Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 23:26:36 GMT -5
This site analyzes the work of one Steve Pinker - who holds that violence has reached historic lows in our society. Quote - “we may be living in the most peaceful era in our species’ existence.”It's interesting. But who knows - we can have a Russian vs NATO war over Ukraine in a week if we are unlucky. nextbigfuture.com/2014/04/looking-at-pinker-thesis-of-historical.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 23:37:54 GMT -5
just the calm before the storm...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 14, 2014 0:09:44 GMT -5
just the calm before the storm... That, however, doesn't negate the fact that right now there is a calm. No wonder we have so much violence with so many paranoid people running around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 0:48:44 GMT -5
Yes, it says in Revelation that one day one third of all people on earth will be killed in a global war. Refer to "all the cities of the world falling."
That would have been absurd to the cognescenti "back then", just like Genesis saying that God "commanded the sea to bring forth life."
But generally, the world is getting less violent, but not because of people loving God any better:
the rule of law means we don't have family fueds and honor killing anymore. we have those ripper CSI detectives on the case we have better trauma treatment we have a closely integrated world through trade and communications etc..
but people have never loved violence as much as they do now, if you go by what passes for entertainment now.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2014 1:28:24 GMT -5
Yes, it says in Revelation that one day one third of all people on earth will be killed in a global war. Refer to "all the cities of the world falling." That would have been absurd to the cognescenti "back then", just like Genesis saying that God "commanded the sea to bring forth life." But generally, the world is getting less violent, but not because of people loving God any better: the rule of law means we don't have family fueds and honor killing anymore. we have those ripper CSI detectives on the case we have better trauma treatment we have a closely integrated world through trade and communications etc.. but people have never loved violence as much as they do now, if you go by what passes for entertainment now. Are you sure about that, bert, _"that people have never loved violence as much as they do now",
What about history ?
What did they do at the Colosseumin in ancient Rome? That was for entertainment. It was real as well, people actually did get eaten by lions, -not just simulated as in entertainment now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 2:45:17 GMT -5
Roman style colosseums were pretty dramatic affairs. And they spread all over the Empire. But Rome itself was an incredibly militaristic society and few other cultures went into its more extreme "sport" to the same extent. But " An average American child will see 200,000 violent acts and 16,000 murders on TV by age 18" according to www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/tv.htmAnd TV has about a 98% penetration, across all nations and all cultures. Your average Roman gladiator would be quite amazed at such an obsession with violence amongst even children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 7:54:27 GMT -5
Early mankind suffered violent death for 15,000 per 100,000 population. Today, people suffer violent death for 30 per 100,000 population.
Ancient societies had 524 war deaths per 100,000 population Germany and Russia in the 20th century had less than 145 war deaths per 100,000 population. The US in the 20th century had 5.7 war deaths per 100,000 population.
Yet some people still try to emulate ancient societies and take their cues for right living from them. Brutish laws are celebrated and considered to be insight to "God's mind" in spite of the non-violent nature of Christ and the essence of his teachings. With the steady decline of personal violence and national conflicts, are we actually starting to learn something?
Regarding the continuing current paranoia. In a TED talk by Pinker, one observer writes:
"In the Q & A, one questioner noted that violence is clearly down, but fear of violence is still way up. Social psychologist Pinker observed that we base our fears irrationally on anecdotes instead of statistics---one terrorist attack here, one child abduction there. In a world of 7 billion what is the actual risk for any individual? It is approaching zero. That trend is so solid we can count on it and take it further still."
It's a bit like informing yourself of the state of the world by watching Two and a Half Men.
The facts are plain and clear. The population explosion of the last couple of centuries alone is proof of a greatly more habitable planet: more food and less violence. Why more food and less violence? In general, human ingenuity has born down on both problems and has come up with ways to dramatically change both. Mankind is finally starting to take rightful responsibility not just for themselves, but for the benefits their fellow human beings.
