Apart From Better Sanitation And Medicine And Education And Irrigation And Public Health And Roads And Public Order, What Has Modernity Done For Us?

Part of Scott's anti-Reactionary sequence, rebutting the claim (from Michael Anissimov et al.) that modernity breeds more/worse 'total' war. Marshals the Pinker/Goldstein/Human Security Report decline-of-violence data, then -- to meet the 'too short a timescale' objection -- does his own rough analysis: combs Wikipedia's >1M-death wars, scales by 2005 population, buckets by era, and finds no upward trend (1900-50 worst, 1600-1700 second; the two most recent eras by far the most peaceful). Notes the study is biased toward the Reactionaries (the <1M cutoff drops more pre-modern wars; modern tech inflates kill counts) and that within any era the least-progressive states fight most.

Quality 66 · Strong. Strong (66). A clean, fair empirical rebuttal that does its own (acknowledged-rough) quantitative history rather than just asserting -- the 'do the work nobody else did' check Scott is valued for, with a nice self-aware bias audit. Held in mid-Strong, not Excellent: a narrow companion piece leaning on others' (Pinker/Goldstein) headline finding with rough Wikipedia data. Scored on merit without early-cohort compression (a 2013 post, deliberately not docked for age).

Claude’s paradigm shift 48 · Moderate. Moderate (48). The core decline-of-violence thesis is Pinker's/Goldstein's, not Scott's; novelty is the fresh application against Reaction plus the own-data era analysis -- a moderate synthesis, not a new frame.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 -- minor/within-blog. A self-contained argument within the influential-but-niche anti-Reactionary discourse; cited in the 'is modernity more violent' debate, no material footprint.