Despite appearances, world is safer?

[A-R]

Noticed this story on AP news feed today and thought it would make an interesting basis for some discussion:

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16026/content ... d=3p4OIYbH" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a nutshell, some statisticians have "proved" the world we live in today is "safer" by far than at any other time in human history, despite what we see on the news every night, etc.

I don't have a dog in this fight necessarily, just thought it would make interesting discussion in a forum dedicated to how to best defend ourselves from a "dangerous world".

[RPB]

Obviously it isn't totally safe, as evidenced by Intelligent beings from other planets not coming to visit here yet.
I"ll "feel" safer when I see Spock on the Enterprise.
"Safer" is a comparative word, so I guess we aren't "safer" than the Planet Vulcan.

Safer than we used to be? depends, I suppose CCI snake shot ammo has made it safer (than it used to be) from snakes.

[A-R]

I suppose CCI snake shot ammo has made it safer (than it used to be) from snakes.

Unless you're on a plane with Samuel L. Jackson

darnit, not a single line I can quote from that "movie" on this forum either

[DEB]

I guess it depends on "who's" perspective. I just got through watching Kimjongilia, about North Korea. In the documentary it showed North Koreans singing, during the worst of the famine, how although they don't eat too often at least they aren't as bad off as the South Koreans and other Capitalists. Media can be your enemy. Mexicans would probably disagree as well. But, I believe we are safer in the US than before. More right to carry states, thanks Wisconsin. Also, I can now drive from the border of Mexico to the border of Canada and not disarm. I feel, if not safer, at least in more control of my safety.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

In a nutshell, some statisticians have "proved" the world we live in today is "safer" by far than at any other time in human history.....

Uh.....

I don't recall humanity having the capability to detonate weapons capable of engulfing the entire surface of the earth with radioactive materials harmful to all living beings prior to about....oh, 1945 or so.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[Heartland Patriot]

The world can be a MORE dangerous place and a SAFER place...here is how. There are a LOT of people on this planet now. A very good percentage of them will NOT have something violent or dangerous happen to them. However, INDIVIDUALS the world over still have violence perpetrated upon them on a daily basis. This varies, of course, from place to place. In small town USA, the violence is random and unpredictable...indeed, a large portion of the USA is that way. SOME areas of the USA are noted for violence and danger; most of us stay away from those places and lower our risk of coming into contact with that likely violence. In some places like Afghanistan, Somalia, or other third world hot spots violence is pretty endemic...and yet there are still folks there that very well may not experience violence. So, what I'm getting at is that even though the world may indeed be SAFE-ER, it is not SAFE...bad things can still happen to you and you can't completely control that. Once again, I carry because I believe "it is better to have and not need, than need and not have". It doesn't KEEP me safe, it just tips the odds towards my favor a bit. WE don't have a crystal ball, we can't know if we are going to run into potential random violent events/individuals, and we can only prepare in a prudent manner...no matter how SAFE-ER the world might be.

[txjim42]

This certainly doesn't mean the world is safer. Ongoing improvements in the ability and precision to kinetically reach out and touch key targets without having to first step through piles of bodies, as in the past, likely plays some part in overall reduction in violent deaths. Key threats can be more directly and precisely dealt with while leaving sheep to be sheep.

Since most healthy and rational people aren't in in a hurry to meet their maker, those in high position with the ability to significantly impact humanity might now give pause to consider public response to their decisions.

Regarding statistics... Statistics may be a science, but an artist can artist can paint them in such a way to support their desired outcome. I've seen this first-hand and have been amazed at some of the "baloney" that gets published, especially in matters of revenue and revenue forecasting. Many of the best such artists hold titles like CEO, CFO, CIO, salesman, author, professor, student...

[C-dub]

In a nutshell, some statisticians have "proved" the world we live in today is "safer" by far than at any other time in human history.....

Uh.....

