Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
I hope all of you are having a fine holiday season. This, of course, is the time of year when the longing for peace on Earth and good will to all is beautifully expressed in songs and stories.
Despite this longing, over the centuries, during the holiday season, for many, it brings a lamenting because we have not achieved this deeply heartfelt desire. 
For example, during the American Civil War, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote a poem titled “Christmas Bells.” It begins with pleasant images of the season, but then the reality of the war sets in:
“And in despair, I bowed my head; ‘There is no peace on earth,’ I said; ‘For hate is strong, and mocks the song of peace on earth, goodwill to men.’”
Being among those who respect people that take some responsibility for actually doing something to achieve that which is desired, each year I find myself seeking some way to help bring about a more peaceful world. This post, meager as it is, presents the result of that effort.
There is Reason to Hope
For people who are absolutely convinced that we have violent genes and therefore there is no hope of changing our violent nature, consider this. 
In the earliest period that humans thrived, they were chiefly hunters and gatherers. At that time, it has been estimated that death came as a result of one person killing another about twenty percent of the time. Evidence for this was obtained by looking at the skeletons from that period. Quite often we find fractured skulls and arrowheads embedded in chest cavities.
Then came the development to an agricultural civilization with cities and governments, beginning around five thousand years ago. These governments provided rules to resolve some common conflicts in a manner that struck the citizens as somewhat fair. With that, there was approximately a fivefold decrease in rates of violent death.
Next came the consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with a centralized authority to resolve conflicts and an infrastructure of commerce to obtain goods and services peacefully. Violence decreased another tenfold to fiftyfold.
Another dramatic decrease occurred around the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. The invention of the printing press had made pamphlets and books far more readily available, spreading humanistic values throughout the human population. That era saw the first organized movements to abolish slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killings, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals.
Now, in most places on Earth, humans have reached a point at which they kill other humans at a rate of approximately 2 per 100,000, a tiny fraction of the amount of earlier times. However, significant sections of the world have not followed a similar developmental trajectory.
Today, the major parts of the world that are most violent prone are at the same psychological developmental level as the largely Christian southern states were just about when the American Civil War began. Let us compare, for example, the highly violent group known as ISIS with that bloody period of American history. The confederate southern states had, like ISIS has today, an ideology that slavery is ok, and outsiders (the northern states) were actively interfering with what they believed is right. Moreover, the confederate states used quotations from their holy book to defend their beliefs and to justify going to war to protect their ideology in a way that is similar to how ISIS utilizes sections of their holy book.
Now some may believe that the only way to have created the conditions for the confederacy to change their ideology to one more consistent with a higher level of development was to engage them in a horrible civil war. I hasten to point out that in many other places in the world, the slavery ideology changed without a war. In England, for example, certain conditions, such as the availability of literature from the enlightenment age, changed, and its citizens peacefully ended slavery within its own borders.
After abolishing slavery, England continued for about a hundred years to use violent force to maintain its hold on colonial labor, but Mahatma Gandhi effectively used nonviolent resistance to put an end to colonial rule. Soon afterwards, colonialism began to end elsewhere.
I will just add here, that the violent American Civil War actually did little to change the ideology of those who lived in the southern slave states. Rather, it embittered many, and in fact hardened, for many, their prewar positions. This was reflected in how southerners instituted “Jim Crow” laws. In the end, the non-violent approach of Martin Luther King, Jr. proved to be far more effective in creating the conditions for real psychological development in that region of the US.
So, given where ISIS and other violent prone regions of the world are on this theoretical developmental trajectory, let’s take a look at five steps that, when taken together, might be a better alternative to dealing with these areas than violent approaches.
The Five Steps Toward a More Peaceful World
Step1: One of the factors that tends to increase violence is the degree to which some group feels they are being pressured by violent means to act in ways they don’t wish to act. Therefore, one thing that we can do is to reduce the impression that we are seeking to violently control the lives of the people in the regions where violence is terribly high.
There are some credible reasons for supporters of the most violent regions of the Earth to feel that there has been an ongoing effort to force them to do whatever is in the interest of the US and its allies. Years before the creation of ISIS, for example, meddling in Middle East affairs occurred by the US’s CIA. Then came the US invasion of the largely Muslim inhabited Afghanistan and Iraq countries.
