Hagerty's and Wells' Stances on Social Conflict Relations

H. G. Wells once said, “If we don't end war, war will end us.” This feels scary and sad to hear because it is very realistic. The human race is becoming more intelligent every day and with the advance technology currently available, people are manufacturing weapons that can wipe out a whole city in a matter of a few seconds or minutes. War is simply unavoidable. Conflicts construct a large part of human nature, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions and thoughts and not everyone will always agree. This can lead to quarrels and eventually wars. Conflicts are expected to arise from disagreements and disputes about various topics in the future. These arguments will at some point in time become wars which have the potential to be very deadly.

As tensions keep on rising between different nations and religious groups, wars become unavoidable and frightening. Hagerty said in her article from 2014, “The World is Getting Less Peaceful Every Year.” There are less wars than there have been in the past, but there isn’t as much peace and it has been on a global decline. She claims that the global decrease in peace cost the global economy anywhere around to $1,350 per person. In addition to that, Talia Hagerty states “Global peacefulness has been falling for the past seven years, and over 500 million people currently live in countries at risk for further declines in peacefulness in the short-term. That’s because, today, peacefulness is as much about what happens between people and inside our borders as it is about armies and wars” (Hagerty). She is explaining that conflicts are now often between people as wars between states are decreasing and not as frequent as they once were in the past. Yet, these fights between citizens can turn into a full-blown war if they are not carful with their actions and words. These civil wars can commence even more conflicts because this could start a revolution. This would then cause the losing team to invade other neighboring countries to run from their enemies. Due to rising tensions, people can expect many more civil wars in different nations in the next couple of years. The large civil wars that could occur at any time could lead to powerful nations such as USA, China, Russia, and Germany to choose sides and form alliances; a horrible and massive world war could form out of this and it would be possibly known as WWIII. This war could be very deadly and devastating to all of humanity due to the advance technology of today which allows people to build weapons of mass destruction. These weapons consist of nuclear bombs, drones, and even rail guns. Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” What he is trying to explain is that WWIII will be so destructive to humanity, that it will send society back to the stone ages. If people aren’t going to be careful about what they do and say, they might just wipe out all humans off the face of the Earth. Civil wars can easily be avoided by having a peace treaty instead of letting a war start and allowing it to become large and devastating.

In the article, “Violence Vanquished,” Pinker talks about six different major declines in violence. The first one is the trend is known as pacification. This means “To bring or restore to a state of peace or tranquility; quiet; calm” (Dictionary.com). Pinker explains the trend, pacification, by saying that as humanity becomes more advanced, there is a decrease in violent deaths. The second decline in violence was a civilizing process and this especially took place in Europe. It’s when feudal territories get taken over and then become part of a larger kingdom. The effect this had was that central authorities and infrastructures helped reduce violence and criminal justice had also became nationalized. Finally, people decided to cooperate instead of arguing and fighting with each other. The third decline is Humanitarian Revolution and it was when people decide to be against cruel and not normal punishments. Due to turning against this, there was a global abolition of justice torture. Many nations also banned dueling, witch hunts, slavery, and religious persecutions. Another major decline in violence is the break from major and catastrophic wars. The last significant war that took place was WWII. Due to this, there was time to allow growth of democracy, international organizations, and trade between other countries. Finally, the rise of democracy, trade, and international organizations led to the reduced chances of conflicts breaking out. The fifth trend is known as the New Peace, which created big reductions in organized fights which includes genocide and civil wars because of the end to major wars. The reductions these organized conflicts made death tolls and terrorists attacks decline which means more peace for humans. The last and final decline in violence is a force of rights revolutions for all people. This helped get rid of discrimination against ethnicity, religion, age, sexuality, and gender. This reduction led to less problems and more peace for everyone to enjoy. In the end, Pinker believes that major conflicts are declining, and peace is rising everywhere.

In conclusion, both authors and articles bring up very good and interesting points. Both talk about and shared their thoughts on how conflicts are decreasing but peace is declining with conflicts or instead rising everywhere. I agree with Pinker more because problems and different conflicts are declining. This can only mean that peace is increasing everywhere and for everyone no matter what gender, race, etc.