# Is the world becoming a better place?



## TxllxT

Radko Mladic has been arrested, the last of the three Balkan beasts who was co-responsible for so much breaching of human rights. Soon he will be brought over to the Hague. My first reaction: at last justice is being done! Then I went musing over the 'Arab Spring' and thought: Is the world becoming a better place?


----------



## Argus

It's definitely becoming a bigger place, and bigger is better as they say.


----------



## Aramis

No, it's not, especially in western world of North America and Europe lost in materialistic, hedonic "culture", deluded with silly ideas of democracy and pseudo-freedom. Funny, just yesterday I read one of Byron's journals and there was one sentence that sums pretty well this whole question. But I can't translate it without loosing the sense. Anyway, the essence is that world will always be as bad as always, only difference is the reason for which it's all bad and wrong - people just fall from one foolishness to another, from tyrany and close-mindness to no less delusive values of today. The world is not progressing in direction of "goodness", it's task of every single individual to do such thing.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Are you referring t Lord Byron? Surely That would already be in English?


----------



## Aramis

emiellucifuge said:


> Are you referring t Lord Byron? Surely That would already be in English?


Yes, the original surely was english but I'm reading a book about him (with translated fragments from his letters and journals) in polish. I don't read books in english, unless it's poetry of english-language authors.


----------



## kv466

Not in any sense of the word it is not


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ah okay. I agree with most of what youve said. Im sure i will evil during my life in equal measure to the generations before me.


----------



## Kopachris

The world is exactly the same as it was before. The only difference is that it's maybe a bit more complicated. For the most part, people have been dealing with the same problems as we do for millennia.


----------



## TxllxT

Kopachris said:


> The world is exactly the same as it was before. The only difference is that it's maybe a bit more complicated. For the most part, people have been dealing with the same problems as we do for millennia.


So something new like the internet & social media you deny having profound influence on how the world is being experienced & run? Isn't one of the nice things of the nowadays world, that the bad guys are being fully exposed as bad guys, thus having less power to behave the way they did before? Berlusconi in the past could meddle around with lots of 17 year olds, Khadaffi (Berlusconi's friend) underestimated the power of social media, so did Mubarak (another friend of Berlusconi). Just musing.....


----------



## emiellucifuge

But you see, maybe those 'dictatorship' issues are fast becoming yesterdays issue. In todays world an argument could be made that the USA, the EU and other developed nations are the bad guys. We are using resources that we cant afford to use and in the process robbing poorer countries of their natural wealth. One consequence is that the changing global climate will exacerbate drought, desertification and further loss of resources in the countries that can least afford to cope.


----------



## TxllxT

emiellucifuge said:


> But you see, maybe those 'dictatorship' issues are fast becoming yesterdays issue. In todays world an argument could be made that the USA, the EU and other developed nations are the bad guys. We are using resources that we cant afford to use and in the process robbing poorer countries of their natural wealth. One consequence is that the changing global climate will exacerbate drought, desertification and further loss of resources in the countries that can least afford to cope.


Why is the Chinese government admitting that there is an environmental problem with the three gorges dam? They wouldn't do so in the past.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Thats true, yet at the same time:










Emissions from consumption in China


----------



## Vaneyes

Argus said:


> It's definitely becoming a bigger place, and bigger is better as they say.


Yes, there is some truth in that. As the world continues to get bigger, as communication gets more sophisticated with emphasis on knowledge--exchange of ideas, there is that potential of *better*. On the flip side, we've seen the horrendous decline of education in America--a thirst for fifteen minutes of fame. I could go on....


----------



## Rasa

The world would be a lot better if people would stop having so many goddamned children.


----------



## Vaneyes

Rasa said:


> The world would be a lot better if people would stop having so many goddamned children.


Apart from the "goddamned"...

Concerning numbers...

1950 World Population - 2,556,000,053

2010 World Population - 6,848,932,929*

2050 World Population - 9,346,399,468*

Projected*


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Vaneyes said:


> 2010 World Population - 6,848,932,929*
> 
> Projected*


Wow, that's to the dot! :lol:

I think things have gotten worse. So much for _technology_ improving our lives! How about putting both Creationism as a credible scientific theory and Theism back into public education?!


----------



## Kopachris

TxllxT said:


> So something new like the internet & social media you deny having profound influence on how the world is being experienced & run? Isn't one of the nice things of the nowadays world, that the bad guys are being fully exposed as bad guys, thus having less power to behave the way they did before? Berlusconi in the past could meddle around with lots of 17 year olds, Khadaffi (Berlusconi's friend) underestimated the power of social media, so did Mubarak (another friend of Berlusconi). Just musing.....


That's exactly what I'm saying. Modern technology has created a faster-paced, more complicated lifestyle, but we're still dealing with the same basic problems: food, money, homelessness, crime, disease, weather... and we're not getting any closer to eliminating any of them. Sure, some of the problems have changed--Black Plague became smallpox, which is now cancer--but disease is still just as rampant as ever. Money problems have gotten even bigger with today's economies, but the problem has stayed the same: not having enough money. Crime has changed only slightly--we're still hunting thieves and murderers--, but we've added drug traffickers to the list. We've added "global climate change" to the list of weather problems, but people still have to worry about the weather.

Same problems, just more complications.


----------



## kv466

If ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face - zach de la rocha


----------



## Vaneyes

mcamacho said:


> If ignorance is bliss, then knock the smile off my face - zach de la rocha


----------



## mmsbls

Obviously the OP question can be viewed in a number of ways. Having thought about this subject for many years, I would say definitively YES.

The poverty rate has plummeted recently (source: http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4508)










Infant mortality has fallen (deaths per 1000 live births worldwide):
1950-1955: 152
2005-2010: 47

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

World illiteracy has fallen by half between 1970 and 2005.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy

In my country (USA) there has been amazing social progress in the past 150 years. Black people are no longer slaves. In my lifetime black people were legally treated differently (separate schools, drinking fountains, sections on buses, not allowed to marry white people, etc.). This is no longer true. Women were not able to vote in my grandmother's lifetime. They, of course, are today. There are movements to allow gay people to marry. Freedom has grown immensely.

My understanding is that those who try to assess the general level of happiness in society have concluded that happiness has neither risen nor fallen over time. That I think says more about human psychology than about the standard of living or social conditions.

Not everything is better, but overall I think the past several hundred years has shown wonderful societal progress for the better.


----------



## Ralfy

I recall an article by Eric Hobsbawm as well as Neil Fergusson's book _War of the World_, where it was maintained that we may have experienced one of the most violent centuries in world history: two world wars, probably up to 70 years of incessant warfare, over 200 million dead (probably up to half civilians, including children). Perhaps the years after WWII were just as violent as the two world wars, with military powers using weaker countries as pawns, leading to many deaths (e.g., just recently probably one to two million dead in Iraq and similar numbers in Afghanistan, with many unarmed civilians and children, similar to the various attacks against weaker countries during the Cold War years). And just as war criminals are being arrested, those that are part of the world's military powers are not. So the wars over resources such as oil and various minerals, esp. those in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue, with the elite profiting and war costs passed on to civilians.

Meanwhile, we solve problems like poverty not just by manufacturing and mechanized agriculture but also by increasing money supply significantly, thus allowing more people worldwide to purchase. The benefits include longer life expectancies, lower birth rates, and more food and medicine, but the costs include environmental destruction (e.g., probably 25 pct of top soil now destroyed, fishing stocks dropping by around 40 pct the last two decades), effects to the climate (e.g., CO2 ppm now at 390+, higher than it has been the last 650 thousand years), increasing resource consumption per capita (for all sorts of middle class conveniences, esp. as more from the majority of the global population now join the middle class), and the threat of lack of resources (e.g., oil production has remained relatively flat since 2006 despite major price increases, with countries like China now scrambling to put commodity lock-ups on various resources), esp. given the need for more Saudi Arabias to sustain just economic growth from BRIC and emerging markets (China alone will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia for the next decade just to sustain its own economic growth).

Finally, what has been shown the past hundred years is that when resources become scarce, countries become more aggressive. There is now increasing militarization worldwide, with a twentyfold increase in small arms production alone, and countries like China now becoming more eager to engage in conflict. If the U.S. attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, and even the NATO attack on Libya are seen in light of such, then we can probably imagine that compared to the previous century the present one might even be more violent. And combine that with the effects of a drop in oil production and climate change....


----------



## mmsbls

Ralfy said:


> I recall an article by Eric Hobsbawm as well as Neil Fergusson's book _War of the World_, where it was maintained that we may have experienced one of the most violent centuries in world history: two world wars, probably up to 70 years of incessant warfare, over 200 million dead (probably up to half civilians, including children). Perhaps the years after WWII were just as violent as the two world wars, with military powers using weaker countries as pawns, leading to many deaths (e.g., just recently probably one to two million dead in Iraq and similar numbers in Afghanistan, with many unarmed civilians and children, similar to the various attacks against weaker countries during the Cold War years). And just as war criminals are being arrested, those that are part of the world's military powers are not. So the wars over resources such as oil and various minerals, esp. those in Iraq and Afghanistan, continue, with the elite profiting and war costs passed on to civilians.


For another thread I tried to find an article that discussed war casualties over time. The surprising conclusion was that the 20th century was much less violent than the 19th or 18th. The number of casualties was higher than the previous two centuries, but the percentage of people killed was significantly lower (I don't remember the numbers unfortunately). One can argue whether absolute numbers or percentages are the correct metric, but generally percentages reflect the individual's experience better (what is the probability of death for one person?).

If anyone has good numbers on percentages of death due to war by century, I'd be very interested.


