Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Has Global Health and Wealth Increased or Decreased?
Options
Replies
-
Where I work we are focused on developing cost-effective treatments for diseases of poverty largely affecting the developing world. I think its worth doing as we will need both vaccines and drugs if we stand a chance at eradicating or pushing back the current disease burden however I also recognize that it is playing whack-a-mole and until the real issue of the actual overall wealth, wealth distribution and infrastructure is in place that disease will continue to be an issue in those regions. That until those issues are addressed each disease we provide treatment options for will either continue due to lack of distribution and compliance or will just be replaced by the next disease that is allowed to flourish in impoverished areas.
That is why I am so encouraged by the trend that seems to be happening of a lot of the "third world" of previous generations really improving in terms of their standards of living and infrastructure. It means, hopefully, that once we deal with the current disease burdens the basic standard of living will be high enough that it won't just be replaced by the next disease in line. It is hard to develop wealth and infrastructure if your population is suffering from diseases but it is also hard to eradicate diseases in a region that suffers from poverty and lack of infrastructure...it is sort of a Catch-22.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »This guy says violence spreads like infectious disease and suggests that we can apply lessons learned from disease control to eradicate violence.
https://www.ted.com/talks/gary_slutkin_let_s_treat_violence_like_a_contagious_disease/up-next
The problem is that one cause of violence is evil men.
Most conflict is over resource. Whether that is water, oil, land or access to routes and markets.
Evil has little to do with it.
That's an incredibly naïve opinion.
Especially when any time you find endemic violence it is those who have resources perpetuating violence upon those who have fewer.2 -
Wake me up when the conversation shifts to whether or not a decrease in infant mortality rates and/or increased life spans are a good thing.2
-
Wake me up when the conversation shifts to whether or not a decrease in infant mortality rates and/or increased life spans are a good thing.
If population pressure reinvigorates the drive for expansion and pursuing off earth opportunities and goals I'm a fan. However, the pragmatist that I am says that won't happen until we actually reach the point of no return, which based on current population trends is 50-80 years off, and somewhere in the 75-100 Billion people range.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Wake me up when the conversation shifts to whether or not a decrease in infant mortality rates and/or increased life spans are a good thing.
If population pressure reinvigorates the drive for expansion and pursuing off earth opportunities and goals I'm a fan. However, the pragmatist that I am says that won't happen until we actually reach the point of no return, which based on current population trends is 50-80 years off, and somewhere in the 75-100 Billion people range.
I wonder if we can make that happen before the next global plague outbreak, ice age, global nuclear war, or other mass extinction event.0 -
Wake me up when the conversation shifts to whether or not a decrease in infant mortality rates and/or increased life spans are a good thing.
Well they tend to go along with decreased rates of birth so if you are referring to overpopulation I don't think it has the affect you are implying it does.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Wake me up when the conversation shifts to whether or not a decrease in infant mortality rates and/or increased life spans are a good thing.
If population pressure reinvigorates the drive for expansion and pursuing off earth opportunities and goals I'm a fan. However, the pragmatist that I am says that won't happen until we actually reach the point of no return, which based on current population trends is 50-80 years off, and somewhere in the 75-100 Billion people range.
I wonder if we can make that happen before the next global plague outbreak, ice age, global nuclear war, or other mass extinction event.
Given the utter lack of sense of urgency by the US/Russia, and the limited scope of the attempts by the Indians and Chinese, probably not. And since Brazil and France and UK aren't really playing anymore.
Probably not.
We could put 100K people on a sustainable Mars colony within 10 years if anyone wanted, and use that and the inevitable moon colony to jump start generational ships with the mineral resources of the moon, And yes I know that sounds like science fiction, but it's been technologically possible for the last 40 years.
1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
At that point one needs to decide if we as a country support those people financially to give them the opportunity to retrain and become professionals within a new domain or if they just become impoverished or forced to do some sort of menial labor where their potential is wasted.
i think that's exactly what we need to find a way to do. This is exactly why college/vocational schools should be free for all (or at least for those below a certain income). People are gonna need to learn totally new skillsets. Some blue-collar jobs are already starting to go away. But not many people seem to care at this point because it's mostly affecting poorer people. Once AI starts replacing white-collar workers and affecting the upper middle class, I think more people will start to notice and take some form of action- ideally by establishing UBI and/or some new strategy for job retraining.
