The Last to Fall

[GGT]

Ah, UK celebrated their WWI vet's birthday! (He's got a great grin.)


To Khan--we've learned things and 'improved' diplomatic relations all over the globe, but there's still warring, torture, destruction and man-made suffering. War lords, drug lords, religious wars, the gun trade and weapons industry is doing pretty well....

Maybe you are tired of the doom 'n gloom, and it's comfy to think we're oh so smart and safe because the US isn't engaged in a declared war, but the reality is we've got military personnel all over the globe, and cyber 'wars' are here to stay.

Conflict and violence has escalated in our time, it doesn't have to be a coordinated effort by a government declaring war to affect our every day lives. Just ask airport security.

[EyeKhan]

Rate of war between 1914 and 1945: 3.3% in a given year between a set of relevant countries
Rate of war between 1946 and 2000: 0.5%

Rate of war between 1914 and 1945 in Europe: 4.7%
Rate of war between 1946 and 2000 in Europe: 0.2%

Needless to say, the fatality figures are down even more.

Please define what the metric Rate of War is.... thanks.

To Khan--we've learned things and 'improved' diplomatic relations all over the globe, but there's still warring, torture, destruction and man-made suffering. War lords, drug lords, religious wars, the gun trade and weapons industry is doing pretty well....

Maybe you are tired of the doom 'n gloom, and it's comfy to think we're oh so smart and safe because the US isn't engaged in a declared war, but the reality is we've got military personnel all over the globe, and cyber 'wars' are here to stay.

Conflict and violence has escalated in our time, it doesn't have to be a coordinated effort by a government declaring war to affect our every day lives. Just ask airport security.

Just answer this question: Taking into account what you know of human history, how we've treated each other over the past few thousand years, in general is the human race equally, or even more violent, murderous and cruel to itself today than in the recent to distant past? Yes or no.

[termite]

Rate of war between 1914 and 1945: 3.3% in a given year between a set of relevant countries
Rate of war between 1946 and 2000: 0.5%

Rate of war between 1914 and 1945 in Europe: 4.7%
Rate of war between 1946 and 2000 in Europe: 0.2%

Needless to say, the fatality figures are down even more.

There have been no empires since WW2 either - could there be a link?

[Loki]

War = a military conflict with over 1,000 battlefield fatalities
dyad = a pair of states
unit of analysis = contiguous dyads and all dyads involving great powers (of which there are 5) per year

E.G. There is a Germany-France dyad in 1950, 1951, 1952, etc. If they were at war for one year between 1950 and 1999 (I know they weren't), then the rate of war in that dyad would be 4%.

There have been no empires since WW2 either - could there be a link?

The rate of war has been decreasing since at least the 18th century, and this despite it becoming easier to meet the definition of war (i.e. much easier to kill 1,000 soldiers today than it was 300 years ago, especially since the size of most armies was only in the low thousands or at most tens of thousands).

[EyeKhan]

There have been no empires since WW2 either - could there be a link?

There's been a gradual economic knitting together of Europe (war mongering hot bed for millenia ) and the world since that time as well.

War = a military conflict with over 1,000 battlefield fatalities
dyad = a pair of states
unit of analysis = contiguous dyads and all dyads involving great powers (of which there are 5) per year

E.G. There is a Germany-France dyad in 1950, 1951, 1952, etc. If they were at war for one year between 1950 and 1999 (I know they weren't), then the rate of war in that dyad would be 4%.

LOL - that's a more complicated metric than I expected. I can't believe you posted those numbers without explaining what it was!

[Loki]

There's been a gradual economic knitting together of Europe (war mongering hot bed for millenia ) and the world since that time as well.

The same is true for the 19th century. And we ended up with two world wars afterward. There was actually more trade between Western European countries in 1913 than there was until the 1970s.

Edit: just to add the rate of war has plummeted everywhere (except for the Middle East and to a lesser extent, the rest of Asia). That can't be attributed solely to economic integration.

LOL - that's a more complicated metric than I expected. I can't believe you posted those numbers without explaining what it was!

That's why I just said the rate of wars, since that's not something that requires any background knowledge to understand. The point was the huge decrease, not what those numbers themselves mean.

[EyeKhan]

The same is true for the 19th century. And we ended up with two world wars afterward. There was actually more trade between Western European countries in 1913 than there was until the 1970s.

