Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 23:02:53 GMT
The actual numbers indicate otherwise. People have a perception that the world is more violent now than it was, say, 100 years ago. But that's because today's conflicts, whilst rather minor in comparison, are relentlessly reported on in the most hyperbolic way possible, because sensationalism sells. And todays conflicts are far less state-driven, which means some of the violence happens in America. There's also obviously going to be small trends within the overall decline. War deaths this year might be twice what they were last year, for instance, but the overall trend is still downwards. This isn't to suggest people have become inherently less violent, by the way. It's largely that with the advent of nuclear weapons we couldn't afford to have all out state-v-state wars in the same way we had last century, and those were the big drivers of mass deaths. I think that people who look at a chart and thus conclude a measure of success is not looking at the overall problem. If we are talking about last Tuesday then maybe I’ll concede that peace has been consistently low. But if we are tallying big picture stuff there are plenty of conflicts around the globe plus the potential for many more in addition to the historical record of fact. Things overall have sucked since the timeframe we’ve been discussing Nope. You have that entirely backwards. You are looking around at current conflicts and saying they suck, which of course they do. What the chart makes clear, and what I and others have said, is that those conflicts are small, minor things compared to what has gone before. Nobody is saying the world is a paradise right now. Merely that the world has not seen the likes of World War I or II for well over half a century. Nor even the likes of Vietnam or Korea, actually. And since not one person has made that suggestion, it's kind of weird that you would bring it up. Again : what people have suggested is that as far as war is concerned, we are better off now than we typically have been in the past.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 10, 2019 23:08:24 GMT
Reading this thread, I have noticed that those who do not believe that the end of the world is imminent are those who can back up their opinion with facts. Those who try to make a case for the "End Days" usually don't back up their statements at all (aka talk out of their ass); or if they provide facts, they do not support the fact that the world is getting worse.
Conclusion: We live in the best of all possible worlds. Even if it's not perfect.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 10, 2019 23:31:20 GMT
Reading this thread, I have noticed that those who do not believe that the end of the world is imminent are those who can back up their opinion with facts. Those who try to make a case for the "End Days" usually don't back up their statements at all (aka talk out of their ass); or if they provide facts, they do not support the fact that the world is getting worse. Conclusion: We live in the best of all possible worlds. Even if it's not perfect. That isn't true. No one has backed up anything regarding the end of the world or the survival of it since there is no way to know it beyond knowing the problems some ignore The primary one that thinks the earth is not doomed is the OP lol. I'm saying is even if we are to believe this is the best it's ever been, it doesn't change the fact that it's pretty sucky. At best, and I include myself until a tidal wave floods KY, we are fortunate enough to be among the the group of people not suffering much until we get sick and die. We're making money, living in a safe-ish country, surrounded by friends and/or family who also aren't suffering unless sick or old and dying. It's foolish to think nearly everyone is enjoying the same privileges and the thread has turned into a cloyingly sweet version of life on the earth to back up a point solely because it contradicts a religious belief by one poster.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 10, 2019 23:49:24 GMT
@graham You're apparently ascribing the wrong posts to me.
I wasn't looking at current events was I? Granted I do think 1-200k people killed due to conflicts every year is a sad number and maybe that's what you're talking about, but I am specifically including things as far back as the beginning of the 20th century to highlight how severe things were in the grand scheme of things.
Relative calm periods don't mean much in relation to devastation we have seen and, strangely enough, that's likely thanks to nuclear weapons and a handful of superpowers that have replaced actual conflict with fear of conflict which is not necessarily a huge improvement on human nature.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 10, 2019 23:58:32 GMT
Reading this thread, I have noticed that those who do not believe that the end of the world is imminent are those who can back up their opinion with facts. Those who try to make a case for the "End Days" usually don't back up their statements at all (aka talk out of their ass); or if they provide facts, they do not support the fact that the world is getting worse. Conclusion: We live in the best of all possible worlds. Even if it's not perfect. That isn't true. No one has backed up anything regarding the end of the world or the survival of it since there is no way to know it beyond knowing the problems some ignore The primary one that thinks the earth is not doomed is the OP lol. I'm saying is even if we are to believe this is the best it's ever been, it doesn't change the fact that it's pretty sucky. At best, and I include myself until a tidal wave floods KY, we are fortunate enough to be among the the group of people not suffering much until we get sick and die. We're making money, living in a safe-ish country, surrounded by friends and/or family who also aren't suffering unless sick or old and dying. It's foolish to think nearly everyone is enjoying the same privileges and the thread has turned into a cloyingly sweet version of life on the earth to back up a point solely because it contradicts a religious belief by one poster. Thanks for proving my point. Nobody disputed that the world is not perfect. What the rational posters have been saying is that the world is getting better. In your post, and in all your previous posts, you have failed to show evidence that people in developing countries were better off before 1914. My guess: They weren't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2019 0:02:18 GMT
@graham You're apparently ascribing the wrong posts to me. I wasn't looking at current events was I? Granted I do think 1-200k people killed due to conflicts every year is a sad number and maybe that's what you're talking about, but I am specifically including things as far back as the beginning of the 20th century to highlight how severe things were in the grand scheme of things. Relative calm periods don't mean much in relation to devastation we have seen and, strangely enough, that's likely thanks to nuclear weapons and a handful of superpowers that have replaced actual conflict with fear of conflict which is not necessarily a huge improvement on human nature. We're not in a 'relative calm period'. We're in a prolonged war drought that's gone on for more than half a century.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 11, 2019 1:10:20 GMT
Look.... I'm just being a stinker here... but... - "How dare you even suggest that the has become more violent since 1914??.. We haven't had a major war since WORLD WAR II which was just 20 years after WORLD WAR I in 1914!!... Not really counting Korea.. Vietnam... Iraq... Afghanistan.. Syria... or any of the other 260 wars since than... or any of the other 15 wars that are currently raging in the world today... with the ever-present threat of complete nuclear annihilation!! PERPOSTEROUS!! Only 167,000,000 to 175,000,000 people died in wars during the 20th century! We're in a veritable Golden Age!!"