But that's a huge undertaking that would require massive amounts of money. Not to mention rapid cultural shifts in how the public views labor, merit, and capital itself. Now admittedly, I'm just your everyday socialist with a background in sociology/psychology- not economics. So while I'd *love* to see UBI happen in my lifetime, I'm honestly just not sure how feasible/realistic those kind of changes would be, unfortunately, given an increasingly polarized political climate. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Although I might have brought up the idea of a UBI I would not self-describe as socialist at all. I don't typically like to self-apply political or social labels to myself as I don't feel really any of them fully encapsulate my beliefs but if I were to pick one it would probably be libertarian....and yet faced with an AI future I still think a UBI might be necessary. It does concern me though, I would be very concerned that if people become too comfortable just from the generated wealth of AI to the point that they do nothing with their time but watch entertainment, make youtube videos and Etsy crafts I sort of hate to picture what happens to the general competence and education level of humanity after another couple of generations. I mean why even bother to pursue higher education in that sort of future? For a functioning society I think at some level you need to have a system that makes not working uncomfortable.
I wish I could remember where I read it so I could give credit, but I read an author discussing "the end of work" due to AI who had a more optimistic outlook.
The idea was that humans have an inherent desire to be busy, to create, and to accomplish. That the primary reason people become habitually lazy is because they are required to do work they don't like to support themselves, and are taught that skills that will get them money are more satisfying than skills that won't. So they lose interest in anything they cant make a living at and feel generally useless if they are unable to match up their natural talents with a decent job.
The theory/hope was that in a world where working for a living isn't necessary, people will feel free to do activities that give them personal satisfaction and pride without embarrassment or judgement. So people will get busy pursuing their natural talents and interests, which for many would still require higher education, study, and practice. There would still be naturally lazy people, but it wouldn't take over everyone necessarily.
Not sure if I buy that, and I have to think there would be a treacherous transition period regardless, but at least a possibility of better than the space ark in Wall-E!
I'll have to check. It's not Heinlein, but he influenced RAH, and is referenced by him in several essays/speeches.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Wake me up when the conversation shifts to whether or not a decrease in infant mortality rates and/or increased life spans are a good thing.
Well they tend to go along with decreased rates of birth so if you are referring to overpopulation I don't think it has the affect you are implying it does.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that decreased infant mortality rates and/or increase life spans don't have a meaningful impact on population numbers?0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
At that point one needs to decide if we as a country support those people financially to give them the opportunity to retrain and become professionals within a new domain or if they just become impoverished or forced to do some sort of menial labor where their potential is wasted.
i think that's exactly what we need to find a way to do. This is exactly why college/vocational schools should be free for all (or at least for those below a certain income). People are gonna need to learn totally new skillsets. Some blue-collar jobs are already starting to go away. But not many people seem to care at this point because it's mostly affecting poorer people. Once AI starts replacing white-collar workers and affecting the upper middle class, I think more people will start to notice and take some form of action- ideally by establishing UBI and/or some new strategy for job retraining.
But that's a huge undertaking that would require massive amounts of money. Not to mention rapid cultural shifts in how the public views labor, merit, and capital itself. Now admittedly, I'm just your everyday socialist with a background in sociology/psychology- not economics. So while I'd *love* to see UBI happen in my lifetime, I'm honestly just not sure how feasible/realistic those kind of changes would be, unfortunately, given an increasingly polarized political climate. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Although I might have brought up the idea of a UBI I would not self-describe as socialist at all. I don't typically like to self-apply political or social labels to myself as I don't feel really any of them fully encapsulate my beliefs but if I were to pick one it would probably be libertarian....and yet faced with an AI future I still think a UBI might be necessary. It does concern me though, I would be very concerned that if people become too comfortable just from the generated wealth of AI to the point that they do nothing with their time but watch entertainment, make youtube videos and Etsy crafts I sort of hate to picture what happens to the general competence and education level of humanity after another couple of generations. I mean why even bother to pursue higher education in that sort of future? For a functioning society I think at some level you need to have a system that makes not working uncomfortable.
I wish I could remember where I read it so I could give credit, but I read an author discussing "the end of work" due to AI who had a more optimistic outlook.
The idea was that humans have an inherent desire to be busy, to create, and to accomplish. That the primary reason people become habitually lazy is because they are required to do work they don't like to support themselves, and are taught that skills that will get them money are more satisfying than skills that won't. So they lose interest in anything they cant make a living at and feel generally useless if they are unable to match up their natural talents with a decent job.