I'm under the impression that globalization, generally, has tamped down the potential for international conflict. And if you consider the EU - who would have believed that could happen a hundred years ago?

[Loki]

I'm under the impression that globalization, generally, has tamped down the potential for international conflict. And if you consider the EU - who would have believed that could happen a hundred years ago?

How would you explain the equally low rate of wars in Latin America then?

[LittleFuzzy]

War = a military conflict with over 1,000 battlefield fatalities
dyad = a pair of states
unit of analysis = contiguous dyads and all dyads involving great powers (of which there are 5) per year

E.G. There is a Germany-France dyad in 1950, 1951, 1952, etc. If they were at war for one year between 1950 and 1999 (I know they weren't), then the rate of war in that dyad would be 4%.



The rate of war has been decreasing since at least the 18th century, and this despite it becoming easier to meet the definition of war (i.e. much easier to kill 1,000 soldiers today than it was 300 years ago, especially since the size of most armies was only in the low thousands or at most tens of thousands).

Loki, you know that's a shitty metric, excluding all intrastate conflict (salient information in the period covering the break-up of Empire) and all sorts of other relevant material. Tell me you're at least using Louard rather than Small and Singer.

[Loki]

Loki, you know that's a shitty metric, excluding all intrastate conflict (salient information in the period covering the break-up of Empire) and all sorts of other relevant material. Tell me you're at least using Louard rather than Small and Singer.

We were talking about interstate wars, so civil wars are really not relevant. And look at where each dataset is hosted before asking that question.

[GGT]

Please define what the metric Rate of War is.... thanks.

You can get Loki et al to post numbers and stats all day long. It's almost like our discussions of unemployment rates instead of making observations about the actual people.

Just answer this question: Taking into account what you know of human history, how we've treated each other over the past few thousand years, in general is the human race equally, or even more violent, murderous and cruel to itself today than in the recent to distant past? Yes or no.

What a crappy dichotomy. It's like uber conservatives saying US poverty and hunger don't exist now, because we don't have bread lines like the 30s, and most everyone has shelter.


You left out a few elements I'd consider important in comparison--education, language, communication, hell--electricity! Yes, our first world lifestyles are better, yes we can help third worlds raise their standards of living, we 'get along' with millions more than ever before. We're better at impulse control and modifying our hive behaviors, sure.

But context matters, and we should know better about lots of things now, cruelty and violence among them. But we still argue about "what is torture, what is rape, what is exploitation", etc.

I'm surprised you're now swinging away from your standard "it's the Human Condition!" or "we have no Free Will!" to claim we had the Will to change what our animal instincts look like in the 21st century

I recognize we are still aggressive, violent, angry, fighting people. It just looks prettier than huns or vikings....

[LittleFuzzy]

We were talking about interstate wars, so civil wars are really not relevant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your metric DOES exclude the '82 Falklands War, right? Since it wasn't 1,000+ battlefield fatalities?

[Loki]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your metric DOES exclude the '82 Falklands War, right? Since it wasn't 1,000+ battlefield fatalities?

No one claimed it was a perfect measure. There were plenty of conflicts in the 19th century that didn't count as wars due to fewer than 1000 fatalities. Anyway, half of my current research is on MIDs, and those do count all military disputes.

Results from Uppsala (interstate wars) show a similar trend, though it only covers the post-WWII period: http://www.prio.no/CSCW/Datasets/Armed-Conflict

[LittleFuzzy]

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking this discussion was taking place in the Falklands thread, and using a set of criteria there which excluded the prior conflict had me boggled.

[Loki]

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking this discussion was taking place in the Falklands thread, and using a set of criteria there which excluded the prior conflict had me boggled.

Would you like a similar analysis of level 4 MIDs (uses of force)?

[EyeKhan]

You can get Loki et al to post numbers and stats all day long. It's almost like our discussions of unemployment rates instead of making observations about the actual people.

Metrics can be useful especially if you're interested in measuring something rather than trading annecdotes.

What a crappy dichotomy.

Crappy or not, its relevant - much more so than what else you say. So yes or no? Is humanity as cruel and violent to itself, or more so, today as it has been over its history? If Nessus is right and we have learned nothing then the answer should be obvious. Why won't you answer it?

I'm surprised you're now swinging away from your standard "it's the Human Condition!" or "we have no Free Will!" to claim we had the Will to change what our animal instincts look like in the 21st century

I recognize we are still aggressive, violent, angry, fighting people. It just looks prettier than huns or vikings....

