We can fix this World

[dimreepr]

What will you do if they don't play nice? Try to understand why or try to force them to agree?

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

Do you consider our recent ability to recognise, on a global scale, the impact we have as progress, or not. If not, why not? (Hint: pointing out the lunancy of Republican naysayers doesn't count.)

Humans have been able to identify their impact on the environment all along. Many other mammals do as well. It is one of the reasons why back when humans were still hunter gathers we'd travel throughout the year. Yes we were following the food but we were also careful not to hunt food out of existence. The tradition continues to this day among modern day hunters. Everyone understand why hunting laws restrict the killing of pregnant game animals. Just as Killer whales don't kill anymore seals than necessary. Killer Whales have even been documented helping seals to shore. As such I do not see our ability to recognize what we are doing to be progress. Especially considering  how few humans care. 

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

We developed the technology of fire and destroyed many habitats thereby and we didn't even know we were doing it.

I do not believe this at all. I think the earliest humans who cleared habitats with fire absolutely understood what they were doing. Considering we do not know when or where fire was first used as a tool by humans I have no idea how you can quantify your assertion that they didn't know what they were doing. 

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

Then mark me 10 out of 10 for hubris and lack of hindsight. Do you realise it is possible to be deeply aware of the evil, the injustices, the horrors, the inhumanities, the prejudices, the hatred, the destruction, the indifference that permeate human society and yet to recognise the growing concern, effort, commitment, focus and desire to make things better.  They say an optimist lives in the best of all possible worlds and a pessimist fears he is right. You appear to be a pessimist.

You do not believe humans have done this all along? Why do you think human created and past down oral fables, invented philosophy, and etc. Many humans throughout history have sought to make the world a better place. Identifying injustices is nothing new.

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

You might want to take that up with the mosquitos, who dispose of 750,000 a year, as opposed to less than half a million by fellow humans.

A million people commit suicide per year and there are nearly 500k murders per year.  That alone doubles death be mosquito without even getting into the number killed by military conflict.

 https://www.befrienders.org/suicide-statistics   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

Apart from the whales I'm not sure that is true in each instance. Let me focus for a moment on the deer. In parts of the UK they are screwing up the natural habitat and threatening the survival of several species and entire ecosystems. Do you recommend we stop culling them and let the ecosystems perish? I rather like the solution of reintroducing wolves and letting them take care of them.

Here is the U.S. 6 million deer are hunted on average per year, a million are involved in vehicle accidents, and I don't even feel like digging up the number of livestock deer killed. Several million deer killed here in the U.S. per year far exceeds the number killed by Mountain Lions, Bears, or whatever. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer–vehicle_collisions   http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/rooney.html

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

And, despite the ongoing global conflicts, fewer people are dying violently than in the past. My eyes are wide open to the problems that still exist. I'm sorry yours are closed to progress that is being made.

Define "the past". During different periods throughout history the number killed brutally has fluctuated. There is no trend you can show me that indicates a consistent decline by millennia.  Moreover I don't even know if the total number dying around the world is even down in recent times. In Syria since their conflict began half a million have died, In Iraq over a million have died, in Afghanistan a hundred thousand, 60k dead in Mexican drug conflict over the last few years, and etc. There are thousands dying in Myanmar, Yemen, Congo, and etc.

[Area54]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 There is no trend you can show me that indicates a consistent decline by millennia.

I've selected a single sentence that represents what I feel misses the mark with your entire post. I have made no claim that there has been a consistent decline (in bad things, per capita) over millenia, so why bring it up?  I sense that regardless of what facts I place in front of you will continue to exerise a relgiious fervour in pushing your agenda. If I wanted that kind of discussion I would go to a fundamentalist Christian website. Thank you for your time.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Are all nations sufficiently democratic, sufficiently 'enlightened', to value people more than wealth/economy ?

This is a big question and it really depends on what you mean with "enlightened". The term has been used and abused to mean virtually nothing. Also, while dicatorships are problematic if the endgoal is to have a free population, it should be noted that some do indeed try to improve the lives of their population (if only to maintain power). Without doubt, the conditions in China have massively improved. Other countries with dictatorship but high economic success include Singapore, Qatar and Brunei, for example. On the other hand, we have countries sliding into authoritarian dictatorship (such as Russia and Turkey). 

 So there is not a direct conflict between dictatorship/authoritarian regimes and economy/wealth. The issue is probably more on the axis of stability (though improving living conditions is a step to maintain it) and of course, personal freedom.

