| Focus | Pragmatic view of violence as a natural and necessary element of competition and survival |
| Theme | The role of violence in the human condition |
| Key Points | Violence is a fundamental aspect of the human experience in this timeline • Wanton cruelty is condemned, but socially sanctioned violence (e.g. warfare, law enforcement, criminal justice) is widely accepted • Discussions around violence tend to emphasize its strategic applications rather than moral dimensions • Reflects a more pragmatic societal perspective on the inherent human capacity for violence |
In this world, violence is regarded as an innate and unavoidable part of the human experience, rooted in our evolutionary history as a competitive social species. While the most extreme and gratuitous forms of violence are still censured, violence in general is viewed more neutrally - as a tool to be applied strategically and judiciously when required, rather than an inherent moral evil.
Across cultures and throughout history, violence has been a constant feature of human civilization. Conflict over territory, resources, and political power has driven both individual and group-level violence. Warfare, conquest, and subjugation have been common means of advancing the interests of tribes, city-states, kingdoms, and empires.
Even within relatively stable societies, violence has played a key role in enforcing order and social control. Policing forces, criminal justice systems, and military institutions all rely heavily on the threat and application of violence to maintain social order and defend national interests.
While the modern world has seen a relative decline in overt violence compared to past eras, its presence remains pervasive. Organized crime, civil unrest, terrorism, and interstate conflicts continue to erupt with varying frequency and intensity across the globe.
In this timeline, violence is understood less through a moral or ethical lens, and more through a pragmatic, strategic one. Rather than focusing on the inherent "right" or "wrong" of violent acts, the discourse tends to center on the efficacy and appropriateness of violence in different contexts.
Military strategists, law enforcement officials, and other authorities are tasked with developing and deploying violence in a controlled, targeted manner to achieve specific objectives. Questions of training, tactics, weapons development, and rules of engagement take precedence over more abstract moral deliberations.
Even at the individual level, people are generally more accepting of violence when it is seen as a justified response to threat or aggression. Acts of self-defense, retaliation against wrongdoing, or resistance against oppression are more likely to be socially sanctioned than gratuitous acts of cruelty or wanton destruction.
Of course, there are still clear boundaries around what constitutes legitimate, acceptable violence in this society. Cruelty, sadism, and the targeting of the defenseless or non-combatants are universally condemned. Disproportionate or indiscriminate uses of force, whether by state actors or individuals, also risk social stigma and sanction.
The justification of violence is always contingent on specific circumstances. Resorting to violence merely out of anger, fear, or a desire for domination is seen as unacceptable. Violence must be a measured, disciplined response to a genuine threat or provocation.
Ultimately, while violence is viewed with less moral absolutism in this timeline, it is still acknowledged as a double-edged sword. Restraint, precision, and a clear strategic purpose are required to wield it effectively and avoid its destructive excesses.
