https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/opinion/digital-revolution-democracy-fake-news.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytopinion

"Democracy Is Weakening Right in Front of Us.
Is technopessimism our new future?

A decade ago, the consensus was that the digital revolution would give effective voice to millions of previously unheard citizens. Now, in the aftermath of the Trump presidency, the consensus has shifted to anxiety that online behemoths like Twitter, Google, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook have created a crisis of knowledge — confounding what is true and what is untrue — eroding the foundations of democracy...
...As long as truth can be disguised — and as citizens lose the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood — democracy will continue to weaken, ultimately becoming something altogether different from what we are accustomed to. And all of this is happening while most of us continue to be unaware of the transformation that has taken place during our lifetime, functionally oblivious to the “epistemic crisis,” both as a contributor to the problem and as an accelerant." Thomas B. Edsall has been a contributor to The Times Opinion section since 2011. His column on strategic and demographic trends in American politics appears every Wednesday.

"When people use social media as a proxy for political opinions writ large, they are likely to overestimate that amount of conflict and polarization that exist in the offline world," Lisa Argyle, a political scientist at @BYU, told @edsall

Social Media was invented by the government. It came from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA) and the CIA. Facebook and Twitter got startup money from the government.

Social media was invented to mine data on people. No surprise it’s nefarious.

Mining for Fool’s Gold!

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Social Media was invented by the government. It
> came from the Defense Advanced Research Projects
> Agency(DARPA) and the CIA. Facebook and Twitter
> got startup money from the government.
>
> Social media was invented to mine data on people.
> No surprise it’s nefarious.
that is why I NEVER go to verify sites when somebody emails me. They are all data mines

This is the first I've heard of this. My understanding is that the Defense Department developed what we now know as the Internet.

Mass democracy is young. An anomaly in history. The foundations of democracy was weak from the beginning. This year it is 100 years since woman got her right to vote in my home country. That is time equal to nothing in human history. The norm is non-democracy do you not see that in human nature? The cult that raised you and closed your mental world down against external objects? Mormonism is just on mental system of another. What is the core human nature? Not liberal democracy.

“Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.”

William Westmoreland

These only accelerate.
Eliminating them entirely will not change the structure.

The actual conflict is between the Age of Reason and the Dark Ages

Make America Dark Again? Sounds like a BLM thing.

It’s interesting that we call it the Dark Ages when Animism was much more prevalent and life was more mystical. That has been replaced with secular humanism. We’re still toking on the pipe of maya, but now high on “rational self interest” which is anything but. Those that smelt it dealt it, so which age is really the Dark Ages?

In the above metaphor, all belief systems are pipe dreams. We are fighting over who is having the better pipe dream when we’re all basically cracked out of our heads.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2021 12:27PM by bradley.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Make America Dark Again? Sounds like a BLM thing.
>
> It’s interesting that we call it the Dark Ages
> when Animism was much more prevalent and life was
> more mystical. That has been replaced with secular
> humanism. We’re still toking on the pipe of
> maya, but now high on “rational self interest”
> which is anything but. Those that smelt it dealt
> it, so which age is really the Dark Ages?
================================

Seems you are (inadvertently) illustrating my point precisely.

;-)

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In the above metaphor, all belief systems are pipe
> dreams. We are fighting over who is having the
> better pipe dream when we’re all basically
> cracked out of our heads.
================================

Science is a method, not a belief

So they say. But the scientific method starts with a hypothesis, which is basically a belief. Kind of like what religion would be with fact checking. Beliefs lead to more beliefs and then you’re rejecting perfectly good hypotheses out of hand.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So they say. But the scientific method starts with
> a hypothesis, which is basically a belief. Kind of
> like what religion would be with fact checking.
> Beliefs lead to more beliefs and then you’re
> rejecting perfectly good hypotheses out of hand.


