SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
During the cold war, there was a clear narrative: an ideological opposition between the US and the Soviet Union. Moments of great tension were understood as episodes within that narrative. The closest we came to nuclear confrontation was the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the two countries seemed on the edge of war. But the crisis itself was finished inside a fortnight, and there was a wider framework to fall back on. The 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty calmed the waters.
Then, in the early 1980s the tough-talking but critically derided , Ronald Reagan was elected US president. He reignited the cold war rhetoric and began escalating the arms race, and there was an assumption – particularly in Europe – that nuclear destruction was creeping closer. But it was still within a recognisable context. That ended with the collapse of communism, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. For a while the world felt a much safer place than it had been.
But the cold war was replaced by uncertainty. And now the uncertainty is combined with the unpredictability of Donald Trump. The recent bombing raids in Syria and Afghanistan were isolated moments, without any sense of programme or continuity. Nor does there seem any logic to why North Korea should have suddenly become a pressing issue. Incidents that seem to arrive out of the blue can be much more frightening. We're probably not on the verge of nuclear war, but it's destabilising if we can't make sense of events.
Is the world more dangerous now than during the cold war?
[Related]: Nuclear war will ignite in May 2017, mystic Horacio Villegas says
What do you think ?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 23 2017, @08:11AM (11 children)
What do you think ?
I don't think that violence has decreased. I know it has. I look at the data:
Battle death rates in 1950 were ~15/100,000 people. In 2013 it was ~1/100,000 people. [ourworldindata.org]
What's more, homicide rates are at historically low levels [ourworldindata.org] globally, even in relatively violent places like the United States.
So, no. The world is definitely not more dangerous than it was during the Cold War. And Even during the cold war, the world was much less dangerous than it has been for most of human history and (as far as we can tell, pre-history).
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Sunday April 23 2017, @09:31AM (3 children)
I think TFA is arguing that there is a larger risk of World War 3. World War 3 would skew your statistics heavily against the world being safer. So while we may be safer assuming peace continues, we are overall less safe.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 23 2017, @10:12AM (2 children)
I think TFA is arguing that there is a larger risk of World War 3. World War 3 would skew your statistics heavily against the world being safer. So while we may be safer assuming peace continues, we are overall less safe.
I went and read the largely logic, data and fact-free TFA [theguardian.com], and I stand by my statement that Betteridge's Law is in full effect here.
The headline (and nothing in TFA contradicts the claim there) says:
Is the World More Dangerous Now than During the Cold War?
No. It is not. It might be in the future, but right now this planet is more peaceful and prosperous than it ever has been. Ever.
The risk of a nuclear exchange right isn't any higher now than at any time since 1945. In fact, it's less likely than pretty much any time since 1945.
It is true that Kim Jong-moron is rattling sabers, and he might do something incredibly stupid. But that's not incredibly likely, as China is, for the most part, pulling his strings.
The risk that Russia, China or the U.S. would launch nuclear weapons is lower than ever, even with "tensions" rising. All the adults know that it's a lose-lose for everyone if that happens.
If you want to be afraid of an imminent nuclear war, be my guest. You'd be wrong to do do so, but who am I to try to disabuse you of your delusions?
So knock yourself out. Maybe you can take to the streets with a big placard [kinja-img.com] or something.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 23 2017, @10:44AM (1 child)
It is more dangerous now if and only if the probability of something bad happening in the near future is higher. Danger is without exception about something that has not yet happened.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 23 2017, @11:25AM
It is more dangerous now if and only if the probability of something bad happening in the near future is higher. Danger is without exception about something that has not yet happened.
The data (and factual events in recent history) point to the probability being lower.
Bad things have always happened. Bad things will always happen. However, bad things are happening less frequently and have been, with minor tics in the trend lines for millenia.
