With so many of the big threads here being so gloomy ("ongoing terrorism thread", "ongoing mass shooting thread", "New American Politics", "I don't want to live on this planet..."), I get a feeling that there's something wrong with the how we (meaning people in general, not just CP) talk about the world, and it needs some counter-balance. The dark stuff is so prevalent these days, and yet huge things like the decline of war flies completely under the radar.
On Wednesday 21st June, the Colombian government agreed to a ceasefire with the country’s largest rebel group. For most people, this story would have passed unnoticed, buried amongst the headlines. That’s a pity. Not only does it mark the end of a 50 year old war that has killed more than 220,000 people, it also signals the end of official armed conflict in the entire western hemisphere of the planet.
Quote:
If you can tear your attention away from the 24 hour news cycle, you’ll be astonished to hear that we are experiencing one of the least discussed, yet most remarkable cultural shifts of all time: war, one of our species’ most abiding and defining social practices, is at its lowest ebb ever.
I also love this quote from the article I linked, because it so clearly goes against so many popular talking points of these days.
Quote:
Why is war declining? Well the answer is complicated, but a big part of it seems to be that our institutions are getting better. After centuries of hard earned lessons, people are starting to understand that governance really matters. Democracy is more prevalent today than ever before (and despite all its obvious flaws, it’s still a hell of a lot better than authoritarianism and feudal serfdom).
Thoughs? Comments?
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I had a conversation with a guy a while back and he was essentially pining for the good old days. I argued that there is no better time to be a human on this plant, generally speaking, than right now. War, disease, famine, corruption, attitudes towards social issues and crime rates have all improved. However, with the rise of the 24 hour news cycle media coverage you'd think that the world is on the brink of collapse (although I'm sure it feels that way in some parts of the world).
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
I had a conversation with a guy a while back and he was essentially pining for the good old days. I argued that there is no better time to be a human on this plant, generally speaking, than right now. War, disease, famine, corruption, attitudes towards social issues and crime rates have all improved. However, with the rise of the 24 hour news cycle media coverage you'd think that the world is on the brink of collapse (although I'm sure it feels that way in some parts of the world).
That is so true. I could not an old guy once that violent crime is way less now than it was in the 1970s. He was convinced that kids these days were way worse with guns and back in his day they just had the odd fist fight.
The article doesn't even mention anything about MAD - as if that has nothing to do with it. The situation in Ukraine may have provoked international action 70 years ago, but it can't do the same now.
A couple of things - war is becoming mechanized. We are seeing an increase of drone strikes, especially in the middle east. I am unsure from the sourced chart in the article if things like the US drone strikes in places like Yeman or Pakistan (not directly in war zones) would count as a "war death".
War is also becoming a product of technology - why have combat deaths and overt aggressive actions when you can unleash a program like Stuxnet to accomplish your goals without having the ability to have it traced back to you. China is continuing to pour resources into cyber warfare for a reason.
Combat deaths around the world might look like a nice number, but if anything, war is evolving and the ambitions that start wars still exist - they are just finding different ways to achieve their goals.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaramonLS For This Useful Post:
The article doesn't even mention anything about MAD - as if that has nothing to do with it. The situation in Ukraine may have provoked international action 70 years ago, but it can't do the same now.
True, and probably a relevant point. Then again the main point of reference in that article is 70's and 80's, and the decline in war since then clearly can't be because MAD.
Quote:
A couple of things - war is becoming mechanized. We are seeing an increase of drone strikes, especially in the middle east.
True. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see if war becomes so mechanized that less people have to actually put their lives at risk.
Quote:
I am unsure from the sourced chart in the article if things like the US drone strikes in places like Yeman or Pakistan (not directly in war zones) would count as a "war death".
Good question.
Quote:
War is also becoming a product of technology - why have combat deaths and overt aggressive actions when you can unleash a program like Stuxnet to accomplish your goals without having the ability to have it traced back to you. China is continuing to pour resources into cyber warfare for a reason.
