> By contrast, when the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped in March 1932, it made national headlines for years -- years -- until the perpetrator was apprehended, tried, and executed in 1936. It's the story of one family, one child, one murder. Today that story wouldn't be able to compete with the latest mass murder account. "Oh, Bashar Assad has killed 1,500 people in a nerve gas attack. Oh, well, they're not anyone I know personally. What else is in the news?"
There was more "mass death" in 1932 +/- 20 than 1993 +/- 20, in fact more than the world has ever seen and hopefully more than the world will ever see.
Also, all that needs to happen for death to balance birth is that mortality rates need to go up and birth rates need to go down, it doesn't mean that there needs to be some Malthusian die-off localized in space and time, nor does it need to involve people going crazy.
> it doesn't mean that there needs to be some Malthusian die-off localized in space and time ...
Yes, that's true, but that isn't an argument that it won't happen, only that it's needn't happen. Modern history is increasingly an account of population control by mass death.
> nor does it need to involve people going crazy.
Certainly not, and as time passes, more and more crazy behavior is rationalized as a creative adjustment to trying times. Sandy Hook. Columbine. Boys will be boys.
> I don't understand your argument that it's increasing when compared to WW1 and WW2.
That's not my argument, that's your argument, but it's perfectly valid as far as it goes.
Let me explain. When you perform a moving average, you can prove anything by choosing an unrealistically short averaging interval.
With respect to mass death, if the averaging interval is ten years, things seem to be getting better. If the interval is 100 years, things are much worse.
The same method is used by climate deniers -- a one-year averaging interval suggests that the climate is cooling. A ten-year interval shows that it's warming. They're both mathematically valid measures, but the future isn't a year long and it's not ten years long, so choosing short measurement intervals is intellectually dishonest.
I'm not saying that about you, only that the interval you chose isn't appropriate to the issue under discussion.
There was more "mass death" in 1932 +/- 20 than 1993 +/- 20, in fact more than the world has ever seen and hopefully more than the world will ever see.
Also, all that needs to happen for death to balance birth is that mortality rates need to go up and birth rates need to go down, it doesn't mean that there needs to be some Malthusian die-off localized in space and time, nor does it need to involve people going crazy.