remembering false information but I recall hearing the soldiers would often just shoot over the enemies heads and rarely aimed AT the enemy. I could Google I guess but I'm busy at work right now.

this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zViyZGmBhvs

I'm not rewatching the video but if I remember correct it happens subconsciously. firing in a "get away from me manner."

If you see modern firefights there is a lot of area firing rather than aimed shots. reminds me the chiaraje dynamic but more deadly.

Oxnate wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2021 at 10:18am:

Curious Aardvark wrote on Feb 22nd, 2021 at 10:09am: Unfortunately while it should be the last option. It's quite often the first and only one that some people and nations indulge in. Humans are aggressive by nature, and that's not going away any time soon. Humans became the dominant species on the planet by being peaceful and cooperative with each other.

Lots of animals cooperate with each other in groups and are about as peaceful as any tribe of similar amounts of humans. We win for the same reason a good chess player wins over a mediocre one. We have the ability to see further and more clearly into the future than anyone else and the depth of reasoning to make plans for that future. We can visualize 50 years in the future and plan for it collectively. No other animal group can do that. So if we are playing chess and you see that you can take my queen in 8 moves and I see that if you do I checkmate you in 15 moves I win everytime. I can see almost twice as far and much more clearly than you can. This is why so much money is spent on intelligence.

Cooperation, the majority of the time, is merely a mutually beneficial arrangement between parties who see that within their given societal construct that course of action has the greatest cost/benefit ratio. This is why when society collapses people who were generally decent people a month before become monsters.

The people didnt change, only the rules of the game.

Ninety five million people were killed in the two world wars.  Apparently not everyone was shooting to miss.

there is also the Christmas truce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce
probably because being under artillery fire is boring.

the firing rate research is contentious. The people who argue that we did have something like 20% firing rate account for the deaths with 1. Attacking a fleeing enemy (same as a dog that won't charge you unless you start running, everyone will partake in attacking a routed enemy). 2. Crew served weapons allowing diminished personal responsibility (I just load it, I'm not actually killing). And also some mixture or diminished responsibility via orders and NCOs right on the ranks. And by the time you get to WWI and WWII high explosives delivered by artillery and planes account for the kills. Again, diminished responsibility (I only fly the plane, I only load the bombs etc).

People who argue against it claim the observational data from WWII specifically was badly done or even made up. The historical data though gets interesting because we had a lot of  finding multiple loads in firearms after a battle. Finding 3-8 loads in a muzzle loader. They braved fire but couldn't (or wouldn't) shoot or grab a different gun that was working (plenty lying around). This was found commonly and internationally, it even comes up in testing procedures for military procurement (Revolutionary war through Civil war). Grossman's "On Killing" is not the highest quality source but the best on this. And it wasn't his WWII research that pushed me over to his side but rather the historical argument he marshals. The kill counts are too low for what the technology and situation allowed is the heart of it.

My take is that there is a majority of humans who do have a high resistance to effective utilization of force in face to face confrontation. We have some ritualized fighting we do but less eye gouging, throat punching, fishhooking, sending the other guy to the morgue fighting. We have it but only a small minority of criminals use that.

perpetualstudent wrote on Feb 24^th, 2021 at 7:40pm:

the firing rate research is contentious. The people who argue that we did have something like 20% firing rate account for the deaths with 1. Attacking a fleeing enemy (same as a dog that won't charge you unless you start running, everyone will partake in attacking a routed enemy). 2. Crew served weapons allowing diminished personal responsibility (I just load it, I'm not actually killing). And also some mixture or diminished responsibility via orders and NCOs right on the ranks. And by the time you get to WWI and WWII high explosives delivered by artillery and planes account for the kills. Again, diminished responsibility (I only fly the plane, I only load the bombs etc). People who argue against it claim the observational data from WWII specifically was badly done or even made up. The historical data though gets interesting because we had a lot of  finding multiple loads in firearms after a battle. Finding 3-8 loads in a muzzle loader. They braved fire but couldn't (or wouldn't) shoot or grab a different gun that was working (plenty lying around). This was found commonly and internationally, it even comes up in testing procedures for military procurement (Revolutionary war through Civil war). Grossman's "On Killing" is not the highest quality source but the best on this. And it wasn't his WWII research that pushed me over to his side but rather the historical argument he marshals. The kill counts are too low for what the technology and situation allowed is the heart of it. My take is that there is a majority of humans who do have a high resistance to effective utilization of force in face to face confrontation. We have some ritualized fighting we do but less eye gouging, throat punching, fishhooking, sending the other guy to the morgue fighting. We have it but only a small minority of criminals use that.

