Originally posted by galveston75OK - if you are happy for your views to be judged by this list.
Why do't you check this list out. Take your time and do the math and add up these numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll
Firstly, any sensible assessment should be based on the percentage of the relevant populations, as inevitably the number of deaths in any major violent struggle, epidemic disease etc will be proportional, to some degree, to the number of citizens caught within its scope. Otherwise you end up in the absurd position that something is more serious, and therefore things getting worse, just by virtue of populations growing over time.
So, for example, the Black Death killed about 1.5 million people in the UK, but when the total population was only about 4 million. In absolute and percentage terms this is way above Spanish Flu.
So, if you cite World War I and II as events of uniqe horror, then the list you provide indicates that these, at their most, resulted in deaths of 3.6% and 3.1% of the world's population. However, the list also shows that the An Lushan Rebellion and Mongol conquests resulted in deaths equivalent to, at their least estimate, 14% and 7.5% of the world popluation. Even the Crusades have an upper estimate above the lower estimate for World War I and II.
Indeed, if you sort the table in descending order in terms of the biggest impact on the relevant world popluations, WWII only comes 6th, with all the other conflicts that are ahead of it taking place before 1914.
Even if you talk in absolute figures, the figures for the first two are not that far out of line with the World Wars, and how much greater might they have been if the relevant populations been bigger? The Taiping Rebellion has an upper estimate above both WWI and II.
I am not a historian or a statistician, but you suggested this list and I have simply gone by its terms. But I see nothing in this list that suggests the events post 1914 have been unique in terms of their scale or horror when looked at with a global and long-term perspective.
And of course this analysis does not take into account events in the past that we may not even be aware of.
02 Jul 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderInteresting thoughts and the effort you put into it is much appreciated.
OK - if you are happy for your views to be judged by this list.
Firstly, any sensible assessment should be based on the percentage of the relevant populations, as inevitably the number of deaths in any major violent struggle, epidemic disease etc will be proportional, to some degree, to the number of citizens caught within its scope. Otherwise you ...[text shortened]... e this analysis does not take into account events in the past that we may not even be aware of.
02 Jul 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderBut the point that is being missed is simply this.
OK - if you are happy for your views to be judged by this list.
Firstly, any sensible assessment should be based on the percentage of the relevant populations, as inevitably the number of deaths in any major violent struggle, epidemic disease etc will be proportional, to some degree, to the number of citizens caught within its scope. Otherwise you ...[text shortened]... e this analysis does not take into account events in the past that we may not even be aware of.
Since 1914 when WW1 began no other time ( from 1914 until now ) has the world been deadlier ( and still has this potential ) and that would include the whole list of what has killed humans whether it's been wars, pestilence, murder, starvation, natural disasters, etc, etc.
Anyone here can look it up. It's there for all to see. No JW is making this up and we have not been the historians that have made these list for all to see.
As I commented before: If there are only 2 people on the earth and 1 dies from starvation, that is a sad thing and that would be a 50% loss of the existing humans.
But now if you have 7 billion and 1 person dies every second from starvation ( http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100921140741AAAFkrV ) is that worse or now an acceptable number because the percentage number is down?
Just because there are more people now then in the past does not make these unbelieveable numbers ok and something we should accept.
How about God's promise that once he corrects these problems and he destroys Satan and lets humans go back to the physical perfection we once had, there will be ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 0 ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) deaths?
So considering these two options, putting ones faith in man to "fix" them, which up to today they haven't done such a good job at, or putting our trust in God and submitting ourselves to him and letting him do what only God can do, and completely eradicate the earth of all these problems, why would anyone even consider this first option?
But let me make this clear. There has been many things that humans have done that are terrible and we all wish would never have been happened. There has also been many wonderful and beautiful things that man has done that has been good and good for all humans.
This is a reflection of the mind and creativeness that God has put into man. He created us to be happy and to love this earth and each other.
But the influance of Satan and of humans that have followed his influance, is worldwide and affects the earth on every level.
Unfortunently he is stronger then most humans know and the Bible says he is the "ruler of the world" at this time. Man cannot stop Satan and it is only God and his son Jesus that have that power.
So no, not all is bad as many humans believe in God and are waiting for the day that he will clean the earth of all badness.
Originally posted by galveston75Why would anyone even consider this first option? Perhaps because they have just decided not to cop out and resort to relying on pessimism-feeding superstition. Humanity has bounced back so well after the dark chapters of the 20thC. Tyrannical governments have mostly been rolled back. More people than ever are living more prosperous, more healthy, more secure, more free lives than ever before, facing up to and solving problems and challenges together. What a shame you're choosing this time to go door to door with your sterile, impotent, pessimistic, ill informed message of doom and gloom. How more self-marginalizing can one get? What a waste of your purportedly philanthropic energy.
So considering these two options, putting ones faith in man to "fix" them, which up to today they haven't done such a good job at, or putting our trust in God and submitting ourselves to him and letting him do what only God can do, and completely eradicate the earth of all these problems, why would anyone even consider this first option?
02 Jul 12
Originally posted by FMFAnd you are more then welcome to have your outlook on life...
Why would anyone even consider this first option? Perhaps because they have just decided not to cop out and resort to relying on pessimism-feeding superstition. Humanity has bounced back so well after the dark chapters of the 20thC. Tyrannical governments have mostly been rolled back. More people than ever are living more prosperous, more healthy, more secure, m ...[text shortened]... How more self-marginalizing can one get? What a waste of your purportedly philanthropic energy.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Jul 12
Originally posted by galveston75
But the point that is being missed is simply this.
Since 1914 when WW1 began no other time ( from 1914 until now ) has the world been deadlier ( and still has this potential ) and that would include the whole list of what has killed humans whether it's been wars, pestilence, murder, starvation, natural disasters, etc, etc.
