Why don't we kill those guys?

[Warren Dew]

Also, I cannot recall any point at which he prognosticated about the future. All he says, is that people who believe in the notion of the noble savage and more primitive societies being less violent are wrong. Unlike those people he has underpinned his stance with statistics, concrete evidence and educated estimates.

Valid point. I guess it's others that are doing the extrapolating.

In a way, I'm extrapolating his trends, too. All of his trends of declining violence occur over time frames where the carrying capacity was increasing faster than the human population, so I'm just extrapolating a reversal of the violence trend when the carrying capacity trend reverses.

[Blind groper]

Crumple

That is like saying the streets are safer if armed and violent gangs are present.
America plays the role of the armed and violent gang.

The USA is very much a statistical outlier compared to the rest of the developed and western nations. It has a much higher homicide rate (4.8 killings per 100,000 people per year compared to the more typical Australia at 1.16, for example). It engages in armed conflict at a rate far greater than any other western nation. It has a ridiculously high rate of religious belief (90% of Americans believe in a personal God). It has more corruption in politics and the police. It refuses to engage in obviously sensible policies like adopting the metric system. In terms of wealth and sophistication, the US is definitely part of the western world. In terms of social behaviour, it is very often more like Russia, Jamaica, or one of the other "less civilised" nations.

It makes me weep to hear the arrogance of those who claim America is the world's policeman, or that we all depend on its agression to make the world a better place. The reality is diametrically opposite.

[Atheist-Lite]

Crumple

That is like saying the streets are safer if armed and violent gangs are present.
America plays the role of the armed and violent gang.

The USA is very much a statistical outlier compared to the rest of the developed and western nations. It has a much higher homicide rate (4.8 killings per 100,000 people per year compared to the more typical Australia at 1.16, for example). It engages in armed conflict at a rate far greater than any other western nation. It has a ridiculously high rate of religious belief (90% of Americans believe in a personal God). It has more corruption in politics and the police. It refuses to engage in obviously sensible policies like adopting the metric system. In terms of wealth and sophistication, the US is definitely part of the western world. In terms of social behaviour, it is very often more like Russia, Jamaica, or one of the other "less civilised" nations.

It makes me weep to hear the arrogance of those who claim America is the world's policeman, or that we all depend on its agression to make the world a better place. The reality is diametrically opposite.

It is the big bully that keeps all the other bullies at bay. A necessary evil. It took hundreds of years to rebuild a semblance of civilization after the fall of Rome.

[Ian]

Crumple

That is like saying the streets are safer if armed and violent gangs are present.
America plays the role of the armed and violent gang.

The USA is very much a statistical outlier compared to the rest of the developed and western nations. It has a much higher homicide rate (4.8 killings per 100,000 people per year compared to the more typical Australia at 1.16, for example). It engages in armed conflict at a rate far greater than any other western nation. It has a ridiculously high rate of religious belief (90% of Americans believe in a personal God). It has more corruption in politics and the police. It refuses to engage in obviously sensible policies like adopting the metric system. In terms of wealth and sophistication, the US is definitely part of the western world. In terms of social behaviour, it is very often more like Russia, Jamaica, or one of the other "less civilised" nations.

It makes me weep to hear the arrogance of those who claim America is the world's policeman, or that we all depend on its agression to make the world a better place. The reality is diametrically opposite.

I think your stats are a little off. Firstly, 90% can't believe in a personal God if at least 16% already claim to be atheist or agnostic (and many others are "Christian" only in a very token sense; I know plenty of these). Corruption rates are also rather low, as per UN statistics. Refusing to adopt to the metric system is a valid point... as long as we're also going to get on the UK's case for persistently refusing to drive on the right side of the road.

As for the world's policeman job, I would claim that the US has a certain responsibility in that regard only because few others ever care to do anything about it. Since the Cold War ended, Europe seems to be in the midst of a well-earned vacation away from history. This is why they couldn't be moved to decisiveness even when a genocide broke out in their own back yard, after Yugoslavia fell apart in the early 90s; in the end, Tony Blair had to lobby and goad Bill Clinton into the mess. It's why no Navy in Europe was even capable of intervening on short notice in Liberia when its civil war started to explode in the summer of 2003 (I was onboard the ship that raced around the whole continent, from the Gulf of Oman, to put Marines in, after being begged to by the UN. Liberia's been doing much better ever since, thanks). And despite their own interests in intervening in the Libyan upheaval, the European contingent of NATO didn't seem capable of organizing a wedding without American involvement. In other words, a good case can be made that apathy can cost even more than interventionism.

