The Historical Context of Declining Violence

On November 26, 2012, New York City experienced something unprecedented since comprehensive crime statistics began in 1994: not a single person was killed by gunfire, stabbing, or any other violent means for an entire day. This marked a stark contrast to the city’s past, where an average of 14 homicides occurred daily in the early 1990s. If we look further back, the last recorded day without a violent death in New York was over 50 years prior—a time when record-keeping was less precise and the city’s population was half a million smaller. By 2012, the odds of a New Yorker dying violently had dropped to just 1 in 20,000—likely the lowest rate in history.

This decline in violence was not unique to New York. Across the United States, homicide rates had been falling, despite tragic exceptions like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. Globally, the trend was even more pronounced. In 2004, roughly 1 in 13,000 people worldwide died from homicide; by 2010, that ratio had improved to 1 in 14,500. Even warfare, historically the deadliest form of human conflict, had diminished. Interstate wars—once the most devastating—had nearly vanished, while civil wars, though still devastating (as seen in Syria in 2012), were becoming less frequent.

The Long-Term Decline of Violence

From a broader historical perspective, the decline in violent deaths is even more striking. In the 20th century, 1–2% of the global population died from violence. In ancient empires, that figure was 2–5%; during the great migrations across Eurasia, it rose to 5–10%; and in the Stone Age, it reached a staggering 10–20%. By 2012, only 0.7% of the world’s population was projected to die violently—a fraction of historical averages.

This decline was accompanied by unprecedented prosperity. In 1989, when the U.S. emerged as the world’s dominant power, global per capita GDP was just over $5,000. By 2011, it had doubled. Asia, in particular, saw explosive growth as China, Southeast Asia, and parts of India underwent their own industrial revolutions, lifting billions out of extreme poverty (defined by the World Bank as living on less than $1 per day). Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe, after periods of economic setbacks, also began to recover by the early 2000s.

The Paradox of War’s Role in Peace

The most counterintuitive explanation for this decline in violence is war itself. Archaeological, anthropological, and historical evidence suggests that constructive warfare—conflict that leads to stronger, more centralized states—has played a crucial role in reducing violence over millennia.

Violence first emerged as a means of resolving disputes hundreds of millions of years ago, evolving as an effective survival strategy. However, with the advent of agriculture around 10,000 BCE, human societies began to grow larger and more complex. The “caging effect” of dense populations led to the rise of Leviathans—powerful states capable of imposing order. These early states, though brutal in their methods, reduced internal violence by monopolizing force and punishing lawbreakers.

By 3500 BCE, the first true Leviathans emerged in the Middle East, where agriculture had first taken root. These states could tax their populations and enforce laws, setting a precedent that spread across the globe. Over millennia, military revolutions—from fortifications to disciplined infantry—strengthened these Leviathans, further reducing violence.

The Modern Era: From Leviathans to Global Order

The 20th century saw the rise of the “world policeman”—first Britain, then the United States—which enforced a global order that discouraged large-scale warfare. The Pax Britannica and later Pax Americana reduced interstate conflicts and fostered economic interdependence.

Yet this system was not without its flaws. Just as Britain’s dominance in the 19th century sowed the seeds of its own decline by empowering rivals like Germany and the U.S., America’s success in the late 20th century has similarly strengthened potential challengers, particularly China. The question now is whether the U.S. can manage this transition without triggering a catastrophic conflict.

The Future: A World Without War?

Looking ahead, the trajectory of violence suggests further decline. Advances in technology, particularly in artificial intelligence and robotics, may eventually render war obsolete by making violence an ineffective means of resolving disputes. However, the transition to this post-violence world is fraught with risks.

If the U.S. withdraws from its role as global enforcer too soon, the world could face a power vacuum reminiscent of the 1930s—a period that led to World War II. Conversely, if the U.S. clings too tightly to its dominance, it may provoke the very conflicts it seeks to avoid. The key lies in balancing strength with adaptability, ensuring that the transition to a more peaceful world is gradual and stable.

Conclusion: The Irony of War’s Legacy

War, despite its horrors, has been an essential force in shaping the modern world’s peace and prosperity. The challenge now is to recognize its paradoxical role—not as an eternal necessity, but as a stepping stone toward a future where violence is no longer a viable tool of statecraft. If humanity can navigate this transition wisely, we may finally achieve what once seemed impossible: a world where war is truly obsolete.

But until then, the lesson remains clear: to secure peace, we must remain vigilant against the forces that threaten it. The path forward is neither simple nor guaranteed, but history suggests that, with careful stewardship, we can continue the long decline of violence—and perhaps, one day, end it altogether.