Memorial Day

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

No...you dropped it, so you should pick it up.

Tell us about Steven Pinker and his connection to this thread.
And please no 2/3 words teaser.

I dropped nothing. If you were interested don't be lazy like me and thanks for the should.

[donquixote99]

Not familiar with the name dropped. Did google him, did get that he's a 'Canadian-born American cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and popular science author.' I gave up right there. Given total unfamiliarity, I didn't think I had a good chance to stumble on just what of his career output you might be referencing, in a reasonable amount of time.

Horribly lazy, for sure. Would never deny it.

[HarmanKardon]

I hope that none of the soldiers lost their life in vain. Look at this picture (Verdun) - I think that there is actually hope for a more peaceful world now and in future than 100 years ago.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

My take on his The Better Angels of Our Nature is that on a per capita basis civilization is less violent than what preceded it and civilization appears to be getting less violent as time goes by.

Actually, I think 'per capita basis' may point to a weakness in this argument. The mushrooming global population dilutes such measures.

I think the main explanation we haven't had more central war and megadeath since WWII is nukes. It's not that moral advancement is marching on, it's that central war is now too risky for the great powers.

[MrPots]

I agree with that assessment.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Actually, I think 'per capita basis' may point to a weakness in this argument. The mushrooming global population dilutes such measures.

I think the main explanation we haven't had more central war and megadeath since WWII is nukes. It's not that moral advancement is marching on, it's that central war is now too risky for the great powers.

Actually, I don't think looking at things on a per capita basis is a weakness in this case. After all, all mankind since the beginning is the universe being analyzed. Pinker addresses your weakness point fairly and more than adequately.

I'd appreciate a link to the data supporting your explanation. I still have the book and would like to compare it with Pinker's analysis and data sources.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Actually, I don't think looking at things on a per capita basis is a weakness in this case. After all, all mankind since the beginning is the universe being analyzed. Pinker addresses your weakness point fairly and more than adequately.

I'd appreciate a link to the data supporting your explanation. I still have the book and would like to compare it with Pinker's analysis and data sources.

Data:

Deaths in wars and conflicts between great powers, thru VJ day: millions and millions.

Deaths in wars and conflicts directly between forces of nuclear-armed powers, VJ day to present: dozens.

A few pilots, a few spys, etc. Source: common knowledge.

There certainly has been a very significant decrease in the number of people killed in great power war since WWII, considered per capita or any other way. Since there hasn't been general war between the most populous and heavily-armed nations, it makes sense that war casualties in general are down. It sounds like Pinker and I disagree as to the main reasons why. Has Pinker claimed to have data, that is, stuff that can be counted, that indicates why?

[nailer]

All the data you've mentioned is included in Pinker's analysis, although he may have missed the a few pilots and spies category. IIRC common knowledge was not a source.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

All the data you've mentioned is included in Pinker's analysis.

Well and good. You say also that my question about 'per capita' measures was adequately addressed by Pinker, and I'll accept that for now.

However, isn't the main point of disagreement, between me and Pinker, the question of why war casualties have decreased sharply, indeed to mere noise when it comes to great powers fighting each other? And doesn't Pinker venture past what statistical analysis can tell us, to ponder why?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

My take on his The Better Angels of Our Nature is that on a per capita basis civilization is less violent than what preceded it and civilization appears to be getting less violent as time goes by.

The idea that there is less war in the world these days than there were formerly is preposterous. All that has happened is that, as a result of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, large scale wars have become too risky a means of settling differences or acquiring resources and territory.

As a result WWII type conflicts have been replaced by the hundreds of small wars that have gone on continuously since the end of the colonial era, wars conduced by the great powers themselves or their proxies for the purpose of regaining the resources the relinquished in their former colonies.

In the face of global climate change, resource depletion and drought, these wars will only increase.

The United States has been at war almost constantly for our entire history. We haven't lost out appetite for warfare and neither has the species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States