Anyone here can look i ...[text shortened]... believe in God and are waiting for the day that he will clean the earth of all badness.
How about God's promise that once he corrects these problems and he destroys
Satan and lets humans go back to the physical perfection we once had, there will be
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 0 ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) deaths?
Before I or anyone else should care what your god has promised you need to demonstrate
that your god actually exists.
What you are basically saying is that we should hope that Father Christmas comes along and
fixes everything for us.
Nobody is saying that there is ANY acceptable number of people dying from starvation (disease
/war/ect)
What we are saying is that we are getting better at stopping these things and that we are
achieving this with science and reason.
A plague in the past might kill half the population, now it might kill a few percent, that's progress.
The fact that the population now is so high that the few percent might outnumber the 50% in
absolute terms doesn't mean that things are worse now than they were then.
What you are arguing is essentially that living in a society where you have a 50% chance of getting
mugged and killed walking down the street is better than living in a society where there is a 1%
chance of getting mugged and killed walking down the street IF the total number of people who
get killed in the first scenario is lower than the number in the second because the population size is
smaller.
The chances of any individual today (certainly in the west, but generally world wide) of dying through
disease, starvation, or violence, on any given day is lower than at just about any other time in history.
Life is better (on average) than at any point in history.
This doesn't mean we can't improve upon this and make things even better.
But PRAYING to in imaginary god is not DOING anything to make things better.
It's sitting on your arse and wishing life were better instead of actually doing something.
It's one of religions biggest faults that it convinces people that sitting on their arse and wishing for
something is taking action, is doing something.
People pray for peace in the middle east and then go about their lives feeling that they have done
something about the problem.
People pray for people to recover from diseases.
Science doesn't.
We don't wait for a miracle, we invented medicine.
Medicine works, prayer doesn't.
And the way that you tell is that people live longer and healthier in places and times with good science based
medicine than they do in places without it.
And you tell that because for hundreds of years people suffered and died from smallpox until science came along
and eradicated it.
And the major roadblock stopping us from doing the same thing to other diseases is bat-guano crazy theists and
other purveyors of woo who fight against and spread lies about vaccines and attack the scientific method in an
attempts to spread ignorance and fear to increase their numbers and stop the progress of science that renders
them meaningless and pointless.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Jul 12
Originally posted by galveston75
But the point that is being missed is simply this.
Since 1914 when WW1 began no other time ( from 1914 until now ) has the world been deadlier ( and still has this potential ) and that would include the whole list of what has killed humans whether it's been wars, pestilence, murder, starvation, natural disasters, etc, etc.
Anyone here can look i ...[text shortened]... believe in God and are waiting for the day that he will clean the earth of all badness.
As I commented before: If there are only 2 people on the earth and 1 dies from starvation, that is a sad thing and that would be a 50% loss of the existing humans. But now if you have 7 billion and 1 person dies every second from starvation (delete link) is that worse or now an acceptable number because the percentage number is down?
But that is spin control.
A species goes extinct when its last member dies, but it is doomed to extinction when its second to last of a matable pair dies. In general, a threat to a small population is far more consequential than a proportional threat to a large population.
So you can spin it either way. Please consider the fact that the people who are defining the situation as especially dire now, as compared to the past, are spinning the situation to support their agenda. They start with their belief that the end is near, and interpret the facts to fit their beliefs.
Why do you accept this spinning of the facts? Is it that they don't speak for themselves?
02 Jul 12
Originally posted by JS357None of those links I posted are spinning anything but simply stating facts. Is WHO just in this for some agenda? Is Wikipedia trying to fool us for some reason. How about the CDC, is it pulling our legs and telling a joke to us?As I commented before: If there are only 2 people on the earth and 1 dies from starvation, that is a sad thing and that would be a 50% loss of the existing humans. But now if you have 7 billion and 1 person dies every second from starvation (delete link) is that worse or now an acceptable number because the percentage number is down?
But tha ...[text shortened]... s.
Why do you accept this spinning of the facts? Is it that they don't speak for themselves?
Really?
http://www.bread.org/hunger/global/ What is the possible "spin" this site has?
02 Jul 12
Originally posted by galveston75Well, since he could have started things out that way, but didn't, I don't put much stock in that promise.
How about God's promise that once he corrects these problems and he destroys Satan and lets humans go back to the physical perfection we once had, there will be ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( 0 ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) deaths?
Originally posted by galveston75I think you will find WHO has a pretty strong agenda, yes. They want to stop people dying unnecessarily.
Is WHO just in this for some agenda?
But as you raised this, here are a few facts I found on their website.
http://www.who.int/whr/1998/media_centre/50facts/en/
Life expectancy
Average life expectancy at birth in 1955 was just 48 years; in 1995 it was 65 years; in 2025 it will reach 73 years.
By the year 2025, it is expected that no country will have a life expectancy of less than 50 years.
Spectacular progress in reducing under 5 mortality achieved in the last few decades is projected to continue. There were about 10 million such deaths in 1997 compared to 21 million in 1955.
The infant mortality rate per 1000 live births was 148 in 1955; 59 in 1995; and is projected to be 29 in 2025. The under-5 mortality rates per 1000 live births for the same years are 210, 78 and 37 respectively.
Of course, there is still a long way to go. But can you explain how the world is 'deadlier' than it has ever been, when on average we all have a better chance of living longer than ever before.
(You will note also that WHO use mostly mortality rates to measure progress on infant mortality. If they simply measured the absolute number of infant deaths each year over the decades, they would be rightly condemned. They do cite one absolute figure, but then this is simply because, as this has actually come down, it demonstrates even more strikingly how much progress has been made.)