5 ms·
"There's no interpretative reasoning required when you're looking at a graph of the level of violence in society" Yes, there is. Imagine a society without jus
by edblarney 10y ago
"There's no interpretative reasoning required when you're looking at a graph of the level of violence in society"
Yes, there is.
Imagine a society without justice/police in which people must fend for themselves. It would quickly deteriorate to the point wherein there would be a fair bit of violence.
Imagine you - the same person you are now - in that situation.
It would be a completely different dynamic of 'violence' and represent a completely different situation - and yet it could very well have little or nothing to do with our moral position (i.e. 'better angels').
Second - I think that 'war' is a completely different kind of violence than regular violent crime.
One could argue that the only thing that has made modern countries less apt for war is MAD, i.e. the fact that there's no real possibility for gain or winning outcomes, with nuclear weapons, the borders are largely frozen. Point being: a weapon, of all things, could have such geostrategic importance that it quashes violence, irrespective of anything else ('better angels') etc..
"There is a wealth of evidence about how bad things have been over the past 200 years or so, and every metric shows that things are getting better. "
This is also false.
From 1960 to 1992 crime in the Western world grew by 800%.
That's almost a 50 year period out of 200 and is not 'cherry picking'.
Violent crime today is still about 600% greater than it was in 1950.
It's a paradox few want to face: that the 'liberation' of the 1960's was also coincident with a massive increase in crime, which peaked in 1992 and has come down somewhat, but still quite high compared to the 1950's.
Anyhow - I don't think it makes any sense to look at violence outside the big contextual things.
- hga 10y agoWhile I generally agree with your points, the statement "* i.e. the fact that there's no real possibility for gain or winning outcomes, with nuclear weapons*" assumes facts that are simply not available. Some day, nuclear weapons will again be used in anger, and there most certainly will be survivors (it's actually not very hard to survive one unless and until you run out of food), and who knows what they'll conclude about "winning" vs. losing outcomes.
- Graphon1 10y ago> Imagine a society without justice/police in which people must fend for themselves. It would quickly deteriorate to the point wherein there would be a fair bit of violence. that conclusion is not warranted by the premise. How about this as an alternative outcome: "Imagine a society in which people actively defend community values for themselves and in cooperation with a community of similarly concerned citizens. It would quickly stabilize into a mostly non-violent community." What are police, but a group of people specifically dedicated by the community to a specific task? Just because there is no dedicated, professional person filling a role, does not mean the role will not be filled.
- return0 10y ago> Just because there is no dedicated, professional person filling a role, does not mean the role will not be filled And thats how you get Somalia. Police was invented for a reason i suppose .
- EGreg 10y agoViolence happens when there arent enough resources
- return0 10y agoYou mean like WW2?
- EGreg 10y agoWould it have happened if Germany's economy wasn't devastated by the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression didn't affect economies worldwide and the German currency was completely devalued? Would the national socialist party get such control?
- lez 10y agoThe problem is, there is no upper limit on "enough". Wars have been started on grounds of vital resources like food, water, etc. it's not common nowadays, as technology helped us to produce food more efficiently, and it's enough for the current population of the planet. Maybe it will not be enough for 15 billion people, which is not happening in the near future. But then there are wars started on grouds of religion (ISIS), or territorial agression for the future generation (WWII), and none of these has to do with current resource limitations. These are based on ideologies that are made up and controlled by few and distributed via media. Technology has made it possible to spread these kinds of ideologies more efficient than ever. It's everywhere, in news, facebook, even in Hollywood. And it is slowly transforming people to accept a greater level of violence.
- EGreg 10y ago
- Graphon1 10y ago> From 1960 to 1992 crime in the Western world grew by 800% citation? Also, same question for your 600% number?
- edblarney 10y agohttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427758/careful-panic-violent-crime-and-gun-crime-are-both-dropping-charles-c-w-cooke http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427758/careful-panic-vi...