[Mustang19]

Even if the urbanization rate went from 30 to 80% that could only explain part of the increase in crime.

US urbanization rate

1987 is too recent, E. I know crime rates went down recently. They're still above 1960 levels.

[General Battuta]

I just can't see a cultural argument for rising crime rates when crime rates have peaked and fallen - if one trend is continuing in one direction but the other has reversed it's hard to argue for any kind of link.

[Mustang19]

The thing is that crimes peaked most rapidly post 1960 during and after the counterculture then went down a bit and leveled off at a still-higher point. It's also interesting to note that this happens across several industrializing societies with different levels of inequality and immigration.

[Grizzly]

You said something about rise in crime due to our culture changing towards individualism. That change has not stopped recently, it is still going on. Yet crime rates are going down.

[Mustang19]

There might have been mitigating factors. For one thing religion and bat**** social conservatism is catching on in the US. The Dutch graph is pretty level, but that's over a small time span, not generally post-1960 or throughout the 20th century.

[The E]

Even if the urbanization rate went from 30 to 80% that could only explain part of the increase in crime.

US urbanization rate

1987 is too recent, E. I know crime rates went down recently. They're still above 1960 levels.

1987 is recent enough for me. Because I honestly don't give a **** about the 1960s, I am far more interested in the time I, personally am living in. And the statistics show me that over those 22 years, crime rates have peaked and fallen, and continue to fall. My conclusion therefore is that whatever we are doing seems to be working.

[Mustang19]

Okay. Well I'm wondering about long term cultural changes, that's all.

[General Battuta]

The thing is that crimes peaked most rapidly post 1960 during and after the counterculture then went down a bit and leveled off at a still-higher point. It's also interesting to note that this happens across several industrializing societies with different levels of inequality and immigration.

But that's co-incidence (not chance, literally simultaneous incidence), not causation.

[Mustang19]

I just can't see a cultural argument for rising crime rates when crime rates have peaked and fallen - if one trend is continuing in one direction but the other has reversed it's hard to argue for any kind of link.

Immigration and inequality have both increased in the meantime too, so what about these explanations? Drugs, I think, might explain the trends. But it's not just drug and gang related crimes that have gone up.

[Mustang19]

The thing is that crimes peaked most rapidly post 1960 during and after the counterculture then went down a bit and leveled off at a still-higher point. It's also interesting to note that this happens across several industrializing societies with different levels of inequality and immigration.

But that's co-incidence (not chance, literally simultaneous incidence), not causation.

It pains me that social sciences have to rely so much on correlational evidence. I still think that societies with a high degree of cohesion and collective norms, like the Amish or a variety of other (viable, lasting) communes are good case studies.

[General Battuta]

The thing is that crimes peaked most rapidly post 1960 during and after the counterculture then went down a bit and leveled off at a still-higher point. It's also interesting to note that this happens across several industrializing societies with different levels of inequality and immigration.

But that's co-incidence (not chance, literally simultaneous incidence), not causation.

It pains me that social sciences have to rely so much on correlational evidence. I still think that societies with a high degree of cohesion and collective norms, like the Amish or a variety of other (viable, lasting) communes are good case studies.

But what about Soviet Russia, stuff like that?

[Nuclear1]

In Soviet Russia, case studies you.

[Mustang19]

Soviet Russia was hardly a commune, it had all the aspects of western society that might have contributed to loss of social cohesion (rising standards of living and security, increased social and geographic mobility, low, erm, church attendance). And forceful imposition of social norms probably doesn't work, I'll give you that. But there are communes out there which are structured specifically to aim for community, not industrial growth or glorification of Stalin.

[General Battuta]

Sure, but culturally, it was all about the Worker's World, do it for your comrades, a collective regime of peace and love!

[Snail]

What about Bhutan

[Luis Dias]

Sure, but culturally, it was all about the Worker's World, do it for your comrades, a collective regime of peace and love!

Perhaps we are confusing culture for propaganda...

[Mika]

Oh man, stay away for a couple of days and there's a massive thread.

There was one thing that caught my attention in this thread:
Who was it who brought up the thermal evaporation several pages back? If only thermal management viewpoint is considered, I would expect the opposite - i.e. larger people in cold areas and small people in temperate regions. Larger people have greater surface area (quadratic dependency), which dictates the cooling effect. Unfortunately, heating is dictated by the volume of the person (cubic dependency), and dominates. This is partially supported by my own experience, Southern people (towards Equator) really tend to be smaller on the average - and the mammals living in the Polar areas tend to become larger. I suspect it would be possible to make two Southern Chinese out of me, considering shoulder width and (ahem) body mass - and I'm not even a large person in Scandinavian terms.

Note that this all might be invalidated due to the effect of nutrition.

[Grizzly]

Oh man, stay away for a couple of days and there's a massive thread.

There was one thing that caught my attention in this thread:
Who was it who brought up the thermal evaporation several pages back? If only thermal management viewpoint is considered, I would expect the opposite - i.e. larger people in cold areas and small people in temperate regions. Larger people have greater surface area (quadratic dependency), which dictates the cooling effect. Unfortunately, heating is dictated by the volume of the person (cubic dependency), and dominates. This is partially supported by my own experience, Southern people (towards Equator) really tend to be smaller on the average - and the mammals living in the Polar areas tend to become larger. I suspect it would be possible to make two Southern Chinese out of me, considering shoulder width and (ahem) body mass - and I'm not even a large person in Scandinavian terms.

Note that this all might be invalidated due to the effect of nutrition.

I read somewhere once that people are small around the equator, then grow larger further north, and then go small again near the north pole, due to limbs being shorter in order to keep them warm (its why snow foxes have much smaller ears then desert foxes, for example).

[Mustang19]

Eh, I dunno... I'm not a biothermodynamics expert. But if you say so.

[Mika]

I read somewhere once that people are small around the equator, then grow larger further north, and then go small again near the north pole, due to limbs being shorter in order to keep them warm (its why snow foxes have much smaller ears then desert foxes, for example).

Likely so, but did the overall volume decrease or was it just the length of the limbs? That's one way of reducing surface area while keeping the maximal volume for better heating.

Funnily though, that could describe me too. My family members tend to have short arms and legs, but comparatively tall spines. Lower center of gravity, less cooling in arctic conditions.

Or something else. Pondering about this is fun, though.