So, the first step we, the American people, can do is to advocate that the US president openly states:
In the past, the US has been involved in using violence in an effort to control some foreign groups. We now realize this causes far more harm than good. Although it took us some time to develop a psychological understanding of this, we are now ready to move forward in a nonviolent manner to promote peaceful ways to cooperate on mutually beneficial agreements.
Taking responsibility for previous harmful actions, and making a commitment to nonviolent ways to achieve common goals, when combined with the other steps described below, would, if we reliably stuck to this policy, provide for all the world a model of what can be achieved in this manner.
Step 2: 
With regards to responding to regions that continue to enslave people, the US would use nonviolent approaches such as boycotting any goods or services that might fund the violent group’s operations, along with boycotting any country or enterprise that does business with such violent groups, while offering a vision for engaging in peaceful commerce as described in step 4.
Step 3: As more and more reliable processes are developed that fairly, peacefully resolve conflicts, and the group members view these processes as just, violence plummets. 
Therefore, the US would launch an all out peaceful advocacy effort to have the United Nations offer to fund a constitutional convention for all of the stakeholders in the regions where violent groups are operating. Those violent groups’ representatives would be invited to be central players, and incentives to participate would be provided. UN Peace Keepers would be employed throughout the convention period to help decrease the likelihood that some would seek to violently sabotage such efforts.
Professor Steven Pinker provides evidence in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, that although UN peacekeeping missions, at times, have had their share of failures, when all of the available data is looked at, these missions led to an 80% reduction in the probability of a subsequent war.
Step 4: In step 2 of this proposal, it was mentioned that the US, in response to groups that have enslaving policies, would boycott its commerce as one means to nonviolently encourage a change in policy. It is important to point out, however, that one of the conditions that Professor Pinker has identified as hugely important for the development of nonviolent approaches for resolving conflicts and an increase in respecting basic human rights is improvements in commerce. When people wish to do business with others, they typically seek to improve relationships with them, make them feel welcome, and offer opportunities for shared benefits.
The regions that have the most violent groups have some unique challenges in this regard. 
And in fact, many believe that it is this set of challenges that is the main cause of the region’s violence problems. In mid-day much of these regions are often so hot it could make the Dalai Lama ignite in irritability. Large sections of these regions are as parched as the moon’s surface. But the regions do have some natural resources. For example, they tend to have plentiful sunshine. Nevertheless, they remain rather poor in contrast to the more developed countries.
Under the plan that I am advocating, the US would work with the United Nations to offer the stakeholders of these regions an opportunity to set up a convention that can tap world experts on economic development with the goal of coming up with plans that are designed to improve sustainable commerce. People from these regions would be invited and incentivized to participate. Once these violent group members come to understand the value of peaceful commerce, and a hopeful plan adopted, many will end up abandoning their violent ideology.
Step 5. One of the major conditions that foster psychological development is the availability of stories that reveal the humanity of people that lie outside our immediate circle of family and friends.
Professor Pinker notes that prior to the invention of the printing press there were very few books available. Those people who lived in the upper classes rarely had much direct contact with the lower classes. A nobleman’s quick glance while passing by a downtrodden worker often merely left the impression of a filthy, smelly soul, hardly human at all. After novels became available, a nobleman might read of a poor young woman pressed into very sad circumstances by a cruel person of the upper classes, and discover tears running down his cheeks. Discovering that people all over the world, in all classes, and other religions have very similar desires, dreams, and feelings that we can all relate to, increases empathy and the desire to deal with a wider range of humanity in kind and respectful ways.
So, how would we get these kinds of stories before those who are in groups prone to violence? At the two types of conventions I mentioned above that would be funded by the United Nations (constitutional and commerce) short, readable, relatable books would be freely provided that convey these heartwarming stories. International funding for public libraries for regions too poor to provide for them on their own would be provided. Moreover, there are ways to make these types of stories particularly accessible on internet sites that violent groups tend to visit, not only in written form, but also in audio-visual forms as well. And instead of the steady dropping of bombs in regions occupied by violent groups, an international coalition could drop little parachuted packages that include a little tasty healthy treat, a little toy or stuffed animal as a gift to the children, an interesting puzzle that adults would enjoy doing, and the type of stories that I have just described.
