The Decreasing Violence of Man (Humans)

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 04:04 (4347 days ago)

Pinker is finally getting towards the main thrust of his argument:-Unarguably the two bloodiest centuries were the 17th (with the Protestant/Catholic war) and the 20th with the two world wars.-But when you compare the actual rates of those killed...-Modern society demolishes tribal society. -He directly takes the statistic that Tony brought up--180 million dead in the 20th century... and by one swift division, the rate of dead vs. those alive due to either direct or indirect warfare is less than 1%...-If you compute... crudely... the total number of dead in the 20th century (this includes ALL wars and genocides where figures are available) it amounts to 3 % of the CURRENT population of the world. (Of ~6Bn.)-Beautifully... Pinker's argument for this decrease in violence is directly due to the Hobbesian Leviathan hypothesis...-As a Hobbesian/Machiavellan of my own admission... this is sweet vindication: Only through force can we decrease the use of violence.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The Decreasing Violence of Man

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 05:13 (4347 days ago) @ xeno6696


> If you compute... crudely... the total number of dead in the 20th century (this includes ALL wars and genocides where figures are available) it amounts to 3 % of the CURRENT population of the world. (Of ~6Bn.)-The 20th century started at about 2 Bn. That is the figure to compute with.-When I was born the US had 125 million folks. By the end of WWII maybe 140 million. Judge WWII by those figures. You are a member of the population explosion.

The Decreasing Violence of Man

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 15:01 (4347 days ago) @ David Turell


> > If you compute... crudely... the total number of dead in the 20th century (this includes ALL wars and genocides where figures are available) it amounts to 3 % of the CURRENT population of the world. (Of ~6Bn.)
> 
> The 20th century started at about 2 Bn. That is the figure to compute with.
> 
> When I was born the US had 125 million folks. By the end of WWII maybe 140 million. Judge WWII by those figures. You are a member of the population explosion.-The math is more complex than that, because the 180M violent deaths happened across 100 years. You start with 2Bn and a birthrate, nonviolent death rate. If you compute crudely on 2Bn, the total dead comes up to only 9%. (180M/2Bn)-You need stochastic stats (see calculus) to get accurate results. (Like what we do in insurance.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The Decreasing Violence of Man

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 04:41 (4346 days ago) @ xeno6696


> > > If you compute... crudely... the total number of dead in the 20th century (this includes ALL wars and genocides where figures are available) it amounts to 3 % of the CURRENT population of the world. (Of ~6Bn.)
> > 
> > The 20th century started at about 2 Bn. That is the figure to compute with.
> > 
> > When I was born the US had 125 million folks. By the end of WWII maybe 140 million. Judge WWII by those figures. You are a member of the population explosion.
> 
> The math is more complex than that, because the 180M violent deaths happened across 100 years. You start with 2Bn and a birthrate, nonviolent death rate. If you compute crudely on 2Bn, the total dead comes up to only 9%. (180M/2Bn)
> 
> You need stochastic stats (see calculus) to get accurate results. (Like what we do in insurance.)-.....because 180 million is better and more peaceful than 180 thousand... Enough said there. Statistically, a polar bear is the safest pet; would you buy one for your baby? I love how the author twists things around....Yes!! We ONLY killed 180 million... but that is OK because there were more people ALIVE to kill!! How wonderful are we!? Look at how peaceful we are that we ONLY killed between 3-9% of the global population!-
It is really scary how stupid some arguments are.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

