Great! We're better overall than we were! No reason to rest on our laurels, though. How can we be better than we are now?<p>Here's some areas that aren't doing too well:<p>1. Climate Change - We're in store for a lot of trouble over the next few decades[1]. How will we manage?<p>2. Wealth Inequality - The gap is widening[2]. How do we reverse the trend?<p>3. Gerrymandering/voter suppression - The ones in power are the ones who draw the district boundaries[3]. How do we stop the feedback loop?<p>[1]: <a href="http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/" rel="nofollow">http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealt...</a><p>[3]: <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/the-pernicious-effects-of-gerrymandering/383418/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/the-pern...</a>
This point of an increasingly peaceful world has come up repeatedly over the years, but I think there is an inherent problem in the way it is viewed. The rise of the internet and social media has facilitated glimpses into the terrible acts which humans are capable of perpetrating against one another. That combined with a biased media who thrives on shock and outrage, it's no wonder we find this data difficult to digest. Most of the modern world influenced by this biased media reside in very sterile, largely safe environments. In effect, we've become ultra-sensitized to gore and violence, and as a result our impression and response to any sort of mayhem is skewed accordingly.
I wish this kind of data was frequently mentioned throughout the year in mainstream media. Continue to show the news the way they are but keep this kind of data around to jeep people "calibrated" I think would help people's perspective on the world more positive.
<i>Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey informed the Senate Armed Service Committee (in 2013), "I will personally attest to the fact that [the world is] more dangerous than it has ever been."</i> Now that's surprising from the head of the JCS, and from a former commander of an armored division in combat. He's a trade-school guy (West Point), so he knows his military history.<p>Things have been much, much worse for the US. Early in WWII, it didn't look good. When the USSR got ICBMs and H-bombs, it really didn't look good. Worldwide, nobody is having a really big war right now. The USSR lost 20 million people in WWII. Nothing that bad has happened since.<p>There are some big worries ahead, mainly regarding proliferation of nuclear weapons and troubles involving existing nuclear powers - Russia, China, Pakistan, and North Korea. Those are the things that can kill us.<p>Domestically, the biggest threat is the Mississippi River, with major floods both at New Orleans and further upstream.
I am increasingly worried about the state of the world each year.<p>However, I was discussing this with a friend recently and we were talking about how much of it was simple the result of more reports about the trouble in the world. I realized something: if there was, say, ten reports of really bad, violent crime in Denmark (where I am from -- population: 5 million people) per year, that would be very little. But even so, if I heard about each of them, it would be practically something really bad happening every month which would lead me to feel that things were going down the drain.<p>In other words, an unchanging constant violence rate would <i>seem</i> like a deterioration. And furthermore, if the type of violence was different every time, I would start to feel that all the different types of violence were on the rise.<p>So maybe my fear is not completely justified. But I still don't feel completely convinced.
The world can "fall apart" without people dying. For example, the ongoing currency wars.<p>You can also have violence without death. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are examples. Because these people are only tortured, and not murdered, is that considered "peaceful"?<p>And it also would depend on how far back you draw the data from. Is the Stalin famine of the 30s modern, or ancient? If we cast the data back to the 1600s, it's new. If we cast the data back to the 1920s, its old.<p>Some data sets in this article go back to the 60s, some go back to the 30s, some only back to the 90s. Maybe we need more data. Lets cast all the data sets back a few hundred years and look again.<p>Consider me unconvinced.
THIS IS TERRIBLE.<p>How can news agencies make any money if they can't scare people into hysterics that keep them glued to the TV screen?<p>How can gun companies and home security firms sell product if people aren't afraid of everything around them?<p>THIS KIND OF RESEARCH HARMS THE ECONOMY AND MUST BE STOPPED.<p>Sincerely,
Tom being cynical
I think a lot of this has to do with perception.<p>The violence and suffering in the world, particularly overseas, feels more inescapable in the digital, high definition, always connected age.<p>This age has gifted us perception, but not perspective.
It's simple, yes we might have less violence and your stats seem to make sense.
However, the reason you are right is because we are being more controlled by, I don't know world bank, countries, laws.
Today in Turkey they want to give the president the power to turn off the internet at will for 24 hours. There is news like this every day, ways to get more control and power over people.
There are 1 million camels in Australia, the government thinks that that is to much and they pay people to shoot them. So, one milion camels is too much for a whole continent but there is nothing wrong with having 8 billion people on earth, destroying just about everything, that is ok?
We have no choice in what is happening around us, most people I know would want their country to stop importing oil and find a greener alternative. This day an age that wouldn't be too hard. So why aren't we?
That is not in your equation!
We are destroying our oceans, atmosphere, finally the republicans are willing to talk about climate change, but all is still weight around money and cost.
The monetary system is broken and it is global. One little change effects one way or the other the entire globe.
If you ask me it all is hanging in a balance that is controlled by a few wealthy. And it is hanging on very thin strings these days.
By the way, homicide rates chart should account for age distribution. As population ages, the 18-40 age group dwindles. And, statistically, that is who dominates homicide deaths.<p>If you account for that, your chart may switch polarity.<p>Same for rapes.<p>As for "Democracy and Autocracy" - this chart comes from people who still call Uzbekistan a "young democracy". Actually, many supposedly democratic countries actually aren't.
A better title would have been "Progress isn't uniform, and measuring it is hard." Each war brings progress in trauma medicine, which contributes to making war (and driving) less deadly. That's good, right? Right?<p>Higher education requirements and increasing relative status as policing becomes a relatively more desirable job for people with lower (and capped) aptitude means policing gets better by many metrics. Nonetheless, militarization is a bad thing, solution rates are shockingly low, the Drug War is a distraction, and cop culture is rotten: <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/deader_than_a_roadkill_dog_disgusting_racist_song_about_michael_brown_performed_at_lapd_officers_charity_event/" rel="nofollow">http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/deader_than_a_roadkill_dog_d...</a><p>Some things are clear, however: Terrorism is a negligible threat. Nuclear weapons are still the #1 threat to civilization. But there is a lack of intentionality in both these areas.
Steven Pinker has built a writing career out of telling people who are doing really well that everything is fine and that they should keep on enjoying.
It`s the end of the world as we know it.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzqiPvGrkTo" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzqiPvGrkTo</a>
This article is pure link bait. Both ends of the extreme are far removed from the truth. There is hardly anything in this article that isn't sensationalist fluff.
This is a proof that there are lies, damn lies and statistics :).<p>World is in terrible shape, from climate, to new conflicts emerging, richest people detachment from reality are some that come to mind.
> England, Canada, and most other industrialized countries...<p>England isn't a country. Constantly referring to it as one, was a distraction from the contents for me.
Tell that to the 7000 Yezidian women in ISIS captivity marked with a price tag, paraded through Raqqa then gang-raped, tortured and starved. Forced to strangle themselves to death using scarves to get out.<p>Or the Female PKK/YPG soldiers defending their families being captured alive by Swedish Arabs and Somalians islamic rapists.<p>For them the world is falling apart.<p>I guess since we can't blame Israel for this it's not front-page news. But lets worry about about the lack of feminine characters in a Donald Duck video from the 70s or the apparent sexism in games.