Definitely. The post 1945 period in particular suggests the post WW2 international rules based order and everything it has brought with it seems to be reducing global conflicts/deaths.
General CE Chat
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Definitely. The post 1945 period in particular suggests the post WW2 international rules based order and everything it has brought with it seems to be reducing global conflicts/deaths.
Ok maybe I phrased it badly, but peace is always relative.
Trump is actively trying to destroy that world order.
*Putin is, Trump is just happy to go along for the ride and bask in any sort of praise he can get.Trump is actively trying to destroy that world order.
Trump is doing much more than Putin to destroy the world... Putin doesn’t have the money or the military to do it.
Vietnam war on its own
I’m well aware, but the point remains that the last 70 years has been the most peaceful period in human history in terms of death toll due to wars.
I suppose you should maybe ask the people outside of the West their opinion on that. South and Central America. Africa. The Middle East. Asia, South East Asia. Was it peaceful for them?
I'm actually 100% certain, that more people died as a result of those 70 years of "most peace in human history" due to wars, than died in the vast majority of any other 70 year sample block of time in human history due to wars.
As a percentage of global population that’s certainly not the case.
More people died because there were just far more people. Also a big difference if you include China’s internal struggles due to Mao in that count.
IMO Trump's just in it for the grift. He has no endgame besides that and that's why he was viewed as a useful idiot to help with Russia's efforts at a destabilized global order that they can ultimately benefit from.
Fair enough. Agreed
We've only had historic lows in military deaths, since the Rawandan Genocide btw. Prior to that, deaths per capita had been trending down, but it was trending higher than historic lows which came at the end of the 19th century, the end of the 17th century and most of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries which saw large portions of those centuries seeing around 2 deaths per 100,000 people. Of course these are best guess estimates. At the end of the 17th century, we see a drop to around 1 death per 100k following the War of Spanish Succession, and then another drop to about 1 death per 100k at the end of the 19th century. Military death rates have dropped to obscenely all time lows, with about .1 per 100k in around 2010, but it has climbed up to about .5 per 100k in the last 8 years. Civilian + Military deaths, which the other estimates are based off of, have declined in the last few decades, around 200 per 100k at the end of WW2 to about 10 during the Vietnam War era, and now somewhere around 2.
In fact, casualty rates per 100,000 over the last 70 years, have been mostly well above average since the 14th century. The Thirty Years war saw an estimated death rate around equal to WW2. War of Spanish Success about half of that with ~100 per 100k. War of Austrian Succession about 20 per 100k. Napoleonic Wars, about 50 per 100k. Taiping Rebellion - American Civil War 10-20 per 100k. Most of the last 70 years the death rate has hovered at a level well above the historical lows.
Everything before about the early 19th century are based on best guess estimates based on known rates of deaths and casualty rates from the primary source information that did exist, and then extrapolated on a larger scale. So it's not perfect by any means, at the very least, you should be considering that the last 70 years hasn't been some golden age of humanity regarding war deaths. It's been largely in line with any period without major conflicts throughout the last 600 odd years.
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
What you will see is, it isn't the last 70 years. It's the last 20-25 years where things have really cooled off, but they are trending up again.
Relatively speaking the last 70 years are minor compared to other parts of history.
The chinese 3 kingdoms era alone cost millions of lives. The 100 years war. The world war 1 and 2. The mongols. The persian. Macedonians. Etc.
The last great war history witnesses is world war 2.
Ironically the advancement of technology reduced the needs of actual soldier. God knows how many more would have perished if world war 2 was fought with swords and sandals. The war in those times were brutal and mass execution, pillage and plunder are the common norm. At least these days half the world adhere to geneva convetion and some basic decency of not killing civilians target.
Plus history doesnt record many tribal wars in the past. Indonesian history alone consist of warring kingdom. Nowdays all wars casualty are well recorded and there's data to tally, it wasnt always known how many perished in past ancients wars.
I think you might be wrong on this. I just showed data from a leading historian that puts that claim in reasonable doubt.
I find this very doubtful that millions died in the 3 kingdom period. I say this because, 1, it's almost an entirely romanticized period in Chinese history. 2, historians from those time periods are prone to gross exaggeration. The Greeks at Thermopylae did not fight millions of Persians. Sizes were usually grossly exaggerated regarding army sizes, and therefore casualties. It's possible, China had the population to lose millions, however, whenever you deal with casualty reports and army sizes for any region from those time periods, it usually best to take them with a grain of salt.
Lastly, the rate of wars has decreased, but the casualty rates in them has gone up. Look at the first chart from the link I posted a post or two up. Tell me that looks like all time lows since WW2. The death rate looks to me like it's above the historical average going back to 1400.
It's not unbelievable at all. Back in those days thousands would perish due to travel long before the actual war starts. Marching across china would take their tolls. And you really need bodies to scale those walls. There's no real artillery back then.
The less advanced the technology the more humans you need. Even with technology the battle of stalingrad and operation barbossa alone cost million of lives. Imagine them fighting across russia without tanks and planes and no modern equipment, no medicals, etc
Plus the three kingdoms spans a good tens of years. While the world war 2 hardly last more than 5 years. Not to mention the atrocities of war back then. What hitler did in the concentration camp are the daily routine in ancient wars. It's not unheard of for the losers to be fully decimated to the last human being.