My major point is that the premise in OP is seriously flawed. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by CharonY

[MigL]

The classical definition of 'enlightenment'; Humanistic as opposed to materialistic.
all the dictators I mentioned in previous posts did very little to improve the human condition of the people they killed.
And none of it  was too long ago.

And you're absolutely right, the OP's premise is flawed.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, Area54 said:

And, despite the ongoing global conflicts, fewer people are dying violently than in the past. My eyes are wide open to the problems that still exist. I'm sorry yours are closed to progress that is being made.

 

50 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I've selected a single sentence that represents what I feel misses the mark with your entire post. I have made no claim that there has been a consistent decline (in bad things, per capita) over millenia, so why bring it up?  I sense that regardless of what facts I place in front of you will continue to exerise a relgiious fervour in pushing your agenda. If I wanted that kind of discussion I would go to a fundamentalist Christian website. Thank you for your time.

You clearly stated that fewer people are dying violently than in the past. However you are not qualifying what you mean. I don't know if by "the past" you mean 10yrs or 1,000yrs ago. Also I don't even know if the statement is true at all. I do not know that less people are dying now. It is not religious fervor; you simply are not qualifying your statements. You are treating your statements as givens yet they lack specificity or citations.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Ten oz
Typo corrected

[CharonY]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

The classical definition of 'enlightenment'; Humanistic as opposed to materialistic.
all the dictators I mentioned in previous posts did very little to improve the human condition of the people they killed.
And none of it  was too long ago.

As I said, individual examples don't account to much. Otherwise one could see Hitler's rise to power as a failure of democracy. Likewise, Mao's failing does not explain away the economic successes that China had since Xiaoping. And make not mistake, it is still very much a dictatorship. That being said the number of countries with a democracy has been rising between the the postwar time (ca. 30%) to about 50% in the 2000s (depending on data set and definition of democracy).

Your definition of of enlightenment does not make help to clarify your position, either. Enlightenment contain a number of different ideals, but one important thing was the idea of liberty in opposition to absolute monarchy and religious dogma (with the catholic church being the representative of the latter). Within the era of enlightenment and the eventual rise of science different thoughts arose. Science resulted in a materialistic view of the world. There are those such as Descartes who advocated a kind of dual approach in which there is things have an innate essence (i.e. essentially allowing an a priori method of knowledge). But as a whole the development of enlightenment carried a strong materialistic direction.

Humanism then follows a different, but connected trajectory. While secular from its conception, it was meant more as a criticism of the institution of the Church, rather than of faith itself. Yet through merging of ideas probably most exemplified through Hegelian philosophers such as Feuerbach it morphed eventually into a rejection of religion of sorts with strong roots in a materialistic worldview. In other words, where you seem to see opposition, there is a strong interconnection. While this is a very short and likely incorrect account of the various terms, it should illustrate why I do not think that using the term(s) is particularly helpful in this context.

With regard to violent deaths, if we look at battle related death there is info (the dept. of peace and conflict research in Uppsala has some nice graphs, for example).  Essentially post WWII there were peaks in the 70s and 80s and smaller peaks around 2000. Until ~2010 it was fairly low, but the recent wars have increased the numbers somewhat. One could argue there is a general decline. Yet, it is also possible to see the recent times as expected dips between conflicts. The data on poverty as a whole is more indicative of a relatively clear trend.

[Area54]

37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

You clearly stated that fewer people are dying violently than in the past. However you are not qualifying what you mean. I don't know if by "the past" you mean 10yrs or 1,000yrs ago.

Ten years, one thousand years and any period in between. That was why I used such as general term as "in the past".

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Also I don't even know if the statement is true at all.

Considering it took me less than thirty seconds to retrieve the following that would seem to be your fault as much as mine. When I see a doubtful assertion I check it out and only if I find no significant corroborating material do I ask for supporting evidence.

History and the Decline of Human Violence

The VIsual History of Decreasing War and Violence

Globally, Deaths from War and Murder are in Decline

The Decline of Violence

The World is not Falling Apart

[MigL]

You're right CharonY, my definition sucked.
Should have read, the classical definition of enlightenment as exemplified by the period leading up to the revolution in France.

As to whether violent deaths ( is starvation violent ? ) are increasing or decreasing, I suggest it matters little to those killed.
And the OP is still unworkable.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

As to whether violent deaths ( is starvation violent ? ) are increasing or decreasing, I suggest it matters little to those killed.

It matters a lot to those who are aren't killed!

And problems like starvation, malnourishment, disease, etc have also been decreasing over recent decades. 

[MigL]

Oh well, everything is fine then.

