More World Troubles Than 'Normal'?

[Rhiannon]

I agree with the posts that state that our media are thirsty to pump our fear, and that the Internet means we witness things that we didn't before. I sometimes think my parents have lived in a golden age - both born at the end of WW11 - but in fact the world they grew up in came far closer to nuclear conflict than it has in my lifetime.

[BashfulAnthony]

Don't remember where I read this, but I believe that, when one takes the global population and the instances of 'trouble' into account, the proportion is probably not that much worse than it has ever been (the period that includes the 2 world wars excepted).

Apparently, Ghengis Khan was responsible for the deaths of maybe 30-40 million people which is around 10% of the World population at the time. The last two World wars are peanuts by comparison.

If you honestly think there is any reliable evidence for the figures about Ghengis Khan, then you are naive.  In WW11 there were at least 20 million Russians killed alone, plus the holocaust, all the other military casualties, and the huge number of civilian deaths  It all adds up to some 50 million, depending on which source you cite.  Plus , of course, the WW1 millions on top of that.  That makes the awful Khan's depredations look peanuts.

h2g2.com/approved_entry/A2854730‎

[Sriram]

I also sometimes feel that the 1950's and the 60's were a golden era compared to later decades. But that could be because I was just too young to realize the problems around. Our younger days are always golden. 

However it is possibly a fact that after the WWII .... and in India the war of Independence, there was a sense of relief and a settling down to  a good life with a sense of loyalty, morality, building families, looking ahead, wanting to build the nation and so on.  This probably did lead to a period of calm, enthusiasm, hope and optimism. I particularly enjoyed the movies of this period and most Indians still look back to this period as a golden period.

Then, by the end of the 60's  came the wave of 'new ideas, new fashions, new thinking, globalization' etc....which rattled the calm somewhat. This has since grown and change has been very fast. In the last 40 years the world has become unrecognizable in many ways while retaining the same human issues as before. Too much of change too fast and too much of mental adjustment is disconcerting.

This is probably why the world looks troubled. Its our minds that are not adjusting to new situations and new values.  In reality the world is probably better off now than ever before.

[Leonard James]

In reality the world is probably better off now than ever before.

I agree, and it's partly due, I'm sure, to the internet bringing immediate knowledge of problems to everybody.

[Outrider]

I believe you are right.

"Scripture speaks of earthquakes, wars, and rumours of wars, and warns us with great urgency to prepare for the storms to come."   Billy Graham

And my horoscope talks of readily foreseeable activities that will be encountered by the vast majority of people in a reasonably short timeframe as well, it's a variant of the Forer Effect.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If you honestly think there is any reliable evidence for the figures about Ghengis Khan, then you are naive.

Depends what you mean by "reliable" exactly, but there's no reason to think them not to be reliable enough for rough estimate purposes at least.

In WW11 there were at least 20 million Russians killed alone, plus the holocaust, all the other military casualties, and the huge number of civilian deaths  It all adds up to some 50 million, depending on which source you cite.  Plus , of course, the WW1 millions on top of that.  That makes the awful Khan's depredations look peanuts.

No it doesn't. As raw data the WWII numbers are obviously bigger than the deaths caused by Genghis Khan, but so was the global population. According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs the global population in 1940 was about 2.3 billion.

For WWII to have had an equivalent effect to Genghis Khan, you'd need to find deaths of around 10% of that - ie, 230m.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

An extract from a paper by the University of Warwick:...

You need to understand the context. The definition of "war" is problematic (was the Falklands conflict a war for example?) so UoW goes for declared wars between pairs of countries. Because there are many more countries now than before to be paired, so there are more opportunities for wars between them. You also need to factor in the numbers of people involved - three wars involving three pairs of Pacific Island states for example would clearly be less significant globally than, say, WWII.   

And that's the point - for most people this is proportionally the most peaceful time to live there's ever been. Moreover, if you look at long term data, that's a trend.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Don't remember where I read this, but I believe that, when one takes the global population and the instances of 'trouble' into account, the proportion is probably not that much worse than it has ever been (the period that includes the 2 world wars excepted).

Depends what you mean by "trouble", but the point is that it's not worse at all - we live in a time where you are statistically far less likely to be involved in a war, as well as to die early, to contract horrible diseases, to be illiterate etc. 

[Rhiannon]

I saw a story a whole back about a woman with severe anxiety who killed herself and her children because she couldn't face the future as presented by the media - inevitable war, famine etc. As with the hysteria around migrants, our media takes little or no effort over being responsible about what it reports, or how it is presented.

I did once try to start a thread on whether reading the news is beneficial with a link to Ralph Dobelli's piece on why he thinks it isn't, but nobody was interested.

[Leonard James]

I saw a story a whole back about a woman with severe anxiety who killed herself and her children because she couldn't face the future as presented by the media - inevitable war, famine etc. As with the hysteria around migrants, our media takes little or no effort over being responsible about what it reports, or how it is presented.