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> For another thread I tried to find an article that discussed war casualties over time. The surprising conclusion was that the 20th century was much less violent than the 19th or 18th. The number of casualties was higher than the previous two centuries, but the percentage of people killed was significantly lower (I don't remember the numbers unfortunately). One can argue whether absolute numbers or percentages are the correct metric, but generally percentages reflect the individual's experience better (what is the probability of death for one person?).
> 
> If anyone has good numbers on percentages of death due to war by century, I'd be very interested.


Before I saw the comments by Ralfy and mmsbls, I was going to mention violence myself. With regards to the original question, of course it depends how 'better' is defined, but it is suggested that - overall - the world and its people are _less_ violent, despite having the technological capacity to inflict greater damage when the increasingly small numbers of power-wielding belligerent folk decide to do so.

I first came across this counter-intuitive assessment delivered by Steven Pinker (short - 20 minute talk; long - 1 hour). In case you're all too consumed in more interesting pursuits, I'll come back with some numbers in about... 20 mins 

EDIT:

1) Tipping point with the Age of Reason/16th Century.

2) The _chance_ that a male would die due to warfare has declined from ~15-60% - based on the remains of New Guineau/Amazonian hunter-gatherer societies - to ~1-2% in the U.S. and Europe of the 20th century, including all deaths in both world wars.

3) If the death rate due to war in the 20th century had happened at the same rate as in tribal warfare, there would have been 2 billion deaths rather than 100 million.;

4) Socially sanctioned forms of violence for crime have lessened greatly, as we no longer torture, mutilate, or execute (particularly in gruesome manners designed to be painful) people for minor crimes _etc._

5) Slavery was a wide-spread acceptable labour force.

6) It's unacceptable now to use cruelty as a form of entertainment, such as cat burning :'(

7) More concrete statistics show that, from the Middle Ages, murder victims have decreased in number from 100 in 100,000 people to less-than-1 in 100,000 people (with a little rise in the 1960s!).

8) And of course, in the short term, it seems almost impossible to see anything on the scale of another world war again; interstate wars are in decline, as are civil wars and genocides _etc._


----------



## Vaneyes

mmsbls said:


> The poverty rate has plummeted recently (source: http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4508)


How about a more balanced report inserting the word *patchily*.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/world-poverty-falling-sha_n_717991.html

Americans on foodstamps is 1 in 7 and growing. Poverty worldwide 1 in 6 and falling? We can say that improvement in some areas of the world is due to Globalization aka outsourcing of America's jobs.


----------



## Vaneyes

Re violence, regional conflicts and remote-controlled surgical strikes have kept death numbers down, comparing to 84 million fatalities of WWI and WWII. Nothing much to worry about 'til WWIII. Then as Einstein, Mountbatten and others have said, WWIV will be with sticks 'n stones or bow and arrow.


----------



## Polednice

Vaneyes said:


> Re violence, regional conflicts and remote-controlled surgical strikes have kept death numbers down, comparing to 84 million fatalities of WWI and WWII. Nothing much to worry about 'til WWIII. Then as Einstein, Mountbatten and others have said, WWIV will be with sticks 'n stones or bow and arrow.


Or we could be optimistic and hope that WWIII just wipes us out entirely


----------



## science

Undoubtedly becoming a better place. Maybe the US isn't, but the world is. 

The key thing is poverty. People are getting out of poverty. millions of people each year are crossing the poverty threshold. A few years ago, China alone was 50,000 people per week getting out of poverty. 

Politically I'm not so optimistic. The main reason democratic states appeared was that they would win major wars against non-democratic states. But in the era of nuclear weapons, there can be no major wars, so the people who would be rulers are finding themselves free to assert their power. The US is getting pretty close to bread & circuses, and I think a lot of our democracy is more in principle than in fact. 

We might be living in the sweet spot of history....


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> Undoubtedly becoming a better place. Maybe the US isn't, but the world is.
> 
> The key thing is poverty. People are getting out of poverty. millions of people each year are crossing the poverty threshold. A few years ago, China alone was 50,000 people per week getting out of poverty.
> 
> Politically I'm not so optimistic. The main reason democratic states appeared was that they would win major wars against non-democratic states. But in the era of nuclear weapons, there can be no major wars, so the people who would be rulers are finding themselves free to assert their power. The US is getting pretty close to bread & circuses, and I think a lot of our democracy is more in principle than in fact.
> 
> We might be living in the sweet spot of history....


I wish it were the *world* seeing poverty reduction. It isn't. It's largely two nuclear powers China and India, who account for about 36% of world population.

Bread & Circuses has arrived. Food stamps and a terrorist getting popped now and then.

The comment about no major wars with nuclear weapons is interesting. Maybe the good life in China, India, and Russia will now be the biggest deterrent.

Though small nuclear conflicts wouldn't be any fun either.


----------



## Almaviva

The world becoming a better place? Are you kidding?
Things only get worse. Worse and worse and worse.
Oh sure, some populations are pulling out of poverty. Temporarily, I say. Their rise to middle-class aspirations will only create more and more problems.
We're doomed.

Do you know the joke about the pessimist and the optimist?

The optimist said - "In a couple of decades *everybody *will be eating ****."
The pessimist contested - "The **** won't be enough for everybody."


----------



## World Violist

I think that as people become more aware of how bad the world is, it's leaning toward maybe becoming a better place...

Okay, at the moment, no it's not.


----------



## mmsbls

Could those who feel the world is not becoming a better place be a bit more specific about why they feel that way? I certainly understand the concerns that there are potential problems (nuclear war _might_ occur, climate change _could_ cause significant problems, the global economy _could_ regress again, etc.), but these have not happened yet. There are problems that exist today, but looking at the past, I think we as a global society have made enormous strides over the past several hundred years.

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I've aware of way too much positive change in the past century not to think the world is a better place.


----------



## Couchie

I think the answer for everyone except rich, white, heterosexual males is a pretty definite yes - and I think they're doing just fine.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I would like for you to read this article which was in the Guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower?CMP=twt_fd


----------



## jhar26

TxllxT said:


> Is the world becoming a better place?


No, we're doomed. I predict that it will all be over by October 21.


----------



## TxllxT

jhar26 said:


> No, we're doomed. I predict that it will all be over by October 21.


You mean that Belgium will then have a new government ?


----------



## jhar26

TxllxT said:


> You mean that Belgium will then have a new government ?


No. Maybe we'll have new elections by that time though.


----------



## Art Rock




----------



## Almaviva

Couchie said:


> I think the answer for everyone except rich, white, heterosexual males is a pretty definite yes - and I think they're doing just fine.


As a matter of fact, it seems like the rich are getting richer, not only individually, but the highest performing larger corporations are increasing their profits.

I don't doubt that there are enormous strides in medicine, technology, information, standards of living as compared to past decades and centuries. The only problem is, the growth is putting too much pressure on the environment and the economy and the resources, therefore I came to believe that progress is temporary and we will start the inevitable decline relatively soon, if we haven't started it already.


----------



## Vaneyes

Almaviva said:


> As a matter of fact, it seems like the rich are getting richer, not only individually, but the highest performing larger corporations are increasing their profits.
> 
> I don't doubt that there are enormous strides in medicine, technology, information, standards of living as compared to past decades and centuries. The only problem is, the growth is putting too much pressure on the environment and the economy and the resources, therefore I came to believe that progress is temporary and we will start the inevitable decline relatively soon, if we haven't started it already.


It has. Strides in medicine means people live longer. Strides in information and technology means jobs will continue to be eliminated. More and more people competing for fewer and fewer jobs.

GE spokesman Ronald Reagan used to say, "Progress is our most important product." I'm not so sure anymore.


----------



## Couchie

Vaneyes said:


> It has. Strides in medicine means people live longer. Strides in information and technology means jobs will continue to be eliminated. More and more people competing for fewer and fewer jobs.


This is very true, and we haven't even scratched the surface. Some day computers, neural networks, and AI programs will devastate white-collar jobs in the same manner robots are devastating blue-collar jobs.

The simple solution: we will work less, or not at all.  
At some critical level of unemployment, capitalism will fail to be feasible. This will be all too apparent to many out-of-work people, who will take to the streets when they have nothing else to do. After Goldman Sachs and General Electric have been firebombed by rioters, capitalism will be replaced with a new system of socialism in the US, with lots of government regulation. The transition in other countries will likely be a lot smoother, and happen decades before the US.

The death/birth rate will eventually be equalized by countries limiting the number of kids you can have, and legalizing euthanasia, thereby solving the overpopulation crisis. Life extension technologies may be banned or else regulated: if you chose to remain childless, you may be allowed to used them.


----------



## science

Working less and having more wealth is a good thing, as long as the wealth is spread around.

As the economy changes and new technologies develop, of course some jobs disappear, but new jobs appear. That's been going on since the industrial revolution started. It can be painful to adjust, and I don't want to understate that pain. But when robots do jobs, someone has to build and maintain the robots. And then, when we need fewer factory workers but have more money, we get massage and yoga and organic food and professional athletics and bloggers and travel agencies and so on.

Climate change is a big problem, the pain of adjusting to economic growth is a big problem, the increasing wealth gap and decreasing political representation in the US is a big problem, Pakistan's political situation is a big problem (nukes and close relationships with terrorists and political instability), the possibility that China is history's biggest financial bubble is a big problem, globalized organized crime and the small arms trade are big problems, violent conflicts in Africa are some big problems, poverty in Latin America and especially Africa is not disappearing quickly enough and that is a problem, the drug war in Mexico is a big problem, Israel/Palestine and dictatorship in the Middle East are big problems.

But there have always been problems like that. If the middle class in the West was insulated for them for a generation or two, they just existed unseen by us in other places.

