"If everyone just wants iPods we would probably be better off than if they wanted class revolution"

IN HIS new book “The Better Angels of our Nature”, Steven Pinker argues that there has never been a safer time to be alive. Employing his characteristic blend of scientific empiricism and sociological analysis, he considers the history of violence from prehistoric times to the present day. Drawing on a broad range of examples and statistics about conflict, trade, education and the rule of law, Mr Pinker concludes that violence yields fewer benefits now than at any other time in history (reviewed by The Economist here ).

Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the psychology department at Harvard University. This is his 13th book, following the success of "The Stuff of Thought" (2007), which looks at how we put our thoughts and feelings into words (reviewed by The Economisthere). Other books include “The Blank Slate” (2002), which proposes that human behaviour is shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations; “How the Mind Works” (1997), which works to explain some of the brain's poorly understood functions and quirks (reviewed by The Economisthere); and “The Language Instinct” (1994), which examines humankind's innate capacity for language.

In a conversation with More Intelligent LifeMr Pinker touched on a number of subjects, including the roots of genocide, the limits of democracy and the dangers of ideology.

Why did you want to write a book about violence?

It was an interest in human nature. I had written two books previously on human nature, and I faced criticism that any acknowledgment of human nature is fatalistic. I always thought this objection was nonsense. Even in theory, human nature comprises many motives; if we have some motives that incline us to violence, we also have some motives that inhibit us from violence. So just positing human nature doesn't force you to claim that one side or another must prevail.

You equate Marxist ideology with violence in the book. Do you think that capitalist values have contributed to the decline of violence?

I think that communism was a major force for violence for more than 100 years, because it was built into its ideology—that progress comes through class struggle, often violent. It led to the widespread belief that the only way to achieve justice was to hurry this dialectical process along, and allow the oppressed working classes to carry out their struggle against their bourgeois oppressors. However much we might deplore the profit motive, or consumerist values, if everyone just wants iPods we would probably be better off than if they wanted class revolution.

How do you view democracy in those terms?

Democracy is an imperfect way of steering between the violence of anarchy and the violence of tyranny, with the least violence you can get away with. So I don't think it's a triumph, but it's the best option we have found. As far as we know there doesn't seem to be a better one on the horizon.

How much has religion contributed to violence throughout history? Should we see a correlation between the two?

Yes, violence and religion have often gone together, but it's not a perfect correlation and it doesn't have to be a permanent connection. Religions themselves change—they are not completely independent of behaviour and they respond to the very currents that drive violence down. Religions have become more liberal in response to these currents.

You cite ideology as the main cause for violence in the 20th century. Why is that?

There are a number of things that make particular ideologies dangerous. One of them is the prospect of a utopia: since utopias are infinitely good forever, and can justify any amount of violence to pursue that utopia, the costs are still outweighed by the benefits. Utopias also tend to demonise certain people as obstacles to a perfect world, whoever they are: the ruling classes, the bourgeois, the Jews or the infidels and heretics. As long as your ideology identifies the main source of the world's ills as a definable group, it opens the world up to genocide.

Is there any statistical evidence to suggest that violence doesn't work to provoke political change?

A study that was published too late to include in my book by two political scientists, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephen, looked at the success rate of violent and non-violent resistance movements. It found that the non-violent ones succeeded 75% of the time and the violent ones succeeded 25% of the time. So it's not the case that violence never works, nor that non-violence always works, but that non-violence seems to have a better success rate.

In your book you talk about understanding abortion in terms of consciousness and morality. Why is there so much misunderstanding about this topic, in your opinion?

Consciousness is increasingly seen as the origin of moral worth. Empirically, the huge increase in abortions has not accompanied an increase in the neglect or abuse of children. A common prediction in the 1970s before Roe v Wade (a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion) is that abortion would inevitably lead to legalised infanticide. We can say with confidence that that prediction was incorrect, which supports the idea that people's intuition doesn't equate abortion with murder, that legalised abortion did not place people on a slippery slope. The slope actually has a fair amount of traction and I think what gives it traction is the equation of moral values with consciousness.

You describe the concept of pure evil as a myth in the book. Why?

The myth of “pure evil” is a debating tactic. We don't think of it that way because that very awareness would undermine the credibility of our brief. If the myth of pure evil is that evil is committed with the intention of causing harm and an absence of moral considerations, then it applies to very few acts of so-called “pure evil” because most evildoers believe what they are doing is forgivable or justifiable.

Should we be worried that violence on a mass scale, of the kind we saw in the last century, will rear its head again?

I think we should worry. I don't think we will necessarily see it on the same scale, but the violence that did take place was due to features that were found in human nature. They haven't gone away and it's possible that they could re-emerge. All the more reason why we should fortify the institutions that are designed to prevent that from happening, like free speech, rule of law and human rights.

"The Better Angels of our Nature" is out now in Britain and America.