.

Dear AJ,

.

It is interesting to learn that « there are many acts that criminologists consider to be crimes despite being legal ». That’s a pretty broad definition of what constitutes a “crime”. It comes under the third OED definition which gives as an example: “it’s a crime to keep a creature like Willy in a tank”.

I guess I could have given as an example: “it’s a crime to keep a dog in an apartment” – but maybe that’s just a matter of personal opinion. Apparently there are about 200,000 Paris dog owners who don’t consider that to be a crime – despite the 10 tons of droppings on the streets every day and the six hundred broken limbs of people slipping on the droppings, on average, per year.

Getting back to Pinker’s TED talk, you remark: “curiously, you mention the age of the book twice in your response (a mere four years) as if this were relevant or worthy of noting”.

That's because I recognise that he would have had ample time to broaden his study to include all forms of violence in his book if he intended to study "violence" in general.

I understand your observation that he only had 20 minutes for the talk but I think that if he had really intended to address the subject that was announced, “The surprising decline in violence”, i.e., “violence” in general, he would have said at least a few words about limiting his remarks to what he considered to be the principal manifestations of violence, due to time constraints.

Strangely enough, even the title of his book does not mention “violence”: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”. That is why I am still not sure that his objective was to study “violence” in general at all.

I am inclined to think that his real aim was to treat the subject announced in the title of his book: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”, just as the real aim of his talk was the original title he gave it: “Everything you know is wrong”.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

His intent seems to have been to simply underline the greater benefits obtainable by cooperation than those obtainable by violence and, he adds:

« Anything, I think, that makes it easier to imagine trading places with someone else means that it increases your moral consideration to that other person »

If his objective had been to study violence in general, in addition to those indicated in my previous post, his treatise should have included such important manifestations of violence as:

• The United Nations estimate that, 4.4 billion people of the current world population of 7.4 billion do not have access to justice. The other 3 billion theoretically have access to the courts but, may or may not have access to justice. In 2012, Amnesty International found that 101of the 196 countries in the world repress their people’s right to freedom of expression; 80 countries systematically conduct unfair trials denying their citizens justice and 112 countries torture their citizens. By the end of 2013, according to the United Nations, 51.2 million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalised violence, or human rights violations.

• The 1.25 million road traffic deaths in 2013 (World Health Organisation) and almost one million individuals who commit suicide each year – one every 40 seconds. Many more attempt suicide (around 10-20 million) each year.

• The International Labour Organisation, estimate that 20.9 million are victims of forced labour, a type of enslavement that includes labour and sexual exploitation. This does not include cases of trafficking for organ removal, forced or child marriages and forced adoptions.

• The 10.2 million people in prison around the world in 2013 (King’s College London’s International Centre for Prison Studies).

• The International Organization for Migration estimate that over the last two decades, more than 60,000 migrants died trying to reach their destinations, and this only includes deaths for which there is some record. Many die unnoticed.

And the list goes on …

But, again, I have not read his book, and perhaps he does mention all this, and more.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Naturally there’s not always going to be a consensus amongst criminologists on what exactly constitutes a crime. Even with regards to some acts that are illegal.

<<It is interesting to learn that « there are many acts that criminologists consider to be crimes despite being legal ». That’s a pretty broad definition of what constitutes a “crime”.>>

I think you’re over-analysing this and jumping to too many conclusions.

Crime is a surprisingly difficult notion to pin down. Examples of legal acts that criminologists generally agree constitute crimes are banks offering credit cards with temporary low interest rates to lure desperate people who they know will always have the card at the limit and will be forever trapped paying maximum interest, pretty much everything televangelists do, and insurance companies’ bad faith claims.

There are probably some animal-activist criminologists who would agree that keeping a dog in an apartment is, or should be, a crime; but they would be fringe outliers who wouldn’t be doing their careers or tenures any favours by just focussing on that. I suspect they’d also have a bit of trouble stirring up enough passion about such an issue, or would have too much difficulty in getting enough criminologists to agree with them, to bother focussing on it too much.

<<…I recognise that he would have had ample time to broaden his study to include all forms of violence in his book if he intended to study "violence" in general.>>

I haven’t finished the book, but either way, whether or not he does, the fact that the more obvious, direct, and conventional forms of violence have declined is a fascinating-enough fact by itself. And whatever it is that we’ve been doing right there deserves attention, but we need to know what that is first. It would be silly to not bother finding an answer to that because violence may not have come down if we include indirect forms of violence such as inflicting poverty on certain demographics.

Continued…

…Continued

I suppose, if Pinker doesn’t address those less-direct forms of violence you mention, that it would ease your concerns if he called his book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why the Conventional, More-obvious, and More-direct Forms of Violence that We Generally Think of When We Hear the Word ‘Violence’ Have Declined”, but that wouldn’t have the same ring to it.

That being said, I see no reason why, even in twenty years, Pinker should have had to have broadened his study to all forms of violence.

<<Strangely enough, even the title of his book does not mention “violence”: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”.>>

Yes, it does. As mentioned earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#326029), the full title is, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

<<His intent seems to have been to simply underline the greater benefits obtainable by cooperation than those obtainable by violence…>>

I’m hundreds of pages into the book and so far, he has only mentioned them once in less than a chapter.

The problems you list are all legitimate problems, and perhaps Pinker does mention them. But like I said before, I don’t think it would be a big deal at all if he doesn’t. Indeed, given how big the topic of why the more conventional forms of violence have declined is by itself, I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t, nor would I be surprised if he never feels the need to. The amount of research that went into his book is enough for any one lifetime. Perhaps someone else could pick that up later, but I think it’s unfair to criticise a person for trying to understand, and raise awareness of, a particular phenomenon in the event that they don’t cover what may be impossible for one person to do adequately in a lifetime.

One thing I’ll say in your defence, however, is that while you’ll often hear about (conventional) crime rates having gone down over the last few decades, when one takes into account white-collar crime, criminologists agree that crime has probably gone up. Although we’ll never know that for sure.

Dear AJ and Banjo Paterson,

There has been an attempt, sometimes successful, of religious believers and other moralisers, to define violation of their beliefs as a crime. The notorious experiment in government morality in the US, Prohibition, is an example of that. Treating drug usage as a crime rather than an addiction like alcohol or gambling is another example that fills US prisons. The opposition to same-sex marriage is another example. No attempt will be made to tell religious institutions who they can marry. However, their efforts are to curtail civil marriage and to see their religious predilections enshrined in civil law.

Some clerics are aware of the difference between religious injunctions and civil law. Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury said:

"In a civilised society, all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes. Man's ultimate responsibility is to God alone."

.

Dear AJ & David,

.

Thanks, AJ, your comments are well taken but please be assured that I do not consider that I am in a position to criticise Steven Pinker at present. I know what he said but I do not know what he wrote. I reserve my judgment until I learn whether he considers it is sufficient to draw an overall conclusion on the variability of violence in general based solely on available statistics for “deaths due to warfare, genocide and homicide”, or not.

I note that where you and I appear to differ is that I consider he had ample time (in 4 years) to collate and analyse all the available data on violence in general (if that was the object of his study), whereas you indicate that it is a task that “may be impossible for one person to do adequately in a lifetime”.

Naturally, I emphasise “available” data. If no data is available for certain types of violence, then this should be indicated, and the necessary reserves made in respect of the conclusions which, consequently, become less significant.

I am not suggesting that anybody should spend their lives looking for data that does not exist. But, at the same time, I should strongly object, if conclusions based on data relating to specific types of violence, irrespective of their importance, were presented as a valid indication of the overall variability of violence in general.

Naturally, I agree with you that “white collar crime” should be added to the long list of different types of violence I cited in my previous posts. There are probably others as well.

Perhaps you and/or David might be kind enough to let me know the extent of his study and the basis on which he draws his conclusions when you will have finished reading his book.

David, you raised some fairly prickly questions in your last post. I sympathise with your attitude to them all but I need to rack my brains much more seriously before deciding what I consider to be the best solution for each of them.

.