Absolutely positively the _only_ way we can imagine that the world is getting worse is that unlike the majority of the world, we weren't living in China or India or Indonesia or Vietnam or Brazil or East Germany or Albania or Romania or Thailand or black South Africa in, say, the 1970s.


----------



## emiellucifuge

emiellucifuge said:


> I would like for you to read this article which was in the Guardian today:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower?CMP=twt_fd


Nobody?

Ah well, I will quote some excerpts here:



> *Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink*
> 
> *Exclusive: *Record rise, despite recession, means 2C target almost out of reach
> 
> Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.
> 
> The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius - which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" - is likely to be just "a nice Utopia", according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.
> 
> Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change for the Treasury in 2006, warned that if the pattern continued, the results would be dire. "These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a 'business as usual' path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path ... would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100," he said.
> "Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce."
> Birol said disaster could yet be averted, if governments heed the warning. "If we have bold, decisive and urgent action, very soon, we still have a chance of succeeding," he said.
> 
> The IEA has calculated that if the world is to escape the most damaging effects of global warming, annual energy-related emissions should be no more than 32Gt by 2020. If this year's emissions rise by as much as they did in 2010, that limit will be exceeded nine years ahead of schedule, making it all but impossible to hold warming to a manageable degree.
> 
> while the emissions data was bad enough news, there were other factors that made it even less likely that the world would meet its greenhouse gas targets.
> 
> • About 80% of the power stations likely to be in use in 2020 are either already built or under construction, the IEA found. Most of these are fossil fuel power stations unlikely to be taken out of service early, so they will continue to pour out carbon - possibly into the mid-century. The emissions from these stations amount to about 11.2Gt, out of a total of 13.7Gt from the electricity sector. These "locked-in" emissions mean savings must be found elsewhere.
> 
> Forthcoming research led by Sir David (King) will show the west has only managed to reduce emissions by relying on imports from countries such as China.


----------



## TxllxT

Ratko Mladic has landed on Rotterdam Airport.


----------



## Vaneyes

Cyber attack = Real War

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/pentagon-cyber-attack-act-of-war_n_869014.html


----------



## Ralfy

mmsbls said:


> For another thread I tried to find an article that discussed war casualties over time. The surprising conclusion was that the 20th century was much less violent than the 19th or 18th. The number of casualties was higher than the previous two centuries, but the percentage of people killed was significantly lower (I don't remember the numbers unfortunately). One can argue whether absolute numbers or percentages are the correct metric, but generally percentages reflect the individual's experience better (what is the probability of death for one person?).
> 
> If anyone has good numbers on percentages of death due to war by century, I'd be very interested.


These might help:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

Also,

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WAR.ROOTS.HTML

http://www.inta.gatech.edu/peter/PSS99_paper.html

The claims made about a more peaceful century is made, I think, by Steve Pinker and others:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

I think counterclaims are given by writers like Niall Ferguson:






http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/5396.html

Also, Eric Hobsbawm:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/feb/23/artsandhumanities.highereducation

I am guessing that violence for them does not involve percentages but numbers, among other factors.

With that, and given the belief that we (the human race) are supposed to be more enlightened, better fed, with more opportunities for long-term peace, makes our situation particularly difficult.


----------



## Ralfy

Art Rock said:


>


Most people don't know this, but several of these dictatorships worked closely with countries like the U.S. and various NATO members, sometimes for decades. Some were even propped up with support from various military powers, including those that are supposed to be against dictatorships, with one dictatorship replaced by another.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Indeed, I believe Mubarak received $30bn a year in military aid.


----------



## Ralfy

Polednice said:


> Before I saw the comments by Ralfy and mmsbls, I was going to mention violence myself. With regards to the original question, of course it depends how 'better' is defined, but it is suggested that - overall - the world and its people are _less_ violent, despite having the technological capacity to inflict greater damage when the increasingly small numbers of power-wielding belligerent folk decide to do so.
> 
> I first came across this counter-intuitive assessment delivered by Steven Pinker (short - 20 minute talk; long - 1 hour). In case you're all too consumed in more interesting pursuits, I'll come back with some numbers in about... 20 mins
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> 1) Tipping point with the Age of Reason/16th Century.
> 
> 2) The _chance_ that a male would die due to warfare has declined from ~15-60% - based on the remains of New Guineau/Amazonian hunter-gatherer societies - to ~1-2% in the U.S. and Europe of the 20th century, including all deaths in both world wars.
> 
> 3) If the death rate due to war in the 20th century had happened at the same rate as in tribal warfare, there would have been 2 billion deaths rather than 100 million.;
> 
> 4) Socially sanctioned forms of violence for crime have lessened greatly, as we no longer torture, mutilate, or execute (particularly in gruesome manners designed to be painful) people for minor crimes _etc._
> 
> 5) Slavery was a wide-spread acceptable labour force.
> 
> 6) It's unacceptable now to use cruelty as a form of entertainment, such as cat burning :'(
> 
> 7) More concrete statistics show that, from the Middle Ages, murder victims have decreased in number from 100 in 100,000 people to less-than-1 in 100,000 people (with a little rise in the 1960s!).
> 
> 8) And of course, in the short term, it seems almost impossible to see anything on the scale of another world war again; interstate wars are in decline, as are civil wars and genocides _etc._


The only thing that has kept us in check is the promise of greater prosperity thanks to incredible amounts of oil and other resources needed to keep the global capitalist machine going. In addition, we've produced many more weapons to be used, ironically, as a means to deter world-scale war. Thus, after WWII, military powers had been using the same technology not to kill more people but to control weaker nations and their resources. Conflict has become more localized but more intense. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are examples, with who knows how many dead, injured, or suffering. (And there have been more conflicts the past ten years.) More important is the fact that WWII was also called a "people's war" (as one book points out), probably because more of those who killed, were injured, or who suffered were not armed people but unarmed civilians, including children and the elderly.

Meanwhile, as various OECD countries weaken, BRIC and emerging markets are becoming stronger, and so is their resource demand. As Fatih Birol points out, to meet just continuing economic growth for BRIC and emerging markets, we will need around four more Saudi Arabias. Unfortunately, oil discoveries peaked in 1964, and the IEA now reports that global oil production will drop soon. Any oil that will be used and sources such as shale oil will involve higher energy costs. Couple this with problems like the effects of climate change and environmental damage, not to mention chronic economic problems, and we're looking at a present century that might make the previous one look like a walk in the park. Hence,

"Pentagon Study Suggests Potentially Catastrophic Consequences of Climate Change"

http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/pentagon-study-climate-change.html

"US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

"Lloyd's adds its voice to dire 'peak oil' warnings"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/peak-oil-energy-disruption

and more.


----------



## Ralfy

I'm not sure, but I think this might also be helpful:

"Why The 20th Century Was The Bloodiest Of All"

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/why-the-20th-century-was-the-bloodiest-of-all/

including the chart from the UN HDR 2005, which is also found in the Powerkills site.


----------



## science

In absolute numbers, everything in the 20th century was the biggest ever. The 21st century will probably surpass it. 

But relative numbers are the meaningful ones. Reliable stats on the past are hard to come by, so you can find whatever you want, but for instance most historians estimate that a quarter of the people in Germany died during the 30 Years' War. In the 20th century, the Pol Pot regime is one of the few to reach slaughter on that scale. So there's some perspective.


----------



## samurai

science said:


> In absolute numbers, everything in the 20th century was the biggest ever. The 21st century will probably surpass it.
> 
> But relative numbers are the meaningful ones. Reliable stats on the past are hard to come by, so you can find whatever you want, but for instance most historians estimate that a quarter of the people in Germany died during the 30 Years' War. In the 20th century, the Pol Pot regime is one of the few to reach slaughter on that scale. So there's some perspective.


Not to mention the more than six million Jews and other "undesirables" exterminated by the Nazis.


----------



## Keychick

As we live our lives in this World today and everyday i find that
the pace of technology and way Man choses to use it is moving very quickly.
The World today is a very unforgiving place.
When we escape into our sacred music all those things dissapear...


----------



## science

Global solar power capacity grew 73% in 2010.

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/06/global-solar-capacity-grew-73-in-2010.html

(Thanks for moving the post!)


----------



## Vaneyes

Beam me back for a day, to when they talked faster, walked faster, but thought slower.


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## Almaviva

Gee, these women are ugly!!! I guess their husbands would rather drink liquor than kiss them.:lol:


----------



## science

Sorry to bump the old thread, but I saw this and wanted to share it:

Harvesting solar power in space, for use on Earth, comes a step closer to reality: http://www.economist.com/node/18864324


----------



## mmsbls

science said:


> Sorry to bump the old thread, but I saw this and wanted to share it:
> 
> Harvesting solar power in space, for use on Earth, comes a step closer to reality: http://www.economist.com/node/18864324


When I graduated from school, I wanted to study and build solar power satellites. The Space Studies Institute did significant research on both these and space colonies including specific designs and detailed plans to build them. Of course the huge costs were and still are the major issue.

The most intriguing aspect of the manufacturing plan was to mine ore on the moon and shoot it into space with "mass drivers" (buckets that are levitated and accelerated electromagnetically along a long rail and ultimately shoot their payload out into space). The payload would then be "caught" by a "mass catcher" in stable orbit where the solar power stations would be built. These ideas were floated back in the 1970's. A bit wild maybe but great fun to think about.


----------



## science

mmsbls said:


> When I graduated from school, I wanted to study and build solar power satellites. The Space Studies Institute did significant research on both these and space colonies including specific designs and detailed plans to build them. Of course the huge costs were and still are the major issue.
> 
> The most intriguing aspect of the manufacturing plan was to mine ore on the moon and shoot it into space with "mass drivers" (buckets that are levitated and accelerated electromagnetically along a long rail and ultimately shoot their payload out into space). The payload would then be "caught" by a "mass catcher" in stable orbit where the solar power stations would be built. These ideas were floated back in the 1970's. A bit wild maybe but great fun to think about.


