From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: Mitdasein
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:57:33 -0700



snip:
> Well of course if you only count advances in medicine, without counting
> preventative improvements, such as greatly improved sanitation in western
> cities. As for population control being the main cause, that is refuted by
> the fact that life expectancy had already begun increasing by 15 percent
> here in the US during the 19TH century, since the beginning of the evil
> industrial revolution. And it increased even more in the first half of the
> 20th century. And as for auto accidents, how many lives are saved by the
> ability to access help fast via car or ambulence? It's like the argument
> concerning gun violence. Crimes involving guns in the US total about
450,000
> each year. That figure is always touted by gun control advocates, but
> without the balance - crimes prevented by guns total about 2 MILLION
> (according to 15 national surveys that have been conducted by academics as
> well as polling organizations like the Los Angeles Times and Gallup)..

first of all your longivity figures do not separate out higher rates of
infant mortality even during an earilier period. the first antibiotics were
sulpha drugs. During the initial stages of modern medicine home births fell,
and hospital births rose especially in Europe and North America. The result
was that great numbers of women died during childbirth because of purpureal
fever. Increased sanitation was necessary in cities long before the onset of
the industrial age. For instance during the Great Plagues when there was no
understanding of germs, enormous quantities of rats carried Bubonic plaque.
In this century we had large outbreaks of cholera here in Toronto after
scads of Scottish and Irish immigrants came here; the great famines of the
1840's in Ireland and in Finland were a  result of using potatoes not
adapted to pathogens common in Europe.

Life expectancy over the last century has increased primarily as a result of
greater childhood survival rates. There are other factors which factor into
increased life expectancy such as the abolition of slavery, greater supplies
of food, food preservation, transportation, et cetera, all of which are not
modern accomplishments. War is another factor which - in it's absence -
improves national life expectancy.

Unfortunately the example of gun control versus no gun control in the US is
not a good one supporting your point. The US currently has the highest
homicide rate in the world, some 7 to 10 times greater than the UK. Although
Sweden requires every male to own a gun, it has one of the lowest homicide
rates in the world. The issue for the US is what is the single greatest
factor contributing to the very high homicide rates there. That factor may
be the very stiff anti-drug laws. For instance a single conviction of
trafficking in some serious illegal drug can carry a sentence of up to 20
years. And there are no adequate social and medical means to assist addicts
in becoming drug free (only those who can afford the treatments and avoid a
relapse). Part of the reality is a combination of factors in the US: easy
access to hand guns, high costs of illegal drugs, and potential prison terms
and confiscation of the assets of the convicted criminal. Whilst in the
penitentiaries, the criminal is then 'taught' crime and is not really
offered any viable means to recover from the addiction. In Europe many
countries provide cheap, safe quantities of drugs to addicts so as to both
reduce violent crimes and also to reduce the crimes associated with the
trade and commerce of illegal drugs. In some US states a finding by a judge
regarding simple possession may result in a 5 year prison term, and loss of
the convicted persons assets (in Colorado a person could lose their farm if
convicted of simple possession of marijuana).

The funny thing about guns controlling crime. They do control some crime
such as break and enters, theft, but they do not control the much more
serious crime of murder, and that was my point. In fact in the UK there is a
higher per capita rate of theft (mostly minor)  than there is in the US, but
not by much. [see New York Times World Almanac].

> >So there are only 2 factors which have improved life. One is modern
> >medicine
> >(in a way that has not helped) which improves child survival rates, and
the
> >other is small family sizes. In countries like Afghanistan, Iran and
Iraq,
> >the average family size is the highest in the world. Each woman in some
of
> >these countries has between 7 and 8 children in her life time. Modern
> >medicine does not directly contribute to an improved quality of life
though
> >because what it does is increase survival rate of infants. The longest
> >living people are the Japanese, whose traditional diet consists of simple
> >foods, fish, and low crime rates. However the Japanese are some of the
> >worlds' heaviest tobbacco smokers. Some countries in Africa have the
> >shortest life expectancies, some are as low as 50 years (this is mainly
due
> >to very low child survival rates) which negates the connection to modern
> >technology because modern technology is too expensive for many of the
> >world's poorest nations. If modern technology was beneficial over all,
then
> >it would have to be affordable for all.
>
> Um, doesn't follow, because you have to take into account that some
> governments and economies are much more inhospitable to the import or
> development of technology than others. ESPECIALLY many African
governments.
> So it is simply false that if modern technology was beneficial over all,
> then it would have to be affordable for all.

There is some truth to that. For instance Bhutan. It is the only country in
the world which did not open it's borders up to the rest of the world until
recently. It now still requires an expensive Visa and it only allows a few
thousand person into the country. It is a Bhuddist state, and it has over
60% of its' land in national parks. It is 'banking' on eco-cultural tourism,
and does not want to create the social sores that some other countries in
the region have created as a result of open access. There is nothing wrong
with what this state has done, it was the preferred plan, and it will be
successful, as long as it sticks to the plan.