"I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, “not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.” But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as “atheists,” tend to represent while advocating atheism. As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness." Sam Harris, The Problem of Atheism

https://samharris.org/the-problem-with-atheism/

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So they say. But the scientific method starts with
> a hypothesis, which is basically a belief.
===============================

Nope.

Hypothesis is a tenuous/tentative idea, gleaned from observation and constructed through the application of rational thought, which the scientist then tries to disprove via experiment.
Hypothesis is always tenuous and subject to real-world evidence.
Nothing in science is ever absolute. Everything in science is perishable.
This is why it changes based upon evidence. This is why, for example, patients are no longer bled when treating a fever.

Belief is 100% certain.
Belief is never disprovable.
Belief is accepted as absolute.
Belief is impervious to data. (Data is irrelevant to Belief.)
Belief is timeless.

See the difference?

(Folks who operate on Belief, really never quite can catch this concept. It is alien. It makes no sense.)

There are really two methods to orient, organize, and navigate one's life:
1. Belief;
2. Observation and Rational Thought.

Either method is fine, but only one will get you to the moon.
(But that's probably not important, which is what it seems you may be trying to say.)


I think what you may be trying to say is that Observation and Thought (science) has limits, to which I agree.
Science will not guarantee wisdom, for example.

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science will not guarantee wisdom, for example.

Science told us how to build nuclear bombs, but not why we shouldn’t.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science told us how to build nuclear bombs, but
> not why we shouldn’t.
===============================

Exactly.

A sentence was written: "Science will not guarantee wisdom, for example."

To which The Cat responded"

> Science told us how to
> build nuclear bombs, but
> not why we shouldn’t.


Heavy, man! Dude's got it together!


But fundamentally, isn't it the same as when man figured out how to wield rocks, and then to actually throw them! When the guys who figured this out, did they, could they, have envisioned the mayhem that would result?

And then pointed sticks? OMG! How many kids lost a parent when that parent was run through by a pointed stick? Why???? Oh, that pointed sticks had never been conceived!!!

Edged weapons, the same. The mind of man conceived of them but apparently failed to take into account the bloody results!

Gunpowder!!! Again: OMG! What were they thinking?! (Although Jesus looks good carrying an AR-15.)

Apparently, progress marches onward, with zero thought given to the consequences of that 'progress'. Where was The Cat when we needed him the most?


What's the answer? I mean, other than retreat to a Garden of Eden-like status and its purported innocence ...

Science ... We gotz ta stop it!!!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But fundamentally, isn't it the same as when man
> figured out how to wield rocks, and then to
> actually throw them! When the guys who figured
> this out, did they, could they, have envisioned
> the mayhem that would result?
>
> And then pointed sticks? OMG! How many kids lost
> a parent when that parent was run through by a
> pointed stick? Why???? Oh, that pointed sticks
> had never been conceived!!!
>
> Edged weapons, the same. The mind of man
> conceived of them but apparently failed to take
> into account the bloody results!
>
> Gunpowder!!! Again: OMG! What were they
> thinking?! (Although Jesus looks good carrying an
> AR-15.)
>
> Apparently, progress marches onward, with zero
> thought given to the consequences of that
> 'progress'. Where was The Cat when we needed him
> the most?
>
>
> What's the answer? I mean, other than retreat to
> a Garden of Eden-like status and its purported
> innocence ...
>
> Science ... We gotz ta stop it!!!

No weapon had the ability to wipe humanity off the face of the Earth, until Nukes came along. Einstein was the one who encouraged Roosevelt to develop the bomb, and then when once it was dropped on Japan, he was horrified and spent the rest of his life trying to undo what he'd made possible by figuring out E=mc^2.

"While Einstein later said he felt he had no choice but to encourage the US to develop the technology, he called the letter his "one great mistake," having learned that Germany was never close to developing atomic bombs."

https://www.businessinsider.com/albert-einstein-wrote-letter-us-roosvelt-atomic-bomb-2019-8

I am trying to appreciate your nightly horror, laying in bed every night, wondering if tonight is the night the Russkis drop a bomb on your head!

