<doc.id=0137.a3>
<title> Man's Urge for Violence </title>
Today people are being exposed to violence more than ever before. That is, of course, in an indirect way, mostly via televsion and interactive computer games. People are not personally victims of violence to the same extent as they were a hundred or a thousand years ago. But the enormous evolution of communication technology in the latter half of this century has yielded a vast supply of, among a lot of things, depictions and visualizations of both fictive and real violence. Every day the supply is accumulated from news reports, new movies and TV-shows. What I'm going to discuss below is whether this large-scale exposure of violence is harmful to us and our children, or if it is a way to deal with our inherently vehement behaviour in a civilized world.
	In the dawn of man, he had to protect himself from fierce enemies, mostly hostile animals. He had to use violence in order to survive, and this was rooted very deeply into his genes. But he also realized that his safety would be more secure if he grouped together with his equals, and thus he managed to control his violent behaviour towards the others within the group and instead he developped a sense of having to protect the group from outside threats, still with violent behaviour. He was also able to channel his need for violence when hunting animals for food to the group.
	It is my belief that these genes have not left our DNA since the early days of man. The instincts of protection for one's own being are extremely strong, and in a case of emergency violence might be the only way to defend oneself. However, believe it or not, our world has become a far more secure place to live in, and we co-operate to a greater extent than before in order to make most people benefit. Violence is not required in order to protect our well-being and to survive in our society. Still, we are stuck with our "violence-genes", and in one way or another we have to deal with them.
	Modern technology allows us to acquire animated depictions of violence without being harmed, at least not physically, in the process. And, to a certain extent, violence fascinates us all more or less. I am not saying that violence, real or depicted, is good in any way, but it obviously satisfies something deeply rooted in or mind, otherwise violent movies and TV-shows wouldn't have as high rates of viewers as they evidently do. 
	Violent movies and TV-shows will have a destructive effect on only a small fraction of the adults, and probably they already have a lot of other mental problems bathering them. However, I will not argue against anyone who claims that cruel and gory TV-violence will have a devastating effect on children and young people. As a matter of fact, I'm quite convinced it does. The most damaging, I think, is not the violence in itself, but rather the way it is portrayed as a solution to various problems, which very well can be solved with other, more peaceful means. Instead the hero chooses an easy way using violence and, as is custom and morally correct in "hero shows" for children, supernatural powers. 
	Violence is not anything new to man. It has always existed all around him, and he has always had to be on his guard, ready to defend himself, family and friends against harm and pain. This has affected his genes, which he still carries around. What has changed is his surroundings; the world has become a safer place, but he is stuck with his genes. Modern technology allows him to satisfy the restlessness of his instincts. Still, I would like to point out that I do not imply that TV-violence is a good thing, especially not to children nor youths. And the motives for the use of violence are usually weak and the problems can often be solved in another, less brutal way. TV-violence is probably not harmful if the intake is moderate, and parents should take more responsibility concerning their childrens TV-watching.
</doc>