In world history, a situation has arisen where Europe, or the so-called “West,” became a more developed and progressive region than the rest of the world. Even the “East,” which seemingly also had many achievements, was unable to achieve the same level of wealth and development. One could reflect on this topic for a long time and provide various arguments, but now we will examine this issue from the perspective of the concept of a culture of compromise, introducing some reflections regarding violence in human relationships. This post will be a brief summary and commentary on a video on this topic by Savromat.
How did the history of the West differ from the history of the East? One can look at China, the leading power of the East, which constantly collapsed and reunified, and this entire process was accompanied by one side destroying all others—the sole winner took everything. This is an example of a zero-sum game, where wealth is not created but redistributed, or even lost due to the costs of conducting conflicts. A completely different situation arose in Europe, where there was no single winner who destroyed everyone and took everything. In many European conflicts, instead of destroying the defeated, the winner merely forced them into submission, while recognizing their right to life, property, and even political rights. Recall the medieval free cities and religious orders, which, although formally under a king, nevertheless maintained autonomous jurisdiction. Such a culture of compromise was clearly established by the beginning of the second millennium and for a long time contributed to the accumulation and multiplication of wealth.
Many reasons can be named for why this happened. But the essence is as follows—brutal violence is certainly not a strategy that could lead to enrichment and development. Societies prone to the total destruction of opponents condemn themselves to the non-observance of the most basic rights and the squandering of wealth. Societies prone to seeking compromise and establishing agreements multiply wealth.
One presumptive factor contributing to the development of a culture of compromise in Europe could have been biological—a lower percentage of violent individuals with a dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism, and especially cruel psychopathic personalities. Even if this were true only for a part of European society, it might have been enough to develop and spread such a cultural norm. Of course, psychopathic personalities are inclined toward power and conquest in any case, but if some of them were not absolutely unfeeling clinical psychopaths, it increased the chance that they would be predisposed to have mercy on the defeated and thereby not destroy the wealth of society as a whole.
Of course, in any society, the overwhelming majority of the population is quite non-violent, and extremely cruel psychopathic individuals are a tiny minority, but even a small difference in what exactly that minority percentage constitutes can have a radically different impact on society. And apparently, a higher percentage of such individuals creates a greater risk of societal impoverishment due to the total non-observance of basic rights to life and property.
