Perhaps it was so, Wil, but the trends suggest that's a post-war anomaly, coming to its end.
The trend of the last few generations is the rich industrialised nations are getting richer and more powerful, because their security technologies, be they nuclear weapons or anti-theft devices in cars, are more sophisticated. So crime levels are dropping not because people are getting nicer, but because crime requires increasing levels of sophistication if you're gonna get away with it. And there are other crimes, like sex-trafficing, etc. which simply go unreported. And the cyber crime against banks, again played down by the banks ...
Steven Pinker’s “The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined” has many critics among prominent thinkers. His assumption that Biblical accounts of warfare, Homer's Illiad and the like supply reliable statistical data is ... over-stated and somewhat literalist reading of history.
I think he refers to the “Long Peace” after WWII, but perhaps that peace should be seen as a stalemate, rather than any significant indicator of an improving human nature.
According to reports, last year 180,000 people were killed in internal conflicts, a number 3.5 times higher than it was in 2010. Deaths from terrorism have risen fivefold over the past 15 years, killing more than 32,000 people in 2014. UNHCR estimates that almost 60 million people are now either refugees or internally displaced because of conflict and violence. This is the highest it has been since the Second World War and equates to almost one per cent of the world’s current population.
The latest figures for deaths by homicide are at almost half a million a year. Violent demonstrations are more prominent and perceptions of criminality are rising.
The global economic impact of military and security spending, interpersonal violence, civil conflict and terrorism in 2014 was $14.3 trillion or 13.4 per cent of world GDP. This is equivalent to the combined economies of Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom and represents an increase of 15.3 per cent from 2008.
Such figures are staggering. History, I would have thougth, comes nowhere near such figures.
While they do not negate Pinker’s observations, they do highlight that complacency is a luxury that we can ill afford.
The recent release of the Global Peace Index (GPI) from the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) shows that peace over the past eight years has had two distinct and divergent trends.
For example, in 2014 Europe continued long-term trends of improvement as homicide rates and interpersonal violence continue to drop to record lows. Concurrently, escalating civil war and steep rises in terrorism in the Middle East have caused severe deteriorations in peace in the region.
Such trends show that the distribution of peace across the globe is mirroring wealth: wealthy countries are becoming more peaceful while the poorer are becoming more violent.
Considering that more than two billion people live in the 20 least peaceful countries in the world, the net effect of this widening peace gap is disproportionately skewed to the negative.
Whether you believe the world is more peaceful depends on your frame of reference and statistical choices.
I suggest your opinion is accurate from the POV of those in the West who enjoy the fruits of industrialisation, but even for those, the dangers of the future are looming. As the wealth continues to accrue to an increasingly smaller percentage of the world's population, the unrest at the injustice will spread.
Conflicts in the Middle East will continue. Yemen is already being spoken of as the next hot-spot once Syria is sorted. And how will America react to Russia's seizing the military initiative in Syria?
The cold truth is, there's money in conflict, and there are vested interests in seeing conflict continue.
Why will the West not challenge Saudi Arabia, whom is known as a 'deep pocket benefactor' of groups such as Al Quaeda? Because we do deals with Saudi. Why was Pakistan not held responsible as the country from which 9/11 was organised? Because Pakistan threatens to side with Russia if we upset them.
Why is Turkey such a player in the current crisis? Because the US wants Europe to make Turkey a member of the European Union, because the Turks have made that a condition of US bases in Turkey.
I've already heard sources here talking about the necessity of doing 'unsavoury' deals with outfits like Al Quaeda to combat Daesh ...
In short there's bombs in Paris and shooting in the US ... the Brits are bombing now, the Germans are sending advisers, the French have upped their attacks ... so more money for the arms industry. We had pro-bombing MPs crowing about the unique addition to the global arsenal of British cutting-edge munitions in the conflict. One the one hand it was an advert for we can bomb without killing civilians, which is a nonsense, but on the other, deploying munitions in a live situation is the best sales aid you can think of.
Research and the statistics suggest the world is certainly a less peaceful place than it was eight years ago, and perhaps Pinker's 'Long Peace' in the wake of WWII is in decline.
