Is the world a safer place? (Off-topic discussion moved...)

Tim Robbins

DADES' NOTE:

Thread not started by Tim, just the off topicness...

All started by this excerpt from 5uspects published letter:

---

5uspect wrote:

Today we are living in a world that has never been safer or more prosperous, even in the current times of recession, religious extremism and ethnic cleansing. The world has never been more at peace, individuals have never had so much personal freedom to live long healthy lives. Notions of our decline into depravity are highly skewed by the mass media of 24-hour news coverage and the internet.

Extreme but isolated cases of violence such as school shootings and the violent deaths of vulnerable infants are taken as gross generalisations of the state of the world.

Well done. I don't agree with the "world has never being safer" part though.

Pompey Magnus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well done. I don't agree with the "world has never being safer" part though.

Steven Pinker deals with this topic in a talk at TED and he agrees that modernity has led to a much safer life for humanity and we have a much smaller chance of dying a violent death compared to any time in our past.

Check out the video:

Link

5uspect

It's definately safer, perhaps though the world is not as nice.

Tim Robbins

Charco wrote: »

Steven Pinker deals with this topic in a talk at TED and he agrees that modernity has led to a much safer life for humanity and we have a much smaller chance of dying a violent death compared to any time in our past.

Check out the video:

Link

I can't view that link at work.
The argument has two ambiguous and imprecise terms which cause problems.
"we" and "safer". Does "we" include people in Rwanda and Zimbabwe?
Does "safer" include homicide? Murder / Homicide in our state is much higher than before. Or does it just mean "not at war"?

I would be happy agreeing to somethign more definitive, such as:
"the chances of war between two European states" is lower than ever.
But the original statement, I wouldn't agree with.

pH

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I can't view that link at work.
The argument has two ambiguous and imprecise terms which cause problems.
"we" and "safer". Does "we" include people in Rwanda and Zimbabwe?
Does "safer" include homicide? Murder / Homicide in our state is much higher than before. Or does it just mean "not at war"?

I would be happy agreeing to somethign more definitive, such as:
"the chances of war between two European states" is lower than ever.
But the original statement, I wouldn't agree with.

Clearly the context it is being discussed here is in the context that Mary Kenny meant in her article ; a person living in Ireland today as opposed to a person living in Ireland at some notional time in the past when we were all more God fearing and went to mass like Good Little Catholics.

Maybe Dades could split this bit out into "Are we better off now than before" and we could continue as it has little to do with buses!

seamus

As a member of the world's population as a whole, you are statistically likely to live longer and die less painfully than ever before.

As a citizen of a developed country, you are far less likely to die of disease or hunger than ever before. You are also far less likely to be a victim of crime. Overall crime rates are at an all time low. The number of incidents may have increased but statistically far less crimes are taking place now.

The media overhypes the dangerousness of the world because that's what makes the news. Children have never been safer. Yet you'd be lead to believe that there are paedophiles around every corner and everything that they eat has been laced with strychnine.

anti-venom

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Does "we" include people in Rwanda and Zimbabwe?
Does "safer" include homicide? Murder / Homicide in our state is much higher than before. Or does it just mean "not at war"?

I did read somewhere a while back excerpts from an English study about this exact subject. This study claims that during the Middle Ages you would have been 600% more likely to meet a violent death. Rape, violent robbery and assault were also far more prevalent and, apparently, most violent deaths were the result of stabbings. I've no idea how the researchers would have compiled this data, but if it's true then I reckon it would roughly translate to any European country. Maybe we are being inundated with bad news from the media which creates the impression that the world today is much worse than it actually is?

Pompey Magnus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I can't view that link at work.
The argument has two ambiguous and imprecise terms which cause problems.
"we" and "safer". Does "we" include people in Rwanda and Zimbabwe?
Does "safer" include homicide? Murder / Homicide in our state is much higher than before. Or does it just mean "not at war"?

To give a synopsis of the link, Pinker first looks at likely homocide rates among early human communities by examining similar groups existing in similar groups from the Amazon and Papua New Guinea and shows here the chances of an adult male being killed range from 15% - 60%. This far exceeds the death rate in the West during the 20th Century, including both World Wars.

In the more recent past during the Middle Ages there were regular executions for seemingly trivial crimes, slavery, cruel punishments for the purposes of entertainment and estimated homicide rates of 100 homicides per 100,000 people per year in the Middle Ages which he compares to the less than 1 homicide per 100,000 people per year of certain modern European countries.

In terms of 1950-2005 there has been a steep decline in global deaths resulting from State-based conflicts, there has been a 90% reduction in genocides since the end of the Cold War and whilst there was an increase in US homicide rates between 1960 and 1990 this has reversed and is again declining.

I would be happy agreeing to somethign more definitive, such as:
"the chances of war between two European states" is lower than ever.
But the original statement, I wouldn't agree with.

Another way of putting the point could be:
"The chance of a human meeting a violent death in the 21st Century is lower than ever".

5uspect

There's often the idea of a "Golden Age" of society. Usually something like the 1950s
I think that's one of the reasons David Lynch's Blue Velvet works so well.

It was a world where you didn't have to lock your doors at night. Of course they didn't have the material belongings we have today, so my camera and L glass is locked away safely.

Granted there are more social problems openly apparent today, but I think this is mainly due to reduced hang ups in society about showing these problem than deepening social crisis. Similarly we also have increased sexual awareness and openness. It doesn't mean we never had sex, it was just never discussed.

PDN

I guess it depends how Euro-Centric we are. I think we in Ireland live more comfortably, prosperously and safely than in any other period of history. However, that would not be true for someone living in Somalia, Congo or North Korea.

I seem to remember reading a few times recently that, for the world's poorest, per capita income in real terms and life expectancy has fallen over the last 100 years.

5uspect

True, its certainly not homogeneous but the general trend is always towards the better.

DapperGent

Even when we take a dispassionate look at Africa in particular I would argue that things are better than they once were. Disastrous as the situtation so many people find themselves in it's still better than the Mfecane in the early to mid 1800s or the Rinderpest epidemic which followed in the 1890s (killing somewhere in the region of 90% of the cattle).

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote: »

There's often the idea of a "Golden Age" of society. Usually something like the 1950s
I think that's one of the reasons David Lynch's Blue Velvet works so well.

It was a world where you didn't have to lock your doors at night. Of course they didn't have the material belongings we have today, so my camera and L glass is locked away safely.

I don't think there is much disagreement here. I was just being pedantic on your choice of language.

seamus

5uspect wrote: »

There's often the idea of a "Golden Age" of society. Usually something like the 1950s
I think that's one of the reasons David Lynch's Blue Velvet works so well.

It was a world where you didn't have to lock your doors at night. Of course they didn't have the material belongings we have today, so my camera and L glass is locked away safely.

Funny though, I think the main change is in the perceived threat and the drive towards material gain.

I don't think you're any more likely to be burgled by leaving your doors unlocked now than you were 50 years ago. As you point out, you stand to lose more, but you stand to lose what? Some trinkets, some electronic equipment which you'll probably replace in a year anyway.
A large number of times I've left my car unlocked for a day or more, with no effect. I've left front and back doors and garage doors wide open and suffered no loss.

I think advertising in particular, and media perhaps less so, have found out how to push two very primal buttons -

1. The idea that what you have is yours and should be defended at all costs lest your family has to go without. Of course in this day and age, unless someone manages to physically lift your house away or take the food out of your mouth, this idea is redundant.

2. The idea that you are different. Despite statistics showing just how unlikely something is to happen, it's very easily to appeal to people's idea that they are individually special and that things are more likely to happen to them. Eircom ran an ad at Christmas last year which implied that while you were coming and going, burglars were watching your house, waiting to pounce (so you should get an eircom alarm). Unless you are especially wealthy or otherwise have something special worth taking, you are not being watched by burglars. But this ad appeals to the inner ego and convinces you that you're likely to be watched by thieves.

pH

this whole "door unlocked thing", I wonder comparing areas with equivalent population densities what the burglary statistics actually are, comparing a leaving you doors unlocked in a secluded farmhouse to a terraced house in a busy part of Dublin would be unfair.

"Look at this group at a street corner. Hulking, idle, slouching young men ... foul-spoken, repulsive wretches. The young Ruffians of London molest quiet people to an extent that's hardly credible. The throwing of stones in the streets has become a dangerous and destructive offence. The throwing of stones at the windows of railway carriages is an act of wanton wickedness. And the blaring use of the very worst language possible, in our public thoroughfares is a disgrace.

OMG they had hoodies, who'd have thunk it!

Handsome Bob

seamus wrote: »

Funny though, I think the main change is in the perceived threat and the drive towards material gain.

I don't think you're any more likely to be burgled by leaving your doors unlocked now than you were 50 years ago. As you point out, you stand to lose more, but you stand to lose what? Some trinkets, some electronic equipment which you'll probably replace in a year anyway.
A large number of times I've left my car unlocked for a day or more, with no effect. I've left front and back doors and garage doors wide open and suffered no loss.

I think advertising in particular, and media perhaps less so, have found out how to push two very primal buttons -

1. The idea that what you have is yours and should be defended at all costs lest your family has to go without. Of course in this day and age, unless someone manages to physically lift your house away or take the food out of your mouth, this idea is redundant.

2. The idea that you are different. Despite statistics showing just how unlikely something is to happen, it's very easily to appeal to people's idea that they are individually special and that things are more likely to happen to them. Eircom ran an ad at Christmas last year which implied that while you were coming and going, burglars were watching your house, waiting to pounce (so you should get an eircom alarm). Unless you are especially wealthy or otherwise have something special worth taking, you are not being watched by burglars. But this ad appeals to the inner ego and convinces you that you're likely to be watched by thieves.

Maybe you live in a better area than I do as we have been the targets of burglary's down the years; three or four every year. And that is just on my road. The latest one happened to a family who just lost their son to suicide. No-one in my area can afford to leave doors unlocked or the windows open. Sad isn't it.

5uspect

Yes, those Phone Watch adds are terrible. I wonder how effective they were tho as they seemed overly pushy. Indeed there were complaints about them iirc.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I was just being pedantic on your choice of language.

Tim, pedantic? no!

stevejazzx

So technically speaking people are safer. But context is everything when it comes to this argument. Some classes of of people in particular are safer, the lower middle class for example. The system of control through debt and responsibility plays a large part in keeping large numbers of people failrly straightlaced. This kind of climate keeps them relatively safe(r). It makes them predictable.
This whole notion of being safe though is ruined by idea that living in the world today is more streesful, distracting and emotionally draining than ever before. These probelms might seem trivial when compared to the life threatening problems of the people a hundred years ago but chronic health issues and fatgiue are pandemic in the world today. It is true that we have better mortality rates and even general living standards than ever before but it is becoming increasingly clear that the cost of such benefits means sacrificing more and more of of our liberties and with widespread political, industrial and corporate corruption the average human beings life means less and less.

condra

Dublins definitely a safer place. I haven't been mugged in a good 3 weeks now.
(JK)

Galvasean

Don't know about everyone else here but i lock my doors/windows at night and when I'm not home. Also have an alarm system. Consider that between 6 and 10(*some more than once) houses on my street have been broken into in the last year.
That said I'm glad I don't live in the middle ages. No alarms back then. Plus there was plenty more disease etc.