Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 16:23:43 GMT
No.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 10, 2019 16:23:45 GMT
Are we less violent than cavemen?.... Sure. The point of the article is to point out that Pinker might be a tad over-reaching. Also from the article: "Are we less violent than cavemen?.... Sure."
Actually even past the era of primitive man:
We burned "witches"
Sacrificed people to sun God
Nearly wiped out millions of Native Americans
Slavery was perfectly acceptable
Nearly wiped out the Jews
Dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan
Maybe he's a tad overeaching now with Islamic radicalism being such a wide spread problem, but I think his overall point stills stands.The
Another major source of death for humanity for last 1000 of years was death from famines.
In spite of increase in population the deaths from famine has been decreasing at great rates:
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 10, 2019 16:36:22 GMT
Well... The two boldened ones are really more for the "Last Days" argument... ....and it was 2 nuclear bombs. Well something from almost 75 years ago might be stretching the term "last days"Preaching to the choir on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 10, 2019 16:54:59 GMT
Now.. We're just playing number games... Upticks are being ignored to showcase downticks. If deaths by terror attacks in 2015 were up by over 300% from 2010 (3.5 times higher) and it has decreased by 27% since 2015... We're still at a staggering increase since 2010. The point is in seeing the overall picture rather than one particular thing. Yeah... That's what I'm doing... The overall picture is that we're still up from 2010... The year of the original article in question.
Read that out loud.. I just want to know if that sounds as funny to you as it does to me. Everything is relative... and that statement is relative to where you live... for 1/3 of the world's population.. It's relatively false. Sure.. 2/3 is relatively more than 1/3.... so... YAY! for the world as a whole?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 10, 2019 17:09:04 GMT
The point is in seeing the overall picture rather than one particular thing. Yeah... That's what I'm doing... The overall picture is that we're still up from 2010... The year of the original article in question.
Read that out loud.. I just want to know if that sounds as funny to you as it does to me. Everything is relative... and that statement is relative to where you live... for 1/3 of the world's population.. It's relatively false. Sure.. 2/3 is relatively more than 1/3.... so... YAY! for the world as a whole? The problem is that you have picked one thing (Terrorism) to make your point and even in terrorism the trend is downward. Last 3 years it has fallen and experts project it will fall again. And I never began this debate with the number of deaths from one factor (terrorism) but about overall death rate from violence. and that has been falling. So if your point is that terrorism is an issue of concern then I agree with you. But that doesn't take away that fact that deaths from war and other sources have been declining.
And I have never denied there are problems in this world. But what I am denying is the problems have been spiking up since 1914. The fact is that overall rate of violence has decreased since 1914. Yes, in individual countries or in a certain specific year the numbers may be on the wrong side. But for many decades now we have seen positive decline in overall violence.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 10, 2019 17:13:50 GMT
Now.. We're just playing number games... Upticks are being ignored to showcase downticks. If deaths by terror attacks in 2015 were up by over 300% from 2010 (3.5 times higher) and it has decreased by 27% since 2015... We're still at a staggering increase since 2010. The point is in seeing the overall picture rather than one particular thing. Islamic terrorism has evolved in this century. Sure. But the death rate from say the state conflicts has decreased. So overall death rate has decreased. The terrorism as we know today was not prevalent like it is today. But have other aspects gone down? yes. Also, is there a continuing trend in the increase in violence? No. Death rates are falling and even terrorism-related death rates have fallen in the last 3 years and the projections are for it to fall in future too. No one here is saying the world has become peaceful. Read again. No one is saying the world has become peaceful. What people are saying is that the world has become relatively more peaceful and this 1914 is no way relevant in starting of any continued trend. The increase in various metrics that reveal improvement in living standards if humans is undeniable. The problem is only when you believe saying things have improved means saying things have become perfect. Everyone is discussing the bigger picture. The world has NOT become more peaceful. This has nothing to do with people not seeing the bigger picture. The reality is that more people have died in the 20th and 21st century than any other comparable period in history specifically due to conflict. It’s not even close which is why it is so silly to argue. It takes eras and periods to equate to the relatively short time (1914 may not be Biblically important but it still started WWI) and we still have the stupidity and capability of simply destroying everything if we chose to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 10, 2019 17:15:38 GMT