I don't recall humanity having the capability to detonate weapons capable of engulfing the entire surface of the earth with radioactive materials harmful to all living beings prior to about....oh, 1945 or so.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, other than that, maybe.

[74novaman]

And the "poor, underprivileged" 99% protesters who are better off than probably 90% of the world are still mad at people richer than them.

Yes, we're safer than say a caveman fighting off a saber tooth tiger.

No, that doesn't mean people are going to stop complaining about their situation.

Even if we're statistically safer than any other time in history, we're not 100% safe. So I still carry.

[MeMelYup]

A good article but I think the author is wrong in the assumption that aggression is being educated out of society. I know he is wrong about Terrorism.

"Terrorism doesn't account for many deaths. Sept. 11 was just off the scale. There was never a terrorist attack before or after that had as many deaths. What it does is generate fear,"

What was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941? A terrorist act, or an act of war, it was both and so was 9/11. There were many more lives lost at Pearl Harbor than on 9/11.

[The Annoyed Man]

In a nutshell, some statisticians have "proved" the world we live in today is "safer" by far than at any other time in human history.....

Uh.....

I don't recall humanity having the capability to detonate weapons capable of engulfing the entire surface of the earth with radioactive materials harmful to all living beings prior to about....oh, 1945 or so.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[humor]
You'd be wrong. The ability to "engulf the entire surface of the earth with radioactive materials harmful to all living beings didn't come about until about 3 or 4 years later. For the first 3 or 4 years of the atomic age, we could only engulf entire cities with radioactive materials harmful to all living beings.
[/humor]

[The Annoyed Man]

A good article but I think the author is wrong in the assumption that aggression is being educated out of society. I know he is wrong about Terrorism.

"Terrorism doesn't account for many deaths. Sept. 11 was just off the scale. There was never a terrorist attack before or after that had as many deaths. What it does is generate fear,"

What was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 7, 1941? A terrorist act, or an act of war, it was both and so was 9/11. There were many more lives lost at Pearl Harbor than on 9/11.

Not true at all. Here is the loss of life from Pearl Harbor:

US Navy: 2,008 KIA
USMC: 109 KIA
US Army: 218 KIA
Civilians: 68

Total: 2,403

Here is the loss of life from 9/11:

TOTAL COUNT 2,976
minus foreigners - 236
AMERICANS 2,740 (still higher than Pearl Harbor, even after subtracting the deaths of foreign nationals.... which is a stupid and pointless exercise, since they are just as dead and murdered as the American dead)

Of the total dead, 246 were on board the aircraft, 2,606 were at the WTC, and 125 were at the Pentagon.

Of the 2,403 killed at Pearl Harbor 68 were civilians. Of the 2,976 killed on 9/11, 2,921 were civilians.

You really shouldn't try to diminish those deaths, or the impact that the attack had on the nation. It isn't seemly.

[Oldgringo]

In a nutshell, some statisticians have "proved" the world we live in today is "safer" by far than at any other time in human history.....

Uh.....

I don't recall humanity having the capability to detonate weapons capable of engulfing the entire surface of the earth with radioactive materials harmful to all living beings prior to about....oh, 1945 or so.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[humor]
You'd be wrong. The ability to "engulf the entire surface of the earth with radioactive materials harmful to all living beings didn't come about until about 3 or 4 years later. For the first 3 or 4 years of the atomic age, we could only engulf entire cities with radioactive materials harmful to all living beings.
[/humor]

Speaking of which, take a look at today's Nagasaki and today's Hiroshimo as compared to today's Detroit. The two Japanese cities were atom bombed some 66 years ago and they most definitely have risen from the ashes. What caused the ongoing destruction of Detroit?

[steelhawk]

I feel so much better knowing that the world is safer now. In fact, I think I will take a road trip and walk around in some major cities after dark. There should be no problem whatsoever. I'll start with Los Angeles and move east.

After I have safely visited a dozen major US cities, I'll head to the middle east and do the same there.