4 ms·

The world is currently the least dangerous it's ever been in history, and all data and all trends point that it will be even less dangerous in the future. Sorry

The world is currently the least dangerous it's ever been in history, and all data and all trends point that it will be even less dangerous in the future. Sorry but you're simply wrong.

weirdstuff 9y ago
Not sure about that. Wasn't the Doomsday Clock just moved back to an all-time dangerous spot?
- DontGiveTwoFlux 9y ago
  The doomsday clock is a human institution of scientists, though hardly scientific. They see it as their duty to raise alarms. But ask yourself- are we really closer to civilization ending Doomsday than at the height of the Cold War?
  - thesagan 9y ago
    I don't see why not. Seems nuclear weapons and war are still a thing. So much so they moved the hands of the Doomsday clock again to these heights.
lifeformed 9y ago
Different metrics. I think you're referring to crime rates and health, but OP is referring to political instability.
- MikkoFinell 9y ago
  I'm referring to all data, including political stability. You're less likely to find yourself in a war than ever before. The source of my claims is the book by Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature.
Gatsky 9y ago
The problem with this argument is that Pinker could have written the same book in 1930.
- MikkoFinell 9y ago
  Thats wrong, which you'd know if you actually read it.
  - Gatsky 9y ago
    I have to disagree with you, all his arguments held back then, there was just less data. He also concedes that the statistical modeling relies on violence afflicting a proportion of the population, rather than absolute numbers - all well and good but an important distinction. Also your point is entirely fallacious anyway in the context of this thread. His book highlights a trend which cannot be disentangled from the historical context which gave rise to it.
    - MikkoFinell 9y ago
      I don't understand what you mean by "all his arguments held back then" when a significant portion of the book explicitly shows and discusses data regarding the number of wars fought during 1800 and before, compared to 1900 and early 2000. And the fact that another significant portion of the book deals with data about how much more likely a person is to die from violence in general during that period compared to the more recent period. I'm still convinced you have not read the book, and I suspect that is why your counterargument to it resembles a strawman.
      - Gatsky 9y ago
        All the trends are longer term, the theory about lessening violence first emerged in the 1700s[1]. WW2 doesn't change Pinker's conclusions, by his own admission. So, it is reasonable to conclude this book could have been written in 1930, and would be no less correct than it is now. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

The world is currently the least dangerous it's ever been in history, and all data and all trends point that it will be even less dangerous in the future. Sorry but you're simply wrong.

weirdstuff 9y ago

Not sure about that. Wasn't the Doomsday Clock just moved back to an all-time dangerous spot?

DontGiveTwoFlux 9y ago
The doomsday clock is a human institution of scientists, though hardly scientific. They see it as their duty to raise alarms. But ask yourself- are we really closer to civilization ending Doomsday than at the height of the Cold War?
- thesagan 9y ago
  I don't see why not. Seems nuclear weapons and war are still a thing. So much so they moved the hands of the Doomsday clock again to these heights.

lifeformed 9y ago

Different metrics. I think you're referring to crime rates and health, but OP is referring to political instability.

MikkoFinell 9y ago
I'm referring to all data, including political stability. You're less likely to find yourself in a war than ever before. The source of my claims is the book by Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature.

Gatsky 9y ago

The problem with this argument is that Pinker could have written the same book in 1930.

MikkoFinell 9y ago
Thats wrong, which you'd know if you actually read it.
- Gatsky 9y ago
  I have to disagree with you, all his arguments held back then, there was just less data. He also concedes that the statistical modeling relies on violence afflicting a proportion of the population, rather than absolute numbers - all well and good but an important distinction. Also your point is entirely fallacious anyway in the context of this thread. His book highlights a trend which cannot be disentangled from the historical context which gave rise to it.
  - MikkoFinell 9y ago
    I don't understand what you mean by "all his arguments held back then" when a significant portion of the book explicitly shows and discusses data regarding the number of wars fought during 1800 and before, compared to 1900 and early 2000. And the fact that another significant portion of the book deals with data about how much more likely a person is to die from violence in general during that period compared to the more recent period. I'm still convinced you have not read the book, and I suspect that is why your counterargument to it resembles a strawman.
    - Gatsky 9y ago
      All the trends are longer term, the theory about lessening violence first emerged in the 1700s[1]. WW2 doesn't change Pinker's conclusions, by his own admission. So, it is reasonable to conclude this book could have been written in 1930, and would be no less correct than it is now. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory