3 ms·

> Given even a passing look at just the last 2 decades In the last two decades, the share of humans living in extreme poverty fell from 30% to 10%. And child d

by ef4 9y ago

> Given even a passing look at just the last 2 decades In the last two decades, the share of humans living in extreme poverty fell from 30% to 10%. And child deaths under age five were cut in half. So where's your data? I will add that I don't think "western civilization" is racist, even though the term gets coopted often by racists. I happen to be proud to be part of a scientific civilization and want to see it flourish. But I recognize that has nothing to do with which people are allowed to live and work on which side of imaginary lines.

remarkEon 9y ago
The wars that stretch from Afghanistan (though I could argue the actual starting point is Pakistan or maybe even Indonesia) in the East to the Atlantic Coast of Africa, to start, not to mention terror in Europe. You're going to run into problems if you start using one-dimensional measures like extreme poverty (which has a shifting definition) as a proxy for systemic risk in our system.
- ef4 9y ago
  Those wars are bad, but badness needs to be measured relative to something. For example, the Afghanistan war from 2001 to the present has killed somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000 people. This makes it very small by the standards of 20th century wars. In the 1990s alone, there were at least eight wars an order of magnitude bigger than that (Congo, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Burundi, Rawanda). And yes, we can add up Syria and Iraq too, and that is a much bigger number, but I can likewise keep adding up 1990s wars. It turns out that was a more violent decade in terms of actual battle deaths. > though I could argue the actual starting point is Pakistan or maybe even Indonesia You could argue that, but you would be hampered by the fact that casualty numbers in those countries are minuscule by the standards of actual wars. > not to mention terror in Europe. Terror is Europe is up a bit but still far from the highs it was hitting in the 1970s. http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015 http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-pe... The panicky "things are worse than ever and deteriorating" position is just not supported by hard evidence. It's stoked by an eager media ecosystem that profits from fear, and an aging generation that wants to externalize it's own perceptions of decline. Many of the people saying "the west is declining" are in fact just baby boomers who are declining who can't accept that they are not equal to "the west".
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    >In the 1990s alone, there were at least eight wars an order of magnitude bigger than that (Congo, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Burundi, Rawanda)... This might be the worst possible way to think about the present security situation. In aggregate numbers are there less lives being destroyed today than in the 1990s? Maybe. But what does that have to do with total risk of all out war? You're measuring everything by casualty numbers, and not the actual potential for catastrophe, to say nothing of the risk of actual civil war in Europe precipitated by rapid demographic changeover. Scoff at that all you like, but you'll struggle to find a time in history where they was such a significant culture clash that didn't result in violence. >You could argue that, but you would be hampered by the fact that casualty numbers in those countries are minuscule by the standards of actual wars. >Terror is Europe is up a bit but still far from the highs it was hitting in the 1970s. That argument is so, so tired. What level of casualties would make you actually take this serious? Do Jihadists need to be killing people monthly? Weekly? Do we need to have a major 9/11-like incident or more Nice style attacks? >Many of the people saying "the west is declining" are in fact just baby boomers who are declining who can't accept that they are not equal to "the west". In my experience boomers are the ones acting like everything is just fine and it's actually folks who are a bit younger and look at history on a munch longer timeline than just the last ~200 years who think we're in for some rough times ahead.
Danihan 9y ago
>But I recognize that has nothing to do with which people are allowed to live and work on which side of imaginary lines. I'm so tired of these sorts of facile statements. They're so smugly wrong-headed. Is real estate comprised of nothing more than imaginary lines? No, it isn't. It has massive social and economic value. Territory matters, access rights to said territory matters matters, to literally every living thing on Earth. Even tree roots are constantly fighting and competing for finite resources and territory on time-lapse. What do you think an invasive species is? Are those imaginary? The idea of boundaries isn't some new thing. It's essentially the reason we developed laws and civilization in the first place, to manage territory in a rational way. Territorial delineations aren't just "imaginary lines." Are laws just imaginary words to you? Are title agencies imaginary businesses? Does money only have imaginary value? Why not give it all away then. Your perspective seems absurdly detached to me.
- ef4 9y ago
  I'm not objecting to the existence of geographic boundaries. I'm objecting to the idea that those geographic boundaries say anything meaningful about the people born on either side of said boundaries. > Is real estate comprised of nothing more than imaginary lines? No, it isn't. I agree. But I think that a real estate sale is a voluntary contract between two consenting adults, and it's none of your business if I want to sell some of mine to someone who happened to be born slightly too may miles away to end up on the "right" side of some border. Nativists like to pretend to be defenders of human liberty, when they're just nanny staters with different preferences. > Even tree roots are constantly fighting and competing for finite resources and territory on time-lapse. Yes, but why does it matter if the other organism you're competing with was born in El Paso vs half a mile away in Juarez? The nativist position is that one is vigorous, dynamic market competition and the other is a foreign invasion. When really they are exactly the same. Sure, all living things compete (in addition to cooperating -- all ecosystems and markets feature a network of both). But that does not explain the fetish for treating certain people as OK to compete and others as not. > What do you think an invasive species is? Are those imaginary? Obviously we are only discussing human immigrants here, so unless you're making an underhanded comment about the inhumanity of foreigners, where are you going with this analogy? Realize that's not just snark -- the whole argument rests on the idea that there's a bright line between two sets of people. That line is completely imaginary. I guarantee you couldn't find it in an experiment, if I got to pick 50 American citizens and 50 non-citizens and you had to tell who was who just by talking to them.