Combat deaths around the world might look like a nice number, but if anything, war is evolving and the ambitions that start wars still exist - they are just finding different ways to achieve their goals.
While true, if that means less people dying I think we can agree it's a good development.
It's also not just wars that are on the decline, even though it's the topic of that article. Here's a TED talk on that topic.
It's also not just wars that are on the decline, even though it's the topic of that article. Here's a TED talk on that topic.
This is a great talk. His book on the subject is also excellent.
EDIT: Sorry for previously gigantic picture of book cover.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 08-13-2016 at 10:31 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I've mentioned Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature on this forum before. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in history, current affairs, or psychology. We are indeed living in the least violent era of human history. Pinker cites several reasons for the dramatic reductions in violence, including the increased power of the state, the ties of commerce, decline of honour culture, and the expansion of empathy fostered by education and literacy.
What I find just as remarkable as the decline in violence is the stubborn resistance of so many to acknowledge the decline. Not only among conservatives, but among progressives. In fact, Pinker has come under fire most passionately from the left, not the right. It seems there is nobody so reluctant to recognize progress as a progressive.
Part of this is because of the persistence myths that many on the left still cling to - especially the naturalism fallacy and the blank slate myth. The notion that humans are naturally good and it's only oppressive and malign social structures that lead us to harm one another. And then there's the belief that in order to promote a cause you must foster a climate of crisis to attract and keep people's attention. So progress and positive advances cannot be acknowledged lest they take the steam out of the outrage machine.
But as Pinker argues, what could be more important than identifying and understanding what we've been doing right to bring about these positive changes. There's no reason to think we're immune to backsliding into the brutality of the past if we neglect the institutions and values that have enabled progress over the last 200 years.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 08-13-2016 at 09:38 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
What I find just as remarkable as the decline in violence is the stubborn resistance of so many to acknowledge the decline. Not only among conservatives, but among progressives. In fact, Pinker has come under fire most passionately from the left, not the right.
For the record, while this is likely true...
Quote:
Part of this is because of the persistence myths that many on the left still cling to - especially the naturalism fallacy and the blank slate myth. The notion that humans are naturally good and it's only oppressive and malign social structures that lead us to harm one another. And then there's the belief that in order to promote a cause you must foster a climate of crisis to attract and keep people's attention. So progress and positive advances cannot be acknowledged lest they take the steam out of the outrage machine.
This part is speculation, and I'm inclined to differ.
To me the most likely explanation for why Pinker is most criticized on the left is simply because progressives are much more likely to even be aware of his work. (He tends to appear in contexts which have a clear liberal/left/progressive slant, such as TED.)
People in general often react negatively when their worldviews are challenged. It's not a progressive/conservative or left/right thing, it's just a "people" thing.
I didn't read all the links, so maybe this was touched on.
I think a big part if it is that people have stopped glorifying it. In the information age, the horrors of war aren't veiled from anyone and no one wants it. Most people stopped using might as a way to stoke their patriotism and nationalistic pride. At one time, it was practically considered a man's rite of passage.
The U.S. seems to be an exception though. They still judge politicians on whether they have military experience and haven't had more than a few years in their history that they haven't been at war with someone somewhere.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Fighting for somethibg one believes in gives the tangible feeling of contribution, of altering society and your place in it.
That's why the military is increasingly a poor man's military. People with agency in our society just do something else.
I disagree. I bet the poor men in our military are more satisfied and happy than the guy working at a law firm or Microsoft.
Man is the only species who gets bored in the best environments. It is one of our species' most pressing mysteries.
See Walker Percy, the great Southern novelist below:
Quote:
Why is it that no other species but man gets bored? Under the circumstances in which a man gets bored, a dog goes to sleep. Thought Experiment: Imagine that you are a member of a tour visiting Greece. The group goes to the Parthenon.
