4 ms·
Actually... no. I would not really agree. Obviously there are some exceptions. But not as appreciable as you'd think. Like, someone could have loaded a canno
by Enginerrrd 2y ago
Actually... no. I would not really agree.
Obviously there are some exceptions. But not as appreciable as you'd think.
Like, someone could have loaded a cannon with grapeshot and blasted a crowd of people in the 1700's. (Or loaded up a wagon with several barrels of black powder and grape shot.) Or chained the door shut to the local church and set fire to the building by tipping over an oil lamp. Or set fire to a few fields of crops or grain stores after harvest before winter and essentially starved a whole town.
I don't think it's all that appreciably easier to kill a similar number of people today. If anything, similar attacks today might actually be quite a bit HARDER to execute due to technology, and society is both more fragile as a whole but more resilient at small scales than it was. Population density might make a bigger difference than anything as targets with a large number of people are perhaps more available.
- bumby 2y agoFor your stance to be correct, it implies we reached peak technological lethality hundreds of years ago. That ignores advancements in nuclear technology, drone technology, biological technology, ballistic technology etc. People could absolutely kill in prior eras. One of the biggest mass school killings was from the 1800s. That does not mean it isn’t easier in a modern era with more options and more lethal options. To the original point, the biggest mitigation is that people tend to be pro-social, not that technology is inherently benign.
- Enginerrrd 2y agoOk, I see what you mean now. Yes, I would agree that militarily it is easier with technological development. I just think for lone actors, there hasn't been a huge change.