Mathematician Predicts Wave of Violence In 2020

[ElNono]

"In a feature that recalls Asimov's Foundation series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series) and 'psychohistory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional))', Nature profiles mathematician Peter Turchin, who says he can see meaningful cycles in history (http://www.nature.com/news/human-cycles-history-as-science-1.11078). Worryingly, Turchin predicts a wave of violence in the United States in 2020. Quoting from the piece: 'To Peter Turchin, who studies population dynamics at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, the appearance of three peaks of political instability at roughly 50-year intervals is not a coincidence. For the past 15 years, Turchin has been taking the mathematical techniques that once allowed him to track predator-prey cycles in forest ecosystems, and applying them to human history. He has analyzed historical records on economic activity, demographic trends and outbursts of violence in the United States, and has come to the conclusion that a new wave of internal strife is already on its way. The peak should occur in about 2020, he says, and will probably be at least as high as the one in around 1970. 'I hope it won't be as bad as 1870,' he adds."

[Wild Cobra]

Any excuse for people to say it wasn't because of Obamanomics, right?

[Th'Pusher]

Any excuse for people to say it wasn't because of Obamanomics, right?

:wtf

[AussieFanKurt]

I don't get it. How can he predict it? Will there be a reason behind it?

[ElNono]

I don't get it. How can he predict it? Will there be a reason behind it?

Just looking at the graph that's along with the story, it looks like it's based on a 50 year cycle. And apparently, the major cause is mostly political.
But I'm sure the graph is dumbed down for the average reader.

[AussieFanKurt]

Oh sorry I missed the graph. Interesting. I guess a lot violence in history is caused by politics

[Yonivore]

Oh sorry I missed the graph. Interesting. I guess a lot violence in history is caused by politics
With the possible exception of crimes of passion and crazy mass murderers (even though some of those are predicated on some weird mutation of a political ideology), what major causes of violence aren't political in nature?

Certainly all wars are political. Mass genocides in China, the former Soviet Union, and North Korea -- among others -- are all political in nature.

But, I think the guys right, there's going to be a major blood-letting within the next decade and, it will be political.

[AussieFanKurt]

I was going to say most but I wasn't 100% sure that was correct

[mercos]

I don't believe this sort of thing can be predicted based on a yearly scale, but I will say that the stage is set for such problems to occur. The country is so bitterly divided right now, and new demographics are rising up to challenge the traditional order, which is desperately clinging to their position of power. Just look at the recent Chic-Fil-A incident. That was but a taste of the coming strife between the old and the new.

[LnGrrrR]

With the possible exception of crimes of passion and crazy mass murderers (even though some of those are predicated on some weird mutation of a political ideology), what major causes of violence aren't political in nature?

Certainly all wars are political. Mass genocides in China, the former Soviet Union, and North Korea -- among others -- are all political in nature.

But, I think the guys right, there's going to be a major blood-letting within the next decade and, it will be political.

Religious wars...

[DMC]

but what harm has violence ever caused?
I think it's what led to your conception tbh.

[Trainwreck2100]

Religious wars...

most religious wars are political tbqh

[AussieFanKurt]

most religious wars are political tbqh

I think both play a part but political takes the cake I think.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

With the possible exception of crimes of passion and crazy mass murderers (even though some of those are predicated on some weird mutation of a political ideology), what major causes of violence aren't political in nature?

Certainly all wars are political. Mass genocides in China, the former Soviet Union, and North Korea -- among others -- are all political in nature.

But, I think the guys right, there's going to be a major blood-letting within the next decade and, it will be political.

It's not as if 'politics' is mutually exclusive. Social, economic, religious, ethnic, enmity, philosophical, familial etc interests can all manifest as 'political.'

Wars are inevitably held between groups of people. When you have groups of people working together you have some semblance of government and how to govern is by definition 'politics.'


The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation form their purposes.

Politics is just a broad term and it basically says 'this faction of people did it via a governing body.' The motivations on the other hand are diverse.