The theory/hope was that in a world where working for a living isn't necessary, people will feel free to do activities that give them personal satisfaction and pride without embarrassment or judgement. So people will get busy pursuing their natural talents and interests, which for many would still require higher education, study, and practice. There would still be naturally lazy people, but it wouldn't take over everyone necessarily.
Not sure if I buy that, and I have to think there would be a treacherous transition period regardless, but at least a possibility of better than the space ark in Wall-E!
There are a number of theorists holding this position, but there's the element of purpose in human nature that needs to be accounted for. Neitzsche holds the most accurate accounting for this in his statement and warning "God is dead". Man needs purpose. To achieve purpose man must have more than basic needs met. Hence for this utopia to exist abundance must exist. Even then you still have to deal with the cluster B personalities.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »This guy says violence spreads like infectious disease and suggests that we can apply lessons learned from disease control to eradicate violence.
https://www.ted.com/talks/gary_slutkin_let_s_treat_violence_like_a_contagious_disease/up-next
The problem is that one cause of violence is evil men.
Most conflict is over resource. Whether that is water, oil, land or access to routes and markets.
Evil has little to do with it.
That's an incredibly naïve opinion.
Especially when any time you find endemic violence it is those who have resources perpetuating violence upon those who have fewer.
So how are you defining evil in this sense?
You referred to gang violence upthread. That's largely around access to markets, and security of supply. Those defending their position against those who are trying to break in. You see similar in the displaced persons camps in Kenya and Somaliland, relating the reference to aid in Somalia earlier.
If you look at Northern Ireland, that's been about access to means of production. Originally farmland.
So when we're talking about global wealth, violence is inextricably linked to the growth of that wealth and the distribution.
I alluded upthread to admiration of Putin. He got where he is today through abuse of position. Would you describe him as evil, or as self interested and power hungry?
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Wake me up when the conversation shifts to whether or not a decrease in infant mortality rates and/or increased life spans are a good thing.
Well they tend to go along with decreased rates of birth so if you are referring to overpopulation I don't think it has the affect you are implying it does.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that decreased infant mortality rates and/or increase life spans don't have a meaningful impact on population numbers?
Actually they do but in the opposite direction you are implying. Countries that have high life expectancy and low infant mortality rates have much MUCH lower birth rates than countries with low life expectancy and high infant mortality rates. If you look at where population growth is highest you will find it in poorer regions that tend to be less developed and have higher mortality and lower life expectancy...look at where population growth is lowest and you will find the most developed nations with the highest life expectancy and lowest infant mortality.
Japan has the highest life expectancy and lowest infant mortality rate and its population growth is actually negative.
Nigeria has some of the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality rates and its population growth is 2.6%
These stats are and have been historically very well inversely correlated.
Higher the infant mortality rate higher the population growth:
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035#!ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&met_y=sp_pop_grow&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_x=sh_dyn_mort&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&ifdim=country&pit=1431586800000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false
Higher the life expectancy, the lower the rate of population growth
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035#!ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&met_y=sp_pop_grow&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&ifdim=country&pit=1431586800000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false3 -
Basically think of it this way.
You live in a developed nation with lots of infrastructure and a social safety net. You dedicate your early years to education and career development and finish schooling at the age of 25 you end up getting married and your wife and you have a discussion about whether or not you want to have kids. You don't need to have kids, it is something to do if you want to. If you decide to not have kids and you end up being greviously injured and unable to work there are various social programs in place to protect your life not to mention savings you have accumulated thusfar.
You live in an underdeveloped nation with very little infrastructure and no social safety net. You dedicate your early years to helping support your immediate family through labor and when you are old enough to start having children you start having children in order to provide continued labor for continued support. Given the high mortality rate you have a lot of children to make sure some of them reach adulthood and can support you if you ever fall ill or become disabled. Without that if you do cease to be able to work you will cease being able to eat and you will die.
Believe it or not increasing wealth and infrastructure to drive up life expectancy and drive down infant mortaility rate is the best way to limit population growth. I recognize that seems counter intuitive.4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Basically think of it this way.
You live in a developed nation with lots of infrastructure and a social safety net. You dedicate your early years to education and career development and finish schooling at the age of 25 you end up getting married and your wife and you have a discussion about whether or not you want to have kids. You don't need to have kids, it is something to do if you want to. If you decide to not have kids and you end up being greviously injured and unable to work there are various social programs in place to protect your life.