I did once try to start a thread on whether reading the news is beneficial with a link to Ralph Dobelli's piece on why he thinks it isn't, but nobody was interested.

If you are an optimist, reading the news will do no harm. If you are a pessimist, it could well do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

It's such an obvious paradox when you think about it: many will take their understanding of the "the World" from the news, but "the news" is precisely the opposite of that: it concerns itself with what's new, different, unusual.   

Another way to report "three million Syrians displaced this year" for example would be to say 7 billion people have not been displaced this year. The latter is a far more relevant way to understand the world than the former (especially if you can contextualise it with data about how much more secure the overwhelming majority of people are compared with any time in the past), yet it's the former and countless other stories like it that lead some to think we're all going to hell in a handcart.

There was comparatively little reporting recently for example of the UN statement that global infant mortality has halved since 1990. Halved! That's a huge story when you think about it, built moreover on remarkable advances in medical science, on enormous co-operation and co-ordination between countries, on major education programmes etc.

Of course the Syrian refugee story is tragic and important, but you cannot just decide that that's representative of the way the world is because it's getting so much coverage.

And another thing...     

[Rhiannon]

It seems that it's no so much that we need no news media, but better new media. I don't trust any of it as reliable any more, and that can't be healthy for society.

[Hope]

Little things break though which is why his death caused more of a stir than say a child dying elsewhere.

I think it also depends on our own experiences.  If you have lived somewhere where the death of a 3-year-old is commonplace, that image would not have been as powerful as it would have been for those of us who haven't.

For me, the most powerful pictures remain the kind of thing that we saw during the Ethiopian famine in the 80s and the famous picture of the Vietnamese lass who was alight having been hit by napalm.

[King Oberon]

At times I get the feeling that there are more troubles and wars in the world than there have been in the last few decades, and tensions are brewing across the globe. How do others feel about what's going on in the world?

I don't think the worlds any worse than it used to be although events are reported a lot more so I suppose we know more about them. Strange though I was talking with my son about the troubles of the world wars etc and was saying when I was his age (17) I thought the world would have sorted itself out by the time I was 50... how naive was I??? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Rhi,

It seems that it's no so much that we need no news media, but better new media. I don't trust any of it as reliable any more, and that can't be healthy for society.

I don't see it that way - to the best of my knowledge most of the news media I look at is "reliable" - ie, it reports the facts accurately enough.

The problem though is that it's highly selective about the facts it chooses to cover, and moreover what we do with those facts is to assume that they're indicative of larger truths about the world when they're no such thing. To put it another way, not only are what's important and what's newsworthy often not the same thing, they can be facing in opposite directions.

And a lot of that I think is to do with the silent evidence problem. If you're one of the countless people who does not contract polio because it's been eliminated from your country you'll barely be aware of it; if on the other hand you're one of the few unfortunate enough to catch the Ebola virus that's a huge news story. 

[Rhiannon]

Hi Rhi,

It seems that it's no so much that we need no news media, but better new media. I don't trust any of it as reliable any more, and that can't be healthy for society.

I don't see it that way - to the best of my knowledge most of the news media I look at is "reliable" - ie, it reports the facts accurately enough.

The problem though is that it's highly selective about the facts it chooses to cover, and moreover what we do with those facts is to assume that they're indicative of larger truths about the world when they're no such thing. To put it another way, not only are what's important and what's newsworthy often not the same thing, they can be facing in opposite directions.

And a lot of that I think is to do with the silent evidence problem. If you're one of the countless people who does not contract polio because it's been eliminated from your country you'll barely be aware of it; if on the other hand you're one of the few unfortunate enough to catch the Ebola virus that's a huge news story.

I got seriously spooked from Ebola - my kids have had serious illnesses and I'm still a bit PTSD so am always on alert for threats, real or imagined. The reason I got so spooked largely was down to the media - when presented with the facts I didn't get especially worried, but then the media began running lots of 'what if' speculative stuff about mutation, pandemics, drug shortages - even on the BBC. I ended up getting all my information on it directly from the DofH's own website, where the Chief Medical Officer just kept on repeating that there was no public health risk to the UK.

Another recent headline I noticed following the Tunisian massacre was 'IS to attack Britain Today'. Now, ok, this was the Currant Bun, but was that headline in any way accurate, let alone responsible?

Or what about all the things the Daily Mail tell us will kill us all? I believe their options over the years have ranged from sausages to coffee to blow jobs.

[Outrider]

I got seriously spooked from Ebola - my kids have had serious illnesses and I'm still a bit PTSD so am always on alert for threats, real or imagined. The reason I got so spooked largely was down to the media - when presented with the facts I didn't get especially worried, but then the media began running lots of 'what if' speculative stuff about mutation, pandemics, drug shortages - even on the BBC. I ended up getting all my information on it directly from the DofH's own website, where the Chief Medical Officer just kept on repeating that there was no public health risk to the UK.

Another recent headline I noticed following the Tunisian massacre was 'IS to attack Britain Today'. Now, ok, this was the Currant Bun, but was that headline in any way accurate, let alone responsible?

Or what about all the things the Daily Mail tell us will kill us all? I believe their options over the years have ranged from sausages to coffee to blow jobs.

I recommend a semi-regular exposure to the Daily Express. When you read that you can't help but laugh at the delusional nonsense, and they you read the Daily Mail and you see similar sorts of threads running through it and you realise how much spin there is in the crap.

Don't, though, ever ever ever open up the Daily Mail's website - just because the fewer people that do the less money they get from their advertisers.

O.

[Rhiannon]

When in doubt the Express run Killer Weather stories - storms, predicted cold winters, droughts, heat waves...

I think the problem is that even serious news media has gone a bit Daily Mail. The BBC arent exempt, probably because they think there is a need to compete with Sky News.

The best newspaper I read is First News, written for kids aged 8-13. My kids subscribe to it; it presents stories such as Ebola and the Tunisian attacks in ways that are understandable and without hysteria. For example, following Tunisia they had a Q&A session and a child asked if he would be at risk on his trip to France. The reply was that dying from terrorism currently carries a risk of about 20,000,000-1 for UK residents- driving or walking to school each day is more dangerous.

Yet adult news media can't manage this.

[floo]

I got seriously spooked from Ebola - my kids have had serious illnesses and I'm still a bit PTSD so am always on alert for threats, real or imagined. The reason I got so spooked largely was down to the media - when presented with the facts I didn't get especially worried, but then the media began running lots of 'what if' speculative stuff about mutation, pandemics, drug shortages - even on the BBC. I ended up getting all my information on it directly from the DofH's own website, where the Chief Medical Officer just kept on repeating that there was no public health risk to the UK.

Another recent headline I noticed following the Tunisian massacre was 'IS to attack Britain Today'. Now, ok, this was the Currant Bun, but was that headline in any way accurate, let alone responsible?

Or what about all the things the Daily Mail tell us will kill us all? I believe their options over the years have ranged from sausages to coffee to blow jobs.

I recommend a semi-regular exposure to the Daily Express. When you read that you can't help but laugh at the delusional nonsense, and they you read the Daily Mail and you see similar sorts of threads running through it and you realise how much spin there is in the crap.

Don't, though, ever ever ever open up the Daily Mail's website - just because the fewer people that do the less money they get from their advertisers.

O.

Reading any of the ghastly tabloids, is like reading a fantasy comic for the gullible!

[BashfulAnthony]

I got seriously spooked from Ebola - my kids have had serious illnesses and I'm still a bit PTSD so am always on alert for threats, real or imagined. The reason I got so spooked largely was down to the media - when presented with the facts I didn't get especially worried, but then the media began running lots of 'what if' speculative stuff about mutation, pandemics, drug shortages - even on the BBC. I ended up getting all my information on it directly from the DofH's own website, where the Chief Medical Officer just kept on repeating that there was no public health risk to the UK.

Another recent headline I noticed following the Tunisian massacre was 'IS to attack Britain Today'. Now, ok, this was the Currant Bun, but was that headline in any way accurate, let alone responsible?

Or what about all the things the Daily Mail tell us will kill us all? I believe their options over the years have ranged from sausages to coffee to blow jobs.

I recommend a semi-regular exposure to the Daily Express. When you read that you can't help but laugh at the delusional nonsense, and they you read the Daily Mail and you see similar sorts of threads running through it and you realise how much spin there is in the crap.

Don't, though, ever ever ever open up the Daily Mail's website - just because the fewer people that do the less money they get from their advertisers.

O.

Reading any of the ghastly tabloids, is like reading a fantasy comic for the gullible!

How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?

[Outrider]

How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?

If the Daily Mail or the Express were to have a sudden outbreak of journalistic integrity I think you can rest assured it would be all over the papers...

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?

If the Daily Mail or the Express were to have a sudden outbreak of journalistic integrity I think you can rest assured it would be all over the papers...

O.

The Mail has conducted a number of investigations of considerable importance, and showing great integrity.  Let's be fair here.

[Outrider]

How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?

If the Daily Mail or the Express were to have a sudden outbreak of journalistic integrity I think you can rest assured it would be all over the papers...

O.

The Mail has conducted a number of investigations of considerable importance, and showing great integrity.  Let's be fair here.

I am being fair. They are journalists, to conduct journalistic investigations is the expectation - other media outlets have also conducted creditable investigations. Others have set a standard - not a particularly high standard - that they have failed to live up to, time and time again.

O.

[floo]

From time to time I look on-line at the garbage spouted by the tabloids, particularly the mail and express, I am incredulous that anyone with even half a brain could give them any credence! The Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Indy are so much better written imo.

[Rhiannon]

How do you know they are ghastly unless you read them yourself?

If the Daily Mail or the Express were to have a sudden outbreak of journalistic integrity I think you can rest assured it would be all over the papers...

O.

Helpfully  BA has helpfully posted a link to the Express so we can see how well they are doing.