Now go and read your Malthus [wikipedia.org] and mumble to yourself about how we're all doomed. I'm not interested.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 23 2017, @10:09AM (6 children)
OK, say someone is throwing some dice every day to decide whether he should kill you. Up to now, the dice always came out to not kill you. Does that mean you are safe?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 23 2017, @10:15AM (5 children)
OK, say someone is throwing some dice every day to decide whether he should kill you. Up to now, the dice always came out to not kill you. Does that mean you are safe?
Yes. I loaded them.
Are you off your meds or just trolling?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 23 2017, @10:41AM (4 children)
I thought I could trigger some thought process in your brain. Namely about the difference between "something happens" and "something might happen".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 23 2017, @11:17AM (3 children)
I thought I could trigger some thought process in your brain. Namely about the difference between "something happens" and "something might happen".
Yup, and there could be seventeen rabid chipmunks with hatchets waiting outside my home to chop me into little bits too.
Or I could walk out in the street and a 100Kg anvil (stamped with the ACME logo, of course) could fall out of the sky and crush me to death.
Or I could walk into a market, then walk out, oblivious to the fact that masked gunmen are robbing the place, only to be dragged back inside and threatened with a gun (that actually happened to me in 1979)
Or I could slip in my bathtub and fracture my skull and die right there.
Ad inifinitum, ad nauseam.
That and US$5 will get you a mediocre latte from Starbucks.
Do you have some kind of point? Shit happens. There is no such thing as perfect safety. You can either deal with reality or hide under your bed until you die.
If you're wetting your trousers because some pissant "journalist" blathers on with a bunch of alarmist, hand-wavy bullshit, that's your problem.
As for me, I pay attention to what's going on around me. I can see that the trends and data point toward a more peaceful near future, not a more violent one.
I could be wrong. That's unlikely, but it's possible. However, until someone provides actual evidence to the contrary (which neither you nor that jackass from the Guardian did), I'm going with actual facts and actual data.
Go find some dark corner to cower in and stop bothering me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 23 2017, @11:34AM (2 children)
Yes. Namely that your argument was flawed. And note that a flawed argument remains a flawed argument even if its conclusion happened to be true.
I didn't do a detailed analysis whether the world now is safer than during cold war or not.Maybe it is, maybe it isn't (indeed, "during cold war" is a damned long period, so the question isn't even very well defined to begin with). But your argument that the world must currently be safer because it currently is more peaceful is flawed. That, and only that, is my point.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday April 23 2017, @12:22PM (1 child)
But your argument that the world must currently be safer because it currently is more peaceful is flawed. That, and only that, is my point.
And I disagree with what you call "your point." In fact, your assumption is flat wrong.
If there are fewer (i.e., murders or battle deaths per 100,000) intentional deaths than there were ten years ago, end even fewer than there were 30 years ago, and even fewer than there were 50 years ago, and even fewer than that compared to 100 years ago, and an order of magnitude fewer than 300 years ago, etc., etc., etc., then I'd most certainly say we were safer. Not only that, the data strongly implies this trend will continue.
Here, I'll say it again in simpler terms so you'll be sure to understand: A smaller proportion of us humans (this is true even if you include all the wars of the 20th and 21 centuries) suffer intentional death than at any time in history. That trend has continued through the latter half of the twentieth century, and accelerated in the twenty-first century. If you're less likely to be murdered where you live or killed in a war, then you are safer. Get it now?
I didn't do a detailed analysis whether the world now is safer than during cold war or not
Fortunately, others have done so [ourworldindata.org] for us [ourworldindata.org]. Which was linked in my original post [soylentnews.org]. If you'd bothered to check, you'll see that violence of all kinds has been decreasing, not for decades, not for centuries, but for millenia. The data and trends are clear.
Why that is so is a rather more complicated question. And more interesting than this discussion, since you appear to have nothing of value to add.
I use actual data, logic and reasoning to arrive at my conclusions.
What is it that you use to arrive at yours? Your feelings? The consensus of you and your mates down the pub after a few pints? Media scare pieces?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 23 2017, @03:40PM
Climate hysteria is apparently based on pascal's wager...