I think it would be possible, if only the ore were really, really valuable.

Unrelated, but it makes me thinke of Kessler syndrome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome


----------



## PhillipPark

Echoing some earlier thoughts: 

I think the amount of corruption/population has stayed relatively the same however, the population is growing quite fast, so it is hard to say. As someone said: we are becoming much more interconnected. Easier for dictators and the likes to extend their influence.


----------



## science

OTOH - 2010 was the 2nd warmest year on record: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110629204702.htm


----------



## science

Haven't had time to post here, but I've seen some really frightening economic data in the past few days. If that is indicative of anything, the world will not in fact seem to be getting better for the next few years....

Good luck, friends!


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Haven't had time to post here, but I've seen some really frightening economic data in the past few days. If that is indicative of anything, the world will not in fact seem to be getting better for the next few years....
> 
> Good luck, friends!


 I'm telling you, trends are not good at all. We *will* need lots of luck.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

> Is the world becoming a better place?


What a question ! We're just at the beginning of a new kind of middle ages. That's all !


----------



## TxllxT

Il_Penseroso said:


> What a question ! We're just at the beginning of a new kind of middle ages. That's all !


The so-called 'middle ages' (let's suppose for a moment that the name makes sense) weren't that bad. Within Europe there existed a huge network of communication (by letters in Latin) and the standard of living (look at the centre of Brugge, at the centre of Prague, of Amsterdam etc.) was quite OK. It's a typical smearing campaign of enlightened modern people to make those times seem dark & undeveloped.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

TxllxT said:


> The so-called 'middle ages' (let's suppose for a moment that the name makes sense) weren't that bad. Within Europe there existed a huge network of communication (by letters in Latin) and the standard of living (look at the centre of Brugge, at the centre of Prague, of Amsterdam etc.) was quite OK. It's a typical smearing campaign of enlightened modern people to make those times seem dark & undeveloped.


I know exactly all of these, and after all as a researcher of medieval music and literature... but I do use the term middle ages as the common and traditional concept, which most scholars use to describe that ages of darkness in humanity in general , If you don't believe me just take a little look to that so terrible and tragic events in that period of time ...


----------



## Couchie

All you pessimists need to lighten up, especially since the economy is so vulnerable to self-fulfilling prophecies.


----------



## science

Other than perhaps another 5-10 years or so of bad US economy, I'm not too pessimistic. 

As long as we can avoid nuclear and develop alternative energy technology, the world of 2030 will be richer and in most ways better than the world of today.


----------



## science

Sudan has been split into North Sudan and South Sudan. Hopefully that turns out well - but it's hard for it to be worse than it has been. I hear that China is trying to establish good relations with South Sudan (because of their resources), and of course the West is as well. Whatever is shipped out of there will need to go through neighboring countries. So hopefully the development of Africa is getting another boost from this. 

It is badly needed of course, especially in that region. The northwest sub-Saharan Africa is one of the last places in the world where famine is still very likely. Outside of Somalia, it has slowly been getting a little better, but that is something that we probably can't see.


----------



## TxllxT

I hope that Russia is finally getting rid of all its scrappy dead coffins like those planes and rivercruiseships. And that the Russian men learn to let children and women abandon ship first.


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> In absolute numbers, everything in the 20th century was the biggest ever. The 21st century will probably surpass it.
> 
> But relative numbers are the meaningful ones. Reliable stats on the past are hard to come by, so you can find whatever you want, but for instance most historians estimate that a quarter of the people in Germany died during the 30 Years' War. In the 20th century, the Pol Pot regime is one of the few to reach slaughter on that scale. So there's some perspective.


The UN HDR chart shows relative numbers. Also, if we cannot have "reliable stats" from the past, then "relative numbers" cannot be meaningful. In which case, one can argue that the world has not been better or worse compared to any period in the past.

It should be noted, though, that the major jump in percentages of casualties occurred between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.


----------



## Ralfy

I cannot imagine recovery for the U.S. other than another round of borrowing and spending, ironically the same problems that led to the 2008 crash. In general, we are looking at a country with 70 pct of economic activity based on consumer spending, increasing debt across the board, and the maintenance of a middle class lifestyle at incredible costs (e.g., less than 5 pct of the world's population consuming up to a quarter of world oil production).

Fatih Birol stated it plainly: in order to maintain current economic growth globally we will need a Saudi Arabia (SA) every seven years. In order for China alone to maintain its economic growth, it will need one SA. In order for the rest of BRIC and various emerging markets to have the same, we will need three more SAs. In order for the other 95 pct of the world's economy to have the semblance of a middle class lifestyle, we will need the equivalent of one to three more earths.

And that's for the current global population, which can reach or even exceed 9 billion by 2050. And that's given the current availability of resources which are already hampered by what is essentially a debt-driven global capitalist system (with a total money supply of $1.5 quadrillion, much of it consisting of unregulated derivatives) and the effects of climate change (man-made or otherwise) and pollution:

"2011 already costliest year for natural disasters"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43727793/ns/world_news-world_environment/

Finally, what is taking place in Sudan, and even in Egypt and Libya, will spread to more parts of the world as combinations of high food and oil prices coupled with chronic unemployment, the threat of sovereign debt, not only increasing population but demand per capita (e.g., energy demand in India and China rising by around 10 pct a year) and the effects of climate change and environmental damage create a "perfect storm."


----------



## Guest

No matter what your cause is, without population control it's a lost cause. The human footprint is growing and is triggering a mass extinction episode. We are unlikely to escape a major cull in the next century.


----------



## science

Here is a good perspective on violence, from an essay by Stephen Pinker, one of my favorite intellectuals: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

An excerpt:



> Conventional history has long shown that, in many ways, we have been getting kinder and gentler. Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labor-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanors and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, pogroms as outlets for frustration, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution-all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. But, today, they are rare to nonexistent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur, and widely condemned when they are brought to light.


----------



## science

Ralfy said:


> The UN HDR chart shows relative numbers. Also, if we cannot have "reliable stats" from the past, then "relative numbers" cannot be meaningful. In which case, one can argue that the world has not been better or worse compared to any period in the past.
> 
> It should be noted, though, that the major jump in percentages of casualties occurred between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.


This has to ignore stuff like the An Lushan rebellion. Or it ignores all deaths not directly inflicted by weapons.

Although weapons have gotten more effective, the # of deaths from disease and starvation during warfare has fallen so much that modern wars are at least no more deadly, on average, than pre-industrial ones.

Not quite up to academic standards, but a rough idea can be gotten here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll


----------



## Ralfy

A very good counter to Pinker is Niall Ferguson:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/books/review/Montefiore.t.html

if not Robert McNamara:






Thus, amidst what is relatively (and absolutely) one of the most brutal periods in human history, we've also had increasing life expectancy rates and lower infant mortality rates purchased through incredible levels of resource consumption. And now that the other 80 pct of the global population want what the 20 pct has....


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> This has to ignore stuff like the An Lushan rebellion. Or it ignores all deaths not directly inflicted by weapons.
> 
> Although weapons have gotten more effective, the # of deaths from disease and starvation during warfare has fallen so much that modern wars are at least no more deadly, on average, than pre-industrial ones.
> 
> Not quite up to academic standards, but a rough idea can be gotten here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll


That's probably because deaths due to starvation have been offset by significant resource consumption, ironically the same reason why more wars have been taking place. (See Chalmers Johnson and others for details on how military powers worldwide had been using weaker countries as pawns, if not as the means for being "kinder and gentler.")

Thus, even with better technology to keep people alive, we've also managed to develop technology to kill them easily, with the relative numbers given in the HDR chart and the absolute numbers given in the wiki entry and in the Powerkill site. Thus, what appears to be "kinder and gentler" refers to much extent to "the West," if not to the 20 pct of the global population responsible for more than 60 pct of personal consumption, and bits of wealth trickling down to the 80 pct (e.g., 60 pct earning only around a dollar a day, but now earning two dollars daily).

When resource availability starts weakening....


----------



## Guest

BPS said:


> No matter what your cause is, without population control it's a lost cause. The human footprint is growing and is triggering a mass extinction episode. We are unlikely to escape a major cull in the next century.


Ah, Malthus and Ehrlich would be proud! But this is an old prediction, that has yet to be proven true. Ehrlich predicted, in 1968, that the decade of the 1980's would see such a cull. When religious fanatics make such doomsday predictions, and they prove false, we laugh them out of the room. When scientists do the same, and they prove false, we simply cover for them and assume that their predictions were "a little off." Why is it that negative observations will discredit a religious predictor, but only increase the popularity of scientists as misunderstood prophets? I wish, as a scientist, that I grew in popularity the more my hypotheses were disproven! Instead, it just makes it harder for me to get funding.


----------



## science

Ralfy said:


> That's probably because deaths due to starvation have been offset by significant resource consumption, ironically the same reason why more wars have been taking place. (See Chalmers Johnson and others for details on how military powers worldwide had been using weaker countries as pawns, if not as the means for being "kinder and gentler.")
> 
> Thus, even with better technology to keep people alive, we've also managed to develop technology to kill them easily, with the relative numbers given in the HDR chart and the absolute numbers given in the wiki entry and in the Powerkill site. Thus, what appears to be "kinder and gentler" refers to much extent to "the West," if not to the 20 pct of the global population responsible for more than 60 pct of personal consumption, and bits of wealth trickling down to the 80 pct (e.g., 60 pct earning only around a dollar a day, but now earning two dollars daily).
> 
> When resource availability starts weakening....


