Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

Actually, oni got a point there. While the number of people dying in wars have increased quite a bit, but so have the total populations. If we go back to the bronze age, a war often resulted in the extinction of entire civilizations. The same can't be said about it today. The difference of the number of people dying in wars versus the number of people in existence have been increasing steadily throughout history.

I don't think this is what he was trying to convey. Let me break it down and see if I got it right.According to Oni...
(1) The natural tendency for a sociaty is to trie to progress
(2) Progres leeds two better living conditions
(3) Better living conditions lead to better social value for human lyfe
(4) Better social value for human life leads to less quarrels
(5) Less corals lead to less agresionI don't think he's saying people over all are getting less aggressive. I think he's saying natural selection favors societies that are more prosperous because of the reasons I outlined above.

Why are you prejudice aganst peeple who cant spel?All I was trying to say was Oni's got a point when he was saying that people in societies that are more prosperous tend to be less aggressive toward each other. Why? Because these people have a lot to lose. On the other hand, people who are in unstable societies don't put that much value on human life. There's nothing to lose!

Actually, have you ever heard of the bystander effect?