3 ms·

> it doesn't mean that there needs to be some Malthusian die-off localized in space and time ... Yes, that's true, but that isn't an argument that it won't hap

by lutusp 13y ago

> it doesn't mean that there needs to be some Malthusian die-off localized in space and time ... Yes, that's true, but that isn't an argument that it won't happen, only that it's needn't happen. Modern history is increasingly an account of population control by mass death. > nor does it need to involve people going crazy. Certainly not, and as time passes, more and more crazy behavior is rationalized as a creative adjustment to trying times. Sandy Hook. Columbine. Boys will be boys.

legutierr 13y ago
Have you ever actually heard someone use the expression "boys will be boys" when talking about Sandy Hook or Columbine? That's just not credible.
foobarbazqux 13y ago
> Modern history is increasingly an account of population control by mass death. I get that this is your claim, but I don't understand your argument that it's increasing when compared to WW1 and WW2.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > I don't understand your argument that it's increasing when compared to WW1 and WW2. That's not my argument, that's your argument, but it's perfectly valid as far as it goes. Let me explain. When you perform a moving average, you can prove anything by choosing an unrealistically short averaging interval. With respect to mass death, if the averaging interval is ten years, things seem to be getting better. If the interval is 100 years, things are much worse. The same method is used by climate deniers -- a one-year averaging interval suggests that the climate is cooling. A ten-year interval shows that it's warming. They're both mathematically valid measures, but the future isn't a year long and it's not ten years long, so choosing short measurement intervals is intellectually dishonest. I'm not saying that about you, only that the interval you chose isn't appropriate to the issue under discussion.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    If we choose a 100 year interval, as long as there are no world wars by 2045, then things will have improved relative to 1845-1945.

by lutusp 13y ago

legutierr 13y ago

Have you ever actually heard someone use the expression "boys will be boys" when talking about Sandy Hook or Columbine? That's just not credible.

foobarbazqux 13y ago

> Modern history is increasingly an account of population control by mass death. I get that this is your claim, but I don't understand your argument that it's increasing when compared to WW1 and WW2.

lutusp 13y ago
> I don't understand your argument that it's increasing when compared to WW1 and WW2. That's not my argument, that's your argument, but it's perfectly valid as far as it goes. Let me explain. When you perform a moving average, you can prove anything by choosing an unrealistically short averaging interval. With respect to mass death, if the averaging interval is ten years, things seem to be getting better. If the interval is 100 years, things are much worse. The same method is used by climate deniers -- a one-year averaging interval suggests that the climate is cooling. A ten-year interval shows that it's warming. They're both mathematically valid measures, but the future isn't a year long and it's not ten years long, so choosing short measurement intervals is intellectually dishonest. I'm not saying that about you, only that the interval you chose isn't appropriate to the issue under discussion.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  If we choose a 100 year interval, as long as there are no world wars by 2045, then things will have improved relative to 1845-1945.