The point is in seeing the overall picture rather than one particular thing. Islamic terrorism has evolved in this century. Sure. But the death rate from say the state conflicts has decreased. So overall death rate has decreased. The terrorism as we know today was not prevalent like it is today. But have other aspects gone down? yes. Also, is there a continuing trend in the increase in violence? No. Death rates are falling and even terrorism-related death rates have fallen in the last 3 years and the projections are for it to fall in future too. No one here is saying the world has become peaceful. Read again. No one is saying the world has become peaceful. What people are saying is that the world has become relatively more peaceful and this 1914 is no way relevant in starting of any continued trend. The increase in various metrics that reveal improvement in living standards if humans is undeniable. The problem is only when you believe saying things have improved means saying things have become perfect. Everyone is discussing the bigger picture. The world has NOT become more peaceful. This has nothing to do with people not seeing the bigger picture. The reality is that more people have died in the 20th and 21st century than any other comparable period in history specifically due to conflict. It’s not even close which is why it is so silly to argue. It takes eras and periods to equate to the relatively short time (1914 may not be Biblically important but it still started WWI) and we still have the stupidity and capability of simply destroying everything if we chose to do so. What are you smoking, champion?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 10, 2019 17:37:07 GMT
Everyone is discussing the bigger picture. The world has NOT become more peaceful. This has nothing to do with people not seeing the bigger picture. The reality is that more people have died in the 20th and 21st century than any other comparable period in history specifically due to conflict. It’s not even close which is why it is so silly to argue. It takes eras and periods to equate to the relatively short time (1914 may not be Biblically important but it still started WWI) and we still have the stupidity and capability of simply destroying everything if we chose to do so. What are you smoking, champion? i wish it was the same thing you were on but it’s probably too addictive. Still, to be in the land of rainbows and fairy tales you’re delusionally liivng in it may be worth the risk.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 10, 2019 17:41:18 GMT
What are you smoking, champion? i wish it was the same thing you were on but it’s probably too addictive. Still, to be in the land of rainbows and fairy tales you’re delusionally liivng in it may be worth the risk. If you do be on the same thing as me you would make sense and not across as a man looking for deaths from prophecies and the end of the world. Try this: Water, lentils, rice, cottage cheese, green veggies and yogurt.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 10, 2019 17:58:42 GMT
i wish it was the same thing you were on but it’s probably too addictive. Still, to be in the land of rainbows and fairy tales you’re delusionally liivng in it may be worth the risk. If you do be on the same thing as me you would make sense and not across as a man looking for deaths from prophecies and the end of the world. Try this: Water, lentils, rice, cottage cheese, green veggies and yogurt. I am not wishing death on anyone just because I’m not pretending it doesn’t happen. Don’t get bent out of shape just because I call you out on saying stupid stuff. This is just another version of you nonsensically thinking Ned Stark is awesome.😊
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 10, 2019 18:02:49 GMT
I'm not a member of any cult, and I believe we are in the Last Days right now. Exception to the rule? No, the general rule of the chronically stupid you share with JW's and their ilk. You don't like it? Gee, I guess you'll have to do something about it, won't you?
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 10, 2019 18:07:08 GMT
orum If you do be on the same thing as me you would make sense and not across as a man looking for deaths from prophecies and the end of the world. Try this: Water, lentils, rice, cottage cheese, green veggies and yogurt. I am not wishing death on anyone just because I’m not pretending it doesn’t happen. Don’t get bent out of shape just because I call you out on saying stupid stuff. This is just another version of you nonsensically thinking Ned Stark is awesome.😊 Good if you are not wishing death on anyone. You can come to GOT forum anyday unless you are not scared of your views and fear refutation. We will see who gets bent out of shape.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2019 18:16:11 GMT
Everyone is discussing the bigger picture. The world has NOT become more peaceful. 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.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 10, 2019 18:16:12 GMT
Can't we just talk civilly to one another? Just kiddin'.
