Violence is a tool, how willing you are to use it or how much you want to use it depends on a large variety of additional factors. Clausewitz claimed war was politics by other means; violence is argument by other means. We have elected to restrict its usage; that doesn't mean that people don't want to use it.
Except for the huge murder rates in tribal societies, as tallied by anthropologists, that have been brought up in this discussion multiple times that you continue to absolutely refuse to recognize, refute, or engage with in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. All you've done after spouting off about medieval murder rates, which had absolutely nothing to do with this topic, is continue bleating "Meh meh meh, I know so much but nobody listens, poor ol' Luckymoose!" Nobody is listening because you're just whining and posturing, not saying anything of value. Cite some sources and address the actual discussion and points raised if you want anyone to care. Actually make your damn case and engage, or stop with the drive-by snarking and passive-aggressive self-fulfilling "I don't need to engage because nobody will listen" crap. Jesus Christ.
Don't speak for me. Don't presume to speak for me. I can communicate fine, thanks.
Your admission that you don't actually read points you disagree with has been noted. Once again, you're using an offhanded mention of psychohistory to sit there and pompously dismiss every single point out of hand. Congratulations, you're bad at arguing and comprehension.
This was in my very first follow-up. It was relinked and mentioned several more times after this point. They're not my numbers. They're Lawrence H. Keeley's. He's a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He outranks you in the discipline. Refute him. I'm waiting.
Prove it.
That is certainly a possibility. As you'd know if you'd actually read any of this discussion instead of playing the part of a broken recording, I have in fact said on two separate occasions that the study's numbers may not actually be reflective of prehistoric societies and that would neatly polish off my case. "Luckymoose said they weren't" isn't persuasive evidence though, sorry.
More Resources + Time → More People → Less Land and Resources Per Capita + Greater Density → More Conflict (→ Conflict-fueled Centralization → Centralized Monopolies on Violence → Decline in Violent Deaths → Additional Enforcement and Behavior Modification → Further Decline in Violent Deaths → Repeat)
e: I misread this because my urge to do violence in response to this argument is rising. I'll try again: you can't prove or disprove anything without any records, and by its very nature, prehistory doesn't have those. Your desire to generalize modern kill rates back to prehistoric man is no more credible than my assertion that modern tribal kill rates were the norm. Both are equally credible, and there's no way to disprove either unless you have some really ace research up your sleeve. If you do, act like someone who earned a Bachelor's degree and set an example for all the high schoolers reading this pissing contest by citing your sources. Otherwise, your supposition is only as good as any other, including mine.
