🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Never mind the headlines. We’ve never lived in such peaceful times.

> How can we get a less hyperbolic assessment of the state of the world? Certainly not from daily journalism. News is about things that happen, not things that don’t happen. We never see a reporter saying to the camera, “Here we are, live from a country where a war has not broken out”—or a city that has not been bombed, or a school that has not been shot up. As long as violence has not vanished from the world, there will always be enough incidents to fill the evening news. And since the human mind estimates probability by the ease with which it can recall examples, newsreaders will always perceive that they live in dangerous times. All the more so when billions of smartphones turn a fifth of the world’s population into crime reporters and war correspondents.

We also have to avoid being fooled by randomness. Cohen laments the “annexations, beheadings, [and] pestilence” of the past year, but surely this collection of calamities is a mere coincidence. Entropy, pathogens, and human folly are a backdrop to life, and it is statistically certain that the lurking disasters will not space themselves evenly in time but will frequently overlap. To read significance into these clusters is to succumb to primitive thinking, a world of evil eyes and cosmic conspiracies. <
 
I might also recommend Richard Rhodes' Dark Sun. The only reason this planet isn't busy murdering itself at the scale previous history should mandate, is because of the hydrogen bomb.
 
Like I give a fuck that you don't give a fuck that I don't give a fuck that...that...oh fuck it.
 
Like I give a fuck that you don't give a fuck that I don't give a fuck that...that...oh fuck it.

Of course you give a fuck. Otherwise you wouldn't be labouring the point.

Oh wait, is there a point?

It was only an article, you plonker. Not a declaration, written in stone. Something to be discussed. Not to jump up and down about.
 
> How can we get a less hyperbolic assessment of the state of the world? Certainly not from daily journalism. News is about things that happen, not things that don’t happen. We never see a reporter saying to the camera, “Here we are, live from a country where a war has not broken out”—or a city that has not been bombed, or a school that has not been shot up. As long as violence has not vanished from the world, there will always be enough incidents to fill the evening news. And since the human mind estimates probability by the ease with which it can recall examples, newsreaders will always perceive that they live in dangerous times. All the more so when billions of smartphones turn a fifth of the world’s population into crime reporters and war correspondents.

We also have to avoid being fooled by randomness. Cohen laments the “annexations, beheadings, [and] pestilence” of the past year, but surely this collection of calamities is a mere coincidence. Entropy, pathogens, and human folly are a backdrop to life, and it is statistically certain that the lurking disasters will not space themselves evenly in time but will frequently overlap. To read significance into these clusters is to succumb to primitive thinking, a world of evil eyes and cosmic conspiracies. <

Very worthy point. And if there's not a fire, flood, shooting, war, pestilence, robbery, rape, famine, epidemic, multi-vehicle collision or nuns behaving badly over here, then by god we'll comb the earth until we find one so we can sell "new$". Because there's a sucker born every minute and there's gold in them there ills.
 
Speaking of which, here comes one now...
Get off the LSD.
I might also recommend Richard Rhodes' Dark Sun. The only reason this planet isn't busy murdering itself at the scale previous history should mandate, is because of the hydrogen bomb.
hair-fire.gif
 

Forum List

Back
Top