Some African countries are inhospitable to technology? Well yes primarily
because they lack any natural resources or reason to import technology of
the type you are implying. Everything in Eygpt is already exploited. Can
sand dunes be exploited by technology? the Sahil? Why should the Congo
import feller bunchers and chainsaws now? Would it not be best off to
conserve what is left and use that as natural capital in a non-consumptive
forest industry associated with tourism, agroforestry and sustainable
development? Are you advocating the same pace and kind of development as has
occurred in Indonesia which has virtually no primary forests left, and
nothing left but erosion and sward grasses? I see there is some
'presumption' here that development, in your opinion, has to involve the
import of foreign capital, and technology. But we know from experience that
many large scale forms of development ruin the natural capital and result in
the depletion of the ecological resources which were there already. For
instance in the Amazon there are 75 million hectares of deforested and
degraded land which was primary rainforest and now produces nothing more
than a cow per 40 hectares. The soil is practically ruined for centuries due
to it's highly oxidized and mineral poor status. It forms a red greasy
surface with not much more than coarse grass tuffs, leaving little for
anything to eat. When it dries and hardens it is like cement. The rain
washes off in minutes carrying soil and organic matter, filling up streams.
The US has lost over half of its' original topsoil in the last century. The
same is happening in Canada, where the organic content of the native soil is
now less than half, and without the OM the soil losese it's moisture
retention capacity and experiences very low mineralization.



>
> >This is why there are only 500
> >million autos on the road globally. The problem with the car is that they
> >take up to much space. When a car is travelling at 60 kmph in a city it
> >travels over 60 kilometers of road in one hour. A road is about 10 meters
> >wide or wider. This means that each car on average takes up 600,000
square
> >meters of space in one hour. Combine that with approximately 2 million or
> >so
> >cars travelling each day in a city the size of Los Angelos. that works
out
> >to about 1.2 X 10**12 square meters or 1.2 X 10**9 hectares of space
> >required during the day. Of course you can see the serious impacts that
> >result. Huge multi-lane freeways, thousands of traffic lights,
> >infrastructure, etc.
>
> Yes, and your point? I love freeways. I can get really far really fast,
and
> it expands my work opportunities, because I can get really far really
fast.
> And yes, some cities are better designed than others. But that's just an
> argument for better design.

This is what I pointed out. You are not concerned on how enjoyable it is to
go somewhere, to take your time and tour in a hidden valley, go for swim in
under a waterfall, but would rather get to where you are going as soon as
possible and avoid any attractions.....this is like flying, which would be
easier, but more costly sometimes. That is easy but how would you like to
drive 1600 kilometers each week to do three days work in a region remote
from home? You would not but I did this summer and I hate driving with a
passion unless I am not in a hurry.

>
> >So. Martin Heidegger stayed where he was. What is the point? The US is
> >better than Thailand? I was just checking the web on Thailand it appears
to
> >be developing into a new destination area for well to do retirees. They
are
> >building these wonderful sea side villas with all that you can ask for.
>
> That's because Thailand is one of the most beautiful places in the world.
> Sorta like Hawaii. But Hawaii is much more expensive.
>
> Anthony Crifasi
>
> >Since the labour rates are so low there you can have people do all the
> >house
> >work and cooking for very little. My friends all loved Thailand, the
parks,
> >the forests, the people, but many did not really like the cities. What
> >about
> >Costa Rica? Did you check the web on it? Look at the real estate there.
> >When
> >I was there you could buy a mansion like house for less than a 3 bedroom
> >modular here in a home park, now the prices are quadrupled. Demand is
> >everything, and who likes commuting for 6-8 hours each week anyway.
> ><Millions in the US have to commute over 2 hours each day to work. Is
this
> >an advance?
> >
> >I found Canadians in Costa Rica who were in their early forties and had
> >left
> >everything here. Some were living on the beach and had purchased 5 or so
> >acres. They simply bought a plantation house and moved it to the site,
> >after
> >that one fell down they built a new one out of concrete and wooden posts
> >with palms on the roof. There are no walls on some of the homes so the
> >breezes blow all the time, and it never gets colder than 80 Fahrenheit.
> >Life
> >in hammack is a breeze.  Some rented out their houses here, got the
equity
> >from the house and bought a house in Costa Rica. They could live on the
> >rent, and pay the mortgage on the house in Costa Rica. Medicine is free
for
> >all in Costa Rica, and it never snows (except a tad on Cerro Chirripo). I
> >could retire easily in Costa Rica next week. All I need to do is rent my
> >house out here to good renters, and then have some one maintain my
rentals
> >(I have 4 properties rented, one personal residence).
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local
> service providers in your area). Click here.   https://broadband.msn.com
>
>
>
>      --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---