It seems to me that you're explaining the point about war's relative destructiveness rather than contesting it.



Ralfy said:


> A very good counter to Pinker is Niall Ferguson:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/books/review/Montefiore.t.html
> 
> if not Robert McNamara:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, amidst what is relatively (and absolutely) one of the most brutal periods in human history, we've also had increasing life expectancy rates and lower infant mortality rates purchased through incredible levels of resource consumption. And now that the other 80 pct of the global population want what the 20 pct has....


I can't watch the video, but it doesn't appear to me from that review that Ferguson and Pinker are disagreeing with each other.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Ah, Malthus and Ehrlich would be proud! But this is an old prediction, that has yet to be proven true. Ehrlich predicted, in 1968, that the decade of the 1980's would see such a cull. When religious fanatics make such doomsday predictions, and they prove false, we laugh them out of the room. When scientists do the same, and they prove false, we simply cover for them and assume that their predictions were "a little off." Why is it that negative observations will discredit a religious predictor, but only increase the popularity of scientists as misunderstood prophets? I wish, as a scientist, that I grew in popularity the more my hypotheses were disproven! Instead, it just makes it harder for me to get funding.


I don't see that happening. Failed scientific predictions are dismissed all the time.

If you were talking to believers, you wouldn't see "religious predictors" getting "laughed out of the room." We've just seen that that tradition is alive and well.

Resource depletion is a legitimate concern, among many legitimate concerns, but the "overshoot and inevitable collapse followed by extinction or a return to hunting and gathering" people are just about as fringe in our society as alien abductees and doomsday prophets; in the USA at least, hard-core environmentalists are much harder to find than apocalyptic religious believers.

Edit: Of course 100 years ago it was much more imbalanced, and the change is one way that it's hard to disagree that the world is becoming a better place!


----------



## Guest

science said:


> I don't see that happening. Failed scientific predictions are dismissed all the time.
> 
> If you were talking to believers, you wouldn't see "religious predictors" getting "laughed out of the room." We've just seen that that tradition is alive and well.
> 
> Resource depletion is a legitimate concern, among many legitimate concerns, but the "overshoot and inevitable collapse followed by extinction or a return to hunting and gathering" people are just about as fringe in our society as alien abductees and doomsday prophets;* in the USA at least, hard-core environmentalists are much harder to find than apocalyptic religious believers*.
> 
> Edit: Of course 100 years ago it was much more imbalanced, and the change is one way that it's hard to disagree that the world is becoming a better place!


Regarding the difficulty in finding hard-core environmentalists, it isn't hard, if you know where to look - primarily in the government of the state of California. The various environmental regulations that have been enacted in that state are making it next to impossible to thrive. Out of control forest fires due to restrictions on removing dead timber that happens to house particular beetle species. Agriculture suffering for lack of water to protect small fish. Requirements for "green energy" that result in my mother's electrical bill alone topping $500/month during the easy months. A "green" governor that drives a Hummer.

Oddly enough, environmental policy in the state of California has sucked more money away from people than that last doomsday huckster who predicted the end of the world a few months back, but while he has been largely forgotten, California's environmental policies are still alive and kicking.


----------



## Vazgen

DrMike said:


> Out of control forest fires due to restrictions on removing dead timber that happens to house particular beetle species.


You're blaming government regulations for forest fires?

-Vaz


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> It seems to me that you're explaining the point about war's relative destructiveness rather than contesting it.


Indeed. We may be offsetting deaths due to war by lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy rates. The catch is that we need significant amounts of resources to keep going, more so as the demand for a middle class lifestyle increases. On top of that is the possibility that wars from WWII onwards have been prompted by resource shortages.



> I can't watch the video, but it doesn't appear to me from that review that Ferguson and Pinker are disagreeing with each other.


For Pinker, violence is declining. For Ferguson, violence is increasing but offset by economic progress.

The catch is that this economic progress is based on increasing money supply: more than $1.5 quadrillion, and much of it consisting of unregulated derivatives. This is generally the main cause of the 2008 crash, from which more will take place, not only in the U.S. but in other countries facing combinations of increasing sovereign and total debt coupled with asset bubbles.

We are now facing this problem combined with the threat of resource shortages (explained earlier) and the effects of climate change, leading to higher food prices, which may be one of the main causes of riots and societal collapse in Egypt and Libya.

Besides more social unrest, more resource wars is inevitable. And the effects of that? As we are reminded of the firebombing of Japan and McNamara's argument that we have never learned from WWII (as seen in the video), then it is likely that more atrocities will take place. One need only be reminded of the outcome of invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to see that the world is not becoming a better place.


----------



## Ralfy

DrMike said:


> Ah, Malthus and Ehrlich would be proud! But this is an old prediction, that has yet to be proven true. Ehrlich predicted, in 1968, that the decade of the 1980's would see such a cull. When religious fanatics make such doomsday predictions, and they prove false, we laugh them out of the room. When scientists do the same, and they prove false, we simply cover for them and assume that their predictions were "a little off." Why is it that negative observations will discredit a religious predictor, but only increase the popularity of scientists as misunderstood prophets? I wish, as a scientist, that I grew in popularity the more my hypotheses were disproven! Instead, it just makes it harder for me to get funding.


What happened during the '80s was that oil loss in the U.S. was offset by production from OPEC, and that was combined by casino capitalism initiated by Reagan, leading to incredible levels of borrowing and spending in the U.S. coupled with four decades of trade deficits.

Now, all that is unraveling as global oil production remains flat (with energy demand now being met by non-conventional sources) and the U.S. is in economic distress, with other nations, from PIIGS to China, experiencing similar problems.

According to Fatih Birol, to keep the global capitalist system running, we will need one Saudi Arabia every seven years, at least one Saudi Arabia for China alone to maintain continuous economic growth, and four more for BRIC and emerging markets.

But oil discoveries peaked in 1964, and much of our manufacturing and even mechanized agriculture is heavily dependent on oil.


----------



## science

Ralfy said:


> Indeed. We may be offsetting deaths due to war by lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy rates. The catch is that we need significant amounts of resources to keep going, more so as the demand for a middle class lifestyle increases. On top of that is the possibility that wars from WWII onwards have been prompted by resource shortages.
> 
> For Pinker, violence is declining. For Ferguson, violence is increasing but offset by economic progress.
> 
> The catch is that this economic progress is based on increasing money supply: more than $1.5 quadrillion, and much of it consisting of unregulated derivatives. This is generally the main cause of the 2008 crash, from which more will take place, not only in the U.S. but in other countries facing combinations of increasing sovereign and total debt coupled with asset bubbles.
> 
> We are now facing this problem combined with the threat of resource shortages (explained earlier) and the effects of climate change, leading to higher food prices, which may be one of the main causes of riots and societal collapse in Egypt and Libya.
> 
> Besides more social unrest, more resource wars is inevitable. And the effects of that? As we are reminded of the firebombing of Japan and McNamara's argument that we have never learned from WWII (as seen in the video), then it is likely that more atrocities will take place. One need only be reminded of the outcome of invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to see that the world is not becoming a better place.


So in both cases, you seem to be bringing the point back to the resource wars rather than the relative levels of violence throughout history. If so, that's changing the subject; I wonder whether you are still interested in addressing the question about the levels of violence and the deadliness of war, or whether you'd prefer to drop those topics and return to the resource war question.

You might want to show me where in that article it said that Ferguson argues that violence is increasing (not in absolute numbers, which no one disputes, but in relative numbers). I didn't see that when I read it before.


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> So in both cases, you seem to be bringing the point back to the resource wars rather than the relative levels of violence throughout history. If so, that's changing the subject; I wonder whether you are still interested in addressing the question about the levels of violence and the deadliness of war, or whether you'd prefer to drop those topics and return to the resource war question.
> 
> You might want to show me where in that article it said that Ferguson argues that violence is increasing (not in absolute numbers, which no one disputes, but in relative numbers). I didn't see that when I read it before.


I already gave the link for the relative and absolute levels of violence throughout history (see my previous message and the bottom of this one). Since you question the data, then you are free to present another set of evidence. As for resource wars, I was not changing the subject but showing what will happen in the future (as "becoming" asks us to compare the present to the past, which I did, and look at the present in light of the future).

With that, I'd say that the world has not become a better place at least in terms of absolute and relative numbers for casualties. If it has become better, it is due to increasing consumption of resources needed to keep life expectancy rates high. But if those resources drop in terms of availability.....

Finally, Ferguson wrote a book entitled _War of the World_. The data for absolute and relative numbers given earlier comes from the UN:

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/why-the-20th-century-was-the-bloodiest-of-all/

Second chart from the UN HDR, both in absolute and relative numbers, i.e., no. of casualties and casualties as a percentage of world population.


----------



## science

Ralfy said:


> I already gave the link for the relative and absolute levels of violence throughout history. Since you question the data, then you are free to present another set of evidence. As for resource wars, I was not changing the subject but showing what will happen in the future (as "becoming" asks us to compare the present to the past, which I did, and look at the present in light of the future).
> 
> With that, I'd say that the world has not become a better place at least in terms of absolute and relative numbers for casualties. If it has become better, it is due to increasing consumption of resources needed to keep life expectancy rates high. But if those resources drop in terms of availability.....
> 
> Finally, Ferguson wrote a book entitled _War of the World_. The data for absolute and relative numbers given earlier comes from the UN.