A load of bollocks.
Saying it's been the most peaceful period of human existence is massively unfair to all the African, Asian, South American and Middle Eastern countries that have suffered some of the worst atrocities and genocides in history.
Basically, because since WWII the first world countries have all not been at war with each other people are making out it's been like paradise on the planet for the last 70 odd years. I think it's a hugely disrespectful and ignorant statement to make and arguing about its corectness is just being pedantic for the sake of it.
You could also argue it has been one of the most destructive periods of time too with the mass over-fishing and pollution and extinction of species at the highest rate ever.
Wrong thread mate, this is a thread discussing world history and death rates.
The data refers to global numbers which would of course include the developing world. We are at or near a period of unprecedented peace in terms of civilian and military war deaths when compared to historical numbers relative to population increases over time.
The first chart on the page you cited suggests that based on our best data, we are at or near an all time low in terms of civilian and military deaths at the moment. Things are obviously going to fluctuate over time (the Syrian civil war being a slight uptick for example) but all things said, post 1945 there has been an unmistakable trend towards the down side. The reasons are also fairly obvious - we moved to a rules based international order (Bretton Woods, UN, NATO, etc) and into a period of sustained nuclear bipolarity where the major nuclear powers balanced through MADD and rather than fight hot wars engaged via a cold war and by way of proxy/client states. Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghan civil war, and Rwanda were the most prominent conflicts, the latter three being substate conflicts.
Last edited:
Noam Chomsky...never change
In Equador, every elected president of the last 22 years ended up with an arrest order.
Good article in the Irish Times:
Terrified of public speaking? Expert tips on how to conquer your fears
Terrified of public speaking? Expert tips on how to conquer your fears
This is an interesting, instructive read:
Generation wealth: how the modern world fell in love with money
Generation wealth: how the modern world fell in love with money
https://www.theguardian.com/global/...-how-the-modern-world-fell-in-love-with-money
Putin is supposedly worth 200B... do you mean Russia as a government doesn't have the funds to do it?
I've just noticed weird comedy sound effects on CNN. A whoosh noise for graphics like the Sky Sports one that we all hated.
It's getting worse.
It's getting worse.
First case of its kind in Ireland.
Jury begins deliberations in trial of man (28) accused of infecting two former partners with HIV (Source: Irish Independent)
Update 12/07/18:
Man found guilty of ‘intentionally’ infecting women with HIV (Source: Irish Times)
Jury begins deliberations in trial of man (28) accused of infecting two former partners with HIV (Source: Irish Independent)
Update 12/07/18:
Man found guilty of ‘intentionally’ infecting women with HIV (Source: Irish Times)
Last edited:
Ireland
Report on the Cost of Doing Business (Pub. July 11, 2018; Oireachtas Committee on Business, Enterprise, and Innovation) (PDF)
Irish Times article on the Report above.
Report on the Cost of Doing Business (Pub. July 11, 2018; Oireachtas Committee on Business, Enterprise, and Innovation) (PDF)
Irish Times article on the Report above.
Who is Luis Walsh?
Saw of vid of him groping Mel B's ass on live television and her unpleasant reaction and shock to it.
Saw of vid of him groping Mel B's ass on live television and her unpleasant reaction and shock to it.
Louis Walsh is an Irish entertainment manager. He managed Johnny Logan, Boyzone and Westlife (Irish pop artists). These days he is more of a television personality.
on his webside: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/
great new podcast from Sean Carroll. He is a theoretical physicist at Caltech. So far he covered cognitive dissonance, QM, Sexuality&Truth&Justice (incl. talk about the intellectual darkweb) and atheism & the black community. Usually its in form of an interview with an expert of the topic. The podcast should be intersting for anyone who is interested in politics, science and social commentary. His blog is also great, but has a stronger focus on physics.
Last edited:
To describe a complainant as a victim of crime - in cases where it is contested that a crime was committed - would deny the accused the presumption of innocence.
Potential DNA Damage from CRISPR “Seriously Underestimated,” Study Finds
A flurry of recent findings highlight a contentious question in this area
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-crispr-seriously-underestimated-study-finds/
(I haven't read the actual paper myself).
I did a course taught by a very well funded CRISPR professor, and this problem was never something that was considered much in that class. In fact, CRISPR was supposed to be superior to previous techniques because of its specificity (and so these types of problems weren't considered).
A flurry of recent findings highlight a contentious question in this area
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-crispr-seriously-underestimated-study-finds/
(I haven't read the actual paper myself).
I did a course taught by a very well funded CRISPR professor, and this problem was never something that was considered much in that class. In fact, CRISPR was supposed to be superior to previous techniques because of its specificity (and so these types of problems weren't considered).
Isn’t that really just splitting hairs between implicit and explicit bias? I would have thought the policies are justified if bias exists, whether or not it is implicit. Or am I missing something?
New porn scam hitting inboxes has personal twist (Source: Irish Times)