Maybe you're right. But the way I see it, as long as your subjective end-goal is a thriving society, and/or a pacifistic society, then there are ways of preventing violence that produce less and more violence. These are measured using science.
My, perhaps unfair, use of "ignorant" was, admittedly, partly because of the recent growth in shallow injustice politics, through parties that promise safety, comfort and justice, appealing to emotions, rather than evidence. I see this trend as a reaction to the current economic crisis mixed with the historical levels of economic inequality, as particularly examined by Thomas Piketty's book, The Capital. Not to mention the increased stress from the ever-increasing efficiency demanded on an ever-increasing range of monetized occupations.
I do not think I know the truth on the matter (in fact I think I am ignorant in many subjects, comparing to experts), but I thought this film was extremely heavily biased toward that political attitude.
While violence and warfare are as natural as anything that occurs in the natural world, it is different for humans, because it is possible for us to use rationalization and science to proactively influence the environment we largely call society, and this in turn has direct implications on things like violence. While some believe otherwise, doesn't change the science.
I am of course open to find studies that says otherwise, since I actively seek to scrutinize my views and avoid cherry-picking.
It is true that if you don't wish to maximize well-being of humans, and rather seek to maximize 'opportunity' of individuals, then it changes, since violence becomes a matter of 'personal choice'. But if you've studied human behavioral biology, then I don't know how you can have this view. I have yet to encounter anyone that did, anyway.
I'd be happy if you could point out the flaws in my thinking, or share how you've experienced it differently.
reply
share