Hello Steven,

> "Now let's try a thought experiment. What if that same tribal rate
were true for modern states? In this purely hypothetical situation, we
would be seeing 165 thousand Canadian deaths every year from warfare
alone, 2.5 million deaths in the European Union, and 6.6 million in
China! Clearly nothing like this is happening."

I think that the author has failed to count a whole lot of violence
in the 20th century and this, along with exponential population
growth, invalidates the comparison and the conclusion.

Exactly how violent were humans in the 20th century?

"Total Deaths During the 20th Century

"Approximately 4,126,000,000 people have died during this century
from all causes. If man-made megadeaths account for 185 million of
them, then one out of every 22 (or 4.5%) human deaths during the 20th
Century have been caused by fellow humans."
( http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm#Total )

vs.

"Perhaps the most interesting and important result from the first
scientific surveys of this body of evidence is the conclusion that
deaths due to warfare have declined since the prehistoric era, and
not by just a little bit. Lawrence Keeley has estimated that a
typical tribe or chiefdom lost about 0.5% of its population each
year, on average, due directly to warfare. In a 400-person tribe,
that would mean an average loss of two persons per year. Given that
more than 75% of bands, tribes, and chiefdoms were engaged in warfare
of one sort or another at least once every five years, and more than
50% at least once a year, this rate may well be an underestimate."

***

So a tribe losing two people to warfare every year experienced more
violence, percentage wise, than humankind suffered in the 20th
century as 185 million humans died. I don't find this sort
of "progress" very encouraging.

Should humankind continue this sort of "progress" I suspect that our
species will finally attain peacefulness ... once it has gone
extinct.

Sincerely,

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1