4 ms·

@ABCLAW, you make a very good argument that on a micro-scale we have an unprecedented crisis on our hands. However that lack of precedent comes from a volumetri

by rotrux 9y ago

@ABCLAW, you make a very good argument that on a micro-scale we have an unprecedented crisis on our hands. However that lack of precedent comes from a volumetric perspective of the issue. I believe you're failing to take into account a per-capita perspective vs the total-volume-of-humans perspective. There have never been this many humans on the planet before today. <== this statement will be the case tomorrow, and the day after, and has definitely been the case since we've gained the ability to estimate the global population. To try and be more concise: Is the per-capita decrease in violent-crime a better or worse measure of its reduction than the overall volume of violent-crime? I believe the former is, you appear to believe the latter is. If it's the latter, I'm right there with you. More people ==> more crime ==> more fringe-cases ==> more of a burden on defense-attourneys in the US, unless employment growth in that sector is keeping pace with population-growth, minus whatever the influence of the PER-CAPITA decrease in violent crime is. I want to contest two points you've made: > "We can pretend things are getting better..." - violent crime per-capita IS decreasing...that's just a statistical fact unless there's a problem in the way data has been collected. The overwhelming consensus is that easier access to educational materials (think wikipedia) is the big causal factor there. This next one isn't related to any of this^, but I still disagree, and pretty strongly: > "Violence is not a first order phenomenon at social scale" - By "not first order" I'm assuming you're saying violence is an emergent property of human interaction(if I'm misunderstanding you, please correct me.) However, I can be violent to myself or say...animals without anyone else around. By your definition, A delusional autocrat who starts a war out of paranoia of something fictitious (like...idk...ghosts) isn't being violent.

ABCLAW 9y ago
Thanks for the response. My response is not based upon the 'relative violence' objection which some other writers have used. Put simply they have stated that violence does not scale linearly with population size, and that the types and methods of violence across different scopes looks different, but Pinker's argument ignores this level of abstraction - I think there's some merit to this position, but my critique comes from a different angle. My argument is that rates of violence themselves are not a good metric to determine if society is progressing and humans are becoming better. I support this by stating that there are confounding variables which lower rates of violence, but also represent a regression in progress, none of which are controlled for by Pinker's analysis. Violence is not an uncaused cause. First order in this respect refers to how far down the causal chain violence is. I am stating that at a social level, violence does not spontaneously manifest itself- there are contributory factors which function as the cause of violence. The primary factor which I identify is conflict. Reduction and resolution of conflict by peaceful means is a more valuable method of analyzing the progress of society. From there, I indicate that at the micro level, access to justice is in peril - some countries have largely lost the ability for their middle class to access their official forum for conflict resolution. Elsewhere, I've indicated that citizen-state and state-state dispute resolution are impacted by surveillance and nuclear armaments. Accordingly, from the perspective of conflict resolution the full story is more complicated and whether or not any of these trends are positive is highly debatable.

by rotrux 9y ago

ABCLAW 9y ago

Thanks for the response. My response is not based upon the 'relative violence' objection which some other writers have used. Put simply they have stated that violence does not scale linearly with population size, and that the types and methods of violence across different scopes looks different, but Pinker's argument ignores this level of abstraction - I think there's some merit to this position, but my critique comes from a different angle. My argument is that rates of violence themselves are not a good metric to determine if society is progressing and humans are becoming better. I support this by stating that there are confounding variables which lower rates of violence, but also represent a regression in progress, none of which are controlled for by Pinker's analysis. Violence is not an uncaused cause. First order in this respect refers to how far down the causal chain violence is. I am stating that at a social level, violence does not spontaneously manifest itself- there are contributory factors which function as the cause of violence. The primary factor which I identify is conflict. Reduction and resolution of conflict by peaceful means is a more valuable method of analyzing the progress of society. From there, I indicate that at the micro level, access to justice is in peril - some countries have largely lost the ability for their middle class to access their official forum for conflict resolution. Elsewhere, I've indicated that citizen-state and state-state dispute resolution are impacted by surveillance and nuclear armaments. Accordingly, from the perspective of conflict resolution the full story is more complicated and whether or not any of these trends are positive is highly debatable.