15-01-2015, 12:39 PM
Interesting.
However, I personally find his statistical assertions really questionable and wonder what objectivity he actually brings to the table? War has changed and is changing all the time. There are lots of wars that have never been declared as wars. Has Pinker included these, I wonder?
WWI casualties amounted to over 36 million - 16 million deaths and 20 million wounded. WWII resulted in a minimum of 40 million deaths - depending on who you consult - with a higher estimate of 85 million (and until recent years Russian deaths had been heftily underestimated as I recall?).
WWII remains the highest death rate in human history according to the Wiki page on the subject. It lasted 6 years. The next highest figure was the Three Kingdoms war in China at the end of the Han Empire with 36 million deaths. That lasted 96 years. This clearly demonstrates the assertion that we industrialized war. Were WWII to have lasted 96 years and using the lower estimated death rate, then deaths would have amounted to 536 million. Which just goes to serve that statistics can be manipulated to prove anything you want them to.
What we can see from the table presented by Wiki is an ever increasing death rate over the centuries - with a few exceptions - from the 19th century onwards. I haven't bothered to do the exercise, but I think that if you were to add together all the numbers from the 19th century to date, the figures would greatly outnumber all the rest put together. Industrialization of war has been a game changer. And man has, sadly continued his long penchant for war and destruction despite the civilizing influence in many other quarters of human endeavour.
The Romans aren't included in the Wiki page because no one knows the number of deaths over their period of empire. But I very much doubt they would have any meaningful impact on the pattern mentioned above.
Meanwhile, I include in my general theory civilians deaths caused by starvation and other blights (drug wars, uprising from oppression etc., which he wouldn't include, I think) when we have the means to feed the world, but not the desire to do so, because it would impact upon corporate profits and also lead to a higher world population figure -- not to forget the immense number of deaths in China caused by Chairman Mao.
However, I personally find his statistical assertions really questionable and wonder what objectivity he actually brings to the table? War has changed and is changing all the time. There are lots of wars that have never been declared as wars. Has Pinker included these, I wonder?
WWI casualties amounted to over 36 million - 16 million deaths and 20 million wounded. WWII resulted in a minimum of 40 million deaths - depending on who you consult - with a higher estimate of 85 million (and until recent years Russian deaths had been heftily underestimated as I recall?).
WWII remains the highest death rate in human history according to the Wiki page on the subject. It lasted 6 years. The next highest figure was the Three Kingdoms war in China at the end of the Han Empire with 36 million deaths. That lasted 96 years. This clearly demonstrates the assertion that we industrialized war. Were WWII to have lasted 96 years and using the lower estimated death rate, then deaths would have amounted to 536 million. Which just goes to serve that statistics can be manipulated to prove anything you want them to.
What we can see from the table presented by Wiki is an ever increasing death rate over the centuries - with a few exceptions - from the 19th century onwards. I haven't bothered to do the exercise, but I think that if you were to add together all the numbers from the 19th century to date, the figures would greatly outnumber all the rest put together. Industrialization of war has been a game changer. And man has, sadly continued his long penchant for war and destruction despite the civilizing influence in many other quarters of human endeavour.
The Romans aren't included in the Wiki page because no one knows the number of deaths over their period of empire. But I very much doubt they would have any meaningful impact on the pattern mentioned above.
Meanwhile, I include in my general theory civilians deaths caused by starvation and other blights (drug wars, uprising from oppression etc., which he wouldn't include, I think) when we have the means to feed the world, but not the desire to do so, because it would impact upon corporate profits and also lead to a higher world population figure -- not to forget the immense number of deaths in China caused by Chairman Mao.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14