[quote]Levels of peace around the world have improved slightly for the first time since the Syrian war began, but harmony has decreased in the US and terrorism records have increased, a Sydney-based think-tank has found.
The Institute for Economics and Peace published its Global Peace Index on Thursday for the 11th year running.
Researchers said conflict costs had an enormous impact on economies worldwide.
They called for more money to be spent on peace building.
Their report found that the world became 0.28% more peaceful over the past year.
This was driven by a drop in state-sponsored violence, including torture and extrajudicial killings, and a decrease in the murder rate. The delayed effect of the US and UK withdrawing troops from Afghanistan also made itself felt in the research.[/quote]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-40118188[/url]
This is a long-run trend is it not?
Year-on-year when averaged out the world continues down the path of peace... until something interrupts it.
Great! If everything goes according to plan we should have world peace by 2375!
i get the feeling that the global peace index is almost completely made up and pretty much useless
0.28% more peace? as if that is such a thing which can be measured given the number of complex variables you're dealing with (for the entire world)
You go Earth!
meaningless
Baby steps
[QUOTE=Joakim Lindb;52299948]Great! If everything goes according to plan we should have world peace by 2375![/QUOTE]
[t]https://facepunch.com/image.php?u=317202&dateline=1494618383[/t]
[sp]Come on son your avatar is born for threads like this.[/sp]
[quote]The research did not cover the time period of the attack on Manchester in the UK last month.[/quote]
And by extension, it doesn't cover the ISIS takeover of Marawi, the Kabul bombing, or the Baghdad bombing
How can You even measure peace in percentages. Any mathematical formula will not express something immaterial.
Pure clickbait. Move on.
[QUOTE=Knurr;52301426]How can You even measure peace in percentages. Any mathematical formula will not express something immaterial.
Pure clickbait. Move on.[/QUOTE]
you can measure it based on markers such as displaced people from war, various markers about a countries unity, civil unrest, and other internal conflicts, and then international tensions like border disputes, relations, sanctions and other things.
by your logic you can't measure the economy either since its immaterial too
[QUOTE=Sableye;52301490]you can measure it based on markers such as displaced people from war, various markers about a countries unity, civil unrest, and other internal conflicts, and then international tensions like border disputes, relations, sanctions and other things.
by your logic you can't measure the economy either since its immaterial too[/QUOTE]
with things this large and complex, measuring, calculating, and determining a result will be riddled with so much error and interpretation and subjectivity and the lack (or surplus) of information and determining its accuracy makes a "global peace index" virtually worthless as a measure of something already seen as rather subjective to determine in the first place
it's easier to state the output of an economy, not so much something like this. when we start dealing with information in quantities like this, the more information we have the more counterproductive it is and the less we understand from it
[QUOTE=Sableye;52301490]you can measure it based on markers such as displaced people from war, various markers about a countries unity, civil unrest, and other internal conflicts, and then international tensions like border disputes, relations, sanctions and other things.
by your logic you can't measure the economy either since its immaterial too[/QUOTE]
Fine. Immaterial is a bad argument. Or may be taken as such.
If You want to play with expressing something subjective as "peace" in mathematical formula, then have fun.
In the meantime I will actually try to work on peace as I understand it, without defining it with words but rather with my thoughts and feelings.
I don't need percentages and definitions to do something good for someone else and actually make some peace in this world. Even on absolutely lowest levels like peace with people around me, not even between nations level.
[QUOTE=Knurr;52301653]Fine. Immaterial is a bad argument. Or may be taken as such.
If You want to play with expressing something subjective as "peace" in mathematical formula, then have fun.
In the meantime I will actually try to work on peace as I understand it, without defining it with words but rather with my thoughts and feelings.
I don't need percentages and definitions to do something good for someone else and actually make some peace in this world. Even on absolutely lowest levels like peace with people around me, not even between nations level.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit literally "My feelings are more important than statistics and facts"
[QUOTE=Noob4life;52300113]*Sobotnik*
[sp]Come on son your avatar is born for threads like this.[/sp][/QUOTE]an irradiated earth without humans is a peaceful earth
[QUOTE=Joazzz;52302223]an irradiated earth without humans is a peaceful earth[/QUOTE]
Come on now, It's not like nature has been a very good parent, Animals have been violently tearing each-other apart for food and fun since long before Apes.
[QUOTE=Chrisholl;52301996]Holy shit literally "My feelings are more important than statistics and facts"[/QUOTE]
to be honest I'd trust my own feelings and explicitly say that I do so, over that of an institute that pretends to be scientific but isn't and spreads bullshit around, fooling people with claims of "evidence" that doesn't support their conclusions at all
peace isn't something that can be really measured effectively using "science", there's far too much subjectivity and I think it belongs to a different realm.
^ Trust your own feelings, such a nice easily manipulable human :).
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52303068]
peace isn't something that can be really measured effectively using "science", there's far too much subjectivity and I think it belongs to a different realm.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it can. You just sum up the collective of indicators of overall levels of violence (war, murder, riots, etc) and then compare that.
Surely this can never represent the actual "peace" percentage​ if that could even exist. A lot of things go unknown to the public eye, stuff like that can't be measured.
[QUOTE=phygon;52304846]Yeah it can. You just sum up the collective of indicators of overall levels of violence (war, murder, riots, etc) and then compare that.[/QUOTE]
collecting data on such a scale for something so complex and then processing it to give a meaningful result is impossible
you're simply working with far too much information. how do you account for the states with civil wars and genocides people are only dimly aware of? what about countries that barely even bother to collect this sort of information? what about who and where it is processed, and the bias involved (many institutions and people will be inclined to present a place as less or more violent) makes it even more complicated
you'd get a meaningless result, and something like 0.28% increase in peace is well within variation produced by noise - utterly useless
Complexity is present in p much any large scale phenomenon. A theoretical model isn't worthless if it doesn't factor in every variable if it represents or predicts real trends well enough.
Because something is complex doesn't mean that it can't be measured [I]up to a point[/I]
It's well known that if you wish to reach a goal you need to measure progress, especially in large organisations. Sometimes measuring isn't even about 100% accurate results but the effects on behavior caused by the measuring itself (measures need to be valid enough though or you might get detrimental effects)
[QUOTE=Falchion;52311493]Complexity is present in p much any large scale phenomenon. A theoretical model isn't worthless if it doesn't factor in every variable if it represents or predicts real trends well enough.
Because something is complex doesn't mean that it can't be measured [I]up to a point[/I]
It's well known that if you wish to reach a goal you need to measure progress, especially in large organisations. Sometimes measuring isn't even about 100% accurate results but the effects on behavior caused by the measuring itself (measures need to be valid enough though or you might get detrimental effects)[/QUOTE]
the problem is that with something this complex and large, it's impossible to actually get meaningful data out of it. maybe if it actually works as a predictive model over a long period of time, but given the atrocious rate of replication in most of science these days i don't hold much hopes
we are all gonna die
[QUOTE=SuperDuprKyle;52312047]we are all gonna die[/QUOTE]
cmon man you just dropped us a whole .00000001 peace points
we worked hard on that .28%
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
