Do you understand proportionality? This is how all rates of crime work.

Do you understand proportionality? — Emptyheady

Yes I do, but I also understand the effect that the size of the population has on proportionality. You don't seem to understand it.

Counter-clockwise

I voted "Other" because I honestly don't know.

What might improve upon things...?
Educating and informing, generally available, and throwing misinformation in the bin.
Looking after each other, and our environments long-term.
Those kinds of things.

Think about it. To kill 10% in today's world, you'd have to kill 700 million people. That's not easy. Pretty much the only way to do that is to throw a nuclear bomb. And probably you have to throw more than one.

To kill 10% in a tribe of 100 people, it's sufficient that you have a lunatic who goes on a rampage one night, and the deed is (more than) done. That doesn't mean that one society is more peaceful than the other. It means that the lunatic has a larger effect percentage wise in one case, because the population is small. Thus, in terms of percentage, the larger society is more protected from the lunatic as an effect of its size.

You're a smart guy but it's a pity to see you listening to this sort of crap without thinking about it. You must think in practical terms regarding data. Data is never telling the truth. Data is mostly irrelevant. Go back to the basics. Use your imagination. What are/is the process that could give rise to such a data? That is the relevant question. Analyse mechanisms that could lead to such data, and see which mechanism is most likely to be the case. Don't just look at data, scratch your head, and ask what is this data telling us. You can, and you will many times be given data to trick you into a certain way of acting. You have to understand where that data is coming from, and how in practical terms it comes about, because quite often it may not be the first answer that comes to mind. Giving someone data is a very easy way to fool them in today's world. Data is very easy to produce, manufacture, and sell as fact.

The tragedy of the commons is a fairly fundamental result of non-regulation.
Seems like a good reason for cooperation.
A thoroughly "back to nature" move (and similar) isn't really much of an improvement, more a kind of romanticising.

Y'all need to open a book about economics.

Tragedy of commons is a fundamental problem of non-private property -- it is a tragedy of communal ownership you dips.

What direction is the world heading in?

What is the right direction, by the way?

Imo human flourishing.

Quantifiable: reduction in violence (e.g. rates of homicides and rape), poverty and all its aspects (e.g. death by starvation, death by diseases); and increasing life expectancies, the standard of living (in GDP) and the universal human rights (which I consider the maximisation of negative liberty).

Generally, there is one powerful measurement to to determine this, namely child mortality (including abortions).

Literacy

Quantifiable: reduction in violence (e.g. rates of homicides and rape), poverty and all its aspects (e.g. death by starvation, death by diseases); and increasing life expectancies, the standard of living (in GDP) and the universal human rights (which I consider the maximisation of negative liberty). — Emptyheady

This isn't flourishing though. This is the bare minimum of well-being, before we can even talk about flourishing.

Yeah, I mean indications of human flourishing.

Human flourishing is more complex.

That reminds me another thing.
An increase in individual freedom so that people can determine for themselves what it means to flourish.

Yeah, I mean indications of human flourishing. — Emptyheady

We can't really measure human flourishing that way. They're more like conditions for the possibility of flourishing of a higher number of people than otherwise, sure. But they're not indicative of flourishing at all. For example, would you say a society in which divorce rates are close to 50% is flourishing? That indicates a high level of conflict and disharmony amongst its members, and would certainly not count as flourishing in my books.

To be flourishing is a thing that individuals should be able to decide for themselves.
In a historical context individual rights have improved significantly in more recent centuries, this means more people have a greater freedom to decide for themselves how they will flourish.

To be flourishing is a thing that individuals should be able to decide for themselves. — m-theory

That's false, because the actions of individuals have consequences on the well-being of others. To say they "should decide for themselves" without further specification is not engaging in ethics at all. For example if they decide that flourishing is being individualists and doing whatever satisfies them, without regard to their loved ones, then such a decision is objectively wrong, and would contradict the idea that "they should decide for themselves what flourishing is". Yes, they should have freedom, but limited freedom.