I wonder how that applies to more “primitive” societies. The Native Americans took great pleasure in war. It was their favorite game. Or ancient Middle East etc? Serious question, I have no idea. Have we evolved over the years or have we lived in relatively peaceful times enough that we tend to see the aversion to it instead of the need?

by the time you go that far back the evidence is so sketchy it's hard to say. In my view the "favorite game" is a key part for stone age level of tech. It was group vs group but it wasn't total war, where you kick men when they are down, execute the wounded, and burn the crops.

Certainly wars of extermination are a large part of our heritage. Carthage is gone. How many stone age tribes were likewise exterminated utterly? Likely many. But the tribal wars that we saw with late-stone age tech in the Americas were (generally) not wars of extermination. The aztecs are the largest organized warfare tribe I am familiar with and their wars were very ritualized. The smaller tribes were ritualized as well, not all ritualized to the 'counted coup' level but the fighting was young men vs young men, raiding for mates, keeping territories, proving bravery for social status not wars of extermination. Part of the culture clash with the European settlers were the different rulesets. The Europeans found men tortured to death and said "barbarians with no rules!" and the indians found camps burned and women killed and likewise said "barbarians with no rules!" and it escalated into war of extermination.

Pinker wrote a terribly researched but very highly regarded  tome called "the better angels of our nature" he argues our manners our, culture, has saved us from our barbarity. He botches mathematics, fundamentally misrepresents certain sources, and is really off in his own world. He's the source for the "humans are better now" crowd. I think he's wrong if that's not clear. ;D

We don't just land in wars of extermination. We wage them. Absolutely we have. And we will again. War unleashed has horror that is beyond what you can bear, wherever your line is. I read a collection of interviews of women soldiers on the eastern front of WWII and the story of a baby hurled down a well still haunting a witness decades later fills me with fear. It means burning houses down, torture, rape, starvation, sadism. The worst humans revel in it. And as one tribe feels backed against the wall it sheds some rules. Then the other does. And they both find themselves in horror. But if you're not mentally against the wall it's different. If you, even facing danger, are facing somebody who is more like you than different, there because you were ordered you there because a politician was a moron...well jumping to "gouge eyes out" is a big jump for your average civilized human.

Both sides have a point but the analogy that keeps coming to me now is that "wars escalate like fights" so what starts as a ritualized fight (hitting the face is ok, kneeing the crotch is not) can escalate to eye gouging and curb stomping. Some of us make that jump quickly, some of us refuse, some of us slowly get there. The vast majority of us have a point past which we embrace total war personally. Our structures to wage war professionally tend to limit the progression and end it quickly (like a bouncer or cop). But 2 tribes without their elders calming them down, settling on a weregeld, or a professional competent army which ends the fight early, the fight will spiral out to curbstomping murder even if started as an honest barfight.

Well said. Especially the part of each side shedding rules. If that isn’t the perfect way to describe it I don’t know what is.

So I have this theory that the human race as we are now is doomed without some type of higher intervention.

The reason being that we are on a course where fewer and fewer people have the power to affect more and more people. When the day comes that CRISPR tech can be done in people’s basements it’s pretty much just a matter of time before someone creates airborne rabies or some other technological nightmare.

As technology (read power) improves so must morality to remain free. If it doesn’t or worse if it declines then there will be a point where technology becomes too much for such a people to handle and they destroy themselves. Very much like the allegory of Atlantis.

So as it is I see a few options for our future. A complete prison in which everything, and I mean everything, is chipped and tracked constantly, including people, plants, animals, rocks etc. Everything. Of course, I’m referring to the “ Internet of Things” or “The Internet of Everything”. I’m sure you are familiar with the concept so I won’t elaborate. Or complete destruction.

