The Myth of Increasing Violence

[thir]

In my view, civilization is, quite simply, people learning to get along with one another. People accepting their differences from one another. People realizing that skin color, or religious beliefs, or sexual orientation do not in and of themselves make people bad.

You are on the ideological end of the definitions. I like that, but would like to broaden it in two ways:
One is to say it is a society where fear, greed and hate can never put a hallmark on that society, but only be individual traits that does not affect the society as a whole.

Secondly, in these days, and in everybody's interest it should be enlarged to mean more than simply humans: A civilization is a society that doesn't take more from the Earth than can be recovered, and which treast not just humans, but also animals with respect. (Which does not mean that you cannot eat them.)

Not necessarily, nor do they necessarily make crime go up. Cities which become well integrated, with people mingling and learning from one another, will tend to reduce crime, I believe. Segregating people into different color groups, or different religious groups, or different cultural groups, tends to make things worse, though. People in such situations tend to cling to old hatreds and rivalries, simply because they aren't taught not to.

I take your point there. But, won't the crime rates go up (proportinally) simply because life is more chaotic in cities?

[quote]
I think that, as societies grow larger they do tend to become more civilized, simply because you have more and more people, and more diverse groups of people, living in close proximity to one another.
[/quote}

How will more people make it more civilized?

I am also thinking: is there a limit to how big a society - and especially a city - can be, before it gets to complicated that no one person or group have any idea what is going on?

Or quite simply too vulnerable?

And just like society, wars become bigger because there are more people to fight them. But I think they also tend to become less common, in general, and shorter. It's unlikely that we will ever see something like the Hundred Years War, with rival kingdoms squabbling incessantly over nothing. On the other hand, modern technology (which does not, in and of itself, define civilization) makes wars far more expensive, and deadly, and thus less acceptable to civilized societies.

So, on balance, what is your conclusion here? Because we do fight wars, not just with more people, but over a larger area.

Are we 'loosing' civilization here, becoming less civilized because of that?

Whew! Talk about opening a can of worms! Well, since this is all about opinion, No! I don't think civilized societies are more religious. In fact, I think religion is a major obstacle to true civilization. Unless, of course, you want your civilization to be completely homogeneous.

That, I think, it a great many people's vision of being civilized!
Not mine, though.

Too many religions promote hatred of others, rather than love for all, as they want to claim. Hatred of gays, hatred of other religions, hatred of women, hatred of non-believers. These teachings are antithetical to civilization. They tend to divide groups rather than bring them together.

But that is indeed a function of bringing people together with all their differencies.
So, from this point of view at least, bringing many people (and religions) togehter will not work.

Here's a little piece that may explain this better than I can:

Personal freedom is paramount in a truly civilized society! (One more mark against religion, IMO.) But people do have to realize that your freedom ends where it interferes with my freedom, and vice versa. When people accept personal responsibility for their actions you reduce the need for strong central control. But there must always be some way to protect the people from those who, despite every opportunity, reject a moral life and embrace a criminal one. Some central control is desirable, but this is one case where, for the most part, less is better. To a point.

The point about personal freedom is an important one, but one that as I see it goes against the ideas of big civilizations, which, being complex, will need more control and less personal freedom.

As we overcrowd the wold, more and more control is needed to survive.

I find that the thought 'your freedom ends where it interferes with my freedom' is a lot more complicated that it sounds, because some people's idea of their freedom Will in a number of cases interfere with that of others. Many people cluttered in small areas can mean a lot of rubbing against each other's freedom. I do not think that there really is more tolerance in a city, not in all areas anyway, it is just that you can easier hide with that about your life-style that would offend others.

The moral comment about the moral life versus crime is almost religious to me - it simply does not take into account anything at all about chances and life in cities - or elsewhere. We have yet to see a society where there is always enough if you work for it.

I think I digress..

So, how much central control is allowed/needed for a society to be civilized?

[Thorne]

Secondly, in these days, and in everybody's interest it should be enlarged to mean more than simply humans: A civilization is a society that doesn't take more from the Earth than can be recovered, and which treast not just humans, but also animals with respect. (Which does not mean that you cannot eat them.)

I don't quite get the "respect" for animals meme, personally. I don't believe we should be permitted to brutalize them, simply for our own pleasures, but I don't think they should be treated as equals, either. As much as I dislike placing controls on people in general, I realize that such controls are sometimes necessary, and placing limits on the number of "pets" people can maintain would not disturb me in the least. Just a personal preference, though.

I take your point there. But, won't the crime rates go up (proportinally) simply because life is more chaotic in cities?

Actually, I think the evidence is showing that the crime rates are DROPPING proportionately. Larger cities may mean more criminal incidents, but not necessarily more crime per capita.

How will more people make it more civilized?

For one thing you have more people keeping an eye on one another, whether as friends helping friends or as witnesses reporting criminals.

I am also thinking: is there a limit to how big a society - and especially a city - can be, before it gets to complicated that no one person or group have any idea what is going on?

Why does any one person NEED to know what's going on? That just gets back to the question of control.

Or quite simply too vulnerable?

Yes, this can be a problem. A large population in a relatively small area can be more vulnerable to attack, to disease, to food shortages, etc. But increasing technology can help to mitigate these problems, hopefully, making such large populations safer, to some degree.

So, on balance, what is your conclusion here? Because we do fight wars, not just with more people, but over a larger area.

Yes, we do still fight wars, but the primary causes of war are slowly disappearing. If you allow cultures to blend naturally, let people learn that other cultures are not evil, you help to remove one of the causes of warfare. The same with religion or race. Knowing that a nation is not evil JUST because it's people worship a certain way or are of a different color reduces the likelihood of war between those groups. Better communications and better distributions of goods and services (technology, again) help in these areas.

That [homogeneity], I think, it a great many people's vision of being civilized!

Yes, sadly, it is. Those who think they are better than others because of their color, or their faith, or their citizenship.

So, from this point of view at least, bringing many people (and religions) togehter will not work.

But it does work! Letting people get to know others outside of the restrictions of culture, race or faith has been shown to foster tolerance and acceptance.

The point about personal freedom is an important one, but one that as I see it goes against the ideas of big civilizations, which, being complex, will need more control and less personal freedom.

To a degree, perhaps, but it doesn't eliminate the need for personal freedom, just increases the need for personal responsibility. Some control is needed, yes. Keeping the highways open and moving safely, eliminating wastes, protecting the vulnerable members of society. But there is a very fine line between too much control and not enough control. It's a difficult problem, to be sure.

The moral comment about the moral life versus crime is almost religious to me

Only if you presume that morality exists as a result of religion. It doesn't.

We have yet to see a society where there is always enough if you work for it.

That doesn't mean such a society isn't possible. We have yet to see a society where all people are TRULY considered equal. There always seems to be some subset of society (blacks, Hispanics, gays, atheists) which is considered to be "less" than "real" people.

So, how much central control is allowed/needed for a society to be civilized?

As I said, it's a delicate balance. I don't claim to be an expert, but in my opinion we need only enough control to insure that things continue to run smoothly, to keep all members of a society reasonably healthy and reasonably happy, but not so much control that large portions of that society are oppressed.