And the idea of giving them more freedom, and then seeking ways to mitigate the evil that they create through that use of greater freedom is nonsensical. You don't break windows, and then go around fixing them - that's unethical.

I completely disagree.
It would be objectively wrong to prevent people from defining for themselves what it means to flourish.
The most effective way to do this is by giving people basic rights and freedoms.
Provided they do not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others they should be allowed to live their lives as they decide.

It would be objectively wrong to prevent people from defining for themselves what it means to flourish. — m-theory

Why?

Provided they do not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others they should be allowed to live their lives as they decide. — m-theory

So if their actions cause harm upon others, we should fold our hands, and say "sorry, can't do nothing about this"... that sounds quite unethical to me.

Again if you have not infringed upon the basic rights and freedoms of others you have not caused any harm.

Again if you have not infringed upon the basic rights and freedoms of others you have not caused any harm. — m-theory

That's nonsense. If I tell you that "I fucked your mom, and your child is a hopeless retard", have I done you no harm? If I lie to my girlfriend, have I done her no harm? If I emotionally blackmail my sister to get something in return, have I done her no harm?

You have a very narrow view of harm my friend, if you think the law (rights and freedoms) includes all possible harms.

That's nonsense. If I tell you that "I fucked your mom, and your child is a hopeless retard", have I done you no harm? If I lie to my girlfriend, have I done her no harm? If I emotionally blackmail my sister to get something in return, have I done her no harm? — Agustino

Nonsense.
Words might cause offense, but you have not violated any of my rights or freedoms in being a fowl mouth.

Non-sense.
Words might cause offense, but you have not violated any of my rights or freedoms in being a fowl mouth. — m-theory

No, but causing offence is harming you (and as you note, not all harm is a violation of your rights or freedoms). As is lying to my girlfriend, or emotionally blackmailing my sister. And yet these things are not taken care of by their "rights and freedoms" - it doesn't follow from this that it's ethical to insult you, lie to my girlfriend, or emotionally blackmail my sister. Neither does it follow that I should be free (there should be no consequences) if I do this.

No being offensive does not violate anybodies rights.
Lying does not violate anybodies rights.
Blackmailing might be a violation of a person rights and hence the person being blackmailed should have legal recourse in such cases.

If you are a liar and an offender this does have consequences.
People will not trust what you say and will not want to keep company with you.

Blackmailing might be a violation of a person rights and hence the person being blackmailed should have legal recourse in such cases. — m-theory

I never said blackmailing. I said emotional blackmailing. That's different than other sorts of blackmail. And blackmailing doesn't have to be obvious (and when it's not obvious, the law can't do anything about it). For example, I know you've cheated your brother out of money in a business deal, it's enough to bring up the subject when we're having an argument, or I'm trying to get you to do something, and you will be pushed to comply or else I will tell your brother. I never even have to tell you or threaten you that I will tell your brother. I can suddenly ask you "How'd you feel if your brother knew?" and then if you try to push the conversation down that way, I can change subject.

No being offensive does not violate anybodies rights.
Lying does not violate anybodies rights.
Blackmailing might be a violation of a person rights and hence the person being blackmailed should have legal recourse in such cases. — m-theory

So if they don't violate rights, then they aren't harmful?

If you are a liar and an offender this does have consequences. — m-theory

So then it should have those consequences? If yes, then you're agreeing that you shouldn't be free to lie (there should be consequences for it).

I concede that that is indeed tricky and there is more to it, but those indicators are quite telling measurements.