Global warming isn't going to reduce the available arable land for food crops.
Nor the amount of fresh potable water.
And the global population will suddenly start to decrease, and make conditions hunky-dory for everyone.
Or maybe the dip in the last few decades is an anomaly, as opposed to the increases over the hundreds and thousands of years of history.

Seriously Strange, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I've said that things are improving.
But they haven't improved enough, all over the world, that we can necessarily consider a 'world government' yet.
We still have a long way to go.

[CharonY]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

You're right CharonY, my definition sucked.
Should have read, the classical definition of enlightenment as exemplified by the period leading up to the revolution in France.

As to whether violent deaths ( is starvation violent ? ) are increasing or decreasing, I suggest it matters little to those killed.
And the OP is still unworkable.

Well, if starvation is added in, then there are actually good news as the rate of undernourishment has been reduced by almost half since the 90s (see various studies from the IFPRI). Virtually every country has made improvements and in some, these improvements were extreme.

As a whole, the economy-related issues have been improving (which does include food safety, disease prevention etc.). 

I do not see how that could not matter. Also, I think there is evidence that by working with the respective governments and the local people has shown to improve the situation of people much more than the still rather colonial attitude exhibited in the 20th century. If you look at the policy of successful intervention they are all based on understanding local systems and e.g. support local farmers than simply drowning the market with goods, increase education levels

[Ten oz]

36 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Ten years, one thousand years and any period in between. That was why I used such as general term as "in the past".

Considering it took me less than thirty seconds to retrieve the following that would seem to be your fault as much as mine. When I see a doubtful assertion I check it out and only if I find no significant corroborating material do I ask for supporting evidence.

Without any frame of reference for time how would I have known where to start?

42 minutes ago, Area54 said:

History and the Decline of Human Violence

The VIsual History of Decreasing War and Violence

Globally, Deaths from War and Murder are in Decline

The Decline of Violence

The World is not Falling Apart

You provided 5 links but all are of the same person's work; Steven Pinker. You are chastising me indicating how easy it was to find citations but truly you found the work of a single individual. You are overstating what you found a bit. Additionally Pinker discusses violence during medieval times in Europe and references the incredible amounts of violence during both World Wars. Had you previously posted that it is more peace today than medieval Europe of during either world war I totally would have agreed with you. Hence my point about specificity. The world is definitely more peaceful today than during WWI or WWII; I think we all agree with that. 

[Area54]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Without any frame of reference for time how would I have known where to start?

You provided 5 links but all are of the same person's work; Steven Pinker. You are chastising me indicating how easy it was to find citations but truly you found the work of a single individual. You are overstating what you found a bit. Additionally Pinker discusses violence during medieval times in Europe and references the incredible amounts of violence during both World Wars. Had you previously posted that it is more peace today than medieval Europe of during either world war I totally would have agreed with you. Hence my point about specificity. The world is definitely more peaceful today than during WWI or WWII; I think we all agree with that. 

Look at the data, not the author. Are you denying the data?

Tell you what Ten oz, my earlier remark regarding religious fervour now seems more accurate than ever. You are bound and determined to believe that you are correct. You insist on the gloom and doom worldview and hide from any contrary data. I could put two hundred sets of data assembled by one thousand researchers and it wouldn't alter you viewpoint. I had put you on Ignore and twice made the mistake of "releasing" your post. I shan't  make that mistake again.

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Look at the data, not the author. Are you denying the data?

No I am not. If you read my post I said had you referenced medieval times or either World War I would have agreed with you from the beginning. What is ambiguous about that? My complaint was that you cited the same work 5 times in one reply to make it seem like you have more extensive citation than you did. Citing the same work 5 times is redundant.

16 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Tell you what Ten oz, my earlier remark regarding religious fervour now seems more accurate than ever. You are bound and determined to believe that you are correct. You insist on the gloom and doom worldview and hide from any contrary data.

This is nonsense. Now you are just making stuff up. I acknowledged that the world is more peaceful today than medieval Europe or either world war. What are you carrying on about? Please quote where in my response I denied the data. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Ten oz
Typo corrected

[CharonY]

12 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Look at the data, not the author. Are you denying the data?

Tell you what Ten oz, my earlier remark regarding religious fervour now seems more accurate than ever. You are bound and determined to believe that you are correct. You insist on the gloom and doom worldview and hide from any contrary data. I could put two hundred sets of data assembled by one thousand researchers and it wouldn't alter you viewpoint. I had put you on Ignore and twice made the mistake of "releasing" your post. I shan't  make that mistake again.

