3 ms·

You have yet to provide even a hint of a demonstration of how the have-nots have it worse than before. It should be pretty simple, just one example of backward

You have yet to provide even a hint of a demonstration of how the have-nots have it worse than before. It should be pretty simple, just one example of backward progress that you think is more relevant than reduction of violence. Your second paragraph is pure logical fallacy and fully uncompelling.

ABCLAW 9y ago
Yugoslavia under Tito is a great example of a cauldron of economic and sectarian violence being temporarily held in check by a violent warlord. Given none of those issues actually got solved during his time, the complete disintegration of his country which followed his death is a great example of actual conflict not being accurately tracked by violence figures. Feel free to check out the development figures for the bloc countries and read up on the history. Should be instructive. >Your second paragraph is pure logical fallacy and fully uncompelling. Well, I haven't seen your argument demonstrating that that's the case, but from the tone of this reply, I'll have to stop responding to your points as I don't think there's very much effort towards understanding and discussion.
- shamino 9y ago
  "The issue is that violence is a poor metric for progress." Just to echo the commenter, I don't think Pinker is stating that humans are progressing in general - he is just stating that violence is decreasing. I also agree this is a measurable metric, that Pinker does well to argue for. If he claims things "are getting better", I think he says that "violence is decreasing", where "violence" is a measure of worseness. If we want to talk about progress, though, we would have to define what progress really means. Will Durant (from "The Lessons of History") says progress is more like the increasing ability of mankind to control his environment. If so, I would think there is some evidence for that. In terms of social injustice, Will Durant also makes an argument that there will always be this. Power is always concentrated to the few (that's just how it works in order to have organization), and those not in power will always have some level of injustice. The amount of people in power and their motives can change depending on the era/civilization/society.
- ust 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but your comment about Yugoslavia is extremely simplistic, if not outright wrong. While ethnic tensions certainly played a large role, the causes for the war were numerous, and also include outside influences (end of Cold War, geopolitical situation, etc.). BTW, Tito was dead for 11 years before the war started, and while he certainly was a dictator, albeit somewhat more lenient than other communist dictators, describing him as a "violent warlord" is a mischaracterization.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    I don't understand the objection; if resolving ethnic tensions was actively impeded by Tito's dictatorship, then the argument that violence was suppressed rather than resolved is untouched. The characterization of Tito himself isn't important (call him a benevolent strongman if you prefer - I don't have a horse in the race), other than to examine the role of a system which suppressed violence rather than resolved conflict.
poir00t99 9y ago
If you're gonna be all "Nuh uh you're wrong." bring a better argument than "Nuh uh you're wrong." I agree with the parent. Justice is expensive, like healthcare. Wages are down. Debt for the proles is up. Social mobility is down. Incarceration rates are up Suicide among the proles is up. Authoritarian control of resources and economic output is up. Addiction is up. And by "up" I mean the ratio of people suffering from one or more relative to the rest. Not just a raw count. These are easily found data points and they contradict all your "nuh uhs" readily. It's very much a myth among the neoliberal crowd that things are better for the proles, while they kick it eating avocado toast and massaging each others egos over losing followers on Twitter The HN crowd is just as stuck in its own filter-bubble when it comes to progress. Go to the shanty towns and bum camps that are popping up all over and growing. Tell me things are better.

ABCLAW 9y ago

Yugoslavia under Tito is a great example of a cauldron of economic and sectarian violence being temporarily held in check by a violent warlord. Given none of those issues actually got solved during his time, the complete disintegration of his country which followed his death is a great example of actual conflict not being accurately tracked by violence figures. Feel free to check out the development figures for the bloc countries and read up on the history. Should be instructive. >Your second paragraph is pure logical fallacy and fully uncompelling. Well, I haven't seen your argument demonstrating that that's the case, but from the tone of this reply, I'll have to stop responding to your points as I don't think there's very much effort towards understanding and discussion.

shamino 9y ago
"The issue is that violence is a poor metric for progress." Just to echo the commenter, I don't think Pinker is stating that humans are progressing in general - he is just stating that violence is decreasing. I also agree this is a measurable metric, that Pinker does well to argue for. If he claims things "are getting better", I think he says that "violence is decreasing", where "violence" is a measure of worseness. If we want to talk about progress, though, we would have to define what progress really means. Will Durant (from "The Lessons of History") says progress is more like the increasing ability of mankind to control his environment. If so, I would think there is some evidence for that. In terms of social injustice, Will Durant also makes an argument that there will always be this. Power is always concentrated to the few (that's just how it works in order to have organization), and those not in power will always have some level of injustice. The amount of people in power and their motives can change depending on the era/civilization/society.
ust 9y ago
I'm sorry, but your comment about Yugoslavia is extremely simplistic, if not outright wrong. While ethnic tensions certainly played a large role, the causes for the war were numerous, and also include outside influences (end of Cold War, geopolitical situation, etc.). BTW, Tito was dead for 11 years before the war started, and while he certainly was a dictator, albeit somewhat more lenient than other communist dictators, describing him as a "violent warlord" is a mischaracterization.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  I don't understand the objection; if resolving ethnic tensions was actively impeded by Tito's dictatorship, then the argument that violence was suppressed rather than resolved is untouched. The characterization of Tito himself isn't important (call him a benevolent strongman if you prefer - I don't have a horse in the race), other than to examine the role of a system which suppressed violence rather than resolved conflict.

poir00t99 9y ago

If you're gonna be all "Nuh uh you're wrong." bring a better argument than "Nuh uh you're wrong." I agree with the parent. Justice is expensive, like healthcare. Wages are down. Debt for the proles is up. Social mobility is down. Incarceration rates are up Suicide among the proles is up. Authoritarian control of resources and economic output is up. Addiction is up. And by "up" I mean the ratio of people suffering from one or more relative to the rest. Not just a raw count. These are easily found data points and they contradict all your "nuh uhs" readily. It's very much a myth among the neoliberal crowd that things are better for the proles, while they kick it eating avocado toast and massaging each others egos over losing followers on Twitter The HN crowd is just as stuck in its own filter-bubble when it comes to progress. Go to the shanty towns and bum camps that are popping up all over and growing. Tell me things are better.