The True Nature of Violence
There are many problems in our society. But perhaps the most important out of them would be the problem of violence. Unfortunately, some people might greatly underestimate it, and many of them are unlikely to even understand the nature of this phenomenon. Even those people who do not accept any kind of violence in society may well believe that it is a natural form of behavior for humans and other species. At first glance, this might seem obvious, but how true is it really?
Did you know that many species have inhibitors of intraspecific aggression, which developed in the course of biological evolution? This mechanism can be found both in primitive jellyfish, which have a chemical blocker to sting other members of their own species, and in highly developed mammals, among which the ritualization of intraspecific fights is common, preventing harm between opponents. And humans too have a similar mechanism, which is called the violence inhibition mechanism. The model of this mechanism explains the development of empathy and the emergence of psychopathy.
This theory has been confirmed by many observations and studies. Experiments on animals showed how the activation of such a mechanism leads to the suppression of offensive aggression, all the while not affecting either defensive aggression or other forms of behavior and social communication. And a lot of evidence, including the findings of military experts, suggests that the average and healthy individual has a strong inner resistance to killing other people.
Violent behavior should not be considered as a purely social phenomenon but rather as a result of dysfunction of inner aggression inhibitors. Violence, especially in its most cruel forms, is always committed by pathological and mentally unhealthy individuals who do not experience any resistance to it. And it is the understanding of this that will allow us to develop the most effective solutions to the problem of violence and achieve a free non-violent society.
Each of the arguments mentioned here and many more will be covered in detail in future posts, so don't miss them!
There are many problems in our society. But perhaps the most important out of them would be the problem of violence. Unfortunately, some people might greatly underestimate it, and many of them are unlikely to even understand the nature of this phenomenon. Even those people who do not accept any kind of violence in society may well believe that it is a natural form of behavior for humans and other species. At first glance, this might seem obvious, but how true is it really?
Did you know that many species have inhibitors of intraspecific aggression, which developed in the course of biological evolution? This mechanism can be found both in primitive jellyfish, which have a chemical blocker to sting other members of their own species, and in highly developed mammals, among which the ritualization of intraspecific fights is common, preventing harm between opponents. And humans too have a similar mechanism, which is called the violence inhibition mechanism. The model of this mechanism explains the development of empathy and the emergence of psychopathy.
This theory has been confirmed by many observations and studies. Experiments on animals showed how the activation of such a mechanism leads to the suppression of offensive aggression, all the while not affecting either defensive aggression or other forms of behavior and social communication. And a lot of evidence, including the findings of military experts, suggests that the average and healthy individual has a strong inner resistance to killing other people.
Violent behavior should not be considered as a purely social phenomenon but rather as a result of dysfunction of inner aggression inhibitors. Violence, especially in its most cruel forms, is always committed by pathological and mentally unhealthy individuals who do not experience any resistance to it. And it is the understanding of this that will allow us to develop the most effective solutions to the problem of violence and achieve a free non-violent society.
Each of the arguments mentioned here and many more will be covered in detail in future posts, so don't miss them!
Why structural violence cannot be limited
Before talking about the concept of the violence inhibition mechanism, it would be nice to publish a few materials on the topic of the impact of violence on society and why it should be eradicated. And first of all, we must understand that violence cannot be guaranteed to be a limited and beneficial tool for society.
It is obvious that violence increases the level of stress in society, which interferes with the full life and productive activities of people and generally leads to human casualties, even lethal ones. This also applies to structural violence because throughout history, states and especially their power structures often abused their position, restricting people's freedom. And under some regimes (the most obvious example being the Nazi Germany), mass violence against certain categories of citizens was generally legitimized.
Yet one should not expect that under democratic regimes violence will suddenly become a limited and beneficial tool for society, because even in an ideal direct democracy, the executors of forceful measures will still be the absolute minority of people, having their own interests and the ability to impose them on society by force. Even if all decisions are made directly by citizens, they would still not directly participate in their implementation.
Therefore, the problem of states is not in the very structure of their political system but in the use of coercion in their activities. It is important to consider alternative methods of maintaining order in society that do not rely on violence, a tool that can be easily abused. And in general, the response to non-violent violations can be exclusively non-violent sanctions, for example, reputational or financial ones.
Before talking about the concept of the violence inhibition mechanism, it would be nice to publish a few materials on the topic of the impact of violence on society and why it should be eradicated. And first of all, we must understand that violence cannot be guaranteed to be a limited and beneficial tool for society.
