6 ms·

Neither: the world has gotten safer, and for whatever reason that has made us more concerned about the dangers that remain.

im3w1l 4y ago
Devils advocate: The reason statistics is down is that people are taking less risk. If you were to live like before the risk would be the same or higher. Don't know if it's actually true, but it's worth examining.
- causality0 4y ago
  I suspect the reduced number of malicious acts by adults has been more than balanced out by the increased rate of children killing themselves as we cripple their development more and more over time.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  AFAIK at least the stranger danger phenomenon was always blown up by the media. Sexual abuse of children for example typically happens by people who know the children. It's extremely rare for a stranger to do that.
hulitu 4y ago
Safer in which way ? I was playing football on the street as a kid with a lot of kids from my neighborhoud. Now you see rarely kids on the streets because they risk being hit by cars or kidnapped.
- jhbadger 4y ago
  There is something to said about the risks of being run over especially given the popularity of SUVs which are so high up, but kidnapping is and has always been an incredibly rare crime for at least the past century. People are freaked out these days because of "Amber alerts" but these are nearly always cases of disputed custody between divorced/separated partners taking the kid against the wishes of the other parent, not strangers.
- ekanes 4y ago
  Safer in a statistical way, not an emotional / subjective / how does the news make us feel kind of way.
  - kbelder 4y ago
    Or in other words, safer in a 'real' way as compared to an 'imaginary' way.
- gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
  Look at crime rates since the 2000s, or the 90s, or the medieval period. This is the safest period in human history, more so if you live in a high income country.
  - brnaftr361 4y ago
    Well, probably not, no. There's about 286 thousand years of anatomically modern humans running around pre-historically (unless you're meaning very literal history), and numerous illiterate societies which left us mundane archaeological records. Your conclusion is invariably cherry picked. Not to mention the goalposts for the concept of criminal have shifted drastically as has the means to enforce law.
    - brnaftr361 4y ago
      Your anthropology professors are ignoring the fact that they're inferring their rates from displaced populations. Crimes of passion should also be exempted from the general murder rates.
      - djur 4y ago
        Why should crimes of passion be exempted from the general murder rates? A society where it's more acceptable or common to kill someone who upsets you is a more dangerous society.
        brnaftr361 4y ago
        Because they're decontextualized. I'd posit that in the context of small organizations most of those murders are a product of deliberate and known risk. Given that, one could liken it to mutual combat at the ethical and social levels. That isn't the whole scope of the matter but the aggregate data would, I suspect, reflect a considerably different picture if it was investigated at such a resolution. Of particular interest would be infidelity and how that fits into the context of a given social order.
    - 4y ago
- midasuni 4y ago
  Conflating two wildly different things seems like it should be a formal fallacy. “I don’t go out without an umbrella because of the risk of it raining or an asteroid wiping out my town.” for example. Car drivers kill thousands of people walking on the street every year. Kidnappers don’t.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > Now you see rarely kids on the streets because they risk being hit by cars or kidnapped. "Stranger" kidnappings are exceedingly rare. The majority of Amber Alerts occur due to custodial disputes between divorced parents when one parent takes the kid when they are not supposed to[1]. > Children (and parents) are often conditioned to be wary of strangers. However, in reality, only a small fraction of child abduction cases – around 0.1 percent – involve kidnappings by strangers or slight acquaintances. [1] https://www.protection1.com/amber-alerts/ https://www.protection1.com/amber-alerts/
  - heartbreak 4y ago
    They’re less rare in certain communities. Something like 20% of abductions in the US are hispanic girls despite that demo being roughly 10% of the US population of children.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      How many of those abductions are by strangers?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- mjbeswick 4y ago
  The idea of stranger danger is largely a myth, as most almost all crimes committed towards children are by those closest to them: parent, relatives and people in positions of trust.

im3w1l 4y ago

Devils advocate: The reason statistics is down is that people are taking less risk. If you were to live like before the risk would be the same or higher. Don't know if it's actually true, but it's worth examining.

causality0 4y ago
I suspect the reduced number of malicious acts by adults has been more than balanced out by the increased rate of children killing themselves as we cripple their development more and more over time.
ajmurmann 4y ago
AFAIK at least the stranger danger phenomenon was always blown up by the media. Sexual abuse of children for example typically happens by people who know the children. It's extremely rare for a stranger to do that.

hulitu 4y ago

Safer in which way ? I was playing football on the street as a kid with a lot of kids from my neighborhoud. Now you see rarely kids on the streets because they risk being hit by cars or kidnapped.

jhbadger 4y ago
There is something to said about the risks of being run over especially given the popularity of SUVs which are so high up, but kidnapping is and has always been an incredibly rare crime for at least the past century. People are freaked out these days because of "Amber alerts" but these are nearly always cases of disputed custody between divorced/separated partners taking the kid against the wishes of the other parent, not strangers.
ekanes 4y ago
Safer in a statistical way, not an emotional / subjective / how does the news make us feel kind of way.
- kbelder 4y ago
  Or in other words, safer in a 'real' way as compared to an 'imaginary' way.
gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
Look at crime rates since the 2000s, or the 90s, or the medieval period. This is the safest period in human history, more so if you live in a high income country.
- brnaftr361 4y ago
  Well, probably not, no. There's about 286 thousand years of anatomically modern humans running around pre-historically (unless you're meaning very literal history), and numerous illiterate societies which left us mundane archaeological records. Your conclusion is invariably cherry picked. Not to mention the goalposts for the concept of criminal have shifted drastically as has the means to enforce law.
  - brnaftr361 4y ago
    Your anthropology professors are ignoring the fact that they're inferring their rates from displaced populations. Crimes of passion should also be exempted from the general murder rates.
    - djur 4y ago
      Why should crimes of passion be exempted from the general murder rates? A society where it's more acceptable or common to kill someone who upsets you is a more dangerous society.
      - brnaftr361 4y ago
        Because they're decontextualized. I'd posit that in the context of small organizations most of those murders are a product of deliberate and known risk. Given that, one could liken it to mutual combat at the ethical and social levels. That isn't the whole scope of the matter but the aggregate data would, I suspect, reflect a considerably different picture if it was investigated at such a resolution. Of particular interest would be infidelity and how that fits into the context of a given social order.
  - 4y ago
midasuni 4y ago
Conflating two wildly different things seems like it should be a formal fallacy. “I don’t go out without an umbrella because of the risk of it raining or an asteroid wiping out my town.” for example. Car drivers kill thousands of people walking on the street every year. Kidnappers don’t.
AlexandrB 4y ago
> Now you see rarely kids on the streets because they risk being hit by cars or kidnapped. "Stranger" kidnappings are exceedingly rare. The majority of Amber Alerts occur due to custodial disputes between divorced parents when one parent takes the kid when they are not supposed to[1]. > Children (and parents) are often conditioned to be wary of strangers. However, in reality, only a small fraction of child abduction cases – around 0.1 percent – involve kidnappings by strangers or slight acquaintances. [1] https://www.protection1.com/amber-alerts/ https://www.protection1.com/amber-alerts/
- heartbreak 4y ago
  They’re less rare in certain communities. Something like 20% of abductions in the US are hispanic girls despite that demo being roughly 10% of the US population of children.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    How many of those abductions are by strangers?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
mjbeswick 4y ago
The idea of stranger danger is largely a myth, as most almost all crimes committed towards children are by those closest to them: parent, relatives and people in positions of trust.