General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDuring World War II, the human population lost 300 of every 100,000 people each year to war.
"Count the number of people killed in war, plot the trend over time. Thats how you get a picture of whether the world has become more, or less, violent. Its the only way to get such a picture.
During World War II, the human population lost 300 of every 100,000 people each year to war. During the Korean War it was in the 20s, before dropping into the teens during the Vietnam era. In the 1980s and 1990s, it fell into the single digits. For most of the 21st century its been below one war death per 100,000 people per year.
There has been an uptick globally as a result of the civil war in Syria, doubling from 0.5 per 100,000 to 1. But Pinker says you cant compare 1 with 15 or 25 or 300. Everywhere else in the world, the stats are still trending downward. The same is true for homicides.
If you get your view of the world from the news, youre always going to think that were living in violent times, Pinker says. Because if anything blows up, if theres any shooting anywhere in the world, it instantly gets beamed across the globe. News is about stuff that happens. Its not about stuff that doesnt happen. And as long as violence hasnt gone down to zero, there will always be enough incidents to fill the news.
Look at all the places that arent blowing up, he adds. That is not going to be on the news. You never see a reporter standing on the streets in Mozambique or Colombia saying theres no war this year. But there were wars in past years, and we forget about them because they are not news.
As a psychologist, Pinker suggests a couple of explanations as to why people believe the world is falling apart. Cognitive psychologists speak about the "availability bias" a term invented by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky according to which we judge risk by how easy it is to remember examples. Now, of course you take a course in intro stats and you realize thats not a good way to estimate probability. But thats the way the human mind works without statistical training.
In addition to this cognitive bias, Pinker says = psychologically there can also often be a moralistic bias.
If you have some sort of cause, if youre trying to rally supporters behind a movement, people think the most effective way to do it is to give people an impression that things are getting worse, and that they have to act now, otherwise things will get worse still. Personally, Im not convinced thats the best way to mobilize people for a cause because its easy to throw up your hands and say that part of the world is a hell-hole; theyve always hated each other; they always will hate each other; its intractable; theres nothing we can do," he explains. "When you start to see that intractable conflicts are not, that is, people can seemingly hate each other for a long time and then lay down their arms and not pick them up again, it kind of emboldens you to say, well, maybe we can do that again.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becoming-more-peaceful-believe-it-or-not#comments
It is amazing to see exactly how violent WWII actually was and how much of the world it affected. The Korean and Vietnam wars were also violent but more localized so that rate of war deaths dropped by more than 9/10s. The recent deaths in the Syrian civil war and in Iraq have caused a blip up in the rate of war deaths from 1/2 per 100,000 to 1 per 100,000.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesnt always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one youre already in.[/center][/font][hr]
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Just look at the first day of the Battle of the Somme (July 1, 1916)
WWI
The British took almost 58,000 casualties, including almost 20,000 dead.
One day.
Just counting the British casualties...