The Decreasing Violence of Man

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 21:55 (4346 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > > > If you compute... crudely... the total number of dead in the 20th century (this includes ALL wars and genocides where figures are available) it amounts to 3 % of the CURRENT population of the world. (Of ~6Bn.)
> > > 
> > > The 20th century started at about 2 Bn. That is the figure to compute with.
> > > 
> > > When I was born the US had 125 million folks. By the end of WWII maybe 140 million. Judge WWII by those figures. You are a member of the population explosion.
> > 
> > The math is more complex than that, because the 180M violent deaths happened across 100 years. You start with 2Bn and a birthrate, nonviolent death rate. If you compute crudely on 2Bn, the total dead comes up to only 9%. (180M/2Bn)
> > 
> > You need stochastic stats (see calculus) to get accurate results. (Like what we do in insurance.)
> 
> .....because 180 million is better and more peaceful than 180 thousand... Enough said there. Statistically, a polar bear is the safest pet; would you buy one for your baby? I love how the author twists things around....Yes!! We ONLY killed 180 million... but that is OK because there were more people ALIVE to kill!! How wonderful are we!? Look at how peaceful we are that we ONLY killed between 3-9% of the global population!
> 
> 
> It is really scary how stupid some arguments are.-You really do seem to argue more with your heart.-If our goal is to answer the question, "Has man become more or less violent over time?" Than the only logical choice is to evaluate relative rates among people. To put it bluntly, yes, 180M is more peaceful than 180,000—It all depends upon the size of the pool. The computed violent death rates when looking at both archaeological evidence as well as what is known about existing non-state societies says that at some points in history—the rate of death for some tribal societies due to violence exceeded 64%. This of course was the highest part of the range. Averaged the death rate by violence is 15%. The dividing line Pinker chooses is the creation of state societies. -
If you have a tribe of 200, 100 men and women, and apply what is known about tribal warfare, that worst-case of 64% would mean that out of that 200, 128 were killed by violence. Using modern rates, you'd be looking at 10%. Meaning, only 20 would be killed by violence. And 10% is amortized using my own sloppy math of just dividing ALL violent deaths in the 20th century by the total number of people estimated to live at its beginning. -Yes. We are clearly doing something BETTER from our ancestors. 
Apply that rate to modern population numbers, using 2Bn as an unchanging number, and the argument is simple: instead of 180M dead in the 20th century you would be looking at 720M dead, not 180M. -If you focus on just the last 40 years, the death rate by violence has dropped below 1%. Even the total number killed in Iraq between US and Iraqis amounts to a total death rate 0.00000416 of the entire population. -If we kept the same death rate as our ancient ancestors, we'd be looking at losing 15% of our population yearly, or 900M/year. -When you look at those numbers (I ignore your claim of stupidity, because I think you're arguing with your heart, not your head), killing 10% of ourselves is an astonishing improvement over 15%. The end result: we ARE getting less violent. The rub is that its much easier for us to kill a ton of people. -Again, this doesn't change human nature, but the argument is pretty profound: we are obviously doing something different. What is it? Is it states?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The Decreasing Violence of Man

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, April 26, 2012, 00:02 (4346 days ago) @ xeno6696

Of argue with my heart and head as equally as I can manage. So, thank you for the compliment, whether you meant it as one or not.-Your guy still has his facts wrong :P There is not less violence, only less death resulting from violence, and, more importantly, a much MUCH higher percentage of people surviving natural causes. Infant mortality rates are among the lowest ever. Death from diseases that were almost always fatal previously have dropped dramatically. The net result is that more people live. If your total number of violent deaths stays constant, or even if it grows, but your population grows exponentially due to longer normal lifespans, then the net result is that your percentage of violent deaths decreases. That is why I mockingly castigated your reducing violent death to numbers and percentages.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

The Decreasing Violence of Man

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, April 26, 2012, 00:40 (4346 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

**Edit**-I should have stated my case more clearly:-1: Fewer violent deaths does not equal fewer acts of violence, only a decrease in the fatality rate of these occurrences. I.E. Improved medical techniques and faster response times mean that what was once a fatal wound is now a treatable injury. -2: If #1 is true, then even if the number of violent acts increased on the same scale as the population, the perceived percentage of violence would shift to appear to be decreasing.-3: Other medical improvements have significantly prolonged the number of humans alive at a given time.-4: Preventative/Curative medical advances also dramatically increase the population by cutting the number of fatal cases. -5: If 3 & 4 are true, they would serve to amplify the perspective shift of #2. -A better measure would be the number of violent acts committed in one era versus another. Unfortunately, there is no way to gather such data reliably. So, your author is at best, posing an optimistic haphazard guess.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

The Decreasing Violence of Man

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, April 26, 2012, 01:04 (4346 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