Are the dangers all gone? No, but human conflict is changing and even the battlefields are changing. Instead of kings getting their subjects killed over the conquest of other nations, we are now battling non-violently over issues like carbon emissions. That alone indicates how much things have changed.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Apr 14, 2014 9:20:38 GMT -5
just the calm before the storm... That, however, doesn't negate the fact that right now there is a calm. No wonder we have so much violence with so many paranoid people running around. Bob So paraniod people are the cause of vilence? ken
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 14, 2014 13:30:32 GMT -5
Yes, it says in Revelation that one day one third of all people on earth will be killed in a global war. Refer to "all the cities of the world falling." That would have been absurd to the cognescenti "back then", just like Genesis saying that God "commanded the sea to bring forth life." But generally, the world is getting less violent, but not because of people loving God any better: the rule of law means we don't have family fueds and honor killing anymore. we have those ripper CSI detectives on the case we have better trauma treatment we have a closely integrated world through trade and communications etc.. but people have never loved violence as much as they do now, if you go by what passes for entertainment now. Humanity has always used violent acts for entertainment. Maybe the reason why we have less actual violence at this stage in history is all the violent video games. It allows our natural tendencies to be focused on a game of violence instead of being out there in 'real time' violence. We have come a long way really as to what we will accept for the treatment of animals and humans. Children finally have rights and that is long overdue. We are becoming so much more aware of the fact we want more equality and less violence in our society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 13:40:48 GMT -5
I always get amused when people talk about how awful the world is these days. Yes, we can read the headlines and see there are some absolutely horrid things that happen, but mostly we are just more aware of it. I'm not a big fan of the culture of children watching/playing excessively violent movies and video games, but it's preferable to previous centuries where war was a way of life and boys grew up just waiting until they were old enough to join their pops and older brothers in the battle. Perhaps violence entertains people today because it is much more rare (for most people, at least in the U.S and other civilized nations) and not something they experience in everyday life. I think that the fantasy violence is all part of a large, long term movement away from physical violence, not toward more physical violence. The centuries have proven that the trend away from physical violence exists and as that trend continues, even fantasy violence will recede. For now, it is largely drifting away from reality violence to being contained in imaginary violence which the vast number of society recognizes it for what it is: fictional entertainment that does not represent the real world. If the trends continue, even the on-screen violence will start to abate. When I identified other types of violence that are non-physical, my posts were met with a great deal of scepticism that I even knew what violence is. The truth is, society is now beginning to recognize many forms of non-physical violence as serious violence. As we recognize that anything that inflicts damage on people, including emotional damage, is violence, we will continue to see physical violence decline. Verbal bashings tend to legitimize physical bashings.....they aren't much different from each other. In fact, verbal bashings and other forms of non-physical can leave longer lasting damages than some forms of physical violence.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 14, 2014 14:02:29 GMT -5
I always get amused when people talk about how awful the world is these days. Yes, we can read the headlines and see there are some absolutely horrid things that happen, but mostly we are just more aware of it. I'm not a big fan of the culture of children watching/playing excessively violent movies and video games, but it's preferable to previous centuries where war was a way of life and boys grew up just waiting until they were old enough to join their pops and older brothers in the battle. Perhaps violence entertains people today because it is much more rare (for most people, at least in the U.S and other civilized nations) and not something they experience in everyday life. I think that the fantasy violence is all part of a large, long term movement away from physical violence, not toward more physical violence. The centuries have proven that the trend away from physical violence exists and as that trend continues, even fantasy violence will recede. For now, it is largely drifting away from reality violence to being contained in imaginary violence which the vast number of society recognizes it for what it is: fictional entertainment that does not represent the real world. If the trends continue, even the on-screen violence will start to abate. When I identified other types of violence that are non-physical, my posts were met with a great deal of scepticism that I even knew what violence is. The truth is, society is now beginning to recognize many forms of non-physical violence as serious violence. As we recognize that anything that inflicts damage on people, including emotional damage, is violence, we will continue to see physical violence decline. Verbal bashings tend to legitimize physical bashings.....they aren't much different from each other. In fact, verbal bashings and other forms of non-physical can leave longer lasting damages than some forms of physical violence. What a nice way to look at things, and I think you're probably correct. For myself, I have never been drawn to onscreen violence, and tend to be pretty selective in what I watch. I can even remember walking out of a theatre once when a movie I went to see had unexpected amounts of gratuitous violence. (I can tolerate violence if it has a point. For example, Schindlers''s List - brief and to the point. Same with No Country for Old Men. I loved Django last year - even the blood splatters were artistic. However, even there, I do not think there was any blurring of the lines of fantasy/hyperbole and reality for me.) The only point in my life when I was drawn to this kind of thing was over 20 years ago, when I went through a phase of reading real life accounts of horrendous murders. I still do not know what they were satisfying in me, but it was a phase that passed. (Thank goodness.) Those were my exiting years, so a psychologist might find some significance to that. But, yes, I am beginning to recognize violence in myself to an extent that I never have before - which basically consists of unkind/impatient thoughts towards myself or others. I am learning to let these go, and I do see an improvement in my quality of life even from this.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Apr 14, 2014 14:21:54 GMT -5
So it seems that the level of violence is abating, at least in Western societies. Unless of course you factor in the murder of the unborn.
