Maybe, but what about per capita? More people participating equals more people killed, but at the same time i dont think you need high technology to engage in a mass slaughter, swords work just as well.
A sword can kill one person at a time. A gun can kill 10 people at a time. A bomb can kill a hundred people. A nuclear bomb can kill thousands.
You can certainly commit mass slaughter with less technology. But then you need either a) more people to do the slaughtering, or b) more time. Technology makes it possible for a few people to slaughter many people in very little time.
Yes but technology exacerbated them. The great wars of the 20th century killed 10s of millions of people, 10x more per year than any other conflict.
Maybe, but what about per capita? More people participating equals more people killed, but at the same time i dont think you need high technology to engage in a mass slaughter, swords work just as well.
A sword can kill one person at a time. A gun can kill 10 people at a time. A bomb can kill a hundred people. A nuclear bomb can kill thousands.
You can certainly commit mass slaughter with less technology. But then you need either a) more people to do the slaughtering, or b) more time. Technology makes it possible for a few people to slaughter many people in very little time.
Even ancient wars wiped out whole peoples. Like the Carthaginians.
We could kill the same number of people today with a single conventional air strike.
Percentage of population-wise, I presume we are killing far fewer people.
I don't presume that and I also don't see what difference it makes.
Man-made climate change is also new experience for humanity.