To be fair, Pinker is not well regarded in historic circles and he is one of the cases where folks (in this case again a psychologist) ventures far outside his/her area of expertise. One of the issues is poor sourcing of material and data. That being said, more recent statistics have backed up a decline in armed conflict deaths in the beginning of the 21st century. However, recent  conflicts have resulted in an uptick in deaths. Before you guys take another swing at it, why don't you both look at some UN data (e.g. this one here for starters). The overall state is actually rather complex (e.g. democratization does not automatically result in less conflict, especially during transitional phases).

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Define "the past". During different periods throughout history the number killed brutally has fluctuated. There is no trend you can show me that indicates a consistent decline by millennia.  Moreover I don't even know if the total number dying around the world is even down in recent times. In Syria since their conflict began half a million have died, In Iraq over a million have died, in Afghanistan a hundred thousand, 60k dead in Mexican drug conflict over the last few years, and etc. There are thousands dying in Myanmar, Yemen, Congo, and etc.

3

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ This source puts Iraq deaths up to 260k from direct war violence.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html This one puts it at 500k. They did it by getting together 2000 families, asking them how many people they knew had died before the war, and then asking how many they knew had died after the war. Which is still well below 1 million people dead. So I'm not sure where you got that number. Because that's more than twice even generous estimates.

 

Additionally, world war 1 had 18 million deaths. 

World war 2 had between 50-80 million.

Now I know you don't "include" violent periods in the past in your progress reports, but I disagree if that's a logical way to do it.

If it is, then you'd have to ignore almost all of human history back to before recorded history. 

Vietnam, the Korean war, world war 2, world war 1, the civil war, Napoleon wars, the French revolution, the revolutionary war, the French and Indian war, (around this point and back, death tolls were lower because of a smaller population size) Colonial wars, medieval times, the Germanic tribe wars, the Roman wars, the Greek wars, the Persian wars, all the way back to the Assyrians and the Egyptians.

We have never before in recorded history had a period of time with less war going on than now. Just saying. Even if you measure the wars in terms of death per 100,000 per year, war is a dying trend. 

 

 

Now I'm not saying war is good, or that we should bring back wars, or that war is non-existent.

I'm just saying, it is something we've made progress on. We're living in more peaceful times than ever before.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch North Korea's military parade.

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You clearly stated that fewer people are dying violently than in the past. However you are not qualifying what you mean. I don't know if by "the past" you mean 10yrs or 1,000yrs ago. Also I don't even know if the statement is true at all. I do not know that less people are dying now. It is not religious fervor; you simply are not qualifying your statements. You are treating your statements as givens yet they lack specificity or citations.

 

35 minutes ago, CharonY said:

To be fair, Pinker is not well regarded in historic circles and he is one of the cases where folks (in this case again a psychologist) ventures far outside his/her area of expertise. One of the issues is poor sourcing of material and data. That being said, more recent statistics have backed up a decline in armed conflict deaths in the beginning of the 21st century. However, recent  conflicts have resulted in an uptick in deaths. Before you guys take another swing at it, why don't you both look at some UN data (e.g. this one here for starters). The overall state is actually rather complex (e.g. democratization does not automatically result in less conflict, especially during transitional phases).

To be clear I NEVER actually claimed one way or another regarding the amount of people dying in this century vs a specific previous one due to violence. Rather I said I don't know if that was the case and asked for clarity as to what time frame(s) were being referenced.  My responses have been mischaracterized. I am not attempting to prove more people die violently today than in medieval times. As such there is nothing for me to take another swing at. Area54 ignored several points I made in a early post and has fixated all conversation onto this one issue which in my opinion has already be resolved and provides nothing useful to support the OP. 

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ This source puts Iraq deaths up to 260k from direct war violence.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html This one puts it at 500k. They did it by getting together 2000 families, asking them how many people they knew had died before the war, and then asking how many they knew had died after the war. Which is still well below 1 million people dead. So I'm not sure where you got that number. Because that's more than twice even generous estimates.

"LONDON (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain’s leading polling groups"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey/iraq-conflict-has-killed-a-million-iraqis-survey-idUSL3048857920080130

This thread isn't about how many people died in Iraq.  I only linked this to illustrate that I didn't make the number I listed up. We don't need to start a link war over which numbers we believe. 

16 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Additionally, world war 1 had 18 million deaths. 

World war 2 had between 50-80 million

Correct, which is why I asked Area54 to qualify what he meant by the past. Clearly loads died in the World Wars. For me, having grandparents who fought in WW2 and lived through both world wars, I consider that relatively modern times. A qualifier for what "the past" referenced was needed. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Ten oz
Typo corrected

[Raider5678]

31 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This thread isn't about how many people died in Iraq.  I only linked this to illustrate that I didn't make the number I listed up. We don't need to start a link war over which numbers we believe. 