We must be talking about different things. You said that a good counter to Pinker was Ferguson, and linked to a review of his book, but at least the review (if not the book) didn't say that relative levels of violence have increased. The either in general or even if we limit the discussion to war casulaties (which Pinker didn't do), regardless of whether you're defining war casualties as deaths directly related to weaponry or including disease and famine. I just re-read the review of the book, and it doesn't say anything relevant to this discussion. The closest it comes is, "the hundred years after 1900 were without question the bloodiest century in modern history." That doesn't address relative levels of violence, no matter how defined.

I'm sure you're familiar with the world population chart. If the relative level of violence has increased, if you limit the discussion to battle casualties (however defined), you have to show a chart that has accelerated faster than that one.


----------



## Almaviva

Recent events in Norway (and the reactions of an Italian Euro parlament representative + Glenn Beck's) show to me that the world is far from becoming a better place. We seem to be regressing back to the Middle Ages at full speed.


----------



## mmsbls

Almaviva said:


> Recent events in Norway (and the reactions of an Italian Euro parlament representative + Glenn Beck's) show to me that the world is far from becoming a better place. We seem to be regressing back to the Middle Ages at full speed.


I would caution about focusing too much on negative events. To conclude that the world is being worse you must compare all the negative with the positive. The media tends to get negative stories and report them to death. You have to include things like the huge outpouring of aide after Katrina (I know it was somewhat flawed, but imagine if there were no aide or just local aide), the ongoing work by groups like Doctors without Borders and Engineers without Borders, and the large sums of money given and invested to poor regions all over the world.

Even the war and democide numbers may indicate things are getting better. Unfortunately all the numbers from Ralfy's last post are broken down by century rather than in more detail. Assuming those numbers are correct, I think a case can be made that things are better. Because WWI and WWII were over 50 years ago, I think it's likely that the last 40-50 years saw many fewer war related deaths than the earlier part of the century. The link identifies communism as the major cause of democide. I assume the vast majority of those deaths occurred well before the last 30 years or so since communism has been falling significantly all over the world.

The one real concern in my mind is the environment (climate change and resource degradation). If nations continue to do a poor job of dealing with these issues and if advances in science and technology do not mitigate these problems, we could be in for a reduced standard of living or worse.


----------



## Polednice

Almaviva said:


> Recent events in Norway (and the reactions of an Italian Euro parlament representative + Glenn Beck's) show to me that the world is far from becoming a better place. We seem to be regressing back to the Middle Ages at full speed.


On the contrary, while it's a great worry that, today, any people-hating whacko can acquire knowledge and resources for tremendously destructive acts, these people are extremely rare, and there is universal agreement about how sickening their ideas and behaviours are.


----------



## Klavierspieler

No, it's becoming steadily worse in my opinion!


----------



## Yoshi

I can't say. In certain things it is obviously better, but in other issues it's getting worse by the time.


----------



## starthrower

It's a great world for the super rich. Not so good for the rest of us.


----------



## Almaviva

starthrower said:


> It's a great world for the super rich. Not so good for the rest of us.


 I'd say everybody who is middle class and up is generally having a good time. I don't think you have to be super rich to enjoy many of the modern world's comforts.
But it won't last.
I think we are probably at the peak of privilege - Internet, advanced technology for communication and transport, sophisticated medical care, etc.
Prior generations weren't as lucky in terms of material comforts and technological perks, and future generations will see the inevitable decline brought about by competition for dwindling resources and increasing environmental deterioration.


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> We must be talking about different things. You said that a good counter to Pinker was Ferguson, and linked to a review of his book, but at least the review (if not the book) didn't say that relative levels of violence have increased. The either in general or even if we limit the discussion to war casulaties (which Pinker didn't do), regardless of whether you're defining war casualties as deaths directly related to weaponry or including disease and famine. I just re-read the review of the book, and it doesn't say anything relevant to this discussion. The closest it comes is, "the hundred years after 1900 were without question the bloodiest century in modern history." That doesn't address relative levels of violence, no matter how defined.
> 
> I'm sure you're familiar with the world population chart. If the relative level of violence has increased, if you limit the discussion to battle casualties (however defined), you have to show a chart that has accelerated faster than that one.


Ferguson reveals that the world is becoming increasingly violent, but you will not find details on that in the review. You will find more information in the book and in the Powerkills and UN HDR report, both of which show casualties in relative and absolute terms. The link I reposted last shows not only absolute (no. of war casualties) and relative (as a percentage of world population numbers) numbers from the UN HDR report (again, in relative and absolute terms) but also shows democide rates (casualties due to mass starvation, executions, etc.) using various studies (footnoted at the end of the chart).

Thus, the number of war casualties and democide rates increased both in absolute (no. of deaths) and relative (as a pct. of world population) numbers during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries compared to previous centuries.


----------



## Ralfy

To add to what Almaviva wrote, only around 20 pct of the world's population earns between 10 and 20 dollars or more a day and is responsible for more than 60 pct of personal consumption. The U.S. alone, which has less than 5 pct of the world's population, has to consume up to a quarter of world oil production in order to maintain a middle class lifestyle. Global oil discoveries peaked in 1964, and mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture are heavily dependent on oil.

So, is the world becoming a better place? Yes, due to the use of oil for mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture, which has increased life expectancy rates and decreased infant mortality. No, if we consider the cost of burning oil, the lack of oil (e.g., oil production peaked in 2006 while energy demand continues to rise, met only by the use of biofuels and other means, which in turn has contributed to record food prices), and environmental destruction. No, too, if we consider both war casualties and democide rates, both in absolute numbers and as as a percentage of world population. No, too, if we look at increasing financial speculation which is leading to chronic economic crisis. No, as well, if we expect oil production to drop and long-term effects of environmental destruction.

So, what are we looking at? (This question needs to be asked if we want to look at the second aspect of "becoming," i.e., the past compared to the present, and the present to future expectations.) Population will rise to 7 billion and more, and more important, resource demand per capita will rise. Fatih Birol points out that just to maintain current global economic growth we will need to find the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. Just to maintain economic growth alone for China, we will need one more Saudi Arabia. For the other 80 pct of the world's population to receive part of a middle class lifestyle, we will need the equivalent of one more earth. And more credit has to be created to fund increasing production and consumption of goods to guarantee that, which in turn will lead to more ecological damage and the threat of climate change.

In short, we are looking at combinations of problems: chronic economic problems that will make the 1970s look like a walk in the park, runaway effects of climate change and environmental damage (e.g., topsoil damage, droughts and floods, freshwater supply issues, etc.), the continuation of wars over resources leading to more deaths (likely, a million or more casualties each--many involving civilians--in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more wars and social unrests), the effects of resource shortage, high food prices coupled with chronic unemployment, both an increasing global population and resource demand per capita, and other problems (such as increasing concerns over the spread of disease due to increasing vectors).

Obviously, the solution involves a decrease in both population and resource demand per capita, the use of renewable energy and other means to minimize environmental damage, disarmament and the removal of financial speculation, and cooperation between countries. But these will likely happen not because of unity among various peoples but because the problems mentioned earlier will become worse each time.


----------



## Couchie

People are becoming steadily more attractive.


----------



## Kopachris

Couchie said:


> People are becoming steadily more attractive.


In our modern opinion, yes. I'm sure people from the middle ages and up through the 18th century would disagree with you. Just like us, their ideal look was based on health, but our knowledge about health has changed dramatically since then.


----------



## starthrower

Almaviva said:


> I'd say everybody who is middle class and up is generally having a good time. I don't think you have to be super rich to enjoy many of the modern world's comforts.


I agree only if you consider parents working two jobs, scrapping by, and in debt up to their eyeballs a good time. The facts prove that a tiny percentage of the population enjoys three times the income of thirty years ago while the middle class is making less when adjusted for inflation. I think we're headed for a serious double dip recession, and these fools in congress are going to make sure it happens with Obama's spineless capitulation.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> In our modern opinion, yes. I'm sure people from the middle ages and up through the 18th century would disagree with you. Just like us, their ideal look was based on health, but our knowledge about health has changed dramatically since then.


Changed and _improved_. My dorky little frame might be the body of an Adonis to them! Quick, to the time machine!


----------



## TxllxT

Gaddafi's / Gadhafi's days are counted: 95% of Tripoli taken over by the rebels, Gaddafi's son likely to be sent to The Hague for trial.


----------



## Curiosity

Couchie said:


> People are becoming steadily more attractive.


IIRC studies have shown that developmental physical abnormalities are far more common today than in past years. Not to mention the extremely unattractive bodies of most moderns. No doubt both issues are a product of ****** processed diets.


----------



## science

Ralfy said:


> Ferguson reveals that the world is becoming increasingly violent, but you will not find details on that in the review. You will find more information in the book and in the Powerkills and UN HDR report, both of which show casualties in relative and absolute terms. The link I reposted last shows not only absolute (no. of war casualties) and relative (as a percentage of world population numbers) numbers from the UN HDR report (again, in relative and absolute terms) but also shows democide rates (casualties due to mass starvation, executions, etc.) using various studies (footnoted at the end of the chart).
> 
> Thus, the number of war casualties and democide rates increased both in absolute (no. of deaths) and relative (as a pct. of world population) numbers during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries compared to previous centuries.


I hadn't seen the link because you edited it in as I was replying to the post.

I'm skeptical of the chart. The error bars must be enormous. Who can possibly gather any kind of reliable statistics on anything before the 19th century, especially all over the world? Who knows what the homicide rate was in 13th century China? But we know relatively much more about that than about 13th century in South America. And so on all the way back, all over the world.

There are so many estimates. Estimates on how many people died in Germany during the 30 Years' War range from 25% up to 40%, a huge difference there, and that's in a relatively well-recorded situation. Anyway, whatever numbers you take, the only thing in the 20th century that came close to that kind of destruction was Pol Pot's genocide.


