Comment: I'm not sure why this was down voted,

(See in situ)

I'm not sure why this was down voted,

perhaps people saw it as a plug for global governance and statist mumbo jumbo.

I have some alternative thoughts about the trending decrease in violence. I would say violence has a bunch of roots, not all of which are reasonable. I would say some is just spawned out of craziness, while some of it is motivated by aspects of human nature (such as jealousy or fear). I would also say that some violence arises because there is something to gain by using it, ie. theft and control by force.

So, here's my thoughts. I'm a little divided over whether human nature has been evolving, although I suspect it waxes and wanes and changes based on situations, I think we're pretty much the same people we have been for generations. It's certainly worthy of argument, but I would wager that we are no more crazy or jealous or fearful or ... than we have been in the past. These potential causes of violence probably haven't changed since the vat of human emotions from which we all draw from is still largely the same. However, when we consider violence that arises form theft and control, I think the whole landscape has changed dramatically. I think that what you can gain by force has lessened because of the degree to which people are connected. The greater degree to which we are connected, the greater stake we have in our community and the more we have to lose by violating certain norms of reciprocity. So, I would say that violence has decreased because we have been increasing our connectivity. There is less to gain by taking something by force in terms of you and your community than there may have been in the past because the community is broader and more connected. I would say that this type of violence (the kind used to get something) persists in areas where there is less connectivity, and therefore, less reciprocity and empathy.

IMO, this is why person-on-person violence has decreased. I think this connectivity has occurred independent of government or institutions or the faiths that have been trying to influencing our behaviors for eons. If we are going to give any credit to these agencies, it would not be because of their use of force in controlling behaviors but by them facilitating (or more likely not interfering with) our ability to be connected. In fact, our governments persist as the main perpetrators of violence today, despite the overall declines.

I suspect state sponsored government violence persists to the extent it can maintain its power while benefiting form using force on others. But our connectivity is crushing this too, as we see that our counties can benefit very little (if any) from war and manipulation. It's getting harder to bomb some opposing nation when the people in those nations trade with each other, visit, be friends on facebook, and ultimately, care about each other. Conversely, a one-world government doesn't necessarily require reciprocity for it's success or benefit from the connectivity of it's people. It may perpetuate and prosper on the backs of its subjects without fear of losing its position because it would have a true monopoly on force. So, I would wager that such a government would be capable of the most violence. Further, I would even postulate that the more sovereignty is decentralized, the more connectivity matters and the greater chance we would have of being free, prosperous and in a world of peace. That may jive more with Rothbardinan anarcho-capitalism or what ever, but i think it's beside the point. Being in a good and peaceful world requires good and peaceful people and a landscape where violence has little reward.