we are now one year away from global riots, complex systems theorists say

[bcbm]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/we-are-now-one-year-and-counting-from-global-riots-complex-systems-theorists-say--2

[TheRedAnarchist23]

So they are saying that what is happening today will continue to happen in a year?

[Decolonize The Left]

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/we-are-now-one-year-and-counting-from-global-riots-complex-systems-theorists-say--2

Interesting article. But the chart looks somewhat cyclical, so would we experience another 3-4 years of lower food costs before another spike? At the time of the chart (2011) the Food Price Index was at around 225. The article states that now it's around 213, indicating that it has gone down, not up. And when you look at the previous cycle of rampant increase in food prices (2007-2008) followed by a large drop (2008-2009), it would seem as though the "one year" claim is a little quick-handed.

But, then again, it's all speculation. I do appreciate the correlation between breaking the 220 mark and an large increase in chances of riots - it makes perfect sense but it's nice to see it in graph form.

[bcbm]

they are saying it will be more like 2008 then 2012

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't get this graph at all:

http://www.viceland.com/viceblog/80453462Riots-global.jpg
It says in the text red lines are riots, but what are those numbers next to the country? Why is Tunisia with 1 pre 2010 seem higher than the Tunisia figure with hundreds a few years down the line? Does e.g. 2005 Burundi (1) mean Burundi had the sole riot that year? Does the blue line refer to the Arab spring? And why are only riots in Africa/Middle East counted but then Haiti and India thrown in? What the hell is the inset about (it seems to be food price index thing before 2004)?

I hate it when blogs/articles do this kind of thing (the MITtech review thing seems to do the same). They just seem to lift something looking halfway snazzy from a dense scientific manuscript and then don't try to help people interpret it, instead just link to the source paper and leave it up to the reader. It's lazy science journalism I think. I wish they'd take the trouble of going beyond this.