Cultural evolution is part of the Human Condition. I don't believe humanity can't get better vis a vis cruelty and violence. I think to deny we are better today than we were 30 / 60 / 90 / 500 / 2000 years ago completely flys in the face of observed reality. And Free Will? No, we don't have Free Will, but that doesn't mean we don't change and evolve.

How would you explain the equally low rate of wars in Latin America then?

Less proxy wrangling resulting from the fall of the USSR.
HOw would you explain in?

[Loki]

For Fuzzball:
Rate of use of force between 1816 and 1870: 2.2%
Rate of use of force between 1871 and 1913: 1.7%
Rate of use of force between 1914 and 1945: 6.8%
Rate of use of force between 1946 and 2000: 3.1%

Rate of use of force between 1816 and 1870 in Europe: 1.6%
Rate of use of force between 1871 and 1913 in Europe: 1.2%
Rate of use of force between 1914 and 1945 in Europe: 8.5%
Rate of use of force between 1946 and 2000 in Europe: 2.1%

Use of force being when a country uses its military to attack another country, whether that causes any casualties or not (all wars are uses of force, but most uses of force are not wars).

Rate of war between 1816 and 1870: 1.1%
Rate of war between 1871 and 1913: 0.4%
Rate of war between 1914 and 1945: 3.3%
Rate of war between 1946 and 2000: 0.5%

Interesting. Looks like the use of force has actually increased if you exclude the world war era, though wars have continued the downward trend (or at least stabilized).

[Loki]

Metrics can be useful especially if you're interested in measuring something rather than trading annecdotes.

Crappy or not, its relevant - much more so than what else you say. So yes or no? Is humanity as cruel and violent to itself, or more so, today as it has been over its history? If Nessus is right and we have learned nothing then the answer should be obvious. Why won't you answer it?

Cultural evolution is part of the Human Condition. I don't believe humanity can't get better vis a vis cruelty and violence. I think to deny we are better today than we were 30 / 60 / 90 / 500 / 2000 years ago completely flys in the face of observed reality. And Free Will? No, we don't have Free Will, but that doesn't mean we don't change and evolve.

Less proxy wrangling resulting from the fall of the USSR.
HOw would you explain in?

There haven't really been wars there since WWII. Rate of wars in the Americas:

1816 to 1870: 1.5%
1871 to 1913: 0.2%
1914 to 1945: 0.5%
1946 to 2000: 0.1%

Compare that to the rates of war in Europe (lower in each time period, including about 6 times lower since WWII). I'd say the degree of American dominance is a major reason (not because it's America, but just the sheer difference between the strength of the US and everyone else in the region).

[EyeKhan]

There haven't really been wars there since WWII. Rate of wars in the Americas:

1816 to 1870: 1.5%
1871 to 1913: 0.2%
1914 to 1945: 0.5%
1946 to 2000: 0.1%

Compare that to the rates of war in Europe (lower in each time period, including about 6 times lower since WWII). I'd say the degree of American dominance is a major reason (not because it's America, but just the sheer difference between the strength of the US and everyone else in the region).

I was thinking of insurgencies and civil wars. I think those were largely proxy fights.

[GGT]

Metrics can be useful especially if you're interested in measuring something rather than trading annecdotes.

Crappy or not, its relevant - much more so than what else you say. So yes or no? Is humanity as cruel and violent to itself, or more so, today as it has been over its history? If Nessus is right and we have learned nothing then the answer should be obvious. Why won't you answer it?

I thought I'd answered. It's not about right or wrong, but if you prefer, I'll answer "Same".

Cultural evolution is part of the Human Condition. I don't believe humanity can't get better vis a vis cruelty and violence. I think to deny we are better today than we were 30 / 60 / 90 / 500 / 2000 years ago completely flys in the face of observed reality. And Free Will? No, we don't have Free Will, but that doesn't mean we don't change and evolve.

Then we view it differently, that's all. More lifestyles are better, more people are educated, more live longer than ever before--I already said that. We still have domestic violence, rape, murder, child molestation, road rage, chemical weapons, biological weapons, suicide bombers, etc. We know better and should behave better, we can't use the excuse of ignorance any more.