But note: "While Einstein later said he felt he had no choice but to encourage the US to develop the technology, he called the letter his 'one great mistake,' having learned that Germany was never close to developing atomic bombs."

This seems to mean that he wouldn't have minded the bomb's development had los nazchos really been close to realizing their own version of 'die deutsche Version des Fat Boy!!'

Bombs, no matter their potency, only have one use.

I'm so chill and you're such a drama queen; it was just not meant to be.

Nuclear bombs don't kill people. People kill people.

‘have no fear of atomic energy.
None of them can stop the time.’
Bob Marley

Yes, yes... Very well reasoned.

I have nothing further to say in this noisy barroom. Gibber on.

              I moved this to where it needed to be



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2021 03:11PM by elderolddog.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>               I moved this to where
> it needed to be
I thought you said you had nothing else to say.
Please let that actually be true.

Oh, man, I'm sorry!

I was referring to the fact that you quoting Bob Marley left me with nothing further to say regarding that particular discussion.

It's amazing what acting insanely (or 'wack') can do in terms of an ongoing attempt to communicate.

I wonder what people will make of possible motivation?

people grow & develop each in a certain environment; Home, school, friends, jobs & people in them, even simple things like commuting back & forth away & to home.

Sometimes people prescribe to the myth that others (journalists) can be "unbiased"; how could a person above a certain age or experience history be Unbiased by past events?

Suppose you've been a crime victim (who hasn't???); does that mean that you're automatically 'tough' or 'soft' on crime / criminals?

I've been published multiple times (including photojournalism), I never pretended to be unbiased but still tried to be truthful - accurate in my work.

Because the government now wants Fakebook to pay news originators, F**kbook shut down their access to news sites. In the process, they also shut down large numbers of government, non-profit, union, health notification networks, and even meteorological sites. Collateral damage, I suppose.

F*rtbook promotes leftist ideologies, which often include the call for "equity" and making the rich "pay their fair share." Only if it's other people's equity and "fair share," I suppose.

"First they came for Infow*rs, but I said nothing, because I don't follow conspiracy nuts..."

Edited to work around auto-censor



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2021 09:54AM by caffiend.

“I don't follow conspiracy nuts..."

Did you know that Mark Zuckerberg is a Human-Alien hybrid?

To be overly simplistic, it seems to me the dilemma comes down to this:

Which do you value more, democracy as a political institution and form of government; or free speech as an individual right.

In today's society of social media and 'fake news,' free speech is threatening democracy. As democracy tightens its grip to protect itself through media control, free speech is undermined, which also threatens democracy's very existence. As these dueling forces work against each other, democracy becomes more and more eroded, until eventually it will crumble, and an autocracy will form to create order and social stability. At that point, both democracy and free speech will be gone forever.

Personally it seems to me that the culprit in all of this is the willingness to place one's own values and agenda above facts and truth. It is no longer sufficient to argue and debate policy in the context of facts. Instead, one's values take priority over truth, whether from the Left or the Right.

Much of this is the result of post-Modernist thinking; the idea that there is no truth, or facts of the matter. All there is are individual values, which must be pursued at all costs. Facts and truth become irrelevant.

free speech destroys democracy?
real reach.

What he means (I think) is that if speech is engaged to promote an agenda that undermines democracy (like speech that incites people to overrun the Capitol in order to invalidate an election; or speech that supports a politician who views dictatorship as preferable to democracy), then such free speech threatens democracy.

Such speech was never, under the constitution, "free." There has from Day One been a constitutional and legal prohibition against speech that directly incites violence.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Much of this is the result of post-Modernist
> thinking; the idea that there is no truth, or
> facts of the matter. All there is are individual
> values, which must be pursued at all costs. Facts
> and truth become irrelevant.

If this were true, the US constitution would be under threat from the post-Modernist intellectual left. The threat, however, arises from the under-educated right: people like magaRomney, who find their news more persuasive if accompanied by "barn yard noises."

