Stages and social consequences of eradicating violence in society

Started by Volunto, Feb 07, 2023, 07:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Volunto

The full article with all sources can be found on the main page: https://antiviolence.io/en/#social_consequences_of_eradicating_violence

The process of eradicating violence through therapeutic correction and strengthening the function of the violence inhibitor in a minority of people with its deficiency will undoubtedly lead to a number of changes in society. It is very important to list these changes so that no one doubts the need for such an undertaking. It is also important to consider some of the contentious issues associated with this process so that this idea does not acquire any misconceptions.

Obviously, a positive and indisputable consequence of this is the solution of the problem of violent crime, which will radically reduce the level of stress in society, help to avoid human victims of violence, as well as the financial and material costs associated with it.

This, as well as the treatment of aggressive patients in medical institutions, are the very first areas in which this therapy should be applied. Even within the current social system, without the need to change it drastically, such an idea can be accepted as potentially the fastest, easiest, cheapest and most effective way to solve relevant problems. This is the first stage that will demonstrate to the general public and popularize anti-violence therapy. After that, it will not be such a problem to move on to the second stage, which involves the widespread practice of testing the violence inhibitor the population.

A controversial point is the potential abuse of such therapy by governments. At first glance, by reducing the level of violence in society, they can selectively increase their violent potential by not applying such therapy to some of their agents. However, in reality, the result will be the opposite. Governments recruit enforcers from society, and the lower the overall level of violence, the lower their ability to do so. And despite this fact, they will most likely still be inclined to approve the practice of therapeutic eradication of violence, since it is potentially the best solution to a number of problems.

Ultimately, the following results can be expected:

– Governments will stop using violence to maintain social order and stop being "stationary bandits" using their positions for their own benefit. They will have to replace violence with other methods, such as reputational and financial sanctions applied to citizens who violate social norms. Thus, a free non-violent society will be achieved, and the institution of statehood, if it remains, will undergo radical changes, especially in terms of methods of conducting its activities;

– For the same reason, the unleashing of military conflicts will become simply impossible, a non-violent society will not tolerate this, and no one in it will be ready to participate in military attacks.

Another point of contention concerns the ability of non-violent individuals and societies to defend themselves against violent threats. But there is nothing to worry about:

– It must be remembered that defensive aggression in the presence of an immediate threat to life is a natural form of behavior, the violence inhibitor suppresses only offensive aggression and the desire to initiate harm to other people;

– The therapeutic eradication of violence will not be an instant process; it will take time for it to begin to spread throughout the world. International practice with the prospect of a global reduction in violence will be the third stage of this process;

– A free non-violent society is able to protect itself from external threats with the help of modern weapons of deterrence, simply making itself an unprofitable victim. One of the proposed and available options for such a weapon could even be a drug to restore the function of the violence inhibitor, working on the principle of a "contagious vaccine". Of course, the actual application of such a biological solution to attacking troops is extremely risky and should be avoided by using it solely as a deterrent. However, this is still a much more humane type of weapon than the already existing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

Finally, it is worth noting that in modern high-tech society, there is a risk of using the achievements of scientific and technological progress in violent aspirations, including the use of weapons of mass destruction. An obvious example of this is nuclear weapons, however, the matter is not limited to it. The threat of bioterrorism is already quite real, and it is not known what other threats await us in the future. The eradication of violence, in turn, will drastically reduce this risk. Perhaps this will even help to avoid the potential self-destruction of humanity.