Dude, I completely agree. I’m far from a reactionary. I’m just thinking aloud. Might the 20th century have indeed been worse than the above when controlled for the benefits as well as downsides of technical progress? I can’t tell, and everyone’s mind-killed about that—particularly “realist” people like M.M., who claim to be the only sane ones in the asylum.
Let’s cash this out a little bit—Which was worse, the heresy prosecutions of the Medieval era, or the Cultural Revolution? I think the answer is the Cultural Revolution, if for no other reason than more people were affected per year.
But that’s based on technological improvement between the two time periods:
More people were alive in China during the Cultural Revolution because of improvements in food growth, medical technology, and general wealth increase from technology.
The government was able to be more effective and uniform in oppressing others because of improvements in communications technology.
Once we control for those effects, I think it is hard to say which is worse.
In contrast, I think the social changes that led to the end of serious calls for Crusades were a net improvement on human, and I’m somewhat doubtful that technological changes drove those changes (what probably did drive them was that overarching unifying forces like the Papacy lost their legitimacy and power to compel large portions of society). Which isn’t to say that technology doesn’t drive social change (consider the relationship between modern women’s liberation and the development of reliable chemical birth control).
As a percentage of total planetary population, a large number of historical wars were worse than any 20th century atrocity. Pinker has a list in his book, and there are enough that they include wars most modern people have barely heard of.
I’m trying to compare apples to apples here. Wars are not like ideological purity exercises, nor are they like internal political control struggles (i.e. suppressing a peasant revolt, starving the Kulaks).
I’d have to get a better sense of historical wars before I could confidently opine on the relative suffering of the military portions of WWII vs. the military portions of some ancient war. And then I’d have to decide how to compare similar events that took different amounts of time (e.g. WWI v. Hundred Years War)
Keep in mind that to take such ideas seriously and try give them a fair hearing is in itself transgression, regardless if you ultimately reject or embrace them.
Dude, I completely agree. I’m far from a reactionary. I’m just thinking aloud. Might the 20th century have indeed been worse than the above when controlled for the benefits as well as downsides of technical progress? I can’t tell, and everyone’s mind-killed about that—particularly “realist” people like M.M., who claim to be the only sane ones in the asylum.
Let’s cash this out a little bit—Which was worse, the heresy prosecutions of the Medieval era, or the Cultural Revolution? I think the answer is the Cultural Revolution, if for no other reason than more people were affected per year.
But that’s based on technological improvement between the two time periods:
More people were alive in China during the Cultural Revolution because of improvements in food growth, medical technology, and general wealth increase from technology.
The government was able to be more effective and uniform in oppressing others because of improvements in communications technology.
Once we control for those effects, I think it is hard to say which is worse.
In contrast, I think the social changes that led to the end of serious calls for Crusades were a net improvement on human, and I’m somewhat doubtful that technological changes drove those changes (what probably did drive them was that overarching unifying forces like the Papacy lost their legitimacy and power to compel large portions of society). Which isn’t to say that technology doesn’t drive social change (consider the relationship between modern women’s liberation and the development of reliable chemical birth control).
As a percentage of total planetary population, a large number of historical wars were worse than any 20th century atrocity. Pinker has a list in his book, and there are enough that they include wars most modern people have barely heard of.
I’m trying to compare apples to apples here. Wars are not like ideological purity exercises, nor are they like internal political control struggles (i.e. suppressing a peasant revolt, starving the Kulaks).
I’d have to get a better sense of historical wars before I could confidently opine on the relative suffering of the military portions of WWII vs. the military portions of some ancient war. And then I’d have to decide how to compare similar events that took different amounts of time (e.g. WWI v. Hundred Years War)
The line between these is not always so clear. Look at the crusade against the Cathars or look at the Reformation wars for example.
I agree that the categories (war, ideological purification, suppression of internal dissent) are not natural kinds.
But issue is separating the effects of ideological change from the effects of technological change, so meaningful comparisons are important.
Keep in mind that to take such ideas seriously and try give them a fair hearing is in itself transgression, regardless if you ultimately reject or embrace them.