The fuzzy math checks out, and Brazil can be a relatively dangerous place for murders statistically. The map does make a very dramatic statement though and it is important to keep perspective.
Brazil sits around the 6th largest population in the world.
Australia, the UK, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Canada, Greenland, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Greece, Netherlands, and quite a few more countries combined would have a smaller total population than Brazil. If we eliminate countries with populations in the billions, Brazil would be the fourth largest country by population and has about 2/3 the population of the United States.
Countries with very large land mass like Canada or Australia or Russia etc. are very imposing on maps, but the populations tend to be far less impressive in size- Brazil has almost 10x the population of Australia or Canada And about 1.5x that if Russia.
If we look at murder rate ranks for a country like Canada or the UAE, the equivalent countries…
…. would need to total in the hundreds to equal the same murder rate. As an example- Papua New Guinea has a population of about 10 million people- about half of Australia- but the annual homicides are about 100x less. Interestingly- a country like Japan ranks high on countries by population- slightly less than Russia or a little over half the population of Brazil- but has extremely low murder rates.
The United States is a large country and top 3 for world population- but has a disproportionately high number of homicides- at something around 32x the number of Canada or Australia or the UK- we could almost remove Brazil from the map and say that the US had more homicides than the remaining blue countries. The US is a developed and relatively wealthy nation- outside of certain areas most people you’d speak to wouldn’t say they have any serious fears of being murdered- but the statistics paint another picture.
So culture and politics and history and geography and population and population density and a whole host of other factors play in to murder rate- in the USA there are areas where murders don’t occur for decades or centuries and there are places where multiple murders are averaged daily- so where you are and who you are can also play a role. My point isn’t that this map is wrong or that prudence in safety isn’t advised when traveling or living somewhere with a high number of murders or crimes-
It’s more that as dramatic as this map is we have to keep context in mind.
As an example- despite such a high number of homicides, your individual odds of getting murdered are much higher in many countries with lower total homicides. If we take the figures for how likely any 1 out of 100,000 people in a country will be murdered- Brazil doesn’t generally make the top 10 list.
To put that into perspective- what we really care about in risk calculation is the chance of it happening to us, not how many people it happens to. As an example- if 1 million people have died in all of human history from eating pie- you probably wouldn’t say eating a slice of pie is particularly dangerous. 1 million is a lot. Have you ever seen that many people or shook hands with that many people? If 10 people die that’s not a particularly large number even if that is still tragic- however if 10/10 people who ate a pie all died- you probably wouldn’t eat that pie.
Likewise- the total homicides in a country or location is important- but 100 homicides in a group of 10 million is not the same danger as 100 homicides in a group of 200.
Brazil still has a relatively high per capital homicide rate- just because it isn’t top ten highest doesn’t mean it isn’t top 20 or isn’t high enough to be dangerous.
It’s a big number but the graphic used makes things perhaps seem more dramatic.
lol. Yeah. It was a pretty long post so I didn’t want to open those cans of worms. There are all sorts of factors that can make crime stats somewhat inherently inaccurate- but at the end of the day, “murder” refers to an act a specific reporting body (usually a government) has deemed a crime. Conveniently it is seldom considered a crime to the people who make the rules when they are the ones doing it or it doesn’t suit them.
YOU KILLED THAT GUY! ... "Well, you killed 'that' guy..." no no, he refused to surrender to my AUTHORITAE! and was "processed" away from further violent insurrection.
"Noooo, you Killed, that guy... "
(Skkrk) 2317 dispatch, I'm gonna need backup.
Lmao. Yeah. Pretty much. The primary differentiator is the label of “undesirable.”
Leveraging that label and having governmental and/or social acceptance of the concept is the key to the whole thing. What you did or didn’t do doesn’t matter. That “undesirable” label can even be applied to a person because some aspect of their very existence has been labeled an offense against the world by whoever has the power to enforce their labeling.