It is a bore. Few people even bother to look - it looked better in the brochure. So people take half a look, mostly take pictures, remark on the serious erosion by acid rain. You are puzzled. Why should one of the glories and fonts of Western civilization, viewed under pleasant conditions - good weather, good hotel room, good food, good guide - be a bore?
Now imagine under what set of circumstances a viewing of the Parthenon would not be a bore. For example, you are a NATO colonel defending Greece against a Soviet assault. You are in a bunker in dowtown Athens, binoculars propped on sandbags. It is dawn. A medium-range missile attack is under way. Half a million Greeks are dead. Two missiles bracket the Parthenon. The next will surely be a hit. Between columns of smoke, a ray of golden light catches the portico. Are you bored?
But as Pinker argues, what could be more important than identifying and understanding what we've been doing right to bring about these positive changes. There's no reason to think we're immune to backsliding into the brutality of the past if we neglect the institutions and values that have enabled progress over the last 200 years.
Scientific humanism has also wrought horrors never seen before in history. Pinker breezes past the genocide of indigenous people, the enslavement of Africans, and the Holocaust like they are outliers.
This past century was the most violent, oppressive, blood-soaked century in human history.
If the detente we have now is only because weapons of war have become too deadly to use on a scaled basis, then this is not some sort of massive altruism unleashed by modernity, but an existential dread that has frozen us all in place.
I appreciate the general point of that article, which is to criticize Pinkers idea that the reduction of violence has something to do with better morals.
But I really dislike the incoherent way it's written, and the criticism towards the actual numbers is just cringe-worthy.
For example, trying to counter the idea that violent crime has decreased in the US by the fact that the incarceration rate has gone up is just a terrible argument.
In general a lot of the argumentation is just cherry-picking a whole bunch of random examples of bad stuff that has happened throughout human history without showing how they're all connected and without any attempt at actual statistical analysis.
You can't just say "your numbers are bad" without showing how exactly.
And stuff like this...
Quote:
Unable to tolerate the prospect that the cycles of conflict will continue, many are anxious to find continuing improvement in the human lot. Who can fail to sympathise with them? Lacking any deeper faith and incapable of living with doubt, it is only natural that believers in reason should turn to the sorcery of numbers. How else can they find meaning in their lives? Happily, there are some among us who are ready to assist in the quest. Just as the Elizabethan magus transcribed tables shown to them by angels, the modern scientific scryer deciphers numerical auguries of angels hidden in ourselves.
is just flowery academic name-calling and makes John Gray sound like a massive dick.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Unable to tolerate the prospect that the cycles of conflict will continue, many are anxious to find continuing improvement in the human lot. Who can fail to sympathise with them? Lacking any deeper faith and incapable of living with doubt, it is only natural that believers in reason should turn to the sorcery of numbers.
What Gray is talking about here, and throughout the essay, is the failure of sociological imagination present in all statistical analysis that purports to tell the whole story without considering the particulars of history and culture.
I mean, if violent crime was decreased by the cultural effects of mass incarceration and abortion, then a different kind of violence is being perpetrated by the State with arguably more pernicious effects.
This past century was the most violent, oppressive, blood-soaked century in human history.
Sigh.
For starters, there were only a handful of democracies in the world before the 20th century, and in none of those, most of the population were not allowed to vote.
As for the things like "most violent" and "blood soaked", if you want to disprove the statistical proof to the opposite, you should back your claims with some numbers.
For starters, there were only a handful of democracies in the world before the 20th century, and in none of those, most of the population were not allowed to vote.
As for the things like "most violent" and "blood soaked", if you want to disprove the statistical proof to the opposite, you should back your claims with some numbers.
Read "The War of the World" by Niall Ferguson.
Democracies were involved in the bloodshed too. America carried out genocide against the indigenous, and dropped the Bomb.
The British Empire drained itself of blood in the two great conflicts.
I'm not sure what democracy has to do with it. The 20th century was brutal.
Decline of War