by ef4 9y ago

remarkEon 9y ago

The wars that stretch from Afghanistan (though I could argue the actual starting point is Pakistan or maybe even Indonesia) in the East to the Atlantic Coast of Africa, to start, not to mention terror in Europe. You're going to run into problems if you start using one-dimensional measures like extreme poverty (which has a shifting definition) as a proxy for systemic risk in our system.

ef4 9y ago
Those wars are bad, but badness needs to be measured relative to something. For example, the Afghanistan war from 2001 to the present has killed somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000 people. This makes it very small by the standards of 20th century wars. In the 1990s alone, there were at least eight wars an order of magnitude bigger than that (Congo, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Burundi, Rawanda). And yes, we can add up Syria and Iraq too, and that is a much bigger number, but I can likewise keep adding up 1990s wars. It turns out that was a more violent decade in terms of actual battle deaths. > though I could argue the actual starting point is Pakistan or maybe even Indonesia You could argue that, but you would be hampered by the fact that casualty numbers in those countries are minuscule by the standards of actual wars. > not to mention terror in Europe. Terror is Europe is up a bit but still far from the highs it was hitting in the 1970s. http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015 http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-pe... The panicky "things are worse than ever and deteriorating" position is just not supported by hard evidence. It's stoked by an eager media ecosystem that profits from fear, and an aging generation that wants to externalize it's own perceptions of decline. Many of the people saying "the west is declining" are in fact just baby boomers who are declining who can't accept that they are not equal to "the west".
- remarkEon 9y ago
  >In the 1990s alone, there were at least eight wars an order of magnitude bigger than that (Congo, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Burundi, Rawanda)... This might be the worst possible way to think about the present security situation. In aggregate numbers are there less lives being destroyed today than in the 1990s? Maybe. But what does that have to do with total risk of all out war? You're measuring everything by casualty numbers, and not the actual potential for catastrophe, to say nothing of the risk of actual civil war in Europe precipitated by rapid demographic changeover. Scoff at that all you like, but you'll struggle to find a time in history where they was such a significant culture clash that didn't result in violence. >You could argue that, but you would be hampered by the fact that casualty numbers in those countries are minuscule by the standards of actual wars. >Terror is Europe is up a bit but still far from the highs it was hitting in the 1970s. That argument is so, so tired. What level of casualties would make you actually take this serious? Do Jihadists need to be killing people monthly? Weekly? Do we need to have a major 9/11-like incident or more Nice style attacks? >Many of the people saying "the west is declining" are in fact just baby boomers who are declining who can't accept that they are not equal to "the west". In my experience boomers are the ones acting like everything is just fine and it's actually folks who are a bit younger and look at history on a munch longer timeline than just the last ~200 years who think we're in for some rough times ahead.

Danihan 9y ago

>But I recognize that has nothing to do with which people are allowed to live and work on which side of imaginary lines. I'm so tired of these sorts of facile statements. They're so smugly wrong-headed. Is real estate comprised of nothing more than imaginary lines? No, it isn't. It has massive social and economic value. Territory matters, access rights to said territory matters matters, to literally every living thing on Earth. Even tree roots are constantly fighting and competing for finite resources and territory on time-lapse. What do you think an invasive species is? Are those imaginary? The idea of boundaries isn't some new thing. It's essentially the reason we developed laws and civilization in the first place, to manage territory in a rational way. Territorial delineations aren't just "imaginary lines." Are laws just imaginary words to you? Are title agencies imaginary businesses? Does money only have imaginary value? Why not give it all away then. Your perspective seems absurdly detached to me.

ef4 9y ago
I'm not objecting to the existence of geographic boundaries. I'm objecting to the idea that those geographic boundaries say anything meaningful about the people born on either side of said boundaries. > Is real estate comprised of nothing more than imaginary lines? No, it isn't. I agree. But I think that a real estate sale is a voluntary contract between two consenting adults, and it's none of your business if I want to sell some of mine to someone who happened to be born slightly too may miles away to end up on the "right" side of some border. Nativists like to pretend to be defenders of human liberty, when they're just nanny staters with different preferences. > Even tree roots are constantly fighting and competing for finite resources and territory on time-lapse. Yes, but why does it matter if the other organism you're competing with was born in El Paso vs half a mile away in Juarez? The nativist position is that one is vigorous, dynamic market competition and the other is a foreign invasion. When really they are exactly the same. Sure, all living things compete (in addition to cooperating -- all ecosystems and markets feature a network of both). But that does not explain the fetish for treating certain people as OK to compete and others as not. > What do you think an invasive species is? Are those imaginary? Obviously we are only discussing human immigrants here, so unless you're making an underhanded comment about the inhumanity of foreigners, where are you going with this analogy? Realize that's not just snark -- the whole argument rests on the idea that there's a bright line between two sets of people. That line is completely imaginary. I guarantee you couldn't find it in an experiment, if I got to pick 50 American citizens and 50 non-citizens and you had to tell who was who just by talking to them.