You live in an underdeveloped nation with very little infrastructure and no social safety net. You dedicate your early years to helping support your immediate family through labor and when you are old enough to start having children you start having children in order to provide continued labor for continued support. Given the high mortality rate you have a lot of children to make sure some of them reach adulthood and can support you if you ever fall ill or become disabled. Without that if you do cease to be able to work you will cease being able to eat and you will die.
Which country has the higher population growth rate? Believe it or not increasing wealth and infrastructure to drive up life expectancy and drive down infant mortaility rate is the best way to limit population growth. I recognize that seems counter intuitive.
Good posts... a lot for me to think about there...0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Basically think of it this way.
You live in a developed nation with lots of infrastructure and a social safety net. You dedicate your early years to education and career development and finish schooling at the age of 25 you end up getting married and your wife and you have a discussion about whether or not you want to have kids. You don't need to have kids, it is something to do if you want to. If you decide to not have kids and you end up being greviously injured and unable to work there are various social programs in place to protect your life.
You live in an underdeveloped nation with very little infrastructure and no social safety net. You dedicate your early years to helping support your immediate family through labor and when you are old enough to start having children you start having children in order to provide continued labor for continued support. Given the high mortality rate you have a lot of children to make sure some of them reach adulthood and can support you if you ever fall ill or become disabled. Without that if you do cease to be able to work you will cease being able to eat and you will die.
Which country has the higher population growth rate? Believe it or not increasing wealth and infrastructure to drive up life expectancy and drive down infant mortaility rate is the best way to limit population growth. I recognize that seems counter intuitive.
Good posts... a lot for me to think about there...
Sure no problem, I recognize it is counter-intuitive. Here is perhaps a better way of viewing it...fertility rate (number of births per woman) versus life expectancy. Look how perfect that negative correlation is.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035
Life expectancy tends to be a good readout for how developed a nation is and if you think about it living past 40 years old doesn't actually mean you get to have a lot more babies. So areas that tend to have low life expectancies tend to have low infrastructure and social services and tend to have people who have as many children as they can to help support themselves and their community.
So yes life expectancy has been going up world-wide, but along with it birth rates have been declining.0 -
I don't doubt that the numbers line up... for me it's a question (thought) about correlation vs causation. Is it really that direct - my town/city/county has a high infant mortality rate, and thus I must have more children to compensate for that.
Or do things like education or career pressure or social/cultural norms or... also play a role in reproduction rates?1 -
I don't doubt that the numbers line up... for me it's a question (thought) about correlation vs causation. Is it really that direct - my town/city/county has a high infant mortality rate, and thus I must have more children to compensate for that.
Or do things like education or career pressure or social/cultural norms or... also play a role in reproduction rates?
Well I don't think life expectancy directly causes lower birthrate, more that life expectancy tends to come along with the affluence that is actually related to birth rates. I'm just saying that added life expectancy is never going to result in higher population burden because the higher the life expectancy the more affluent the area the lower the birthrates even to the point where population growth is negative or flat.1 -
This guy says violence spreads like infectious disease and suggests that we can apply lessons learned from disease control to eradicate violence.
https://www.ted.com/talks/gary_slutkin_let_s_treat_violence_like_a_contagious_disease/up-next
Interesting insight - I spent a few years overseeing the security of aid forces in Somalia. Having spent years in martial arts there is the underlying philosophy "The only rational reason of mastering violence is to abolish it".
“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” - Sun Tzu, Art of War1 -
"Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States."
"For instance, in Seattle's King County, the annual household survival budget for a family of four (including one infant and one preschooler) in 2016 was nearly $85,000. This would require an hourly wage of $42.46. But in Washington State, only 14% of jobs pay more than $40 an hour."
money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html0 -
geneticsteacher wrote: »"Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States."
"For instance, in Seattle's King County, the annual household survival budget for a family of four (including one infant and one preschooler) in 2016 was nearly $85,000. This would require an hourly wage of $42.46. But in Washington State, only 14% of jobs pay more than $40 an hour."
money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html
Ok, just did the math. The Standard calculation for working hours per year is 2080. By my math that's 40 an hour. with a single wage earner. If you've only got 1 working adult in the home, you don't need to pay child care, which reduces the COL by 15-35K. So now you're looking at 50-70K and 24-35 dollars an hour. Or one adult at full time in the 20-25 an hour range and the other working nights or weekends part time.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions