I was sorry to leave this interesting discussion, but due to a minor accident with my eye I was barred from the pc for a while, and then had to catch up with stuff..I hope it hasn't gone out of interest at this point.

So, trying to find the thread again:

thir:
Then, when times chance, so does this. I agree with that too, which is why I do not agree in a steady curve. Things do change.

]Yep, but where knowledge of what worked so good before isnt lost, once times allow for things to be prosperous again the population having evolved from the previous experience as a "social animal with a group mentality" also changes, hence why violence levels are decreasing when properisty allows more and more. In other words, human beings in general are also changing on a gradual curve (evolution) and we retain those things that benifited us where possible too.
I read you like this: the theory you describe says that we keep getting more social, even if we screw up underways. I still feel that there is no real evidence that things are going that way. I'll get back to that.

thir:
The other reason I do not agree with it is that I don't think that we sort of represent the pinnacle of human developement. There is no straight line there either, I think we are what we are, and various parts of what we are will be expressed according to circumstances. My guess is that we have had cultures and civilisations better than the ones we have now, as well as worse. And so the curve of violence will fluxuate.

You could describe it as like being the branches of a tree, but being trapped here on the same island in space for the time being we will eventually start to recombinate back unto ourselves. So in many ways we, becuase of our very presence here at this moment in time, are much more advanced than many of our predessesors in so far as what we know with certiantly about them (alien origens for humanity theories aside of course).
What do you mean by recombining into ourselves? I took that the idea was that we started as violent and went less so?



Oh its capable of going into a full relapse if situations develope that somehow make violence more productive than cooperation and tolereance ever come back into existance for any extensive period of time.
It seems that the theory sees 'humanity' as one homogeneous group, all the same all over the world, and no difference between rulers and ruled either. This is where I do not see it at all, because the greedy and the power mongers - individual people or groups - will always use violence on various levels to attain their goals, while real people usually do not.


So long as the human brain sees violence as a potential successfull solution to its problems it will seek that solution when it believes all over solutions will fail or the benifit there of is preceived to exceed the consensquences.
Same argument: 'the human mind' is not the same thing repeated a certain number of billions of time, nor do each mind have equal influence on how things will go. It all seems to taken out of context


thir:
But the point is, that his starting graf is not valid.

I dont know what you mean at all about a starting graf?
SP started his journey through history with H-Gs and went through the ages to present day, trying to proof with his first graf that H-g society were the most violent of all ages, and that it went less violent from then on. But since that graf is clearly invalid, his starting point is false.