I agree, it gets diversified into lesser acts of economic manipulation and lesses armed conflicts. Physical violence can take the form of depriving another human being from a good livelihood, aka starving them to death by manipulating entire countries economy.
If we take in consideration the gap of wealth increasing (even though overall livelihood improves for all) then more and more people experience indirect market violence. 75% of people in this world have no clean water, shelter and food on a daily basis. Sure, no banker caused that directly but one can make the argument that violence has not at all decreased. it just shape-shifter into something different.
I agree, it gets diversified into lesser acts of economic manipulation and lesses armed conflicts. Physical violence can take the form of depriving another human being from a good livelihood, aka starving them to death by manipulating entire countries economy.
If we take in consideration the gap of wealth increasing (even though overall livelihood improves for all) then more and more people experience indirect market violence. 75% of people in this world have no clean water, shelter and food on a daily basis. Sure, no banker caused that directly but one can make the argument that violence has not at all decreased. it just shape-shifter into something different.
Steven Pinker wrote a whole book about why this is true.
why is it wrong? It might be counterintuitive but why is it wrong?