Personally the idea of being tame revolts me. Maybe even more so than our violent and gruesome past.

I also don't think they are linked. There is a definite difference to being civilised and being tame. MLK and Gandhi were civilised, and non-violent, but were certainly not tame.

Being tame means won't have the desire to revolt against tyranny.

You might can't imagine that, coz you probably didn't live under one.

Currently in China, there are tons of people (personally I'd say most) prefer to live inside the "protection against malicious misinformation" of the great firewall. They have "everything they want" there, they listen to authoritative info and fend off doubts spontaneously.

Please stop taking HN threads into nationalistic flamewar about China. That's not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Also humanity in the past was far more violent and gruesome.

Looks like an interesting book.

I know that percentage wise, violence has been decreasing. But is it simply that modern governments are bigger, more powerful, and can better contain and direct violence? Or are modern people actually less violent as far as their culture and psychology? I wonder because even in modern times we've seen incredibly developed and cultured societies turn violent and gruesome very quickly.

Straight from the Wikipedia article:

Pinker identifies five "historical forces" that have favored "our peaceable motives" and "have driven the multiple declines in violence." They are:

The Leviathan – the rise of the modern nation-state and judiciary "with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force," which "can defuse the [individual] temptation of exploitative attack, inhibit the impulse for revenge, and circumvent ... self-serving biases."

Commerce – the rise of "technological progress [allowing] the exchange of goods and services over longer distances and larger groups of trading partners," so that "other people become more valuable alive than dead" and "are less likely to become targets of demonization and dehumanization."

Feminization – increasing respect for "the interests and values of women."

Cosmopolitanism – the rise of forces such as literacy, mobility, and mass media, which "can prompt people to take the perspectives of people unlike themselves and to expand their circle of sympathy to embrace them."

The Escalator of Reason – an "intensifying application of knowledge and rationality to human affairs," which "can force people to recognize the futility of cycles of violence, to ramp down the privileging of their own interests over others', and to reframe violence as a problem to be solved rather than a contest to be won."

It's hard to completely generalize, because modernity is a pretty short timeframe and things are moving very quickly relative to the rest of history, but Pinker's premise (which is well defended) is that human progress is inexorably toward less violence, both in terms of warfare and criminal/interpersonal violence. That's in large part because violence is becoming a less effective means of social advancement.

Having effective, more or less trustworthy police and courts goes a long way toward both making violent behavior risky, and reducing the need for vigilante justice/vengeance violence. And civil courts help resolve disputes without resorting to violence.

Likewise, trade and economic stability have become so effective that it makes little sense for nations to engage in war with their neighbors anymore. War is bad for business!

I think it's just that people are safer and better fed now. There's no real need for most of us to use violence to preserve our way of life.

> Also humanity in the past was far more violent and gruesome

They needed to kill humans one by one with blades and rocks and this was cumbersome and messy. At 3000 kills by minute we, definitely, are much more violent than they.