[laklak]

It makes me weep to hear the arrogance of those who claim America is the world's policeman, or that we all depend on its agression to make the world a better place. The reality is diametrically opposite.

Lol. Pull the other one.

[Tero]

Yougoslavia was a strange case. Somalia I can see, but states with modern homes and cars generally don't fall apart that badly.

Tito had more control in the old days but I guess it was too multicultural.

[Atheist-Lite]

Yougoslavia was a strange case. Somalia I can see, but states with modern homes and cars generally don't fall apart that badly.

Tito had more control in the old days but I guess it was too multicultural.

Serbians are a vindictive lot and Croats are wind-up merchants. It was a accident waiting to happen. Like New Yorkers and Texans.

[Pappa]

Tero, which tribes are mentioned in the book? There is/was a huge amount of variability among Amazonian tribes. The Shuar/Jivaro were probably the most violent recorded, but they're not representative of Amazonian cultures as a whole.

Polynesian studies done decades after the first studies showed that tribes that had been peaceful were often now very violent, and perhaps vice versa. The variation may be over time rather than tribe dependent: when there are enough people that resources are stretched, the violence begins; when the population drops, you get peace for a few decades as people focus on sex instead of violence.

I wonder if peak oil is marking the start of a period of rising violence worldwide.

Aside from the Yanomami not being particularly representative of Amazonian cultures in general, like most Amazonian tribes they suffered a lot from Western influence long before Europeans turned up in their territories. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article, western trade goods arrived long before the people, and many of those goods (like axes and machetes) would have caused major changes by their presence. Also the displacement caused by the arrival of Europeans would have had very distant knock-on effects. I forget the name, but there was a culture living in what's been described as a "city" on Brazilian Rio Negro that was completely destroyed (probably) by western influence long before the first explorer or missionary turned up in the area.

[Atheist-Lite]

Those who can say most with fewest words will always rule the rest. Resources are linguistic constructs. People will starve themselves for ideals in which they believe.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is clearly bullshit. Only America and Britain can act savagely. The rest of the peoples, especially noble primitives, are good and cannot therefore act in an ignoble manner.

[Blind groper]

I think your stats are a little off. Firstly, 90% can't believe in a personal God if at least 16% already claim to be atheist or agnostic (and many others are "Christian" only in a very token sense; I know plenty of these). Corruption rates are also rather low, as per UN statistics.

The percentage religious will vary according to which survey you quote. I quoted 90% from the last survey results i checked. You may find another survey with slightly different results. Without meaning to be rude, big deal!

Corruption rates are low if you choose who you compare it to. My comparison is to other western advanced nations. Like Canada, Australia, Britain, Germany etc. If your comparison is to Russia, Cambodia, and Columbia, then the USA can look pretty good.

Your views on the world policemen job would be refuted by at least 90% of all the peoples of the world. It is quite simple. The world does not want the USA to act as world policeman. We can sort out our own problems, with a lot less harm than when the US butts in.

The one time that the USA is justified in acting in this role is when the international community asks it to. Mainly meaning the United Nations. Any time the US acts against the wishes of that wider community, it is in the wrong. In other words, most of the time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is clearly bullshit. Only America and Britain can act savagely. The rest of the peoples, especially noble primitives, are good and cannot therefore act in an ignoble manner.

BTW, you have a good Memorial Day.

[Tyrannical]

There was a lot of discussion of guns and racism in the Zimmerman topic.

Guys do not need a reason to kill:
http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2012/01/ ... ntion.html

It is often very trivial. It is in our genes that killing impresses the guys in your tribe. There is a book about primitive man
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recov ... 1594200793

There they look at S American primitive tribes. The men get bored. The jungle provides all the food they need. To get some excitement in their life the men go and kill a few men, or all, in the neighboring village. They may do some hunting for extra protein but essentially the men are useless. They are only needed for mating. So they amuse themselves and make it seem like they are needed for "protection." In that case, there is no racism, the villages are of the same race, sometimes speaking slightly different dialects. But essentially the same people.

Gosh Tero, how refreshing that it seems you are going through the early motions of finally "getting it". Did you come up with that paragraph by yourself or did you read it somewhere? Because that is the exact same theory behind Black African behavior also. A cultural and genetic feedback loop where anti-social behaviors are positively selected for.
You can take the savage out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the savage, or so goes the old saying

[Tero]

It's somewhere in that book. I just made up some details, but generally the war is what their culture demands.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is clearly bullshit. Only America and Britain can act savagely. The rest of the peoples, especially noble primitives, are good and cannot therefore act in an ignoble manner.

BTW, you have a good Memorial Day.

And you as well, sir.

Any plans?