It is obvious that violence increases the level of stress in society, which interferes with the full life and productive activities of people and generally leads to human casualties, even lethal ones. This also applies to structural violence because throughout history, states and especially their power structures often abused their position, restricting people's freedom. And under some regimes (the most obvious example being the Nazi Germany), mass violence against certain categories of citizens was generally legitimized.
Yet one should not expect that under democratic regimes violence will suddenly become a limited and beneficial tool for society, because even in an ideal direct democracy, the executors of forceful measures will still be the absolute minority of people, having their own interests and the ability to impose them on society by force. Even if all decisions are made directly by citizens, they would still not directly participate in their implementation.
Therefore, the problem of states is not in the very structure of their political system but in the use of coercion in their activities. It is important to consider alternative methods of maintaining order in society that do not rely on violence, a tool that can be easily abused. And in general, the response to non-violent violations can be exclusively non-violent sanctions, for example, reputational or financial ones.
The method of violence and the "stationary bandits"
People often pay attention to private violence. However, many forms of structural violence are ignored, especially if they are "legitimized". But in many ways, our society is built on structural violence, and in general, the emergence of the states themselves is well described by the theory of a stationary bandit, according to which this initially happened not by the voluntary consent of people to create power but because of their submission to power under the threat of violence. And we cannot ignore the consequences that follow from this.
Of course, the institution of statehood is considered to be very important for solving problems and achieving certain objectives in society. However, the function of states does not need to be disputed since the problem is not in it but in the methods that states resort to in their activities. It is violence as a method of creating any social structure and maintaining its functioning that turns it into a stationary bandit. And a free society can never be built on violence.
People often pay attention to private violence. However, many forms of structural violence are ignored, especially if they are "legitimized". But in many ways, our society is built on structural violence, and in general, the emergence of the states themselves is well described by the theory of a stationary bandit, according to which this initially happened not by the voluntary consent of people to create power but because of their submission to power under the threat of violence. And we cannot ignore the consequences that follow from this.
Of course, the institution of statehood is considered to be very important for solving problems and achieving certain objectives in society. However, the function of states does not need to be disputed since the problem is not in it but in the methods that states resort to in their activities. It is violence as a method of creating any social structure and maintaining its functioning that turns it into a stationary bandit. And a free society can never be built on violence.
Economic consequences of violence
From an economic point of view, an act of violence is a forced decrease of the victims' well-being, often along with an increase in that of the aggressor. If robberies become regular, time preferences increase – this means that people, due to the inability to accumulate significant funds for the future, will begin to spend more of them now on the goods for short-term consumption. Labor productivity will also decrease as the markets begin to focus on the primitive production of short-term goods, and long-term investment simply does not bring profit because robbed people do not have the opportunity to purchase high-tech and expensive goods. The economic, scientific, technical, and industrial development of society will slow down. The cost of violence is also expressed in the fact that because of it a significant part of time and funds has to be invested in ensuring security rather than directly in productive activities.
As we mentioned in the previous post, any social structure that uses the threat of violence in its activities (and also for its funding) can be defined as a "stationary bandit". And regular robberies are always done by such bandits. The violent potential that they possess in comparison with ordinary citizens allows them to easily engage in economic abuses without leaving people the opportunity and the right to do anything about it. Even if they are somehow lucky to change the political system, because of maintaining the power structures and violent potential, the new system will only become another "stationary bandit".
To avoid such economic consequences of violence, it is very important to strive in the first place not to change the goals pursued by any social structures but to change the methods used by them. Violence cannot in any way lead to an increase in the well-being of people; it can only lead to economic crises.
From an economic point of view, an act of violence is a forced decrease of the victims' well-being, often along with an increase in that of the aggressor. If robberies become regular, time preferences increase – this means that people, due to the inability to accumulate significant funds for the future, will begin to spend more of them now on the goods for short-term consumption. Labor productivity will also decrease as the markets begin to focus on the primitive production of short-term goods, and long-term investment simply does not bring profit because robbed people do not have the opportunity to purchase high-tech and expensive goods. The economic, scientific, technical, and industrial development of society will slow down. The cost of violence is also expressed in the fact that because of it a significant part of time and funds has to be invested in ensuring security rather than directly in productive activities.
As we mentioned in the previous post, any social structure that uses the threat of violence in its activities (and also for its funding) can be defined as a "stationary bandit". And regular robberies are always done by such bandits. The violent potential that they possess in comparison with ordinary citizens allows them to easily engage in economic abuses without leaving people the opportunity and the right to do anything about it. Even if they are somehow lucky to change the political system, because of maintaining the power structures and violent potential, the new system will only become another "stationary bandit".
To avoid such economic consequences of violence, it is very important to strive in the first place not to change the goals pursued by any social structures but to change the methods used by them. Violence cannot in any way lead to an increase in the well-being of people; it can only lead to economic crises.
Catastrophic consequences of violence
We can often live with the negative social and economic consequences of violence somehow. But violent aspirations may not end only with a decrease in the well-being of people and individual casualties. In the modern high-tech world, they can even lead to catastrophic consequences. Of course, one can immediately imagine the scenario of a full-scale war between states with the massive use of nuclear weapons. But this scenario is extremely unlikely, given that nuclear weapons are in the hands of a limited circle of people and are extremely difficult to produce.
However, scientific and technological progress does not stand still, and new variants of weapons of mass destruction may appear. Currently, the potentially most affordable option is to use rapidly developing biotechnologies. A scientific work published in 2018 by a group of Canadian researchers on the recreation of the horsepox virus, closely related to the smallpox virus – one of the deadliest diseases in human history, is an illustrative example of how affordable the creation of biological weapons might be. The cost of this project was estimated at approximately $100,000. The researchers sought to create a new, even safer vaccine against smallpox. However, a significant part of the scientific community was critical of this study and accused the scientific journal PLOS One of allowing the publication of a work that could help terrorists create bioweapons. Back in 2011, virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka conducted experiments to create a flu vaccine. He tried to recreate the strain of the virus that preceded the 2009-2010 epidemic to see how the virus had changed over the course of 4 years. As a result, he modified it so that it became resistant to human immunity. Of course, his work began to be criticized since humanity would be powerless if the virus leaked from the laboratory.
It is not known what other dangerous means will become more affordable in the future. But what is known for sure is that people and groups of people with violent aspirations may well try to use the dangerous achievements of progress, which may end up with a global catastrophe and self-destruction of mankind, or at least the destruction of the civilized world and throwing back the development of mankind into the distant past. And, of course, one cannot abandon scientific and technological progress, especially considering that this is the only hope of mankind for survival in the long term. Therefore, it is necessary to get rid of the root of such a threat – the problem of violence in society and human relationships. Perhaps it is violence that is the very factor of the "Great Filter" that can lead civilization to extinction before it can go beyond the borders of its native planet and begin space colonization?
We can often live with the negative social and economic consequences of violence somehow. But violent aspirations may not end only with a decrease in the well-being of people and individual casualties. In the modern high-tech world, they can even lead to catastrophic consequences. Of course, one can immediately imagine the scenario of a full-scale war between states with the massive use of nuclear weapons. But this scenario is extremely unlikely, given that nuclear weapons are in the hands of a limited circle of people and are extremely difficult to produce.
However, scientific and technological progress does not stand still, and new variants of weapons of mass destruction may appear. Currently, the potentially most affordable option is to use rapidly developing biotechnologies. A scientific work published in 2018 by a group of Canadian researchers on the recreation of the horsepox virus, closely related to the smallpox virus – one of the deadliest diseases in human history, is an illustrative example of how affordable the creation of biological weapons might be. The cost of this project was estimated at approximately $100,000. The researchers sought to create a new, even safer vaccine against smallpox. However, a significant part of the scientific community was critical of this study and accused the scientific journal PLOS One of allowing the publication of a work that could help terrorists create bioweapons. Back in 2011, virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka conducted experiments to create a flu vaccine. He tried to recreate the strain of the virus that preceded the 2009-2010 epidemic to see how the virus had changed over the course of 4 years. As a result, he modified it so that it became resistant to human immunity. Of course, his work began to be criticized since humanity would be powerless if the virus leaked from the laboratory.
It is not known what other dangerous means will become more affordable in the future. But what is known for sure is that people and groups of people with violent aspirations may well try to use the dangerous achievements of progress, which may end up with a global catastrophe and self-destruction of mankind, or at least the destruction of the civilized world and throwing back the development of mankind into the distant past. And, of course, one cannot abandon scientific and technological progress, especially considering that this is the only hope of mankind for survival in the long term. Therefore, it is necessary to get rid of the root of such a threat – the problem of violence in society and human relationships. Perhaps it is violence that is the very factor of the "Great Filter" that can lead civilization to extinction before it can go beyond the borders of its native planet and begin space colonization?