It is they, not the left, who decided that factual reality was passe and that if one insisted enough the false would become true.

Australia and Facebook in a battle right now.

Cauda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Australia and Facebook in a battle right now.

I thought about this OpEd while listening to a CNN report on what's going on with Murdoch v. Zuckerberg in Oz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXBQ9wmYB9s&t=315s

"You cannot have a healthy democracy without healthy journalism and we all depend on having a healthy democracy, which means we all depend upon having healthy journalism. So we saw this proposal as an opportunity to step in and stand up for what is not only good business for Microsoft, but really what's good for Australia and good for the world."
Brad Smith, President of Microsoft

So the question raised by this battle is who do you trust to deliver your news? 75% of Australians get their news from social media, when news only makes up 4% of the content on FB, according to the CNN report above. So if FB and other social media titans just cut out news, it's no great loss to them, but where are Aussies to turn for their news? Rupert Murdoch? Great, which is worse for democracy?
FB or fake news?

Agree about fake news. A problem is that people do not want to pay for news. That makes the supply even more narrow. Entertainment, corporation advertisment and news mixed up. The future is weak. I try to read press releases from my government.

My family subscribe to a local newspaper. I have not bothered to install the app on my device.

So the future belongs to Daily Mail clones.

yet am concerned that news source is almost irrelevant. (That would be an easy fix were it the problem.)

My concern is the quality of education over the last fifty years (macaRomney has salient observations)

** If a person is not taught how to think critically - to think for oneself - then that person is forced to rely on Belief to orient his/her/its/beep/bop/boop life.

** A person forced to rely on Belief will reject as "Fake" any and all evidence/data which challenges that Belief -- regardless of source.

See the problem?

Source is, therefore, almost irrelevant when the processing "machinery" is crippled from maldevelopment.

For the record, Australia has an excellent public radio and television service called the Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC for short). It's built on the model of the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) and provides excellent and very unbiased news. The CBC in Canada and NPR in the U.S. also provide excellent and truthful news coverage for anybody who wishes to listen. The problem is that people don't want to listen. Real news is boring, and it often conflicts with one's values and emotions.

Put another way, the problem isn't that real and verifiable news isn't available in democratic countries; rather the problem is that a subset of the citizenry, particular in the U.S., doesn't want to believe the real and verifiable news available to them.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Put another way, the problem isn't that real and
> verifiable news isn't available in democratic
> countries; rather the problem is that a subset of
> the citizenry, particular in the U.S., doesn't
> want to believe the real and verifiable news
> available to them.
================================
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This Precisely.

The news contradicts Belief, so they do not know what do do with it, and it goes into the "fake" bin (along with the whole of Western Enlightenment Age of Reason)

Almost not their fault.
No one taught them how to think for themselves.
It does not come naturally.

I suppose we need to get quality people into journalism. Those that are willing to devote their lives to telling the truth. Just yesterday it was announced that Americas Anchorman, the greatest of all time, with the largest radio audience, died of lung cancer. Recently he had some interesting things to say about journalism, I think it's worth taking not of.

He said follow your passion in making your way in the world. Do what you like to do, even if you make less money at least you'd be happy. He started in the broadcast business at the age of 16, it's a wonderful thing to find your talent at an early age. He had his ups and downs and was fired a few times. But he made journalism interesting, he introduced barn yard animal sounds to the broadcast and continued with background sound effects. Limbaugh is the perfect example of an average person who distributed knowledge, and he wasn't a genius, from the inteligensia establishment.

I think there is a lot potential in the high schools, The English teachers need to inspire the students encourage them, tell them there are ways to go with an English degree. I never got any encouragement as a kid (who never got an A). All my teachers thought I was not the brightest, always in the slow class.

Students aren't getting encouraged, they're getting discouraged.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think there is a lot potential in the high
> schools, The English teachers need to inspire the
> students encourage them, tell them there are ways
> to go with an English degree.
===============================

Agree.