NO.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 10, 2019 18:44:13 GMT
Everyone is discussing the bigger picture. The world has NOT become more peaceful. 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 The conversation started with things being so awesome since a particular period of time, randomly chosen by AJ to be 1946 which made no sense in relation to argue with a JW since they have never argued for a continually upward slope of death and destruction caused by war. But from a secular perspective it makes no sense to pretend world peace is around the corner. Heck a better argument would be how much religion is guilty for the slaughters occurring in our “day” although that would still make JW’s who agree with that assessment pretty blameless. It is ignorant for some to suggest conflicts have been boiled down to a terrorist attack or two and downright stupidity to ignore the massive amount of slaughter than has has over in the last 118 years in relation to the centuries prior to it. It’s not even close and even now when the equivalent of a nice size city is killed every year, it should it be onvious that war is a problem humans suck at solving. Instead of conflicts being talked about in hyperbolic fashion, I would argue war isn’t talked about nearly enough which leads to people not caring anymore. I would much rather hear about wars and reports of wars before I hear about another reason Donald Trump is an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 10, 2019 20:10:44 GMT
With respect, you and Aj are not comparing apples with apples. He is comparing modern conditions for people with those in history globally, and you are comparing only modern conditions within nations and within the modern era to show inequities.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 10, 2019 20:16:43 GMT
No, the general rule of the chronically stupid you share with JW's and their ilk. You don't like it? Gee, I guess you'll have to do something about it, won't you? You can't legislate for stupid. Witness the USA right now!
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 10, 2019 20:17:28 GMT
With respect, you and Aj are not comparing apples with apples. He is comparing modern conditions for people with those in history globally, and you are comparing only modern conditions within nations and within the modern era to show inequities. Less knowledge of logic isn't good, Goz. He said that there social and economic injustice (inequality) in the world today. To which I, Graham and many others pointed out inequality has always been in the human society. I am not comparing modern conditions to historical people. I don't need to. There was inequality in the Victorian era, feudal societies and medieval societies and literally every human society. I don't need to compare inequality in the historical era with any modern conditions. The inequality that historical people had to suffer was with regards to then existing condition. Too poor, you introduced a non-existent false comparison once again.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 10, 2019 20:28:07 GMT
The point is in seeing the overall picture rather than one particular thing. Islamic terrorism has evolved in this century. Sure. But the death rate from say the state conflicts has decreased. So overall death rate has decreased. The terrorism as we know today was not prevalent like it is today. But have other aspects gone down? yes. Also, is there a continuing trend in the increase in violence? No. Death rates are falling and even terrorism-related death rates have fallen in the last 3 years and the projections are for it to fall in future too. No one here is saying the world has become peaceful. Read again. No one is saying the world has become peaceful. What people are saying is that the world has become relatively more peaceful and this 1914 is no way relevant in starting of any continued trend. The increase in various metrics that reveal improvement in living standards if humans is undeniable. The problem is only when you believe saying things have improved means saying things have become perfect. Everyone is discussing the bigger picture. The world has NOT become more peaceful. This has nothing to do with people not seeing the bigger picture. The reality is that more people have died in the 20th and 21st century than any other comparable period in history specifically due to conflict. It’s not even close which is why it is so silly to argue. It takes eras and periods to equate to the relatively short time (1914 may not be Biblically important but it still started WWI) and we still have the stupidity and capability of simply destroying everything if we chose to do so. Yes it has ourworldindata.org/war-and-peaceYou are missing the point that it is statistically more important to look at relative death to population ie deaths per 100,000 and in that case there is no contest that historical deaths in war were much greater even than the two world wars of the modern era. Overall numbers don't give an accurate representation f the significance of those deaths compared to the modern era.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 10, 2019 20:48:29 GMT
Everyone is discussing the bigger picture. The world has NOT become more peaceful. This has nothing to do with people not seeing the bigger picture. The reality is that more people have died in the 20th and 21st century than any other comparable period in history specifically due to conflict. It’s not even close which is why it is so silly to argue. It takes eras and periods to equate to the relatively short time (1914 may not be Biblically important but it still started WWI) and we still have the stupidity and capability of simply destroying everything if we chose to do so. Yes it has Everyone is discussing the bigger picture. The world has NOT become more peaceful.You are missing the point that it is statistically more important to look at relative death to population ie deaths per 100,000 and in that case there is no contest that historical deaths in war were much greater even than the two world wars of the modern era. Overall numbers don't give an accurate representation f the significance of those deaths compared to the modern era.For th A sensible post ^^ The Year 1620 the world population is 0.5 billion and estimated death in Qing conquest of the Ming = 25 million.Percentage of the world population that died in one war alone = 5% (I am not even counting the other wars of the same period) The Year 1940 the world population is 2.45billion Second world war estimated death was around 60-70 million. Even if we take the upper range we have 2.8% of world population dying. and if you see the graph you just posted then wars have been all through the time. The only 75-year era that has had relatively less war is the last 75 years. Guess when we need to think positively, we have people being worried it is the end times.
|
|