www.numberofabortions.com/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 14:29:09 GMT -5
So it seems that the level of violence is abating, at least in Western societies. Unless of course you factor in the murder of the unborn.
www.numberofabortions.com/
The abortion rate worldwide declined by 20% from 1995 to 2008. In Europe, it declined by 44% In all developed countries, it declined by 38% Oceania btw, declined by 19% and has the lowest abortion rate in the world.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 14, 2014 17:58:12 GMT -5
That, however, doesn't negate the fact that right now there is a calm. No wonder we have so much violence with so many paranoid people running around. Bob So paraniod people are the cause of vilence? ken A contributing cause, of course. Example: preemptive war, on one level. shooting people eating popcorn in a movie theater, on another level.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 14, 2014 18:04:03 GMT -5
Yes, it says in Revelation that one day one third of all people on earth will be killed in a global war. Refer to "all the cities of the world falling." That would have been absurd to the cognescenti "back then", just like Genesis saying that God "commanded the sea to bring forth life." But generally, the world is getting less violent, but not because of people loving God any better: the rule of law means we don't have family fueds and honor killing anymore. we have those ripper CSI detectives on the case we have better trauma treatment we have a closely integrated world through trade and communications etc.. but people have never loved violence as much as they do now, if you go by what passes for entertainment now. Humanity has always used violent acts for entertainment. Maybe the reason why we have less actual violence at this stage in history is all the violent video games. It allows our natural tendencies to be focused on a game of violence instead of being out there in 'real time' violence. We have come a long way really as to what we will accept for the treatment of animals and humans. Children finally have rights and that is long overdue. We are becoming so much more aware of the fact we want more equality and less violence in our society. Statistics comparing the amount of violence watched in movies and played on video games blows quite a hole in this theory. Some countries with the very lowest crime rates watch and play with as much violence as Americans, yet it is Americans who have such high rates of violence. It has a lot to do with a society's customs of problem solving and people's connection with the real world.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 14, 2014 18:05:00 GMT -5
I always get amused when people talk about how awful the world is these days. Yes, we can read the headlines and see there are some absolutely horrid things that happen, but mostly we are just more aware of it. I'm not a big fan of the culture of children watching/playing excessively violent movies and video games, but it's preferable to previous centuries where war was a way of life and boys grew up just waiting until they were old enough to join their pops and older brothers in the battle. Perhaps violence entertains people today because it is much more rare (for most people, at least in the U.S and other civilized nations) and not something they experience in everyday life. Do you live in the US?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Apr 15, 2014 11:12:06 GMT -5
Look at the difference from just WW2. We now do surgical strikes on military bases. Collateral damage is always a a concern.