And while at it don't teach them what to pc right-think, teach the student HOW to think

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose we need to get quality people into
> journalism. Those that are willing to devote their
> lives to telling the truth. Just yesterday it was
> announced that Americas Anchorman, the greatest of
> all time, with the largest radio audience, died of
> lung cancer. Recently he had some interesting
> things to say about journalism, I think it's worth
> taking not of.

HE. WAS. NOT. A JOURNALIST!

Journalists do tell the truth. Limbaugh lied about his drug addiction, he lied about COVID, and he lied about the 2020 election.

Edward R. Murrow and Hunter S. Thompson were journalists. Limbaugh was a talking head spewing hate and bullshit.

>
> He said follow your passion in making your way in
> the world. Do what you like to do, even if you
> make less money at least you'd be happy. He
> started in the broadcast business at the age of
> 16, it's a wonderful thing to find your talent at
> an early age. He had his ups and downs and was
> fired a few times. But he made journalism
> interesting, he introduced barn yard animal sounds
> to the broadcast and continued with background
> sound effects. Limbaugh is the perfect example of
> an average person who distributed knowledge, and
> he wasn't a genius, from the inteligensia
> establishment.

So, because he was entertaining and uneducated, he was an inspiration and not just everybody's disgraceful uncle with a microphone?

Of course, your claim of an "inteligensia" (what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Did you misspell "intellectual" or do you think saying that makes you sound smart. Because if it's the second option, it's not working) establishment and your hatred of math and science would explain the hero worship for a loud-mouthed ignoramus.

>
> I think there is a lot potential in the high
> schools, The English teachers need to inspire the
> students encourage them, tell them there are ways
> to go with an English degree. I never got any
> encouragement as a kid (who never got an A). All
> my teachers thought I was not the brightest,
> always in the slow class.
>

With your habit of run-on sentences, anti-intellectual rants, and grammar that gives me the dry-heaves, I am not surprised at that.

> Students aren't getting encouraged, they're
> getting discouraged.

I agree with that and suggest you stay away from anything to do with education. Your presence would discourage students more.

Of course, students might look at your posts and be inspired to study more. They wouldn't want to end up as braindead as you.

The boy who, by his own account, "never got an A" tells us about the intelligensia and their lack of intelligence. That's amusing.

Then that boy praises a drug-addled dropout because "he introduced barn yard animal sounds to the [news] broadcast." That's not so amusing.

Maybe he would have learned the constitution and Algebra II if his teachers had sat at the front of the room making barnyard animals noises during study time.

I guess that makes the painter of dogs playing poker the greatest artist of all time as opposed to say Van Gogh who couldn't get anyone to buy one of his paintings in his lifetime.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess that makes the painter of dogs playing
> poker the greatest artist of all time as opposed
> to say Van Gogh who couldn't get anyone to buy one
> of his paintings in his lifetime.

Despite the fact that his Brother was an art dealer.
I always tell artists who manage to sell their art that they sold more art than Vincent Van Gogh did his whole life, and he had a brother who was an art dealer.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess that makes the painter of dogs playing
> poker the greatest artist of all time

The painter of dogs playing poker is the Sam Harris of modern art.

Perhaps I should have used the guy who paints Elvis on black velvet. Or better yet chocolate box painter Kincaid.

That should tea Kincade.

It's been a long day. The should read be Kincade.

People believing in things that weren't true has long been a problem in the U.S. It existed before the advent of the Internet and Social media, and it will exist long after both are shut down should that occur. The problem is that with the development of the Internet, and especially with the development of social media, anyone can express a nontruth and there will be a whole lot of people out there willing to gobble it up as fact. In other words, the Internet and social media have amplified a problem that already existed.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words, the Internet and social
> media have amplified a problem that already
> existed.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People believing in things that weren't true has
> long been a problem in the U.S. It existed before
> the advent of the Internet and Social media, and
> it will exist long after both are shut down should
> that occur. The problem is that with the
> development of the Internet, and especially with
> the development of social media, anyone can
> express a nontruth and there will be a whole lot
> of people out there willing to gobble it up as
> fact. In other words, the Internet and social
> media have amplified a problem that already
> existed.

