First, the fact that war accompanied the foundation of civilization 10 000 years ago says nothing about whether it is fundamentally due to human aggressiveness. Civilizations are a means, however imperfect, of channelling and magnifying our underlying instincts and desires. For example, organized religion with priests and temples also coincides with the rise of civilization. But it would be foolish to argue that pre-civilized people were not, therefore superstitious, that superstition was suddenly "discovered" or "caused" by civilization, or that civilized religion does not tap into our pre-existing superstitious instincts.

Second, and more minor, it is illegitimate to compare, as you do, modern deaths from "war" and ancient deaths from "violence". Pinker is right to say that "violent" deaths have diminished because of the rise of the strong nation state and its accompanying law and order. But the nation state has also proved to have powerful war-making capability. Rather than, as in most of European history, kings raising a few thousand troops to fight a war, nations (beginning, I suppose, with Napoleonic France) raised hundreds of thousands in the 19th century and millions in the 20th century. Some increase reflected higher populations, but much reflected much more intensive use of available populations, for instance, via conscription (first introduced in Britain on the occasion of WW1).

Lloyd, I think you are missing the point. As you say, civilization functions, in part, to re-direct basic human emotions and drives. War was a part of early civilizations but death from war were greater before civilization. One of the key elements of the city of Ur was a wall. Yes, Ur people probably ventured outside their wall and made war at times, but the wall functioned to reduce overall warfare deaths on both sides, compared to unprotected tribal living.

I think the argument is that as civilization has progressed, death from warfare has become increasingly reduced as a part of most people's lives. Yes, large, powerful modern nations have the capacity to make war and sometimes they do. But the nuclear walls we currently have in place function to make daily contact with war a reality for the lowest % of human population in history.

It used to be that 100% of our population was directly involved in warfare. Now, less than 1% of the 7 billion people on earth actually see war. The rest of us need to watch the news to even get a glimpse of it. And we are moving toward making that % even lower.

But the nuclear walls we currently have in place function to make daily contact with war a reality for the lowest % of human population in history.

I agree with you on that. On the other hand, I doubt that 100% of humans were ever directly involved in warfare. As you point out, war has been reduced by the "nuclear wall" which is why I think nuclear weapons are actually one of the single most effective instruments of peace, not war. However, while nukes are a major deterrent of war, they do not reduce our passions, our collective desire for power and conflict. These are the seeds that start war and they are present in all of us, from the liberal, peacenik professors at our colleges to the guy installing your roof listening to Rush Limbaugh. Warfare from the beginning of time has always been a wager, a balance between the perceived cost and the perceived benefit and whether a nation, tribe, whatever, thinks they can win. War hasn't been reduced because we are becoming more civilized, it has been reduced by your nuclear wall and a single dominant military, cultural and economic superpower. A good example is that WWI and WWII didn't happen all that long ago and the world was ready for WII only 21 years after the carnage of WWI, we will always have the taste for war because the things that drive us to war remain the same as ever, the odds have just made major wars a bad wager in most cases. War has only evolved to suit the current global environment, it has evolved into small, guerrilla wars where nuclear retaliation, even massive conventional retaliation would appear disproportionate. These small guerilla wars have not happened by accident, they have been left by a natural selection of sort, that is to say they are the only types of wars that "work" currently. If nuclear war worked right now in that it could allow one nation or group to gain a strategic or economic objective it would be used just the same. The goal of every war is to achieve some sort of objective(s) with as little casualties as possible on all sides, even Hitler would have aimed to take the USSR bloodlessly if it was possible, even he wanted to achieve goals first, not needless killing. Although, if the US falls, or retracts from its role as superpower, there will be a power struggle to take our place and we may see some larger conflicts.

bsharporflat,

I did not miss the point. I disagree with the point.

During WW2, which did not happen that long ago, rather more than 1 percent of the population was exposed to war. If Horgan is saying--and I don't believe he is--that the relative peace of the last 50 years suggests that war is a thing of the past, then he is a fool, pure and simple. (To repeat, since I don't think he believes that, I don't think he is a fool.) The long peace of the 19th century--about 100 years, especially if the US Civil War is discounted as a local anomaly--was puctuated by the two largest wars in human history. On the facts, I am not sure we know what war casualties were in the old days. Certainly, Horgan's conflation of "death from war" and "death from violence" makes me suspicious of his facts.

My diagreement, however, is not about that. And I am prepared to concede, at least for sake of argument, that a smaller percentage of people have died in warfare in historical times than they did in some ancient time. Of course, if nuclear war were to break out our assessment of this issue would change suddenly and dramatically. Nuclear war seems unthinkable to us, and many commenters in this Fray, including you, have appealed to it as evidence that war is coming to an end. Maybe, but remember that WW1, as it transpired, was unthinkable to people at the beginning of 1914.

Instead, my disagreement has to do with Horgan's claim that because war as we know it coincided with civilization, war has little to do with human nature. He might be right, of course, but the evidence he brings to bear says nothing one way or another, as I explained.

