The premise was, generally speaking, that our world really isn't any more dangerous than it used to be - or even than it's always been. What HAS changed, the author claimed, is our 24-hour news cycle and the fact that anytime anything happens anywhere in the world, we hear about it and see first hand coverage - sometimes even live. I think the author had a point. This was before the worldwide increase in terrorism and the more recent increase in hate crimes., which has undoubtedly ratcheted things up, but I don't think completely negates the point.
For example, when I was growing up, no one thought a thing about kids going "out to play". We just had to be home by dinner time, but all the kids in the neighborhood roamed all over the place without supervision for hours at a time. If there was an abduction in the next state, no one heard about it. But now, we have Amber Alerts and Facebook and we're brought front and center to nearly every conflict. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I believe it helps to keep things in perspective.
I admit I've been lucky, but I'd prefer to not think of our world as "violent". I'm not denying that violence exists, but I think we risk perpetuating it by focusing on it so much. I still believe that most people are good (although imperfect) and have the same basic desires. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't be careful and use good sense but I'd rather not be motivated by fear. 
[BTW, I don't mean this to be directed to anyone in particular, but this discussion just reminded me.]
|