I guess a third option is to connect with cyberspace and lose our physical bodies but that I think would lead to essentially a hive mind. Even more so than the first scenario. Anyways, I’m just spitballing here. I’ve never heard anyone give a good scenario for how we actually survive the next 100 years both alive, technologically advanced and free. I’m not sure that’s even possible.

Or worse...airborne prions.

Morphy wrote on Feb 25^th, 2021 at 1:29pm:

I guess a third option is to connect with cyberspace and lose our physical bodies but that I think would lead to essentially a hive mind.

I'm hoping for this. Complete and total empathy.

Kick wrote on Feb 25^th, 2021 at 2:01pm:

Morphy wrote on Feb 25th, 2021 at 1:29pm: I guess a third option is to connect with cyberspace and lose our physical bodies but that I think would lead to essentially a hive mind. I'm hoping for this. Complete and total empathy.

Ya and Im hoping to die before any of those become an option. Ive hopefully done enough drugs in my younger years to make that happen but if not McDonalds is a sure fire bet. Nobody survives that dreaded place for long.

Interesting, I've read Better Angels and thought it was really good, didn't notice any major errors and the central thrust of the argument seems quite solid. I wouldn't have interpreted it as manners and culture but more the large systems of cooperation that were the primary drivers behind the decline in war. Basically, war is not financially viable anymore.

My view of violence is its good to be capable so you don't have to use it. Really the principle goes a lot wider than violence to any sort of situation where people are in a position to act adversely to you. Essentially, I don't trust 'being good' to win out over persistent incentives to bend the rules and act for personal benefit. As a result it is desirable to gain enough power to hold your own, which may in turn reduce the chance of conflict occurring. Cooperation happens between equals, exploitation happens if one party has the power to do it and get away with it.

I would extend this philosophy to the state level. Though I think there's different ways to be strong here other than just acquiring military hardware. Instead you can marshal economic and diplomatic power, form allegiances, maintain your systems from interference etc. I think anyone could agree for example, that a major country not maintaining an intelligence service would be highly irresponsible and a failure in duty to its citizens.

I can't find the exact quote but Machiavelli said something like "powerlessness is contemptible" on first reading it sounds like a provocative statement towards the less empowered in society, but the more I've lived the more I see elements of truth in it. Everyone has their own level of power in various arenas of life, but to wallow in it or use powerlessness as a weapon for pity is contemptible. You become a burden to good people and a target to bad people. Better is to try fulfill your potential, be useful as a person and be capable of defending your usefulness as much as possible. Then when you have power you can choose to use it for good. This I think is closer to the true meaning of the quote.

Judo’s right that violence gives you more options as long as violence adds to the bag of tricks instead of replacing other options. Obviously work on non-violence skills and tools too, so there are more choices for any situation.

If violence is an option you are willing to use, then you will also be willing to stand your ground in the expectation of using that option. Sometimes being willing to be violent is enough to prevent the other guy from escalating to violence because you aren’t running away or giving up ground. It’s ironic, but yes, willingness to use violence may actually reduce the total amount of violent encounters. That’s  a big part of the theory behind concealed handgun programs in the US, and the statistics suggest that it works. If criminals expect to be met with violence, they are less likely to commit some (not all) crimes. This generalization doesn’t count for crazies of course, but  even among psychopaths, virtually all of the mass shootings in the US happen at places where the perpetrator has a monopoly on violence because law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry guns there.   

A large contingent agree with you Judo. I read it as a very idealistic and thorough grad student, looking up his footnotes, taking notes, and reading many of the sources he quoted. Really finding Sheehan's "where have all the soldiers gone", which was itself a good source, utterly misrepresented in Pinker's work was the brick that broke the camel's back for me. His two pages about how important not being allowed to push peas onto his fork with his knife was for making him a peaceful good person didn't help.  I'm skeptical to begin with but he did not impress me in a favorable way. The vast majority of the evidence he marshals is open to other interpretations and my judgement is the book is vastly overrated.