Coincidentally, some years ago, in a very different context, I collated some of the anthropological research to which Pinker is alluding in his work, much of which I would now consider inherently problematical: [...]
I think it's interesting that you mention capitalism. Yes, it is a system that certainly can allow people to be exploited by those in positions of wealth, which confers power, but violence has always been with us, since long before capitalism (as it is understood today) existed. People have been oppressing, dispossessing, enslaving, torturing and massacring each other since pre-history: if the scale has changed, I'd say it was primarily due to far larger populations fighting over the same amount of land and resources, and using much deadlier weapons to do it.
A girlfriend once went really upset when I went on an impromptu killing-spree—massacring pedestrians, even the odd boy-scout gang—while playing Grand Theft Auto. In her view, the game was far too realistic for me to consider it ‘just a game’. I had a moral responsibility for my actions despite their taking place in the world of pixels.
Is there not an element of responsibility on the part of the creators of the game too? After all they have given you the option to do as such, and the necessary visual lures of such ultraviolence...
This thread is skirting dangerously near "Doom turned my baby into a killer" territory for my liking. The old scapegoat of violent computer games, and before that violent films, as responsible for teenage massacres and so on is pure hogwash, in my opinion: parents of violent, fucked-up kids looking for anything to blame except their own poor parenting skills. Oh, and you can throw in Marilyn Manson and/or gangsta-rap, for good measure.
If you can't actually distinguish between make-believe violence (whether on a computer screen or a TV) and real-life violence, you're already pretty fucking messed up. Of course, this may apply to kids who aren't messed up (yet) but are simply very young, in which case it's up to parents not to let them be exposed to violent games or films. Of course, that would actually involve taking some responsibility for one's own actions, which is a bit more than some people think can be reasonably expected from them.
This thread is skirting dangerously near "Doom turned my baby into a killer" territory for my liking. The old scapegoat of violent computer games, and before that violent films, as responsible for teenage massacres and so on is pure hogwash, in my opinion: parents of violent, fucked-up kids looking for anything to blame except their own poor parenting skills. Oh, and you can throw in Marilyn Manson and/or gangsta-rap, for good measure.
If you can't actually distinguish between make-believe violence (whether on a computer screen or a TV) and real-life violence, you're already pretty fucking messed up. Of course, this may apply to kids who aren't messed up (yet) but are simply very young, in which case it's up to parents not to let them be exposed to violent games or films. Of course, that would actually involve taking some responsibility for one's own actions, which is a bit more than some people think can be reasonably expected from them.
Obviously it's literally conceivable but that is no argument to say it happened, it's equally conceivable that there wasn't such a time. The only argument that you're putting forward seems to be "it's theoretically possible and I'd like it to have been like that"."isn't it coneivable that there was a time when resources were much more plentiful (before the last short lived ice-age, after which was the advent of agriculture), and thus no need for competition? no hierarchy, no hunting, mostly foraging and gathering; no division of labor, no "work", no written or systematic language because unnecessary, thus the egalitarian, "noble" savage."
And because there is no reason to think otherwise. Why are you so keen to believe in a past utopia?"to me it makes sense that we think man has always been violent because we are violent now"
There were NOT 'human beings' 4 million years ago. There were primitive hominids that lived much like modern apes do today. In fact the last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived as little as 5 million years ago.history of man may be 4,000,000 (4 million) years on earth. while history of civilization is only the most recent 10,000.
"Noble savage"? What is this, the 18th century?isn't it coneivable that there was a time when resources were much more plentiful (before the last short lived ice-age, after which was the advent of agriculture), and thus no need for competition? no hierarchy, no hunting, mostly foraging and gathering; no division of labor, no "work", no written or systematic language because unnecessary, thus the egalitarian, "noble" savage.
I think the seeds of civilisation are our own instincts expanded and elaborated on a massive scale. Your analogy is flawed, since in war we're talking about conflict between two groups of animals from the same species, and human beings are by no means the only species that exhibits this behaviour.the "violence in nature same as human violence" argument is not valid the same way "we all want the last piece of bread = selfishness" is invalid ---- a wolf killing a dear for food as part of eco-system is not comparable to the Armenian genocide or Rwanda 94.
i believe "civilization" certainly "trains" us and conditions our thinking. and all we see are the trees not the forest.
....
You can clearly see that's not what I am saying, lets not spend time endlessly rehashing old old debates, please... We're talking about the case where we presume inside-game violence does not lead to violence in the real world... and then seeing whether there is still a problem with its participative virtuality... if Guybrush's girlfriend blames HIM for the violence (within the game, obv), why not the creators themselves for laying open such possibilities (with the greater ease with which such violent activities might be exectuted than in "reality", of course) within increasingly realistic environments? (Cf the whole moral dimension to the ending of Existenz...)
There's a moral dimension to computer games only in so far as they (supposedly) influence the player's behaviour outside the game. There is no moral dimension to 'killing' a bunch of pixels, and if someone finds it disturbing or distasteful, it's up to them not to play the game or watch someone else play it. The same argument goes for any other medium with a violent make-believe content, be it a novel, play, film or whatever.
I think that it's an interesting question. My gut feeling (and it is really just that) is that one is ok with Grand Theft Auto but if (when?) they get to the stage of creating an "ultra-realistic VR-game" where you can, say, rape someone and it feels in every way just like it would in real life then there is a question - I think I would feel very icky about someone who wanted to "play" that game.Does the same go for an ultra-realistic VR-game where the player indulges in rape, torture, cannibalism, etc.? I’m sorry if the examples are over the top, but it seems to me that a line possibly must be drawn somewhere.
Fine, but if you want to have a different version don't you need some reasons or arguments to support it as opposed to just picking a history that you would like because it's "not inconceivable"?"we all know that historical representation is more often than not, flawed and biased. written by the victors and whatnot, but also, present-day ideology always makes itself felt through the representations it deploys"
There is no moral dimension to 'killing' a bunch of pixels, and if someone finds it disturbing or distasteful, it's up to them not to play the game or watch someone else play it. The same argument goes for any other medium with a violent make-believe content, be it a novel, play, film or whatever.
Fine, but if you want to have a different version don't you need some reasons or arguments to support it as opposed to just picking a history that you would like because it's "not inconceivable"?
I mean it could well be that man was a lot less brutal than we have believed, it could be that he was in fact much more so - why pick one over the other?
3. the same brain as us but zero advancement of technology - no tools, no advanced language system, etc., why? only conceivable reason is there was no need.
?!?!?