Violence is ingrained in our brainstem because our experience has always been heavily influenced by violence in the past and continues to be influenced.
There is indirect and direct violence, the threat or even the suggestion of violence and violence that is carried out directly. In principle, science distinguishes between personal violence, which is exercised directly by people, and structural violence, which emanates from the social conditions under which people live.
In 75 percent of American (and German) television programs, airing at a time when most children are watching, the hero kills or hits people. Typically, violence is the "highlight" of the program. Viewers who have been taught that the bad guys deserve punishment watch such violent programming with satisfaction.
Source: Marshall B. Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication, page 37, lines 11-16
Violence is advocated by almost all governments as a protection of the respective lifestyle and is wanted.
That is why we keep violence in our minds as a successful strategy to solve our problems. We breed our own terrorists. Of course, these are confused people, often they are stupid people. But there are or were revolutionaries who fought for changes in the system. It is often a question of success whether they are later called terrorists or revolutionaries. To be honest, that's crazy too. Faith was one way to reduce violence, but unfortunately we are increasingly reducing faith. Some beliefs were violent, or some putative religious leaders still preach violence today. Crazy stuff too.
There are different forms of violence in our community:
As long as we allow violence to be a legitimate part of our coexistence, we cannot eliminate violence. As long as I'm a hero when I kill as a soldier and I'm a murderer when I kill as a private, it's surreal. If I force a person to have sex for their job, I'm a pig, but if I tighten money in the market and thus force people into prostitution, then I'm a successful businessman... which is basically the same thing. As long as this is the case, we will continue to have to live with all forms of violence.
We have to choose. Do we want the violence or not. We can't not only condemn the violence, which we don't like right now.
Examples of violence:
There are forms of violence that we would not initially notice as such. This is the main reason why people are indignant when they suddenly experience counter-violence, which is obviously a form of violence
Suppose a farmer buys a certain seed, but it cannot be propagated, so he has to buy it every year. He was promised that this resistant seed would produce much higher yields than the conventional strain, which is not true. Now he has to go into debt, can no longer pay his rent and loses his land to the person from whom he also got the seeds. He then sets fire to the business premises of this company and takes the managing director hostage... A story that happened in some countries in exactly the same way or in a similar way, or is still happening. In Chile, large avocado farmers dig down the water for the surrounding people and this is even permitted by law there. Here violence is legalized by the state and used against its own people. The foreign big farmers are getting rich and the people who have always lived there have to suffer from hunger and thirst. With a bit of luck, they find work on the plantations and are poisoned there with pesticides. However, this does not only apply to Chile and avocados. In Central and South America alone, US and European companies produce: chili peppers, oranges, lemons, limes, pomegranates, jaca the record fruit, papayas or marmons, guayabas or guavas, pitangas, jaboticabas, pineapples, blueberries, bananas, mangoes, strawberries, avocados, Potatoes, tomatoes, peppers and onions, are grown on a large scale. In Africa they are: bananas, jackfruit, pineapples, tamarillos, watermelons, papayas, dates, figs, apples, mangoes, avocados, medlars, persimmons, baobab fruits, pomegranates, oranges, prickly pears, star fruits, tangerines, peaches, coconuts, lemons, kumquats , lychees, pears, passion fruit, physalis, limes, cassava, grapefruit, ...Egypt: tomatoes, potatoes, beets, oranges, onions, grapes and dates... India: ginger and okra, potatoes, onions, cauliflower, eggplant and cabbage. Acai, Acerola, Pineapple, Annona, Cherimoya, Atemoya, Annona, Chokeberry, Avocado, Babaco, Banana, Coquito, Date, Durian, Fig, Feijoa, Gojiberry, Granadilla, Pomegranate, Guava, Horned Melon, Jackfruit, Japanese Pear, Japanese Gooseberry, Persimmon, prickly pear, Cape gooseberry, carambola, kiwi, lychee, longan... Soya: 80 percent of the world's soya beans come from the USA, Brazil or Argentina. Huge areas of forest and savannah have been and are still being killed for the expansion of arable land. From 2000 to 2010, 24 million hectares of land in South America became arable land. The situation is similar in the other countries. Palm oil: Originally native to West Africa, the oil palm is now planted in almost all tropical regions of the world. The main growing areas are Indonesia and Malaysia. Millions of hectares of primeval forest have to make way for the food industry. Cocoa: More than 65 percent of the global harvest comes from West Africa, especially from the Ivory Coast and Ghana, but Ecuador, Cameroon and Indonesia are also important producing countries. Most of the natives living there have never seen, let alone eaten, chocolate in their lives. Coffee: Ethiopia is the country of origin of coffee, other growing areas: Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, but the black gold is also grown in Vietnam. And who drinks all the coffee?: 1 - Finland: 12 kg per capita, 2 - Norway: 9.9 kg per capita, 3 - Iceland: 9 kg per capita, 4 - Denmark: 8.7 kg per capita, 5 - Netherlands: 8.4 kg per capita, 6 - Sweden: 8.2 kg per capita, 7 - Switzerland: 7.9 kg per capita, 8 - Belgium: 6.8 kg per capita. ... In most growing countries, there was previously no coffee cultivation and this applies not only to coffee, soya or palm oil, but also tomato planters have recently been traveling around the world, including in China, for example, and are also transforming formerly fertile soils or forests into deserts there . It is fertilized, sprayed with pesticides until the doctor comes and all on behalf of the ever-hungry markets of rich countries. That too is violence against people and animals and nature. And I haven't even talked about the fashion industry, which throw rather dump heaps of brand new fashion clothes into the Chilean desert than sell them cheaper. Although the cultivation methods and the consequences of production had such huge negative consequences for the producing countries and the people who were exploited for this have to suffer their whole lives. This, too, is undoubtedly violence, financially motivated violence, one of the most common and yet least conspicuous forms of violence of all.