True. The "crisis of knowledge" isn't due to a lack of reliable news sources, there are plenty of reliable news sources in America and around the world. And now those sources are more readily available to us than ever. We have the whole world's university library collections at our fingertips.
The "Crisis of Knowledge" has more to do with the "confounding of what is true and what is untrue". This didn't start with social media, it really started with, like you said, "People believing in things that weren't true" despite superior evidence to the contrary. That's the very definition of delusion and Americans seem to prefer that state of consciousness to reality. Reality doesn't sell. Truth doesn't sell. Like Paul Graham said, "The truth is common property. You can't distinguish your group by doing things that are rational, and believing things that are true. If you want to set yourself apart from other people, you have to do things that are arbitrary, and believe things that are false. And after having spent their whole lives doing things that are arbitrary and believing things that are false, and being regarded as odd by "outsiders" on that account, the cognitive dissonance pushing children to regard themselves as Xes must be enormous. If they aren't an X, why are they attached to all these arbitrary beliefs and customs? If they aren't an X, why do all the non-Xes call them one?

This form of lie is not without its uses. You can use it to carry a payload of beneficial beliefs, and they will also become part of the child's identity. You can tell the child that in addition to never wearing the color yellow, believing the world was created by a giant rabbit, and always snapping their fingers before eating fish, Xes are also particularly honest and industrious. Then X children will grow up feeling it's part of their identity to be honest and industrious.

This probably accounts for a lot of the spread of modern religions, and explains why their doctrines are a combination of the useful and the bizarre. The bizarre half is what makes the religion stick, and the useful half is the payload."

Describes the American religious experience perfectly, especially Mormonism.

http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html

Irony:

the GAs have long maintained that 'the prophet' can speak on civic affairs ("Profiles of A Prophet")....

What's happened on that one? What has Russ said regarding our freedoms & preserving our representative form of governing / government?

I.Can't.Hear.You, Mr. Nelson

He needs to run for President!

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Irony:
>
> the GAs have long maintained that 'the prophet'
> can speak on civic affairs ("Profiles of A
> Prophet")....
>
> What's happened on that one? What has Russ said
> regarding our freedoms & preserving our
> representative form of governing / government?
>
> I.Can't.Hear.You, Mr. Nelson

MORmON's claim to follow a living PRofit died the moment Gordo the Clown PRofit failed to say anything about God Missing In Action on 9-11.
The silence was deafening.

Schrodinger's cat has apparently overlooked or forgotten Gordo's much-less-than-prophetic pronouncement telling the wymens what size & how many earrings were proper...

> MORmON's claim to follow
> a living PRofit died the
> moment Gordo the Clown
> PRofit failed to say any-
> thing about God Missing
> In Action on 9-11.


ghawd needed them all on the other side... Just like whenever he calls a young person home to him, it was cuz he/she was needed on the other side. You don't need revelation to understand that!!

Plus, 'things happen for a reason...'



But applying some factual context to being alive on the Blue Marble and also maybe helping to explain my ire at your continual harping on how transformative 9-11 was for you:

A bit lower is the link to an attempt by contributors to Wikipedia to document lives lost in different types of 'events', including

Wars and armed conflicts

War crimes, massacres and ancient war atrocities

Genocides, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution

Political purges and repressions

Forced labor, abuse of workers, and slave trades

Anthropogenically exacerbated outbreaks of disease and famine

Anthropogenically exacerbated floods and landslides

Human sacrifice and suicide

Riots and political unrest

Prisons, concentration and extermination camps

List of political leaders and regimes by death toll


Each of the above categories then has a list of the events, with appropriate details, and links to supporting data, as well as the best estimate regarding death tolls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll


The vast majority of the listings have both a low estimate and a high estimate.