Can you imagine even suggesting what we did in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki today?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 15, 2014 12:24:19 GMT -5
Regarding the continuing current paranoia. In a TED talk by Pinker, one observer writes: "In the Q & A, one questioner noted that violence is clearly down, but fear of violence is still way up. Social psychologist Pinker observed that we base our fears irrationally on anecdotes instead of statistics---one terrorist attack here, one child abduction there. In a world of 7 billion what is the actual risk for any individual? It is approaching zero. That trend is so solid we can count on it and take it further still." Isn't this much the same as some of the hysteria regarding child abuse? A child abused on the west coast is potentially soon in living rooms all over the country. Potentially the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 12:59:09 GMT -5
Regarding the continuing current paranoia. In a TED talk by Pinker, one observer writes: "In the Q & A, one questioner noted that violence is clearly down, but fear of violence is still way up. Social psychologist Pinker observed that we base our fears irrationally on anecdotes instead of statistics---one terrorist attack here, one child abduction there. In a world of 7 billion what is the actual risk for any individual? It is approaching zero. That trend is so solid we can count on it and take it further still." Isn't this much the same as some of the hysteria regarding child abuse? A child abused on the west coast is potentially soon in living rooms all over the country. Potentially the world. If it's a worker abuser, you can be sure that he/she will be soon in living rooms of the friends all over the country, sometimes the world. There's nothing hysterical about that, that's just how the homestay system works.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 15, 2014 13:27:10 GMT -5
Isn't this much the same as some of the hysteria regarding child abuse? A child abused on the west coast is potentially soon in living rooms all over the country. Potentially the world. If it's a worker abuser, you can be sure that he/she will be soon in living rooms of the friends all over the country, sometimes the world. There's nothing hysterical about that, that's just how the homestay system works. But as you pointed out: Social psychologist Pinker observed that we base our fears irrationally on anecdotes instead of statisticsAnd this is the case with child abuse just as it is the case with violence. One worker abusing a child in their home translates into "Let's keep all workers out of homes." And then cases of abuse and rumors of cases of abuse are discussed over and over, recounting cases that happened decades ago until one gets the feeling that 90% of the workers/elders are abusing children when it simply is not so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 14:09:51 GMT -5
If it's a worker abuser, you can be sure that he/she will be soon in living rooms of the friends all over the country, sometimes the world. There's nothing hysterical about that, that's just how the homestay system works. But as you pointed out: Social psychologist Pinker observed that we base our fears irrationally on anecdotes instead of statisticsAnd this is the case with child abuse just as it is the case with violence. One worker abusing a child in their home translates into "Let's keep all workers out of homes." And then cases of abuse and rumors of cases of abuse are discussed over and over, recounting cases that happened decades ago until one gets the feeling that 90% of the workers/elders are abusing children when it simply is not so. Mr.Pinker is not saying, as far as I can see, that all fears are based on irrationality or anecdotes, he is referring to the specific reason for a persistent amount of fear from violence. Maybe he is saying that all fears are due to that but I doubt it because it doesn't make sense. Some dangers are clear and present, and our fear of the consequences of those dangers motivates us to mitigate the dangers. That is perfectly rational, and in this case, you can be sure that the one or two in 100 abusive workers will get into a lot of homes......a huge number of homes in fact. All it takes is one or two in a region and every home with children becomes at risk from the worker homestay system. Regardless, one hardly needs fear to make a rational decision to reduce the risk of danger to children when it is obvious. In retrospect of what I know now, if I was a young parent today looking at the 2x2 system as a potential church group, I would reject the meeting system solely on the basis of the homestay system without knowing anything about any worker-offenders. It's simply a risky practice.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 15, 2014 14:53:50 GMT -5
Mr.Pinker is not saying, as far as I can see, that all fears are based on irrationality or anecdotes, he is referring to the specific reason for a persistent amount of fear from violence. Maybe he is saying that all fears are due to that but I doubt it because it doesn't make sense. Some dangers are clear and present, and our fear of the consequences of those dangers motivates us to mitigate the dangers. But the perception of the danger is modified by the many anecdotal and suspected incidents as well as the fact that the scope of the abuse is seldom stated and may well be presented as an ongoing problem when it happened decades ago. This may be true but this does not mean that there will be a child in every home abused by that worker.All it takes is one criminal, uncle, step-father, close personal friend, worker, etc., and there is a risk. My point is that the risk is blown way out of proportion because of the multiple anecdotal reports and rumors that, in the minds of many, make every worker a child abuser.As you pointed out, not all fear is based on irrationality or anecdotes but when a subject as emotional as child abuse is discussed without the benefit of any real knowledge