multiple source essay
Violence will never go away. Is his idea that violence or death by violence will disappear? Seems impossible. His own facts show that violence goes up and down, which seems to undercut his argument of a steady decline.
· Violence solves problems! Pinker assume that violent death is a bad thing; but at times, a war may need to be fought: to preserve or create a better life.
· If he measure violence only by death, then he seems to miss or overlook a lot of violence that does not result in death. Racism still exists in the world and violence can be involved. Example: Trump separating families. Or, rape is a violent act. Yet, Pinker does not address.
· Violence with cyberbullying; technology allows more violence that may not kill.
· Now with technology, life/victims are having extended lives—which may include violence without dying.
· Wars don’t always happen, but violence on a daily basis can always happen.
· Violent acts need not result in death: racism, rape, violent crime/beatings…
· By focusing on the numbers of death, he sees to disrespect the subsequent deaths. He measures violence on a scale, which is wrong to do.
· He is not accounting for how each historical time has unique circumstances. He says each generation has the same factors, but they don’t. (So he thinks we are educated and there is less violence. But maybe not.)
· If the idea is that violence “teaches lessons,” then that may not be true.
1. Pinker’s only defining violence as warfare/murder. There are other ways to define violence
2. Pinker says, modern governments can lessen violence, but they also have weapons with the potential for massive destruction
3. Pinker says that trading lowers violence. But at times trading does not lessen violence: example of governments with weak central powers.
5. Pinker does not consider how mankind can create conditions that kill us, natural disasters caused by global warming