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 11, 2019 1:12:43 GMT
@graham You're apparently ascribing the wrong posts to me. I wasn't looking at current events was I? Granted I do think 1-200k people killed due to conflicts every year is a sad number and maybe that's what you're talking about, but I am specifically including things as far back as the beginning of the 20th century to highlight how severe things were in the grand scheme of things. Relative calm periods don't mean much in relation to devastation we have seen and, strangely enough, that's likely thanks to nuclear weapons and a handful of superpowers that have replaced actual conflict with fear of conflict which is not necessarily a huge improvement on human nature. We're not in a 'relative calm period'. We're in a prolonged war drought that's gone on for more than half a century. That is completely untrue and you;re smoking something completely illegal. Drought lol...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2019 1:13:58 GMT
We're not in a 'relative calm period'. We're in a prolonged war drought that's gone on for more than half a century. That is completely untrue and you;re smoking something completely illegal. Drought lol... Numbers don't lie.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 11, 2019 1:15:44 GMT
Look.... I'm just being a stinker here... but... - "How dare you even suggest that the has become more violent since 1914??.. We haven't had a major war since WORLD WAR II which was just 20 years after WORLD WAR I in 1914!!... Not really counting Korea.. Vietnam... Iraq... Afghanistan.. Syria... or any of the other 260 wars since than... or any of the other 15 wars that are currently raging in the world today... with the ever-present threat of complete nuclear annihilation!! PERPOSTEROUS!! Only 167,000,000 to 175,000,000 people died in wars during the 20th century! We're in a veritable Golden Age!!" This is only anecdotal. There is no war. We are in a war drought.
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Jan 12, 2019 4:53:56 GMT
Yeah...social and economic injustice started happening after 1914 What point did you think you made, religious zealot? Ever heard of feudal days and what injustice was like living in those days? Great going, simpleton. Where did I ever say there were never injustices prior to 1914? You like strawmen? I must've hit a nerve; I've presented many articles in the OP supporting my view, but you resort to ad Homs. Thou protest too much.
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Jan 12, 2019 5:00:09 GMT
This debate is not about existence of poverty. No body in his right mind can ever claim that there is no poverty. The debate is about whether poverty is declining or not and whether there was less struggle and higher standards for human lives prior to 1914. Your video has a scene from a slum in India. I am an Indian and almost all economist in India agree that poverty is declining (and has declined in India in past).
India saw GDP growth rate of 5.4% from 2010-2018 and yet population increased just by 1.2%. Now there is inequality but inequality doesn't mean all the created wealth goes to rich people. As a matter of fact the number of people residing in extreme poverty line as measured by Indian government and declined from 306 million in 2011 to 70 million in 2018. Even according to UN standards, poverty declined in India dramatically. Not just the people in extreme poverty saw improvements but even those in less poverty saw improvements in their circumstances.
I actually live in a poor country. It's funny to me when western people mention poor countries such as my country without being totally informed. There are a few countries in Africa where poverty is rising. But overall, in most parts of world the poverty is declining. Whether that be extreme poverty or general poverty.
