Comments on: Are we getting nicer?

By: David Murray

David Murray — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:56:38 +0000

Good points Stephen. Novel but helpful way of looking at it.

By: Stephen Dawe

Stephen Dawe — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:29:54 +0000

I wonder about the lessening of violence measured by a lessening of violent deaths. After all, violence is most often used to an end, and if the end can be gained without killing (but with the threat of it) have we become less violent? The lessening of civilian casualties in war is a good example. Major western militaries need the support of a populace that will not react well to large scale deaths, which are hard to hide. Does this mean they are less violent, or that they will hide it better and make the open violence more limited, while ramping up the intimidation.

This is the basis behind terrorism. Terrorists don’t kill that many people, but they work to make it so that each person is afraid that they will be next, and thus are intimidated… But that’s still violence.

Pinker seems to have a simplistic way of measuring violence, and the result is that he imagines we are getting better. Sin is not so easily quelled.

By: SomeGuy

SomeGuy — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:25:45 +0000

I do not know why Kristof is using his column to promote Pinker’s new book. There must be some sort of quid-pro-quo the public does not know about. I doubt Kristof is being altruistic. I wonder why the NYT allowed Kristof to run what is essentially an advertisement for a new book as a column.

I do know, however, that Pinker is someone who simply makes stuff up. When he writes books, he does not use any scientific method or prove what he is saying. Like Richard Dawkins, Pinker has a background in science, but this is thrown out the window when he writes books.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:04:11 +0000

Nice application of Romans 1:22…