----------



## kv466

Almaviva said:


> Prior generations weren't as lucky in terms of material comforts and technological perks
> 
> 
> 
> While this may be true, are we really 'lucky' because of this? Prior generations respected the land and the creatures on it...they knew the meaning of family and values...they lay back and gazed up at the heavens and made sense of it all with no more technology than a tube with a couple pieces of glass on each end...they created beautfiul and timeless music...
> 
> Avarice has lead us to this place we now call Earth but it is not what was intended by the cosmos and as so many species before us were eliminated, we too shall be wiped from this beautiful planet and it shall be cleansed of all the wrong-doing we have all taken part in. In short, the answer is a resounding 'NO!' The world is NOT becoming a better place and will not be, until we are gone.
Click to expand...


----------



## mmsbls

science said:


> I'm skeptical of the chart. The error bars must be enormous. Who can possibly gather any kind of reliable statistics on anything before the 19th century, especially all over the world? Who knows what the homicide rate was in 13th century China? But we know relatively much more about that than about 13th century in South America. And so on all the way back, all over the world.


I'm not sure which chart you are referring to, but the top chart on the link (in post #86) uses 20th century data to calculate all other century results for democide. The numbers obviously have too much accuracy. It also states that the war deaths are derived or calculated so they may also use recent data to determine those numbers. As presented, I think the chart is quite misleading since it gives the impression of more information than it actually has.


----------



## Polednice

The more I think about it, the more I seem to think that, yes, the world is becoming a better place in terms of medicine and technology _etc._, but our values are steadily worsening. Perhaps I just have a terribly naive view of history, but our outlook and 'inlook' probably peaked during the Enlightenment. Since the Industrial Revolution, but especially with the dawn of unstoppable globalisation and commercialisation, companies are taking advantage more and more of our most basic, often unappealing urges that we ought to try to rise above. It leads people to crave fame instead of knowledge (just think how the concept of fame has changed so radically in recent centuries), and flat-screen TVs instead of mutual respect. We're falling down the ladder back towards a primitive version of ourselves, just with a technological flavour.


----------



## mmsbls

Polednice said:


> The more I think about it, the more I seem to think that, yes, the world is becoming a better place in terms of medicine and technology _etc._, but our values are steadily worsening. Perhaps I just have a terribly naive view of history, but our outlook and 'inlook' probably peaked during the Enlightenment. Since the Industrial Revolution, but especially with the dawn of unstoppable globalisation and commercialisation, companies are taking advantage more and more of our most basic, often unappealing urges that we ought to try to rise above. It leads people to crave fame instead of knowledge (just think how the concept of fame has changed so radically in recent centuries), and flat-screen TVs instead of mutual respect. We're falling down the ladder back towards a primitive version of ourselves, just with a technological flavour.


I'm not sure our values are any worse. In fact one can argue they're getting better. Significantly before TV and internet it was almost impossible to be famous or even known by many people. I suspect people in earlier centuries would enjoy fame just as much as people today. Elevated social status has always been coveted.

When I was born, there was open discriminate against black people and many felt justified in lynching them. That was also before the Stonewall riots when society thought there might be a few gay people but hopefully no one would ever run into one. Today open discrimination against blacks is far rarer, and gay people are not only recognized but can actually marry in some US states. Most people in the US also believe women are just about as good as men. And we even gave them the vote! I think society has made some nice progress over the past 50, 200, and 2000 years. I wish it were faster, but I'm still hopeful of a brighter future.


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure our values are any worse. In fact one can argue they're getting better. Significantly before TV and internet it was almost impossible to be famous or even known by many people. I suspect people in earlier centuries would enjoy fame just as much as people today. Elevated social status has always been coveted.
> 
> When I was born, there was open discriminate against black people and many felt justified in lynching them. That was also before the Stonewall riots when society thought there might be a few gay people but hopefully no one would ever run into one. Today open discrimination against blacks is far rarer, and gay people are not only recognized but can actually marry in some US states. Most people in the US also believe women are just about as good as men. And we even gave them the vote! I think society has made some nice progress over the past 50, 200, and 2000 years. I wish it were faster, but I'm still hopeful of a brighter future.


I suppose I did discount that larger social aspect. What I was lamenting more was our value for our own lives as individuals. Just as an example, elevated social status has always been coveted, but - thanks to our technology and communications - never before has it been so eagerly sought by so many deluded people with it as their only goal. At least a few centuries ago peasants knew they had no hope! Now we have throngs of fools thinking that a talent show might make them the most beloved person in the world.

I recognise, however, that owing to this same technology, I may just be seeing a skewed version of reality. Perhaps people have always been precisely as stupid as they are now, just in different ways, but I am able to see it more clearly thanks to the internet and TV. Still, it's certain that while these new media are forces for great good, they also allow people to be more stupid with greater ease.


----------



## mmsbls

Polednice said:


> I recognise, however, that owing to this same technology, I may just be seeing a skewed version of reality. Perhaps people have always been precisely as stupid as they are now, just in different ways, but I am able to see it more clearly thanks to the internet and TV. Still, it's certain that while these new media are forces for great good, they also allow people to be more stupid with greater ease.


Or at least show the world their foolishness. I'm reminded of the saying, "Better to remain silent and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." TV and the internet allow more people to "open their mouths."


----------



## science

I think that's probably along the right track. I'd guess that we have a higher percentage of educated, thoughtful people than in the past - but it's hard to notice because the rest of the people are becoming increasingly more prominent in our mass culture. That's a thing that got going in the late 1800s, as the working class got purchasing power, and it turned out that they wanted sentimental romance novels, sappy and repetitive music, kitsch decorations for their homes and lawns, and so on. 

But there are a few who take advantage of their access to information. I don't believe we could ever hope it to be a much higher percentage than we see now, since in a society like the US (what with wikipedia and so on) everyone knows just about anything they actually want to know.


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> I suppose I did discount that larger social aspect. What I was lamenting more was our value for our own lives as individuals. Just as an example, elevated social status has always been coveted, but - thanks to our technology and communications - never before has it been so eagerly sought by so many deluded people with it as their only goal. At least a few centuries ago peasants knew they had no hope! Now we have throngs of fools thinking that a talent show might make them the most beloved person in the world.
> .


How I wish this kind of thinking was limited to entertainer wannabes. It's infected the entire political culture in the US. Everybody's out for personal gain instead of working towards the common good.

The deluded fantasies for wealth, status, and fame is one of the reasons that our so called democratic society doesn't see anything wrong with the existence of a super rich class of people, which should be viewed as entirely undemocratic.


----------



## Polednice

starthrower said:


> The deluded fantasies for wealth, status, and fame is one of the reasons that our so called democratic society doesn't see anything wrong with the existence of a super rich class of people, which should be viewed as entirely undemocratic.


I'd never looked at it that way before - it's so blatantly unfair and extortionate, and yet the people who _don't_ have it still actually want it to exist, purely because they can maintain the dream of one day satisfying their own greed and attaining that wealth for themselves... Pessimism sets in again!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Having "earthquakes in various places" isn't quite a sign that the world is coming a better place, eh? More dangerous, unpredictable maybe.


----------



## Almaviva

Unlike the media reported, it wasn't an earthquake today on the East coast. I was kind of mad today and slammed my fist on a table. Sorry guys if I scared you all.


----------



## samurai

Just along these lines, Polednice and Starthrower, and to your points, it simply amazes me when I see working and lower middle-class Americans vote for Republicans--and even worse, *Tea* *Party* *Republicans*--who, IMHO, represent all the forces that are against their own economic self-interests and financial well-being. If the recent "debate" over the debt ceiling didn't show us this, with its talk and intention of gutting "entitlement programs" that most of us have worked a lifetime contributing to, then I don't know what could serve to make it any clearer to people. I'm just wondering if social concerns such as abortion and gay-marriage rights actually trump peoples' economic self-interest. Well, with the ascendancy of Rick Perry {Dubya The Second}, I guess we'll all have a chance to find out, and pretty soon at that. Make no mistake about it, the gloves will be coming off as the Republicans and their Tea Party friends will continue to assault and assail whatever fragile "safety net" programs have been so painstakingly put into place over the years, along with union rights {as we have already witnessed in New Jersey and Wisconsin}. We as a nation had damn well better wake up already, lest we find ourselves back in the "bad old days" of our grandparents. Did I hear someone say *"trickledown"?*


----------



## Almaviva

samurai said:


> Just along these lines, Polednice and Starthrower, and to your points, it simply amazes me when I see working and lower middle-class Americans vote for Republicans--and even worse, *Tea* *Party* *Republicans*--who, IMHO, represent all the forces that are against their own economic self-interests and financial well-being. If the recent "debate" over the debt ceiling didn't show us this, with its talk and intention of gutting "entitlement programs" that most of us have worked a lifetime contributing to, then I don't know what could serve to make it any clearer to people. I'm just wondering if social concerns such as abortion and gay-marriage rights actually trump peoples' economic self-interest. Well, with the ascendancy of Rick Perry {Dubya The Second}, I guess we'll all have a chance to find out, and pretty soon at that. Make no mistake about it, the gloves will be coming off as the Republicans and their Tea Party friends will continue to assault and assail whatever fragile "safety net" programs have been so painstakingly put into place over the years, along with union rights {as we have already witnessed in New Jersey and Wisconsin}. We as a nation had damn well better wake up already, lest we find ourselves back in the "bad old days" of our grandparents. Did I hear someone say *"trickledown"?*


Yes, it's amazingly short-sighted. I believe that people who are in some trouble get frustrated and imagine that there are others who are parasites and are getting handouts. In order to feel better about themselves, they want *those* thwarted, without realizing that the majority of Social Security entitlements provide well, social... security... the same one they'll need themselves in the future. One day, it will be a rude awakening.