Correct, which is why I asked Area54 to qualify what he meant by the past. Clearly loads died in the World Wars. For me, having grandparents who fought in WW2 and lived through both world wars, I consider that relatively modern times. A qualifier for what "the past" referenced was needed. 

 

Fair enough. I did a google search and the first page numbers were all far below 1 million so I assumed you had confused numbers.

 

But it doesn't matter what you qualify as "that past" as long as it's in the past at some point, and then backwards in time from there.

I mean, assuming what other people mean by something can go wrong sometimes.

However, with something like "that past," I feel as though it's safe to assume he means the past. As in the times before now. 

 

If you don't include anything after 1960, his statement that violent deaths are decreasing is true.(Also, I'm talking per 100,000. Because the population change has been massive over the past few centuries)

If you don't include anything after 1900, his statement is still true.

If you don't include anything after 1700s, his statement is still true.

If you don't include anything after 1000 A.D., his statement is still true.

If you don't include anything after 100 B.C, his statement is still true.

Since 100 B.C. was well over two thousand years ago, I'm fairly certain it's safe to assume by the past that he meant anything in the past.

 

Just my non-educated opinion though, I think it's safe to assume by "the past" he meant the past in general.

So I'm not sure why you need to know which period he qualifies as the past. 

 

 

 

 

This graph shows a decline in war deaths per 100,000 people all the way back to 1400.

We've been on an upward climb for the past few years, yet we're still well below every other historical low. Even in a 10 year high.

 

 

And if you start at world war 2 until now:

We're still FAR below the average.

 

 

Hell, even the Vietnam war pales in comparison to much of world history.

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

@ Raider read my response to CharonY. 

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

@ Raider read my response to CharonY. 

Yeah.

You said you asked for clarity on what time frame was being referenced.

I pointed out the technically a time frame didn't matter.

 

[Area54]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

To be fair, Pinker is not well regarded in historic circles and he is one of the cases where folks (in this case again a psychologist) ventures far outside his/her area of expertise. One of the issues is poor sourcing of material and data. That being said, more recent statistics have backed up a decline in armed conflict deaths in the beginning of the 21st century. However, recent  conflicts have resulted in an uptick in deaths. Before you guys take another swing at it, why don't you both look at some UN data (e.g. this one here for starters). The overall state is actually rather complex (e.g. democratization does not automatically result in less conflict, especially during transitional phases).

Thank you CharonY,   but  my views were formed independently of anything Pinker published. They simply happened to be the links that came up when I looked for supporting material for Ten oz.

I have only my standard pack of permanent doubt concerning any provisional conclusion (and all conclusions are provisional). Apart from that the weight of evidence is not just that violent deaths per capita are lower -with decadal smoothing - but there is sound evidence that less violent behaviour tends to accompany better economic conditions. And you pointed out, correctly, that global poverty has been reduced.

So, thank you for the addditional links, but I shan't be taking another swing at it, or at Ten oz (the Ignore button does work).

My final comment in this thread - I decry equally the naive optimism of the OP and enraged pessimism of others. We should take heart at the progress that has been made and redouble our efforts to deal with the part of the quagmire that remains.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

.... We should take heart at the progress that has been made and redouble our efforts to deal with the part of the quagmire that remains.

I am reminded of an expression someone wrote: the pursuit of perfection is the enemy of excellent.

Edited February 13, 2018 by StringJunky

[Area54]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I am reminded of an expression someone wrote: the pursuit of perfection is the enemy of excellent.

When I was in business I operated on the mantra Implement, Improve, Perfect. The unspoken amendment to that was that Perfection was an ideal that defined our objective, not a true goal. There were always new solutions demaning implementation and improvement.

I haven't checked my copy, but your recollected expression sounds like something Tom Peters might have said in In Search of Excellence a first rate (OK, an excellent), best selling, 1980s book on what practices made companies successful.

[billasker]

You have created a version of Utopia according to your experience and ideals.Though I have some doubt about your system,like using gold as currency(because gold is incredibly useful for electronics since it has minimal resistance to electricity),I agree with you.Note that Utopia is a latin world which originates from two ancient greek words(ού witch means no and τόπος which means place).As such the very roots of the word suggests that a perfect community does not exist.Sorry to crush your philosophy but as many have tried,all have faill.For example Thomas More was beheaded,Tiberious and Gaious Grakchus were both assassinated,Platon was sold as a slave etc.The point is that as long as GREED and other sins exist,there can be no perfect human.Therefore there can be no perfect social system created by humans.

 

 

I may have misspelled some names.