Conclusion
Okay then, there you have it, my proposal for an alternative approach for furthering peace on Earth, good will among our fellow human beings. I know that some of what I described may sound familiar because they have been tried before in a dribs and drabs manner, but with a significant increased support for these efforts, and by combining all of the steps in a systematic, coordinated manner, I believe they just might lead to progress toward achieving the desire for a more peaceful, kind world.
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Between 1931 and 1933, Albert Einstein engaged Sigmund Freud in a discussion that addressed the question, “Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?” Their exchange was subsequently published as a pamphlet that is available for free on line by clicking 
Do you not share the feeling that a change could be brought about by a free association of men whose previous work and achievements offer a guarantee of their ability and integrity? Such a group of international scope, whose members would have to keep contact with each other through constant interchange of opinions, might gain a significant and wholesome moral influence on the solution of political problems if its own attitudes, backed by the signatures of its concurring members, were made public through the press. 
Such an association would, of course, suffer from all the defects that have so often led to degeneration in learned societies; the danger that such a degeneration may develop is, unfortunately, ever present in view of the imperfections of human nature. However, and despite those dangers, should we not make at least an attempt to form such an association in spite of all dangers? It seems to me nothing less than an imperative duty!
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, to accept its judgments unreservedly and to carry out every measure the tribunal deems necessary for the execution of its decrees…. Thus I am led to my first axiom: The quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action–its sovereignty that is to say–and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security….
The craving for power which characterizes the governing class in every nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty. This political power hunger is often supported by the activities of another group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have especially in mind that small but determined group, active in every nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social considerations and restraints, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and enlarge their personal authority….
But then he notes that he realizes that Einstein is not so much interested in a lot of theorizing, but rather, in concrete steps that may be taken to promote lasting world peace. The answer, he says, perhaps lies in trying to figure out why he, Einstein, and some others developed into human beings who are so much less likely than others to heed the drums of war. Perhaps if we understand this, we can create the conditions for others to reach a similar level of development. Thus, Freud wrote,
Because every man has a right over his own life and war destroys lives that were full of promise; it forces the individual into situations that shame his manhood, obliging him to murder fellow men, against his will; it ravages material amenities, the fruits of human toil, and much besides. Moreover, wars, as now conducted, afford no scope for acts of heroism according to the old ideals and, given the high perfection of modern arms, war today would mean the sheer extermination of one of the combatants, if not of both. This is so true, so obvious, that we can but wonder why the conduct of war is not banned by general consent…. 
The psychic changes which accompany this process of cultural change are striking, and not to be gainsaid. They consist in the progressive rejection of instinctive ends and a scaling down of instinctive reactions. Sensations which delighted our forefathers have become neutral or unbearable to us; and, if our ethical and aesthetic ideals have undergone a change, the causes of this are ultimately organic. On the psychological side two of the most important phenomena of culture are, firstly, a strengthening of the intellect, which tends to master our instinctive life, and, secondly, an introversion of the aggressive impulse, with all its consequent benefits and perils. 
Now war runs most emphatically counter to the psychic disposition imposed on us by the growth of culture; we are therefore bound to resent war, to find it utterly intolerable. With pacifists like us it is not merely an intellectual and affective revulsion, but a constitutional intolerance, an idiosyncrasy in its most drastic form. And it would seem that the aesthetic ignominies of warfare play almost as large a part in this repugnance as war’s atrocities.
But actually solid research evidence, brilliantly summarized by Steven Pinker in his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined, indicates that over the course of human history we have been finding less and less violent ways to resolve our differences.
Those who point the way toward alternatives to violent interactions, can, in time, perhaps way too slowly than we would like, effect change. As Pinker says in the conclusion of his book, “the data we have seen in this book show it is a goal on which progress can be made–progress that is halting and incomplete, but unmistakable nonetheless.” It is my sincere hope that Einstein’s and Freud’s efforts so many years ago will serve as an enduring inspiration to all of us to keep up the struggle toward bringing about a more peaceful world.