'Observed reality'? Funny you mention that, since I just turned on CNN to find a simulated exercise, a cyber attack with massive loss of electrical power (cyber.shockwave) and a panel of experts discussing the hypothetical responses. Retaliation, intelligence gathering, infrastructure collapse and rioting, civil unrest, rationing, medical triage, the whole bit.

[Loki]

I was thinking of insurgencies and civil wars. I think those were largely proxy fights.

Actually, civil wars make it more likely that a country will get involved in an interstate wars. Practically speaking, no country except for the US had the capacity to invade Latin America. And given America's strength, it also means no country in Latin America would have gotten away with trying to conquer any other country in Latin America. Since the gains of the wars would be minimal, it didn't really make sense to start any. The biggest exception there is the Falklands war, and that was pure idiocy by the Argentinian junta (or perhaps they were truly desperate domestically).

[Steely Glint]

Interesting. Looks like the use of force has actually increased if you exclude the world war era, though wars have continued the downward trend (or at least stabilized).

How does one define 'war' as opposed to 'use of force'?

[Nessus]

How does one define 'war' as opposed to 'use of force'?

So that it best supports whatever point one is trying to make, I suppose

[Loki]

How does one define 'war' as opposed to 'use of force'?

A war is a use of force that results in at least 1000 fatalities. America bombing Libya would be a use of force. Border clashes between countries would be a use of force. America's bombing of Iraq in '95 would be a use of force. Meanwhile, the Iraq War and the Iran-Iraq War are wars because they involve uses of force that result in over 1,000 battlefield dead. Again, the definitions are obviously arbitrary, but they're applied consistently.

[EyeKhan]

I thought I'd answered. It's not about right or wrong, but if you prefer, I'll answer "Same".

OH COME ON! The SAME?!?!?! Do you have any idea what went on in WW2? What about when slavery was open and legal world wide???? European colonization? What about the two-continent-spanning genocide of the native Americans from the day Columbus and crew moved into Hispanola and started using the people with less care than we use a kitchen appliance? You really think humanity is as cruel to each other today as the Romans were to their conquered people? To their slaves? With gladiators murdering and fighting to the death in the arenas for everyone's amusement? Their criminals nailed to crosses? Genocide use to be the rule for settling human differences, today its very much the excption.

We still have domestic violence, rape,

A hundred years ago women were still treated as property everywhere, not just the "backward" cultures of the world. You think Western Culture's about the same in that regard as it was 100, 300 or more years ago?????

chemical weapons,

except in ww1 they actually USED them. BIG difference than just keeping them in a warehous somewhere as a detterant.

We know better and should behave better,

We DO behave better, on balance. A LOT better.

'Observed reality'? Funny you mention that, since I just turned on CNN to find a simulated exercise, a cyber attack with massive loss of electrical power (cyber.shockwave) and a panel of experts discussing the hypothetical responses. Retaliation, intelligence gathering, infrastructure collapse and rioting, civil unrest, rationing, medical triage, the whole bit.

This has no bearing on actual mutual human cruelty. Its emergency preparedness ffs. Not actually DOING it.

[Loki]

Speaking of rape and murder, I saw a nice chart detailing the rape and murder rate in England from the 15th century to the present. The rate of those crimes are far, far, far lower now than they used to be.

[GGT]

Maybe you do need that angry pill with your morning coffee (Kahn).



Yes, I'm sure the collection of rape and murder data in 15th century England was comprehensive.

[Loki]

At which point will you realize that saying that something occurs is not proof that the rate of it occurring has not changed?

[GGT]

At which point will you realize that saying that something occurs is not proof that the rate of it occurring has not changed?

About the same time you realize that's not what I've been talking about. You're using numbers and metrics, fine. Go write a research paper.

This thread took off with What have we learned?

I'm saying we've learned how to fight in new ways, seemingly benign ways. There are still attempts at genocide (some want to wipe Israel off the map, remember?), religious wars, various forms of slavery, sex slaves, yadayada.


<anecdote: I grew up hiding under school desks to prepare for nuclear fall-out. Now they have bars on the doors, CCTV, code reds, police patrol the hallways. People blow up schools and shoot kids and teachers. We know more and educate better....but the overall picture hasn't changed that much. The ability of one loony tunes to take out thousands of people tips the scale. They don't have to be part of an army or government.>

[Loki]

Well there's still slavery in the world, so I guess we haven't learned that slavery is bad.