So, today I learned about this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco
That was a shocker. It’s a really good list of reasons? Also, some stuff I don’t find compelling but, you know, kinda gross habit, bad for your finances, annoying to those around you and bad for your health. All true! Pointed out really pretty quick after its arrival!
And Bentham _immediately_ says, ha ha, that’s no reason, he’s just capricious.
https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/bentham/ipml/ipml.c02.n04.html
Fucking utilitarianism.
OK, what am I doing over here? Well, I’m _trying_ to listen to the latest Books That Kill podcast, about a Pinker’s 900 page long thing about violence. And I went straight down a rabbit hole of Well What Was Going On in England from the 1580s-1620s? Because apparently there was a big spike in violence in that time frame. Don’t go reading the decadal summaries of England in that time frame if you are already feeling beaten down; that is a _lot_. I mean, England was Protestant, and thus at war with all the Catholic states/empires/wtfery. They were backing the Dutch and taking French Protestant refugees and that was going about the way you expect. In the earliest part of this time frame, for reasons that are probably obvious, Queen Elizabeth signed a commercial treaty with the Ottoman Empire (if you are at war with all of Christendom, you gotta get stuff from somebody). Grace O’Malley meets with Queen Elizabeth. There’s a bunch of navigation and colonies and transportation is invented and a bunch of other stuff. A bunch of other stuff. (Plague. Gaol fever. A really big earthquake at Dover. Etc.).
That is enough chaos to explain a lot of excess violence.
But I am still wondering if maybe there was some extra substance abuse going on. I know the “gin craze” was later, but I also know there was some back and forth with the Netherlands going on already, so it’s hard to tell when gin arrived in London but probably it was in stages. By the time Pepys comes along, there’s strong water flavored with juniper which was probably gin. But I don’t know how long it had been there before Pepys. It _seems_ like the kind of thing that probably would have been available to the upper classes earlier.
But in this time frame you _also_ get the first from-scratch-purpose-built fancy house in the countryside that is NOT fortified. And you start to get things falling into ruin as a fancy house is built next door, that are not fortified.
I don’t doubt that over time, we’ve become less violent. I even believe that as the state becomes more specialized and develops more detailed administrative capacity, less enforcement falls at the family / kinship level, and more moves up to the king/monarch/emperor/wtf, which should generally lead to less violence because the hierarchy is clearer and people don’t have to keep proving where they are in it. I am, however, having so many questions about measurement of murder rates in the past. This feels so Reinhart and Rogoff (and I hope we all remember just how embarrassing that was for Reinhart and Rogoff).
All of this is obviously a slam on Pinker, NOT on Books That Kill. And also, I actually kinda feel like Books That Kill went a little easier on Pinker than they could have. But this is part one. Part two will probably be different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco
That was a shocker. It’s a really good list of reasons? Also, some stuff I don’t find compelling but, you know, kinda gross habit, bad for your finances, annoying to those around you and bad for your health. All true! Pointed out really pretty quick after its arrival!
And Bentham _immediately_ says, ha ha, that’s no reason, he’s just capricious.
https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/bentham/ipml/ipml.c02.n04.html
Fucking utilitarianism.
OK, what am I doing over here? Well, I’m _trying_ to listen to the latest Books That Kill podcast, about a Pinker’s 900 page long thing about violence. And I went straight down a rabbit hole of Well What Was Going On in England from the 1580s-1620s? Because apparently there was a big spike in violence in that time frame. Don’t go reading the decadal summaries of England in that time frame if you are already feeling beaten down; that is a _lot_. I mean, England was Protestant, and thus at war with all the Catholic states/empires/wtfery. They were backing the Dutch and taking French Protestant refugees and that was going about the way you expect. In the earliest part of this time frame, for reasons that are probably obvious, Queen Elizabeth signed a commercial treaty with the Ottoman Empire (if you are at war with all of Christendom, you gotta get stuff from somebody). Grace O’Malley meets with Queen Elizabeth. There’s a bunch of navigation and colonies and transportation is invented and a bunch of other stuff. A bunch of other stuff. (Plague. Gaol fever. A really big earthquake at Dover. Etc.).
That is enough chaos to explain a lot of excess violence.
But I am still wondering if maybe there was some extra substance abuse going on. I know the “gin craze” was later, but I also know there was some back and forth with the Netherlands going on already, so it’s hard to tell when gin arrived in London but probably it was in stages. By the time Pepys comes along, there’s strong water flavored with juniper which was probably gin. But I don’t know how long it had been there before Pepys. It _seems_ like the kind of thing that probably would have been available to the upper classes earlier.
But in this time frame you _also_ get the first from-scratch-purpose-built fancy house in the countryside that is NOT fortified. And you start to get things falling into ruin as a fancy house is built next door, that are not fortified.
I don’t doubt that over time, we’ve become less violent. I even believe that as the state becomes more specialized and develops more detailed administrative capacity, less enforcement falls at the family / kinship level, and more moves up to the king/monarch/emperor/wtf, which should generally lead to less violence because the hierarchy is clearer and people don’t have to keep proving where they are in it. I am, however, having so many questions about measurement of murder rates in the past. This feels so Reinhart and Rogoff (and I hope we all remember just how embarrassing that was for Reinhart and Rogoff).
All of this is obviously a slam on Pinker, NOT on Books That Kill. And also, I actually kinda feel like Books That Kill went a little easier on Pinker than they could have. But this is part one. Part two will probably be different.