Events such as great breakthroughs in science, changes in political infrastructures, spread of knowledge and education, creation of high-tech weaponry, religious terrorism, and war on terror have greatly affected the wider world. This has made everyone, from a layman to a military personnel and from a diplomat to a scientist, question if these changes in the world around us have contributed in making the world a less violent place or otherwise.
In this research paper, we shall try to discuss if the modern times are less violent or is it the other way around. To do so, we would be using some arguments by John Avery, as portrayed in his writing: Space age science and stone-age politics, in order to discuss how modern science and technology have produced evils that contribute to global violence. In addition, we would use his work to assess some factors in the world of today that neglect the hypothesis that the world of today is a less violent place.
Furthermore, we would rely on: The better angels of our nature by Steven Pinker to find arguments suggesting that violence has been in decline for a while now. In addition, we would try to examine his idea of the world being at the most peaceful stage in the history of the human race.
We would be using some statistical data and other resources in order to find answers to the following questions:
1. Does modern science play a role in peace making or does it work against it?
2. Do nationalism and the creation of states help in making the world less violent?
3. Does abolition of punishments like death penalty decrease violence?
4. What is the contribution of education and economics towards a world with less violence?
5. How effective is the role of international peace-making systems?
Table of Contents
1. Does modern science play a role in peace making or does it work against it?
2. Do nationalism and the creation of states help in making the world less violent?
3. Does abolition of punishments like death penalty decrease violence?
4. What is the contribution of education and economics towards a world with less violence?
5. How effective is the role of international peace-making systems?
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The primary research objective of this paper is to investigate whether modern times can be considered less violent by analyzing the complex interplay between scientific advancement, global politics, and societal structures. The study evaluates conflicting perspectives on historical trends in violence and the efficacy of modern governance and international systems.
- The impact of modern science and technology on global peace and destruction.
- The influence of nationalism, state sovereignty, and political organization on violence.
- The role of penal reform and the abolition of the death penalty in society.
- The contribution of education and economic factors to global stability.
- The effectiveness of international peace-making institutions like the United Nations.
Excerpt from the Book
Does modern science play a role in peace making or does it work against it?
Modern science has greatly contributed in providing individuals and societies with a life of comfort and luxury. In addition, aspects like improved transportation, communication, health care facilities .etc. owe their existence to science.
However, there is another side to the story that cannot be neglected. It is that science has also provided humans with the technology that could be used to bring an end to our civilization. Such technologies include; armory, weapons of mass destruction, machines that pollute the environment and so on. According to John Avery, what we choose to do with this technology is a matter of life and death.
Creation and use of nuclear weaponry during the Second World War is an example of how the advancement in science and technology proved to be extremely devastating and resulted in violence that persuaded the world to re-think over their strategies and actions. It was soon after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombarded with atomic fission bombs that the leaders of the world realized the great mistake that was committed. Scientists from the Manhattan Project, including Robert Oppenheimer understood that they had come up with a technology that was way too devastating to be handed over to humans. Later, the United States recognized its fault and provided Japan with a nuclear umbrella in order to make up for the loss. Albert Einstein wrote, in a telegram to leading Americans in May 1946: "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe". In addition, Dr Pervez Hoodhboy, in his book entitled Confronting the bomb narrates his concerns about the advancement in technology that has made it possible for any physics student to create a nuclear explosive. Hence, it could be concluded that majority of the specialists in the field do not approve of this technology and are of the view that it was a mistake to come up with such a thing in the first place.
Summary of Chapters
1. Does modern science play a role in peace making or does it work against it?: This chapter examines the duality of technological progress, weighing its benefits to human comfort against its capacity for mass destruction through nuclear and conventional weaponry.
2. Do nationalism and the creation of states help in making the world less violent?: This section explores how the transition from tribal systems to sovereign nation-states has influenced violence, contrasting views on whether state control aids pacification or breeds international conflict.
3. Does abolition of punishments like death penalty decrease violence?: This chapter investigates the impact of human rights and penal reform, debating whether the abolition of severe punishments contributes to a reduction in societal violence.
4. What is the contribution of education and economics towards a world with less violence?: This analysis highlights the roles of literacy and global ethics in promoting peace, while criticizing the enormous economic resources diverted toward warfare and armaments.
5. How effective is the role of international peace-making systems?: This chapter evaluates the functionality of international organizations like the UN, arguing that their effectiveness is often limited by the interests of powerful member states.
Keywords
Violence, Modern Times, Science, Technology, Nuclear Weaponry, Nationalism, Sovereignty, Peace-making, Education, Economics, Human Rights, Global Politics, United Nations, Deterrence, Warfare.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central research question of this study?
The study aims to answer whether the modern era is less violent than the past by analyzing the impact of scientific advancement, political structures, and economic policies on global stability.
Which theoretical frameworks are used in this paper?
The author primarily relies on the arguments of John Avery regarding the dangers of "stone-age politics" in a scientific age, and Steven Pinker's theories on the historical decline of violence.
How does the paper categorize the influence of modern science?
It presents a balanced view, acknowledging science's role in improving life quality while emphasizing its potential for existential threats, particularly through nuclear proliferation.
What is the stance on the role of the nation-state?
The paper discusses a conflict of perspectives: while state structures can help enforce law and order, nationalism and sovereignty are identified as potential catalysts for international chaos and conflict.
What is the argument regarding penal reform?
The author discusses the shift toward the abolition of the death penalty as part of a "humanitarian revolution," but notes the controversy regarding its efficacy in underdeveloped versus developed nations.
What are the main thematic pillars of the research?
The themes include the ethics of technology, the influence of political systems on peace, the impact of education on rational behavior, and the limitations of international security organizations.
Does the author believe that nuclear deterrence promotes peace?
The paper argues that while some, like Kenneth Waltz, advocate for the deterrent power of nuclear weapons, the author remains skeptical due to the risks of accidental use, political instability, and the rise of non-state actors.
Why does the author argue that the United Nations faces challenges?
The paper suggests that the UN lacks independent power and is often constrained by the self-interests of powerful nations that provide its funding and political support.
What does the author suggest for the future of global peace?
The author emphasizes the need for stricter regulations on warfare resources, the depoliticization of international organizations, and expanded education focused on global citizenship.
- Quote paper
- Mohammad Ahmed Hotiana (Author), 2015, Is the world less violent in modern times?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/335519
