Reply With Quote
Any excuse for people to say it wasn't because of Obamanomics, right?
"In a feature that recalls Asimov's Foundation series and 'psychohistory', Nature profiles mathematician Peter Turchin, who says he can see meaningful cycles in history. 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."
Any excuse for people to say it wasn't because of Obamanomics, right?
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.
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.
I was going to say most but I wasn't 100% sure that was correct
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.
Religious wars...
I think it's what led to your conception tbh.
most religious wars are political tbqh
I think both play a part but political takes the cake I think.
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.'
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.
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 e in violence in 2020
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 sometime in the upcoming month. my bm count predicts it.
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.
That graph is extremely weak sauce.
Meh. I got my guns and religion. Bring it on es.
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.
The graph mentions the source to be this paper:
Dynamics of political instability in the United States, 1780–2010
Again, I suspect the graph to be a dumbed down version of the research.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