Even just using the lowest figure, probably 98% exceed the number of individuals who died in the 9-11 tragedy.

But I'm sure you won't stop shouting over the din made by all the conversations going on in the barroom just how moved you were by 9-11.



At the end of the cited Wikipedia article, the opportunity is supplied to visit other lists:

Other lists organized by death toll
List of accidents and disasters by death toll
List of battles and other violent events by death toll
List of events named massacres
List of genocides by death toll
List of murderers by number of victims
List of natural disasters by death toll
List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll
List of ongoing armed conflicts
List of school shootings in the United States
List of disasters in Antarctica by death toll
List of disasters in Australia by death toll
List of disasters in Canada by death toll
List of disasters in Croatia by death toll
List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland by death toll
List of disasters in New Zealand by death toll
List of disasters in Poland by death toll
List of disasters in the United States by death toll
List of wars by death toll
Other lists with similar topics
List of unusual deaths
List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
Lists of battles
Lists of disasters
Lists of earthquakes
List of famines
List of fires
List of invasions
List of events named massacres
List of tropical cyclone records
List of riots
List of terrorist incidents
List of wars
Lists of rail accidents
Topics dealing with similar themes
Anti-communist mass killings
Casualties of the Iraq War
Decommunization
Democide
Famine
Genocide
Genocides in history (before World War I)
Infectious disease
Mass killings under Communist regimes
Mass murder
List of battles by casualties
United States military casualties of war



I didn't avail myself of the opportunity...

But go ahead, blame God.
The list tells me we're not evolving; we're devolving. Maybe Bill Gates is right, the planet will be more peaceful if we depopulate it. If you trust our oligarch overlords. They seem to know what's best for us, or at least they think they do.

"We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
back to the garden." (Joni Mitchell)

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But go ahead, blame God.
> The list tells me we're not evolving; we're
> devolving. Maybe Bill Gates is right, the planet
> will be more peaceful if we depopulate it. If you
> trust our oligarch overlords. They seem to know
> what's best for us, or at least they think they
> do.

I agree that Most of those on the list are caused by Mankind and inflicted upon their fellow man, which is profoundly immoral, malevolent.
I don't blame God, since I don't believe any kind of a personal God exists.
And I don't think nature is evil for natural "disasters", since 'evil' is a human construct. That's just nature striking a balance, which it always does.

> That's just nature striking a
> balance, which it always does.


Who (or what)is keeping score, and making sure that Nature doesn't screw up and get out of balance?

Or are we simply trusting Nature to keep its own score?


You're gonna make a wonderful grandpa! The kids are gonna love your stories!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > That's just nature striking a
> > balance, which it always does.
>
>
> Who (or what)is keeping score, and making sure
> that Nature doesn't screw up and get out of
> balance?

Einstein's God,
"There are two kinds of God. Einstein was very clear about this, two kinds of God. The first God is a personal god, the God that you pray to, the God that gives you your bicycle for Christmas, the God that smites the Philistines and destroys your enemies. That's the personal God. Einstein did not believe that the God of the universe created us just so you can get that wagon for a Christmas present. You see, Einstein believed in another god, the god of Spinoza, the god of liveness, the god of order, harmony. The universe could have been random. It could have been chaotic. It could have been messy. But the universe is actually quite elegant, quite simple, and in fact, is gorgeous. You can put the laws of physics as we know them on a simple sheet of paper amazing. It didn't have to be that way."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoGYObRNn6A

>
> Or are we simply trusting Nature to keep its own
> score?

Lamda, the Cosmological Constant, what Einstein called his "biggest blunder" which turned out to be right.

https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html

> You're gonna make a wonderful grandpa! The kids
> are gonna love your stories!

I'm already a wonderful Grandpa!

"Maybe Bill Gates is right, the planet will be more peaceful if we depopulate it."

Bill Gates never said this. Nor is Gates in favor of depopulating the planet. This is a Q-level conspiracy theory you apparently believe in.

#8!!