Over 10 Years, Poverty Rate In India Reduced To Half: UN Report
Violence has also decreased considerably. Anyone interested in the subject can read Steven Pinker's "Better Angels of our Nature" " Violence has decreased considerably" since when? Below levels existing before 1914, the premise in the OP?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 12, 2019 6:51:10 GMT
Yeah...social and economic injustice started happening after 1914 What point did you think you made, religious zealot? Ever heard of feudal days and what injustice was like living in those days? Great going, simpleton. Where did I ever say there were never injustices prior to 1914? You like strawmen? I must've hit a nerve; I've presented many articles in the OP supporting my view, but you resort to ad Homs. Thou protest too much. So straw man is another word whose meaning you don't know. That's cool but not unexpected.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 12, 2019 7:11:24 GMT
Where did I ever say there were never injustices prior to 1914? You like strawmen? I must've hit a nerve; I've presented many articles in the OP supporting my view, but you resort to ad Homs. Thou protest too much. So straw man is another word whose meaning you don't know. That's cool but not unexpected. Someday, Aj, I fear that you and I are going to have a serious disagreement. Whether this disagreement will come before or after the Chinese Navy sends the Indian Navy to Davy Jones' Locker is another question.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 12, 2019 7:14:51 GMT
So straw man is another word whose meaning you don't know. That's cool but not unexpected. Someday, Aj, I fear that you and I are going to have a serious disagreement. Whether this disagreement will come before or after the Chinese Navy sends the Indian Navy to Davy Jones' Locker is another question. in China and India likely cannot enter into a war, ErJen. They are both nuclear powers and they know better. You can of course dream on and fantasize about it.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 12, 2019 7:31:03 GMT
Someday, Aj, I fear that you and I are going to have a serious disagreement. Whether this disagreement will come before or after the Chinese Navy sends the Indian Navy to Davy Jones' Locker is another question. in China and India cannot enter into a war, ErJen. They are both nuclear powers and they know better. You can of course dream on and fantasize about it. If China cuts off India's access to the sea, will India launch its nuclear weapons, knowing that China also has nuclear weapons? Aj, you're a young man, and I'm an old man, but we should both know better than to think that India can compete with China as has been previously done. India needs to upgrade its sea power in a hurry or else India is screwed. You need a carrier, a couple of cruisers, and a fleet of destroyers. You're young and I'm old, but we're both adults, and we should both know this. The large countries do as they will, and the small countries accept what they must.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 12, 2019 7:37:02 GMT
China and India cannot enter into a war, ErJen. They are both nuclear powers and they know better. You can of course dream on and fantasize about it. If China cuts off India's access to the sea, will India launch its nuclear weapons, knowing that China also has nuclear weapons? Aj, you're a young man, and I'm an old man, but we should both know better than to think that India can compete with China as has been previously done. India needs to upgrade its sea power in a hurry or else India is screwed. You need a carrier, a couple of cruisers, and a fleet of destroyers. You're young and I'm old, but we're both adults, and we should both know this. The large countries do as they will, and the small countries accept what they must. Thanks for letting us know what India should do, ErJen. That said as Indians none of us are as much worried about war with China as with various other issues. Indian people may have lots of bad habits but fantasizing about doomsday or wars aren't among them.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 12, 2019 7:43:00 GMT
If China cuts off India's access to the sea, will India launch its nuclear weapons, knowing that China also has nuclear weapons? Aj, you're a young man, and I'm an old man, but we should both know better than to think that India can compete with China as has been previously done. India needs to upgrade its sea power in a hurry or else India is screwed. You need a carrier, a couple of cruisers, and a fleet of destroyers. You're young and I'm old, but we're both adults, and we should both know this. The large countries do as they will, and the small countries accept what they must. Thanks for letting us know what India should do, ErJen. That said as Indians none of us are as much worried about war with China as with various other issues. Indian people may have lots of bad habits but fantasizing about doomsday or wars aren't among them. What various other issues? Cricket or Soccer? You poor stupid clowns. China is going to eat you alive.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 12, 2019 7:48:12 GMT
Thanks for letting us know what India should do, ErJen. That said as Indians none of us are as much worried about war with China as with various other issues. Indian people may have lots of bad habits but fantasizing about doomsday or wars aren't among them. What various other issues? Cricket or Soccer? You poor stupid clowns. China is going to eat you alive. Well, that's awesome of you Americans to say that. I guess we Indians now need to be educated by you and other folks believing in prophecies regarding what we should do.
Various other issues as in what "stupid clowns" discuss such as issues of economic growth, long term development, infrastructure etc.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 12, 2019 7:56:21 GMT
What various other issues? Cricket or Soccer? You poor stupid clowns. China is going to eat you alive. Well, that's awesome of you Americans to say that. I guess we Indians now need to be educated by you and other folks believing in prophecies regarding what we should do.
Various other issues as in what "stupid clowns" discuss such as issues of economic growth, long term development, infrastructure etc.
I feel sorry for the Indians but when the time comes I won't feel sorry for you, Aj_June.
|
|