I believe the violence is worse. In part due to the reasons I gave above. But also due to technology. We have more powerful weapons. Individuals are capable of causing more harm. More weapons are available. Guns are everywhere. The potential for violence is great.
So what you're saying is that your perception of violence is worse, not that the violence itself is? Isn't that logically akin to claiming that crime is getting worse when the statistics show it better? Seems pretty disingenuous to me.
Armed forces aren't a new phenomenon, either. In fact the number of individuals involved directly in the armed forces in most nations as a proportion of population is reducing.
My main point is: we have massive outfits geared toward nothing but war. Massive, technological outfits designed for maximum defense AND offense. Pre-calculated, essentially pre-meditated purveyors of war. Cavemen didn't have that.
So it's a question of what you feel, rather than what the evidence suggests? Isn't that basically just an article of faith? Also, capability is not an indicator of intent or actuality. The great warring states of the modern age have had access to weapons capable of bringing about the demise of humanity yet they've never been used, why is that,? Because a weapon employed for the purposes of deterrence has more strategic value as a deterrent than as a weapon. Even the worst and least competent leaders of the modern age have accepted the sword of Damocles which is highly destructive capability. The more you threaten its use, the more likely you are to be consumed by it.
Bottom line: These weapons exist. These outfits designed solely for war exist. They are larger and more advanced than ever before (according to recorded history). People dedicate time and money to build and arrange these. Some people's lifelong careers are in these fields. Humans are wasting much time, energy and money to build these things. Humans ARE threatening each other with these things. Remember Korea? Remember the supposed biological weapons used overseas not too many weeks ago? Remember Mr. Kerry's dialogue, which was aired on t.v.? Recall that the U.S. became involved in these things because others threatened to use and/or did use some of these weapons? It's a big, ongoing global brawl. And the only real way to deal with this predicament is to compromise America's sovereign status.
To use your own example, look at nuclear weapons. The advances created by nuclear weapon development, derived directly from the Manhattan Project, have led to the development of nuclear medicine which saves tens of thousands of lives every year. The legacy of the detonation of the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has, in human terms, been nothing but beneficial for society.
There's no military technology which cannot be used for good. Even military technologies used for harm, like the development of unmanned aircraft, stealth technology and stand-off munitions are in the global balance of the world less harmful purely because they are designed to minimise the threat posed to their operators. Similarly the modern transition towards very small warheads in stand-off munitions and precision targeted attacks has resulted in a level of collateral damage dramatically below that of comparable weapons. What people seem to fail to understand when discussing the impact of tactical innovation in weaponry is that these innovations are having a net positive effect. All else being the same, they're ensuring less people are killed or seriously wounded than would be otherwise.
Just look at Afghanistan compared to something like the drug was in Mexico. Five times as many people have been killed in the brutal close-quarters and largely indiscriminate conflict in Mexico, in 6 years, as died in the largely stand-off technology driven, heavily targeted conflict in Afghanistan, in 12.
Also stop f*cking multiple posting of you're going to get banned sharpish. There's an edit button for a reason, use it.
Dear Mr. forum Nazi,
I'll post as much as I wish. If I get banned, so be it.
"The legacy of the detonation of the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has, in human terms, been nothing but beneficial for society." Ah, yes. Successfully creating war machines and weaponry is a constructive use of time. Intimidating and threatening people into conformity, adherence and allegiance is always healthy and beneficial.
And yes, certain medicines may have sprouted out from this nuclear experimentation, however, it isn't necessarily a solution or benefit. People still suffer and die. People just live longer. People that live to be 70 years and older don't really contribute to society. More things must be produced for more people living longer lives. That requires more contribution (work) from the others in society. It isn't necessarily a benefit or solution.
And you must realize, the drug wars also utilize advanced technologies, in the form of firearms and similar close-range weaponry. They also use GPS systems to track the drugs that are trafficked. Advanced technology does not only concern big nuclear warheads.
My point still stands. Modern society has constructed massive technological killing machines. More powerful and advanced than any others in recorded history. They exist. Nations already threaten and intimidate each other with them. The fact that they exist, and that so much time and effort has already been dedicated to developing them, implicates that at some point in time, they will probably be utilized. Either by the administrative entities overseeing them, or some rogue terrorist group who just so happened to gain access to them. And they won't be used just to intimidate or deter.