The concept that those who are disruptive or destructive to society are undesirable gives the ability to create justifications for why almost any action can be worthy of guilt or why one’s very presence is somehow disruptive or destructive to the status quo.
Violence and killing are fundamental tools humans use to shape the world around us to fit our ideal. For a small group to exercise their vision over a larger group, the smaller group in a society, the smaller group must be able to control the use of violence to some degree.
It’s like sculpting a topiary. If 3 friends want to make an elephant, but there are 40 people with scissors also shaping the same shrub, not all of them are going to follow along with the group of 3 that want an elephant.
If you can’t somehow control who is cutting what and how they are doing it, any one person can completely wreck your plans by chopping branches you need for your elephant.
Convincing others that an elephant would be cool, bribing or coercing people to follow along, threatening people who don’t, and finding ways to prevent people who want an elephant but are so bad at it that in trying to help they make it worse.
Only those with the same “vision” can be allowed to direct where the cuts are made or else you lose control. So of course society generally controls who can use violence against whom by applying violence to those who would disrupt the attempts to sculpt the elephant.
Brazil sits around the 6th largest population in the world.
Australia, the UK, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Canada, Greenland, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Greece, Netherlands, and quite a few more countries combined would have a smaller total population than Brazil. If we eliminate countries with populations in the billions, Brazil would be the fourth largest country by population and has about 2/3 the population of the United States.
Countries with very large land mass like Canada or Australia or Russia etc. are very imposing on maps, but the populations tend to be far less impressive in size- Brazil has almost 10x the population of Australia or Canada And about 1.5x that if Russia.
If we look at murder rate ranks for a country like Canada or the UAE, the equivalent countries…
The United States is a large country and top 3 for world population- but has a disproportionately high number of homicides- at something around 32x the number of Canada or Australia or the UK- we could almost remove Brazil from the map and say that the US had more homicides than the remaining blue countries. The US is a developed and relatively wealthy nation- outside of certain areas most people you’d speak to wouldn’t say they have any serious fears of being murdered- but the statistics paint another picture.
It’s more that as dramatic as this map is we have to keep context in mind.
As an example- despite such a high number of homicides, your individual odds of getting murdered are much higher in many countries with lower total homicides. If we take the figures for how likely any 1 out of 100,000 people in a country will be murdered- Brazil doesn’t generally make the top 10 list.
Likewise- the total homicides in a country or location is important- but 100 homicides in a group of 10 million is not the same danger as 100 homicides in a group of 200.
Brazil still has a relatively high per capital homicide rate- just because it isn’t top ten highest doesn’t mean it isn’t top 20 or isn’t high enough to be dangerous.
It’s a big number but the graphic used makes things perhaps seem more dramatic.
"Noooo, you Killed, that guy... "
(Skkrk) 2317 dispatch, I'm gonna need backup.
Leveraging that label and having governmental and/or social acceptance of the concept is the key to the whole thing. What you did or didn’t do doesn’t matter. That “undesirable” label can even be applied to a person because some aspect of their very existence has been labeled an offense against the world by whoever has the power to enforce their labeling.
The concept that those who are disruptive or destructive to society are undesirable gives the ability to create justifications for why almost any action can be worthy of guilt or why one’s very presence is somehow disruptive or destructive to the status quo.
Violence and killing are fundamental tools humans use to shape the world around us to fit our ideal. For a small group to exercise their vision over a larger group, the smaller group in a society, the smaller group must be able to control the use of violence to some degree.
If you can’t somehow control who is cutting what and how they are doing it, any one person can completely wreck your plans by chopping branches you need for your elephant.
Convincing others that an elephant would be cool, bribing or coercing people to follow along, threatening people who don’t, and finding ways to prevent people who want an elephant but are so bad at it that in trying to help they make it worse.
Only those with the same “vision” can be allowed to direct where the cuts are made or else you lose control. So of course society generally controls who can use violence against whom by applying violence to those who would disrupt the attempts to sculpt the elephant.