Was Pol Pott's revolution in Cambodia political? Certainly but when you ask what the political motivations were it's not that simple. Economic, social, luddite, religious and other motivations are obvious.

When you say wars are 'political' you are just being redundant. All wars are political but not all political motivations are the same. That's the whole point.

Violence becomes war when it is done between between political bodies by definition. It's a matter of scale.

[TDMVPDPOY]

his only saying what is obvious

just like every decade, there bound to be war

[AussieFanKurt]

his only saying what is obvious

just like every decade, there bound to be war

Yeah well the graph shows the violence surrounding the civil war, WWI and nam so I guess a war is probably the source of the problem if there is a spike in violence in 2020

[The Reckoning]

so is maya doomsday out the window then? are we now moving on to the next reaping?

i have a prediction as well: i will take a nice, fat shit sometime in the upcoming month. my bm count predicts it.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I don't get it. How can he predict it? Will there be a reason behind it?

Advanced metrics

[Wild Cobra Kai]

Advanced metrics

Exactly. It's almost impossible to reliably predict one individuals actions, but groups of people are easier to predict. You also just have to open a history book and look for the conditions that fomented violence before, like huge wealth gaps.

[MannyIsGod]

That graph is extremely weak sauce.

[CosmicCowboy]

Meh. I got my guns and religion. Bring it on bitches.

[MannyIsGod]

Seriously, that graph peaking in 1920 and not peaking against until 1970 is laughable. Yeah, I guess WW2 wasn't violent AT ALL. GMAFB.

[CosmicCowboy]

Seriously, that graph peaking in 1920 and not peaking against until 1970 is laughable. Yeah, I guess WW2 wasn't violent AT ALL. GMAFB.

You actually read it?

I LOL'd at a mathematical model for violence peaks and troughs and skipped the OP's link.

[ElNono]

Seriously, that graph peaking in 1920 and not peaking against until 1970 is laughable. Yeah, I guess WW2 wasn't violent AT ALL. GMAFB.

The graph mentions the source to be this paper:

Dynamics of political instability in the United States, 1780–2010 (http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/49/4/577)

Again, I suspect the graph to be a dumbed down version of the research.

[MannyIsGod]

You actually read it?

I LOL'd at a mathematical model for violence peaks and troughs and skipped the OP's link.

I didn't read the study. I don't dismiss anything in Nature out of hand though. Thats one of the best journals in the world.

EN, I doubt the graph is dumbed down at all and is likely a figure straight out of his study.

I don't think you can say there is a cycle based on 3 peaks, though. I'm very skeptical of this but maybe I'll read it sometime this week.

[ElNono]

I didn't read the study. I don't dismiss anything in Nature out of hand though. Thats one of the best journals in the world.

EN, I doubt the graph is dumbed down at all and is likely a figure straight out of his study.

I don't think you can say there is a cycle based on 3 peaks, though. I'm very skeptical of this but maybe I'll read it sometime this week.

ehhh... I thought the article was interesting and passed it along. Haven't read anything past the article to tell you how I feel about his research.

[Trainwreck2100]

Seriously, that graph peaking in 1920 and not peaking against until 1970 is laughable. Yeah, I guess WW2 wasn't violent AT ALL. GMAFB.

It wasn't violent at all in the US

[The Reckoning]

whottt happened in 1820?

slackers


mexican war of independence?

[The Reckoning]

It wasn't violent at all in the US


japanese detention camps say "herro"

[Homeland Security]

Counting on it :)


I've known this was coming for a couple of years now, it'll be about changing demographics. You'll have blacks/whites/and some asians who are sick of the illegal border hoppers and things will only escalate from now until then

Not smart. "Illegal border hoppers" don't have much power. Attacking them wastes resources and allows your enemies to villify you and consolidate their power without suffering losses themselves. Go after the people with power who facilitate their entry, i.e. white liberals, secular Jews, and unscrupulous business owners.