Probabilities create a concentration of the punitive perspective. As was announced by a French mathematician in the 19th century with consistent reliability you can know statistical categories of expressions of human being. In Paris there will X number of murders; these murders will be committed by X type of weapon in X percentage; these murders will happen in X locale in X percentage...and so on, year by year these figures are reliably similar and predictable in their substance.
So, with this power of both historical data and future reliability we should then be able to begin to look for particular X factors that yield these demographically probable events.
Enter culture, enter bias, enter the improbable as plausible with appropriate explanatory power. That is, a story might be convincing yet improbable.
What do we do?
We believe here and now, that further psychometrics, that is MORE data, will get us more accuracy so that we can predict not demographic likelihood or geographic likelihood, or economic likelihood, BUT familial likelihood--that is a de facto genetic likelihood.
If you've seen Minority Report...you can imagine where this might take us.
But as I am one to believe that we are embodiments of language, I honestly feel that context and story will allow other protagonists, other equalities, different winners, to come into focus.
That is to say, we predict by making the story one that is predictable via the accepted (conventional) story. We blame race where poverty is the primary factor and racism is the promotional aspect of poverty. Ghettos are an organizing structure of government and finance. Prison, likewise.
What story can we tell ourselves that is different when this country and the "West" generally is entirely "anti-social," anti-human, anti-nature? When all we do is pixelate life or encode it and make music with binary code, and explosions, unreal, and sex only fantastical, how do we imagine the world can be "better"? It will soon simply be unrecognizable to me.
But what of that?