| Re: Long term sustainability | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Oliveau (Oliveau |
|
| Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:30:37 -0700 (PDT) | |
Hey Racheli,
Thanks for your comments. I looked it up and I stand corrected. You
are right. The number of people living in poverty as hovered around 1.2
billion. In 1987 it was 1.18 billion, in 1990's it was 1.3 billion, and it
has
recently declined to 1.2 billion. So in absolute numbers poverty has not
declined recently.
But as a percentage we have made great progress. In the 1950's half of
the global population lived in poverty. Today it's down to a quarter. All
this in the midst of a continued population growth. We've moved 3.4 billion
people out of poverty. That's an amazing result.
I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to try and help the poor. We
should. We should be investing in education for the poor, which will benefit
our
global society tremendously. We should be thinking of new ways to help the
poor, like mico-lending. The World Bank and IMF are trying to help these
countries. They may have mistaken ideas which are outdated. And they
controlled
by nations which have political bais. It's easy to criticize, but much
tough to come up with an alternative which works. Aiding the developing world
is
a hard problem.
And the countries which liberalized and invited in those evil
multi-nationals back in the 1970's, like Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Thailand,
Malaysia
have much happier healthier and well educated people today. The ones which
talked about autonomy and the evils of global capitalism have not. As China
and India have "liberalized" their economies, they have tapped into a huge
reserve of productive human capital which as transformed them from starvation
prone areas to economic miracles.
Cancer death rates go up as people age. Up to age 25, cancer deaths are
4 in 100,000. Every 10 years after that the death rate triples until it's
400/100,000 at age 50. By age 70 its 1,350/100,000. If you adjust for age,
the death rate is flat in the US, with a recent downward trend as people have
quit smoking. If you eliminate cancers attributable to smoking, the death
rate has been declining in the US since 1950.
We've gotten better at detecting cancers and detecting them early (when
they can better be treated). This results in a slight increase of incidence
of cancer, but a decrease in the death rate from cancer.
I agree with you that income inequality has been increasing. It's not
that the poor are getting poorer, rather, the difference between the richest
and the poorest person is getting larger. I don't like inequality, but if
that helps the most people the fastest, I'm willing to live with a tamed form
of
Global Capitalism. But capitalism needs to be watched, regulated, and
controlled. Otherwise we end up living in a Charles Dickens novel :-)
I do worry about the US and the decrease in mobility between the rich
and the poor. It's getting harder to move up in US society. That tells me
that we aren't creating enough opportunity for the poor and we're making it
too
easy for untalented rich to stay rich. Just look at our current President
for a primary example :-)
I accept your points about Israel. I don't have your experience with
Israeli society. I can imagine Israel has paid a terrible price for the high
level of militarization and the frequency of its wars with it's neighbors.
The tragedy of the Middle East is that people who are insecure don't care
about
democracy, or human rights, or equality, or even economic opportunity. And
it's easy for a small minority to create an unsafe climate for everyone else.
Thanks for your attention,
-Kevin
In a message dated 7/8/2007 9:38:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com writes:
Hi Kevin,
You wrote (in part) :
Second, the condition of humanity has been getting steadily better
over
the last century, by almost any measure you care to look at. Wealth,
education, calorie consumption, and life expectancy for the whole
planet have all
been going up, both as a percentage and in absolute numbers. The
number of
people living in poverty, or without healthcare, or without enough
food has been
going down, both as a percentage and in absolute numbers. Cancer
deaths
(after adjusting for longer life) are going down.
As I understand it, this is false in a number of ways.
Let me address a few points:
Some people are getting much wealthier, while many get poorer and
poorer. So, yes,
for a tiny fraction of the population things are getting "better".
There are about 1 billion people (this isn't the exact number) who are
chronically hungry/
malnourished. More than at any other time in history in absolute
numbers. My impression
is that the number of people living in poverty is growing, not
diminishing - including in
the US, as jobs are shipped elsewhere (and the people who do those jobs
overseas or across
the border aren't paid a living wage, to put it mildly).
Many many countries, under the pressure to "liberalize" exerted upon
them by the IMF and the World
Bank (read: by the US) have gone back on providing affordable health
care, on subsidizing essential
food items etc.
I'll give you as an example a country which on the surface is a great
recipient of US largesse: Israel.
When I was growing up there, everyone had health insurance for
pittance, there was a serious safety
net in place to keep people from going hungry, and the gap between the
poorest and the richest was
not so big. It was hardly a wonderful place - discrimination against
Palestinian citizens, against
Mizrahi Jews (Jews who came from the Middle East and North Africa),
etc. was serious, but on the
whole the culture and social mores strongly supported an economic
safety net.
With liberalization, things have gone downhill. There are people who
don't have enough to eat,
about fifth of the children live in poverty, many elderly are in dire
straights, and so on.
And this is a country which gets about 3 billion dollars a year from
the US govt. (mostly
earmarked for military purposes), not to mention the help US Jews and
others provide in addition!
Things are much worse in other places.
I disagree with your assessment of healthcare and health. My
impression is that there is much
more cancer - including among children, and younger people because of
growing pollution.
This is before we come to the AIDS epidemic; chronic ailments which are
rampant, etc.
Education? I suppose you mean "formal education", Western style. I
have serious questions
regarding how educational it really is, and concerns regarding
traditional appropriate knowledge
which is disappearing in many places, as subsistence living gets
destroyed to make room for
corporate agriculture and industry. (Again - Vandana Shiva's writings
are especially useful
in this respect).
All of those are, of course, huge subjects which I barely touched on.
Best,
Racheli
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-
Re: Long term sustainability Racheli Gai, July 8 2007
- Re: Long term sustainability Brian Bartholomew, July 8 2007
- Re: Long term sustainability Sterling Newberry, July 8 2007
- Re: Long term sustainability Oliveau, July 9 2007
- Re: Long term sustainability byron patterson, July 11 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.