This point is worth dwellling on because it is the key to his optimism. If war has little to do with human nature, as Horgan asserts, but is rather the product of civilization, then we can change our civilization and get rid of war. The money quote is near the end: "Empirically, because war clearly stems less from some hard-wired "instinct" than from mutable cultural and environmental conditions; much can be done, and has been done, to reduce the risks it poses." I view the premise of this statement as unproved.

But if our civilization merely relfects our inner selves--as you seem to agree it does--then we have to change not civilization but our aggressive natures. This is a much harder job and I think Horgan would not be so optimistic if he believed it.

You guys are arguing hypotheticals. Sure IF nuclear war breaks out it COULD kill more people than in the past. But so far it appears to operate, in the real world, to the opposite effect. How can you give more credence to arguments about what could be than to what is?

You seem to miss my point that WWII, as horrific as it was, caused a fewer % of human deaths than warfare during tribal times.

With a lot of education and research in the field of anthropology I can agree with the estimate that the 25% warfare kill rate for tribal peoples. It was higher for some tribes. But some other tribal peoples managed a much more peaceful lifestyle.

So, surely you are correct: humanity is flexible and adaptable to changing conditions. I (and I hope no thinking person) is arguing that humanity is on a clear course to eradicate war for all eternity, that it will be impossible in the future.

Civilization IS a human adaptation, and a very recent one at that in our million year history as a species. It does seem to function to corral or channel various other, more primitive adaptations into intense elaborate versions. Tool use has become modern technology, talking has become modern communications etc. Yes, tribal warfare has also become highly sophisticated endeavor. But so has peaceful living become similarly advanced through (sneer if you must) government and diplomacy.

And I am only suggesting that if we look at the relative portion of human existence devoted to war and peace over the past 10,000 years of civilization, that peace seems to be edging out war as a function of the percentage of our lives devoted to each. Thus, though handwringing and worry about war is a part of being civilized, it probably functions to reduce war, if the trends of the past 10,000 years can be believed.

OK. Let me be more explicit, then.

First, by historical time--Horgan waffles on about 10 000 years ago--50 years is the blink of an eyelash. It seems pretty obvious to me that it is far too early to know whether mutual assured destruction "works". Around 1870--fifty years after the end of the Napoleonic wars--one might have comfortably predicted that Pax Britannia had ended war as we knew it. One would have been wrong.

Second, if it is the case that pre-civilized violence claimed a higher percentage of lives than post-civilized violence does, as you and Horgan assert, then my argument is reinforced. Because it means that civilization has contained our naturally violent instincts.

But this is the exact opposite of Horgan's theory, which is precisely that we have no such violent instincts and that civilization, not our instincts, is the problem. Civilization is not, on his view, containing our violent instincts, it is instead the root cause of war. Read the money quote again. And, since he thinks we can fix civilization (I agree with him on this point), he thinks we can end war.

On your argument, however, civilization overcomes our natural violence, which in prehistoric times caused the 25 percent casualty rate. (Again, this is the opposite of Horgan's argument.) Is it likely to overcome these instincts to the point of extinguishing war altogether? I have no idea. But, since civilization reflects our instincts, including--on your own evidence--our violent instincts, it seems to follow that it is more likely that civilization is doing pretty much what we want it to do. And one of the things it has always done is fight wars. Which, at the end of the day, is fine with us.

Now, I don't know whether we have innate violent instincts or not. Horgan might be right. My only point is that his arguments are unconvincing to the point of incoherence.

Well, I don't know about instincts or how strong an argument is really being made. But I take the article as a way of saying, if we really look at the history of civilization in the past 10,000 years (coinciding with the end of the last ice age, you see, allowing agriculture to flourish) there is reason for hope of an improved future.

As already stated, no thinking person is arguing that we are headed for a future of pure peace, where war is unthinkable. Even the most peaceful, meek animals squabble a bit and our species is surely no different. We are flexible and act according to need and advanatage. And increasing civilization seems to produce more desire for peace and less for war.

As you say, 50 years is an eyeblink of time. You are quick to bring up the horrors of the World Wars, not realizing that expressing this horror is a symptom of the very peace which seems to be breaking out and expanding. Did the ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc. agonize over the misery of war? Would the Napoleonic French have made a Saving Private Ryan movie?

You suggest Pax Brittanica was a failure but I disagree. It provided a contrast that people still feel today. More and more "peace is better than war" is a philosophy that is accepted by a majority of people around the globe. It didn't used to be that way. Notice that starting 3000 years ago or so, previous warlike heroes started to make room for religious heroes, Princes of Peace like Buddha, Jesus and even Muhammed (Islam means peace).

Argue all you like that wars have been fought in their name but you miss the point that there is even a contradiction in that. In the past leaders were SUPPOSED to lead their people to victory in war, not peace. But as civilization has progressed, peace has become an ever more important goal and war less important. I see no important reversals of that progress in the past 10,000 years.