| | Ed, it is complicated, and deserving of an encyclopedic reply. Easily, as we gained more knowledge, we got smarter. Trade and commerce ascended; the "warrior" or "guardian" mode was not the only road.
I point to Christianity, and Buddhism, and other religions as offering alternatives to the un-questioned and un-thought-about. We here as Objectivists have a better answer, now. But appreciate the stunning challenges which those religions to the status quo of the time.
In The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides is the famous story of a small town that presumed to resist Athens. (Melos or Thalos, I forget which.) And the Athenians surrounded the town and demanded their surrender. The old men of the town met the generals. "We demand justice," the town elders said. "How can you act contrary to natural law?" The Athenians laughed. "The law of nature is that the weak submit to the strong. Your cries are like the cries of hare in the clutches of the eagle. We oppress you because we can." (Where is Aristotle when you need him?)
So, to ask people to turn the other cheek, to forgive trespasses, to love your enemy, was radical. It changed the way people acted. Over a thousand years - 30 generations - eventually, other questions were asked. Here we are.
Yes, when we stopped killing, we prospered; and as we prospered, we stopped killing each other. There is no "cause," (one first, then the other) but, truly, both happened together.
See here about the Cruikshank notes. People were hanged for counterfeiting the Bank of England notes, essentially a violation not of the King's rights, but of copyright. We gave that up, coincident with the Industrial Revolution.
Also, from that period, I point out that deporting London's criminals to America and Australia allowed the bobbies of 1829 to be unarmed. That in turn influenced the criminals of London to abandon firearms.
All of that is to say, it is not simply linear that this caused that versus that causing this. They interacted.
|
|
