I don't accept that this minor qualification is the main critique of Pinker's thesis, which in the end has very little to do with the fact that violence has declined. (And, BTW, this qualification also serves a political agenda which regards terrorism as a discreet phenomenon that can only be dealt with by military means.)

But failing to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding outbreaks of violence as being intrinsic to the nature of that violence is, generally, a matter of choice.

[Again, the fact that you don't like what I'm saying doesn't give you the right to set the terms of the discussion, and condescending comments about my ability to read don't really help either.]

[Edit: Your reply below, which doesn't yet have a reply button, is not coherent so I can't respond to it anyway. (A? B? Bozos? What?) I don't think there's much more that can be usefully said at this point. Speaking of non-falsifiability though, ain't evolutionary psychology a hoot?]