Who uses violence and when?
The one who wants something but wouldn't get it without the use of violence. A lion is sometimes hungry and wants to eat, which puts him in the stupid position of having to take an other living being life by force, because no other living being would gladly give his life for the oh-so-hungry lion. So violence is also part of survival on this planet. In addition, a certain selection process takes place with this execution of violence, since the weakest or slowest animals are usually caught when the lion is hunting.
So the fun stops with the supply. But with the people here the question is simply those who take too much and let those who they misuse for their own purposes suffer, which represents a form of not necessary violence.
With us humans, the problem is a little different. When it comes to meat, it is clear that we could now do without it if we wanted. This is only one thing, we also use violence if we want something nonsence that we would also not get without violence, and we learned sufficient, crazy and sophisticated methods like we do violence can exercise. We became quasi masters of violence. The Romans already developed particularly perfidious and vile uses of violence, including betrayal, bribery and intrigues, which they spread all over the world, where they in turn brought new, sophisticated methods onto the international stage. All this does not necessarily mean that the person using violence is always wrong. If a child takes the toy away from another, this is also a form of violence and if the other child then hits the “thieving” child and takes his toy again, he is in itself right, but he could also be without the toy and also without using violence... you can also share a toy. It's often even nicer to play together without toys. Maybe we just forgot.
People introduced rules in this regard quite early on, and books of faith and laws are full of them. There are rules for everything and anything and yet people hit their skulls. They organized world wars in which they deliberately tried to take everything away from your neighbors and kill them all. Mass killings were often organized in a professional industrial manner just because you want to get rid of these people. The rules written in the books of faith and law are entirely suspended during such excesses.
The remarkable thing is that this escalation of violence always began with a certain form of poverty and the resulting dispute over resources. Especially in this day and age, when we should all be doing extremely well, there is once again extreme, ever-increasing wealth on the one hand and, on the other hand, more spreading, deper-increasing poverty. Lo and behold, the acts of violence are increasing at all levels. Radical right-wing forces are also gaining strength and finding more and more supporters. Again a war is going on on a front of 2450 kilometers, which could quickly lead to another world war. We only have to look at what is produced in the Ukraine and how much these productions are worth in order to fully understand what this is actually about.
Basically it's about the well-known problem of distribution that was already recognized by Aristotle. Violence is primarily triggered as a defense strategy by the amygdala, which is why the willingness to use violence increases rapidly when there are supply problems and concerns about the future. Here, too, the disadvantaged uses violence for something that he cannot or can no longer get without violence. Cases are known where a person started a shoot because they were fired. Shootings in schools often have to do with previously experienced violence, such as bullying, whereby the focus here is on reducing school opportunities and thus on supply. Killing sprees are a clear sign of supply shortages, even if they don't seem to have anything to do with it at first glance. The most intelligent aren't always the smartest, one might assume given the dramas ahead, for it may be intelligent to grab as much as possible, but it would be far wiser to share the harvest of our work intelligently. We might not be able to completely eradicate violence by doing this, but at least we could greatly reduce it and limit it to a minimum. Apart from that, it would probably be wise to stop the inappropriate overproduction, so that the struggles over distribution caused by global warming, let us remember, violence against nature, do not arise or expand.
So instead of wanting to fight against climate change, this sentence alone is just another expression of our willingness to use violence, yes, the bad climate that is just changing without asking us, it really has to be fought. It would be more wise to do something to stop the cause and although together.
So to come back to the two kids, who should sharing toys and playing together. At least that's how we teach the kids.