----------



## samurai

I also think that people who are feeling financially insecure need to blame the *other*, namely those who are even worse off than they, in order to maintain a sense of superiority. Once again, the concept of scapegoating and blaming the victim come into play. I really believe that these elements are part of the human psyche, no matter what era we refer to or live in. For me, however, the really scary thing--at least in this country--is that the politicians of a certain stripe are so deftly and guiltlessly exploit these foibles for their own narrow-minded interests and gains, at the expense of all the rest of us.


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> Did I hear someone say *"trickledown"?*


I'll take the "horrible" days of Reagan's "trickledown" economics over this wonderful Obama "recovery" any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.


----------



## Guest

samurai said:


> I also think that people who are feeling financially insecure need to blame the *other*, namely those who are even worse off than they, in order to maintain a sense of superiority. Once again, the concept of scapegoating and blaming the victim come into play. I really believe that these elements are part of the human psyche, no matter what era we refer to or live in. For me, however, the really scary thing--at least in this country--is that the politicians of a certain stripe are so deftly and guiltlessly exploit these foibles for their own narrow-minded interests and gains, at the expense of all the rest of us.


Wow - with all the talk about how greedy the rich are, and painting evil pictures of millionaires and billionaires, and you are talking about Republicans and Tea Party members "scapegoating and blaming?" Hello, pot. Did you know you are black?


----------



## graaf

I hope so much that I'm wrong, but since 2008 things seem to be so bad in US, that I'm genuinely afraid of some instability in USA, because it might have dire consequences for the stability around the world. WW1 and WW2 are two decades away, and we've managed six decades so far without a war of even close proportions. But now we have dissatisfaction in USA that reminds me of Germany in 1920s and 1930s, or Russia in 1910s, UK is also having trouble with distribution of wealth (but Olympics are more important topic), EU "unity" breaks apart every single time it's tested, some other EU countries have serious immigration issues (that even produces "crusaders" like recent Norwegian killer), but somehow it seems to me that people are not even interested in all that, let alone worried.

Maybe even worse thing is - those who are interested, are relatively easy mislead - they are being sold the story of problem of world hunger caused by food production and overpopulation, when hunger is due to *distribution* of food, not production, or number of people. Or being sold the idea that word is overpopulated, meaning not enough resources for all, when 5% of population uses 25% of resources, but you can feel free to increase that number since resources stolen from poor countries are not accounted for...


----------



## samurai

No, DrMike, I am just going by their words and stated positions. They are neither the scapegoats nor the victims in this scenario, far from it.


----------



## science

The USA faces some tough challenges to be sure. The political powers (of both parties, really) are aligned to the ultra-rich, who do not want to pay for the state's expenses. As of now the voters do not want to allow the state's 3 big expenses to be cut. The longer we put it off, the worse it's going to get. Eventually we'll have to do both. 

In the past, the poorer white voters could be persuaded to vote against their own material interests largely with cultural and racial issues. But the left has been winning those issues, apparently in exchange for neglecting the material issues. New issues will have to appear, and one of them is going to be Mexican immigration and assimilation. 

But maybe, just maybe, this time a high enough percentage of voters are aware of what's going on, and will vote to raise taxes on the rich regardless of the distractions presented to them. With the bank bonuses and continued tax breaks amid the employment and housing crises, it appears the rich may have overplayed their hand. 

2012 isn't the key. In that election a huge number of disappointed Democrats are not going to turn out, while a huge number of anti-Obama people will turn out, and whoever is the Republican candidate will win. The only way the GOP can even make it interesting is by selecting a really far out candidate (Bachman or Perry). 

2014 and 2016 are the keys. Unless GOP policies are significantly more populist in those years, which would very much surprise me, the accumulated backlash (added to demographic change) will be massive.


----------



## samurai

@ Science, Would that you are right {no pun intended}. Sorry!


----------



## Kopachris

samurai said:


> Just along these lines, Polednice and Starthrower, and to your points, it simply amazes me when I see working and lower middle-class Americans vote for Republicans--and even worse, *Tea* *Party* *Republicans*--who, IMHO, represent all the forces that are against their own economic self-interests and financial well-being. If the recent "debate" over the debt ceiling didn't show us this, with its talk and intention of gutting "entitlement programs" that most of us have worked a lifetime contributing to, then I don't know what could serve to make it any clearer to people.


 (Red emphasis added)

I could say the same thing about wealthy Democrats voting to raise taxes on the wealthy. Sometimes, philosophy trumps self-interest.

The Republican side of my brain supports the philosophy that people should have to work for themselves and their own security and shouldn't receive handouts. The more Democratic side of my brain supports the philosophy that the strong should support the weak; since people aren't doing it, though, having the government do it is the next-best thing. Due to my independent, but (generally) charitable nature, I hold the Republican philosophy for myself and the Democratic philosophy when dealing with others. I should have to work for my own success, but I don't have any problem with helping others. It's also a bit narcissistic of me, though; I hold those philosophies like that because I believe I'm more capable of making my own success than others are.


----------



## science

samurai said:


> @ Science, Would that you are right {no pun intended}. Sorry!


This is how bad things are. A prediction that there is hope 4-6 years down the road is considered optimistic.


----------



## science

Kopachris said:


> (Red emphasis added)
> 
> I could say the same thing about wealthy Democrats voting to raise taxes on the wealthy. Sometimes, philosophy trumps self-interest.
> 
> The Republican side of my brain supports the philosophy that people should have to work for themselves and their own security and shouldn't receive handouts. The more Democratic side of my brain supports the philosophy that the strong should support the weak; since people aren't doing it, though, having the government do it is the next-best thing. Due to my independent, but (generally) charitable nature, I hold the Republican philosophy for myself and the Democratic philosophy when dealing with others. I should have to work for my own success, but I don't have any problem with helping others. It's also a bit narcissistic of me, though; I hold those philosophies like that because I believe I'm more capable of making my own success than others are.


I agree with you.

The balance is between letting people be leeches, and supporting them a bit in hard times; between letting the rich enjoy the rewards of their parents' success, and forcing them to help out a bit more than they'd like.

One of the key things that we often hear is how charity is better than government. What that amounts to, at bottom, is the idea that the rich want to be begged, not forced, to help. The question is, when is it right to force poor people to further humiliate themselves, and when can we give them help without requiring further humiliation?

Anyway, this is all pretty abstract and moral (i.e. unprovable). When it comes to pinch is when we see that our social fabric might be unraveling, so pretty soon the rich are going to be facing a choice between paying more taxes for police and prisons, or more taxes for social welfare programs. I believe we have a substantial and powerful party that is very willing to go the police route.


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> I hadn't seen the link because you edited it in as I was replying to the post.
> 
> I'm skeptical of the chart. The error bars must be enormous. Who can possibly gather any kind of reliable statistics on anything before the 19th century, especially all over the world? Who knows what the homicide rate was in 13th century China? But we know relatively much more about that than about 13th century in South America. And so on all the way back, all over the world.
> 
> There are so many estimates. Estimates on how many people died in Germany during the 30 Years' War range from 25% up to 40%, a huge difference there, and that's in a relatively well-recorded situation. Anyway, whatever numbers you take, the only thing in the 20th century that came close to that kind of destruction was Pol Pot's genocide.


Unfortunately, skepticism works both ways. In which case, we look at what has been presented and see if anyone comes up with contrary data.


----------



## Ralfy

DrMike said:


> I'll take the "horrible" days of Reagan's "trickledown" economics over this wonderful Obama "recovery" any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.


Actually, there was no change from the "horrible" days. Spending increased overall (for households, government, corporations, and banks) from '81 onward. What we are seeing now is the result of around four decades of casino capitalism, starting with the move away from the gold standard followed by almost forty years of trade deficits coupled with increasing total debt, not to mention U.S. banks exposed to over $370 trillion in unregulated derivatives, some of the financial instruments that led to the '08 crash.


----------



## Ralfy

There are hardly any differences between Republican and Democrat, between left and right, as both operate in an economy that is heavily dependent on borrowing and spending, and that's borrowing and spending across the board, not just by government. Other countries need the country to continue spending because that is how they will earn from exports, and the dollar has to be kept propped up because much of economic activity is dollar-denominated. But now the casino capitalist binge is coming to an end, as the country receives fewer cents now for every dollar borrowed, and the interest alone will be a burden.

The only solution is for all sectors to cut down heavily on borrowing and spending, but none of them will accept that. The global capitalist system is geared for increasing growth, so there is no choice but to create more credit to fund more production and consumption of goods. Even as demand from the U.S. and various OECD countries drop, demand from BRIC and emerging markets rise.

Behind all that is the looming concern over the threat of a resource crunch. Fatih Birol and others point out that we will need one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain current global economic growth, and even more if resource demand from the other 80 pct of the global population starts increasing. Birol also points out that we should have prepared years ago, and we should have. It is not easy to retool a global manufacturing base and mechanized agriculture that are heavily dependent on oil. One study points out that retooling alone will take decades.

Meanwhile, more instability is taking place, from social unrest in Greece and Spain to revolutions in Egypt to wars in Libya, with the financial elite and oil corporations profiting and war costs passed on to the unsuspecting sheeple.

And then there's climate change....


----------



## starthrower

"Steal a little and they throw you in jail. Steal a lot and they make you king." - Bob Dylan 

Until this is remedied, democracy and the working class is screwed. Nobody went to prison for creating
the '08 disaster, so I'm not hopeful about the future.

As far as people working and not getting handouts, why don't we start with the banks?


----------

