From the article......
Lynchings, which used to occur at a rate of 150 a year, have disappeared.
Does this mean the "mob" is better or that those leading the "mob" have become tame? whatever reason it is nice to know there is little chance of being strung up by a "mob" in this era.
Nevertheless I can think of a few horrible crimes where a lynching would be most appropriate.
One could think that in our early history one would have had to be rather clever simply to survive... hunting and/or early farming would have left little time for much else but it seems tribal battles etc would have been the norm and long term peace the exception... pretty tuff on top of providing food.
The neanderthals were clever enough to survive cold harse conditions for some 250,000 years yet we seem to rate them as simple and somewhat stupid because they died out and we took over. However will we last 250,000 years? if not does that mean they were smarter than us?
It is so difficult to qualify change..are things better or worse? are folk smarter or less so than those who came before them?... Maybe lynchings would equate to a better society because justice is less expensive than it is today and administered with no delay or regret...and I am not sure having so many lawyers is a step forward in evolution really
.
Finally things are what one perceives them to be as reality is a personal experience. AND no doubt if one took a position opposite to the author of the article one probably could draw upon credible facts to suggest the opposite so as to conclude the world is going downhill fast
.
The growing human population could also be seen as a very bad prospect given the destruction of other species.
How one describes reality is a personal choice so things are better or worse upon ones own qualification of what is presented.
alex
