Re: We're so f*cked
Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:10 pmSo far, Hurf, we've seen one graph from OurWorldInData, and two academic reports, one from HSRG and one from the World Bank. Both reports conclude, multiple times, that war has declined significantly in scope and frequency in general, and disappeared almost entirely between major powers. In addition, we have also discussed Pinkers work - well, we haven't really discussed it, you have merely pointed out that it has been criticised and left it at that. Finally, I pointed you towards a sort of metastudy that cites 12 other studies that say the same thing.
At no point in this discussion have you provided any resource to support your contentions. In fact, you haven't presented a single argument about any of the opinions presented, nor have you provided a single resource that actually concludes what you have about those opinions.
I said the West has annihilated disease, and then provided you with about a dozen diseases that have been annihilated. You then claim that isn't an argument. I'm not sure why that isn't an argument - perhaps you concluded that I meant that the West has annihilated ALL disease, which is an obviously ridiculous interpretation that no reasonable person could seriously suggest.
I said that the West has decreased poverty. I provided a graph demonstrating this. I am also able to provide literally dozens of studies confirming the same, which is kind of funny, because literally all it takes to conclude that poverty is drastically down is to be aware that India and China (who account for nearly half of the global population) exist. You proceeded to ignore this. The next obvious step, I suppose, is to argue that they dragged themselves up by their own bootstraps and the Western globalization movement and Western FDI had little to do with it.
I said that the West fed the world. I cited a number of facts - the biggest being that the West is by far the largest exporter of cereals and grains on the planet, and that these food groups account for the bulk of the global populations diet. I further provided evidence that the US government had deliberately and freely provided scientific expertise and funding, resulting in yield increases by a factor as high as 8-10, sparking a literal revolution in agriculture.
Your rebuttal was that it doesn't count because it was a scientific venture. This sidesteps one of my larger points (you can't have a global liberal order capable of these actions without engaging in some degree of violence - something that should be plainly obvious considering this happened in the midst of the Cold War and immediately after WWII) but does not address it. Further, it simply doesn't make sense intuitively - it took literally decades for European agriculture to return following WWII, and at that point, India and China were basically starving by self-imposed famine. By process of elimination, who is left to feed the world? 1960s Africa?
At the end of the day, what we have here is a clear and obvious example of ideology overriding basic knowledge and historical consensus. All you have actually argued is that WWII is an outlier - which is hilarious, because if we excluded it on those grounds, the last century was dramatically less violent than any century other than this one. Which would again prove you wrong.
So, to conclude, f**k off Hurf.
At no point in this discussion have you provided any resource to support your contentions. In fact, you haven't presented a single argument about any of the opinions presented, nor have you provided a single resource that actually concludes what you have about those opinions.
I said the West has annihilated disease, and then provided you with about a dozen diseases that have been annihilated. You then claim that isn't an argument. I'm not sure why that isn't an argument - perhaps you concluded that I meant that the West has annihilated ALL disease, which is an obviously ridiculous interpretation that no reasonable person could seriously suggest.
I said that the West has decreased poverty. I provided a graph demonstrating this. I am also able to provide literally dozens of studies confirming the same, which is kind of funny, because literally all it takes to conclude that poverty is drastically down is to be aware that India and China (who account for nearly half of the global population) exist. You proceeded to ignore this. The next obvious step, I suppose, is to argue that they dragged themselves up by their own bootstraps and the Western globalization movement and Western FDI had little to do with it.
I said that the West fed the world. I cited a number of facts - the biggest being that the West is by far the largest exporter of cereals and grains on the planet, and that these food groups account for the bulk of the global populations diet. I further provided evidence that the US government had deliberately and freely provided scientific expertise and funding, resulting in yield increases by a factor as high as 8-10, sparking a literal revolution in agriculture.
Your rebuttal was that it doesn't count because it was a scientific venture. This sidesteps one of my larger points (you can't have a global liberal order capable of these actions without engaging in some degree of violence - something that should be plainly obvious considering this happened in the midst of the Cold War and immediately after WWII) but does not address it. Further, it simply doesn't make sense intuitively - it took literally decades for European agriculture to return following WWII, and at that point, India and China were basically starving by self-imposed famine. By process of elimination, who is left to feed the world? 1960s Africa?
At the end of the day, what we have here is a clear and obvious example of ideology overriding basic knowledge and historical consensus. All you have actually argued is that WWII is an outlier - which is hilarious, because if we excluded it on those grounds, the last century was dramatically less violent than any century other than this one. Which would again prove you wrong.
So, to conclude, f**k off Hurf.