Gorillas near extinction

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Of course there would also be more actual violent deaths, but those are cancelled by the magic of statistics. Stay away from you, you evil priest of numbers!

Yes, I'm not denying that there would be more deaths in absolute. But should we expect otherwise?

Duplicate the same exact world and you'd have the double amount of deaths. If we double the population and have less than double of the violence, shouldn't we say that violence is less? It's definitely cold, but there's definitely truth to it.

Originally posted by Palynka
Duplicate the same exact world and you'd have the double amount of deaths. If we double the population and have less than double of the violence, shouldn't we say that violence is less?

Only at the risk of appearing utterly deluded. The sum total of human beings and violent acts combined is more than ever before. All that changes is the ratio between them. The significance of that is questionable.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Only at the risk of appearing utterly deluded. The sum total of human beings and violent acts combined is more than ever before. All that changes is the ratio between them. The significance of that is questionable.

Especially considering the fact that this population explosion shows no sign of abating. When we reach 50-100 billion in the near future, will Pinker's "study" hold true when resources and space are seriously limited?

Palynka, you may have misunderstood the way I used harmony. I meant harmony with the world in general, not necessarily only interhuman relationships. Would you agree with me that prehistoric man lived more sustainably than civilised man?

Pinker's "study" only further highlights my point.

D

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Only at the risk of appearing utterly deluded. The sum total of human beings and violent acts combined is more than ever before. All that changes is the ratio between them. The significance of that is questionable.

Why deluded? Do we agree then, at least, that the ratio is decreasing?

Originally posted by Ragnorak
Palynka, you may have misunderstood the way I used harmony. I meant harmony with the world in general, not necessarily only interhuman relationships. Would you agree with me that prehistoric man lived more sustainably than civilised man?

No, I believe human extinction was still more probable then than now.

Originally posted by Palynka
No, I believe human extinction was still more probable then than now.

Absolutely P, humans will prevail. Sustainabilty? Never in question, man hasn't even made a scratch in the resources available.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Only at the risk of appearing utterly deluded. The sum total of human beings and violent acts combined is more than ever before. All that changes is the ratio between them. The significance of that is questionable.

It seems to me that your argument necessarily leads to "the more humans there are, the worse things are, and we must do everything we can to lessen the numbers of humans down to zero if possible" because human violence is more or less proportional to human numbers, and human violence is bad.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It seems to me that your argument necessarily leads to "the more humans there are, the worse things are, and we must do everything we can to lessen the numbers of humans down to zero if possible" because human violence is more or less proportional to human numbers, and human violence is bad.

No; I haven't said things are "better" or "worse" in general. How exactly do you ascertain that anyway? Cycles within cycles, difficult to track; considerable turbulence! I merely pointed out that there are more people and more violence in aggregate; the significance of that is questionable!

As it happens, I don't think that the total exclusion of violence is desirable at all. Quite possibly, things are better because in some respects they are worse. But controlled homeopathic doses of violence are preferable to virulent eruptions such as in Rwanda. (Consider the Virginia Tech massacre as an unscheduled but necessary vaccination for the sake of the health of the US body politic.)

Originally posted by Palynka
Why deluded? Do we agree then, at least, that the ratio is decreasing?

Let's assume that's true. What does it mean?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Things just keep getting more complex; it's impossible to stay ahead of the game when the flow of events curves back on itself and branches out in all directions and dimensions. Alternatively: There's an above average degree of Chaos in the Megaflow!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Let's assume that's true. What does it mean?

It means that the heightened perception of violence we currently have is misleading.

It seems that Ragnorak actually expects that the increase in population would lead to relatively more clashes and therefore an increase in the proportion of violence. This seems to be false, in my opinion, because I see a tendency (which other may obviously disagree) for violence to become more and more marginal.

I, for one, think that is a good thing and I'm not pessimistic about the course humanity is taking. Which is NOT the same as saying everything is peachy, as some seem to suggest I'm saying. The road seems long and winding, but we're not on the wrong track.

Originally posted by Palynka
It means that the heightened perception of violence we currently have is misleading.

This flatly contradicts common sense (although I give up on this point). But I agree with your final sentence--my objection to linear bias notwithstanding; simply because there's no turning back.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
But I agree with your final sentence--my objection to linear bias notwithstanding.

Corrected. To my credit, I said road not tunneled highway. 😉