of whether it is one case being mentioned multiple times, the number of years in the time span being discussed, whether it actually happened, etc., drives people to the conclusion that the danger is much greater than it actually is. This same phenomenon with missing children resulted in the publishing of missing children on milk cartons and making parents so paranoid that they feared allowing their children to be alone at any time. There were claims that hundreds of thousands of children went missing every year. Some claims were as high as 2 million. It was the same hysteria, on a larger scale, than is being demonstrated regarding the workers and child abuse. Certainly there are criminal workers and they need to be reported and removed. And parents need to be intelligent about the care of their children. If you believe that workers should be banned from homes with children then you should also ban uncles and step-fathers because there is a much greater risk from them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 16:02:43 GMT -5
Mr.Pinker is not saying, as far as I can see, that all fears are based on irrationality or anecdotes, he is referring to the specific reason for a persistent amount of fear from violence. Maybe he is saying that all fears are due to that but I doubt it because it doesn't make sense. Some dangers are clear and present, and our fear of the consequences of those dangers motivates us to mitigate the dangers. But the perception of the danger is modified by the many anecdotal and suspected incidents as well as the fact that the scope of the abuse is seldom stated and may well be presented as an ongoing problem when it happened decades ago. This may be true but this does not mean that there will be a child in every home abused by that worker.All it takes is one criminal, uncle, step-father, close personal friend, worker, etc., and there is a risk. My point is that the risk is blown way out of proportion because of the multiple anecdotal reports and rumors that, in the minds of many, make every worker a child abuser.As you pointed out, not all fear is based on irrationality or anecdotes but when a subject as emotional as child abuse is discussed without the benefit of any real knowledge of whether it is one case being mentioned multiple times, the number of years in the time span being discussed, whether it actually happened, etc., drives people to the conclusion that the danger is much greater than it actually is. This same phenomenon with missing children resulted in the publishing of missing children on milk cartons and making parents so paranoid that they feared allowing their children to be alone at any time. There were claims that hundreds of thousands of children went missing every year. Some claims were as high as 2 million. It was the same hysteria, on a larger scale, than is being demonstrated regarding the workers and child abuse. Certainly there are criminal workers and they need to be reported and removed. And parents need to be intelligent about the care of their children. If you believe that workers should be banned from homes with children then you should also ban uncles and step-fathers because there is a much greater risk from them. Parents definitely have to take action with all potential risks. Neither uncles nor step-fathers should be excluded from risk mitigation. That does not say that the solution has to be identical for every risk.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 15, 2014 16:42:04 GMT -5
And you think violence is much more rare in the US than in the uncivilized world. Have you been listening to the news this past week? ? This is one of the most violent societies on earth. What the rest of the world finds so entertaining is that Americans think movies are Bibles for lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 15, 2014 20:25:22 GMT -5
And you think violence is much more rare in the US than in the uncivilized world. Have you been listening to the news this past week???????? Listening to the news does not really reveal much. The telling information would be a violence rate report. If you are producing news you gather all the violence that happens all over the world and present it one clip after the other. From that POV it seems like the world if filled with violence.Really? based on what?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 20:57:14 GMT -5
Forbes did an article on the 15 most dangerous countries in the world. The largest group came from Africa, second was Middle East and finally Pakistan and Afghanistan.
For intentional homicide, the US ranks well into in the lower half. Interestingly, for this specific type of violence, it is Central and parts of South America that ranks right up there in the worst of the world. El Salvador, Columbia, and the Honduras are the worst for intentional homicide. Africa and Central/South America are very dangerous for this while Asia scores quite well along with Europe, North America and Oceania.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Apr 15, 2014 21:06:52 GMT -5
Interesting. So the more advanced countries...most likely the ones that would have the highest rate of violent movies watched, as well as violent gaming....have the lowest crime rate. Probably the highest rate of viewers of two and a half men as well . Is this accurate? I'm not sure that this is where Bert was going with this thread.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 15, 2014 21:29:04 GMT -5
Interesting. So the more advanced countries...most likely the ones that would have the highest rate of violent movies watched, as well as violent gaming....have the lowest crime rate. Probably the highest rate of viewers of two and a half men as well . Is this accurate? I'm not sure that this is where Bert was going with this thread. Lol, what else is new? rarely do threads actually go where Bert wants them to. However, he's a good sport about that. Maybe video games and such is a way to work off some of our violent tendencies so we don't present with them in the 'real world"?
|
|