Hitchens' take took me by surprise. One of the few people that spontaneously changed my mind on things in a few-minutes-talk:



"It would be nice if we could have continued as a society rather than a collection of people living in the same place" P. Hitchens

I never said blackmailing. I said emotional blackmailing. That's different than other sorts of blackmail. And blackmailing doesn't have to be obvious (and when it's not obvious, the law can't do anything about it). For example, I know you've cheated your brother out of money in a business deal, it's enough to bring up the subject when we're having an argument, or I'm trying to get you to do something, and you will be pushed to comply or else I will tell your brother. I never even have to tell you or threaten you that I will tell your brother. I can suddenly ask you "How'd you feel if your brother knew?" and then if you try to push the conversation down that way, I can change subject. — Agustino

So individuals are not qualified to manage their own emotional well being?
Sorry I disagree.

So if they don't violate rights, then they aren't harmful? — Agustino

If you don't not violate a persons rights you are not responsible for any harm.

Say for example I say something you find offensive.
Since I have not violated your rights I am not responsible to you.
It is your fault that you have become offended.
Blaming me because you are not mature enough to ignore an insult is not ethical in the least.

So then it should have those consequences? If yes, then you're agreeing that you shouldn't be free to lie (there should be consequences for it). — Agustino

It does not matter if it ought to have consequences, the fact is there are consequences for lying and being offensive.
People will not regard you as trustworthy(because you lie) and people will not want to keep company with you(because you can't conduct yourself with civility).

So individuals are not qualified to manage their own emotional well being?
Sorry I disagree.
I — m-theory

Yeah, now this is just changing the subject. I never said anything like that.

If you don't not violate a persons rights you are not responsible for any harm. — m-theory

So if I tell you i fuck your mom, I'm not responsible for the harm I cause you? Good to know!

Say for example I say something you find offensive.
Since I have not violated your rights I am not responsible to you.
It is your fault that you have become offended.
Blaming me because you are not mature enough to ignore an insult is not ethical in the least. — m-theory

No the question isn't something you find offensive for whatever reason that is peculiar to you and to no one else. Maybe I imitate someone with Parkinson's and your father suffered of that, and so you find it offensive. That's the case you're describing. I'm not talking about that case. I'm talking about things everyone finds offensive, about which there is no doubt. If I tell you I fucked your mom, neither of us has any doubts that I've insulted you. If I lie to my girlfriend, nobody has any doubts that I've harmed her. Even you don't have any doubts about that. You've admitted it before.

It does not matter if it ought to have consequences, the fact is there are consequences for lying and being offensive.
People will not regard you as trustworthy(because you lie) and people will not want to keep company with you(because you can't conduct yourself with civility). — m-theory

Yes, but in the name of freedom we could encourage people not to enforce these consequences via means of social pressure on folks who lie. So should we do that?

So if I tell you i fuck your mom, I'm not responsible for the harm I cause you? Good to know! — Agustino

You have not caused any harm unless you have violated my rights and freedoms.

I'm not talking about that case. I'm talking about things everyone finds offensive, about which there is no doubt. If I tell you I fucked your mom, neither of us has any doubts that I've insulted you. If I lie to my girlfriend, nobody has any doubts that I've harmed her. Even you don't have any doubts about that. You've admitted it before. — Agustino

You imagine that words have some power over people that they do not.
Words are just words.
Unless you violate a persons rights you have not caused them harm and you are not responsible to them.
So if you choose to be an insulting liar that is your choice.
People can leave your company if they do not like it.

Yes, but in the name of freedom we could encourage people not to enforce these consequences via means of social pressure on folks who lie. So should we do that? — Agustino

I have no idea what you are saying here?

Ehmm yes he commits the sophistry of looking at it in terms of percentages. Ahh only 1% of the world's population died during the World Wars! Not a big deal! It's 1% - look in the past, more than 1% died! In the tribe having 100 people as population, 10 died per year, much bigger you see? 10% - not a big deal! Just another statistic as I've said. The chance of dying violently was much greater! 10 times greater in fact! Woah, what a discovery! — Agustino

On the same account, many (many) more people now also live on without being violently murdered.
Of course that could change, though I sure hope not.

Interesting video! Thanks!