**Edit**
> 
> I should have stated my case more clearly:
> 
> 1: Fewer violent deaths does not equal fewer acts of violence, only a decrease in the fatality rate of these occurrences. I.E. Improved medical techniques and faster response times mean that what was once a fatal wound is now a treatable injury. 
> 
> 2: If #1 is true, then even if the number of violent acts increased on the same scale as the population, the perceived percentage of violence would shift to appear to be decreasing.
> 
> 3: Other medical improvements have significantly prolonged the number of humans alive at a given time.
> 
> 4: Preventative/Curative medical advances also dramatically increase the population by cutting the number of fatal cases. 
> 
> 5: If 3 & 4 are true, they would serve to amplify the perspective shift of #2. 
> 
> A better measure would be the number of violent acts committed in one era versus another. Unfortunately, there is no way to gather such data reliably. So, your author is at best, posing an optimistic haphazard guess.-He directly addresses one of your concerns (Hinted at by you.) He says early on that in terms of ancient man, one thing we *can't* determine is if the person died of infection due to a wound gained violently. However, the further back in time you go, the more signs of foul play you tend to see in ancient human bones. An interesting thing to think about. -It's way too early for anyone to be calling his work haphazard... most of his argument so far is being built using studies already conducted. Modern statistics give us a really fine level of control however: IN all westernized countries, violence has been decreasing, in terms of the number of reported crimes. I'm sure you heard over the last two decades here in the US, that violent crime is going down. -Again, that math I was throwing around, was mine, in an attempt to try and discuss it in a way that could reach David and dhw. -The author's computed rates for violent deaths when death rate is looked at is less than 1%. This is adjusted for birth rates, nonviolent death rates, all the stochastic math that would just look like garbage to you guys. -That stuff isn't in the book, just the tables, but the papers he pulls them from are a great read if you like equations! :-D

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The Decreasing Violence of Man

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, April 26, 2012, 01:13 (4346 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Again, that math I was throwing around, was mine, in an attempt to try and discuss it in a way that could reach David and dhw. 
> 
> The author's computed rates for violent deaths when death rate is looked at is less than 1%. This is adjusted for birth rates, nonviolent death rates, all the stochastic math that would just look like garbage to you guys. 
> 
> That stuff isn't in the book, just the tables, but the papers he pulls them from are a great read if you like equations! :-D-I think they would be interesting. Learning the statistics for complex systems is something I need to be doing more of anyway, whether I like it or not.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

The Decreasing Violence of Man

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, May 01, 2012, 03:22 (4340 days ago) @ David Turell


> > If you compute... crudely... the total number of dead in the 20th century (this includes ALL wars and genocides where figures are available) it amounts to 3 % of the CURRENT population of the world. (Of ~6Bn.)
> 
> The 20th century started at about 2 Bn. That is the figure to compute with.
> 
> When I was born the US had 125 million folks. By the end of WWII maybe 140 million. Judge WWII by those figures. You are a member of the population explosion.-Well... not really. -1979 was by no means part of the boom. In fact, the retirement of YOUR generation (no offense) will directly result in rapid managerial advancement for MY generation... without merit BTW...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The Decreasing Violence of Man

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, May 01, 2012, 03:33 (4340 days ago) @ xeno6696


> > > If you compute... crudely... the total number of dead in the 20th century (this includes ALL wars and genocides where figures are available) it amounts to 3 % of the CURRENT population of the world. (Of ~6Bn.)
> > 
> > The 20th century started at about 2 Bn. That is the figure to compute with.
> > 
> > When I was born the US had 125 million folks. By the end of WWII maybe 140 million. Judge WWII by those figures. You are a member of the population explosion.
> 
> Well... not really. 
> 
> 1979 was by no means part of the boom. In fact, the retirement of YOUR generation (no offense) will directly result in rapid managerial advancement for MY generation... without merit BTW...-Yeah, looking at the graph a little longer... post 1970's birthrates are less than what they were during the depression.-Makes me reiterate that the only positive national stance in regards to immigration is a full "open the borders" policy.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum