Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: jeremyp on November 23, 2015, 01:35:47 PM
-
The subject of "are things better or worse than they used to be" has been referred to obliquely on a couple of threads recently. The answer is, of course, better.
This video by Hans Rosling from Gapminder explains how things have changed in the last 50 years in very broad terms.
https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153345837996939/
-
I really don't see how it's possible for anybody to deny that generally speaking, going by all the usual metrics of societal health, more things are better for more people than they have ever been.
The problem is that some people who can't think very clearly point to the bad things that still exist - social inequality, disease, hunger, war and so forth - and think that this invalidates the point contained in the final dozen words of the paragraph above, and then somebody has to waste time explaining why this isn't so.
-
The subject of "are things better or worse than they used to be" has been referred to obliquely on a couple of threads recently. The answer is, of course, better.
This video by Hans Rosling from Gapminder explains how things have changed in the last 50 years in very broad terms.
https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153345837996939/
In some ways we are better off, in other ways not. Many children are wrapped up in a parent security blanket for far too long! I had to walk to school by myself from the age of five, so did my own children. Around here most kids of primary age are taken to school by their parents. You can't protect kids from all harm, and you should not stop them playing games where a few scraped knees are the order of the day. A school two of my grandsons attended did not permit kids to run around in the playground in case they fell over, YE GODS!!
-
I really don't see how it's possible for anybody to deny that generally speaking, going by all the usual metrics of societal health, more things are better for more people than they have ever been.
The problem is that some people who can't think very clearly point to the bad things that still exist - social inequality, disease, hunger, war and so forth - and think that this invalidates the point contained in the final dozen words of the paragraph above, and then somebody has to waste time explaining why this isn't so.
Yes, Just to re-emphasize, the video shows how things have generally changed for there better over the last 50 years Fifty years ago, two billion people were living on the equivalent of a dollar a day or less and the remaining billion were living on ten dollars a day on average. Now there is a much bigger spread with a billion people living on an average of $100 per day and a billion people living on a dollar a day and everybody else spread out in between.
So we have halved the number of people living on a dollar a day in spite of the fact that the population has more than doubled, which is good news.
However, there are still a billion people living on a dollar a day, so we are far from done.
-
In some ways we are better off, in other ways not. Many children are wrapped up in a parent security blanket for far too long! I had to walk to school by myself from the age of five, so did my own children. Around here most kids of primary age are taken to school by their parents. You can't protect kids from all harm, and you should not stop them playing games where a few scraped knees are the order of the day. A school two of my grandsons attended did not permit kids to run around in the playground in case they fell over, YE GODS!!
With all respect, Floo, this is a First World problem. The video is talking about levels of income throughout the World.
-
With all respect, Floo, this is a First World problem. The video is talking about levels of income throughout the World.
Fair enough.
-
I'm very much with JRR Tolkien on this, that if by progress one means the advancement of the machine then we are not better off (except, perhaps, superficially). Humans today are just as capable of the grossest acts of evil than they ever were and the machine merely enables us to do so on a much larger scale.
-
Still banging the skidmarks out of your pants on the rocks by the nearest river, are we? If you are, you'd have a point. If not, stop being a hypocrite about "the machine" or whatever that ghastly old fool called it.
-
I'm very much with JRR Tolkien on this, that if by progress one means the advancement of the machine then we are not better off (except, perhaps, superficially). Humans today are just as capable of the grossest acts of evil than they ever were and the machine merely enables us to do so on a much larger scale.
By 'superficially' you mean in terms of food, healthcare, human rights, access to clean water... all those trivial things. Not the important things, like getting the 'right' imaginary friends?
Good grief - even if you value the spiritual more than the corporeal, surely you can appreciate that fewer people starving, fewer people seeing their children die in infancy, fewer women dying in childbirth, fewer people suffering oppression are all good things?
No?
O.
-
I'm not saying that clean water or fewer people starving isn't good. Techonology, however, brings with it the opportunity of much evil too, only on a much wider scale, for our propensity to commit such acts has not changed at all. "Progress" is a double-edged sword and we all have blood on our hands.
-
I'm very much with JRR Tolkien on this, that if by progress one means the advancement of the machine then we are not better off
It's clear from the video what I mean by progress in the context of this thread. Please try watching it, it's only a minute or two long.
-
I'm not saying that clean water or fewer people starving isn't good. Techonology, however, brings with it the opportunity of much evil too, only on a much wider scale, for our propensity to commit such acts has not changed at all. "Progress" is a double-edged sword and we all have blood on our hands.
You say our propensity to commit evil hasn't changed, but the evidence suggests it has. Our capacity, maybe not, our capacity - with modern technology - may well have improved, but we are tending to look after the poorest and most needy better than we ever have.
We need to be vigilant, because there are forces out there looking to cut back against these improvements, I'd agree completely, but I think we're doing good things far more often than we used.
O.
-
I'm not saying that clean water or fewer people starving isn't good. Techonology, however, brings with it the opportunity of much evil too, only on a much wider scale, for our propensity to commit such acts has not changed at all. "Progress" is a double-edged sword and we all have blood on our hands.
I don't.
-
You say our propensity to commit evil hasn't changed, but the evidence suggests it has. Our capacity, maybe not, our capacity - with modern technology - may well have improved, but we are tending to look after the poorest and most needy better than we ever have.
We need to be vigilant, because there are forces out there looking to cut back against these improvements, I'd agree completely, but I think we're doing good things far more often than we used.
O.
I haven't read it yet - it's been on my wishlist for some time - but Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature marshals a ton of evidence to support this thesis.
-
You say our propensity to commit evil hasn't changed, but the evidence suggests it has. Our capacity, maybe not, our capacity - with modern technology - may well have improved, but we are tending to look after the poorest and most needy better than we ever have.
We need to be vigilant, because there are forces out there looking to cut back against these improvements, I'd agree completely, but I think we're doing good things far more often than we used.
O.
Not in Africa, we're not: a child dies every three seconds there, from disease or malnutrition! I write this as Dave is informing Parliament how much we are now going to spend on Defence and the military.
-
Not in Africa, we're not: a child dies every three seconds there, from disease or malnutrition! I write this as Dave is informing Parliament how much we are now going to spend on Defence and the military.
Did you actually watch the clip? No-one is pretending it's a finished job. Yes, children are still dying, and at an horrendous rate.
What is so difficult about comprehending that, whilst things aren't brilliant everywhere, that on average they are better than they use to be?
O.
-
Not in Africa, we're not: a child dies every three seconds there, from disease or malnutrition! I write this as Dave is informing Parliament how much we are now going to spend on Defence and the military.
Perfect illustration of the point I made in #1. Thanks.
-
Not in Africa, we're not: a child dies every three seconds there, from disease or malnutrition! I write this as Dave is informing Parliament how much we are now going to spend on Defence and the military.
Yes in Africa, we are, have a look at the first link below. As for the child dying figures of malnutrition, based on the second link it's one in every ten seconds, which is far too many, but is also an illustration of what Shaker has already pointed out that there being such things is not an indication that things are not getting better. Indeed your use of the statistic illustrates a lack of understanding of statistics, similar to that you showed when we were discussing electoral polls, in that a single data point is useless when discussing trends.
As to your last point, you are the one on here arguing for war with your lazy metonymy of 'boots on the ground'
BTW is there a reason why you want to use a metonymy that hides that you are talking about people killing and being killed?
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/child_hunger_facts.htm
-
BA,
Not in Africa, we're not: a child dies every three seconds there, from disease or malnutrition! I write this as Dave is informing Parliament how much we are now going to spend on Defence and the military.
Which is awful, and due in no small part to the effect of religious teaching. The fact though is that globally infant mortality has halved since 1970 - a remarkable achievement, and just one indicator among many of the improving trends that have happened and continue to happen around the world.
-
Did you actually watch the clip? No-one is pretending it's a finished job. Yes, children are still dying, and at an horrendous rate.
What is so difficult about comprehending that, whilst things aren't brilliant everywhere, that on average they are better than they use to be?
O....
The point I am making is that things certainly are better, especially if you live in the affluent West. But they are not better if you live in Africa, parts of Asia, and even in the affluent West. They are not a whole lot better if you live in Syria, and the like! So, things are better, for some; but you cannot say they are better, full stop: there are millions who are not better.
-
Pointing to bad stuff happening as a supposed invalidation of the OP's thesis is about as intelligent as claiming that a particularly severe winter in one spot "proves" that climate change is a myth.
-
BA,
The point I am making is that things certainly are better, especially if you live in the affluent West. But they are not better if you live in Africa, parts of Asia, and even in the affluent West. They are not a whole lot better if you live in Syria, and the like! So, things are better, for some; but you cannot say they are better, full stop: there are millions who are not better.
Again, you're missing that the discussion is about globally improving trends. You're argument here is akin to, "Granny smoked 40 a day and lived to 101, so smoking must be fine". Awful as the lots of the people you mention are, proportionately more people have better life chances and experiences than at any time in history.
-
Pointing to bad stuff happening as a supposed invalidation of the OP's thesis is about as intelligent as claiming that a particularly severe winter in one spot "proves" that climate change is a myth.
You just don't get it, do you? Whatever is improving, it is not correct to say, in a sweeping generalisation, we are better of now. Some are, some most certainly aren't; and by some we are talking many millions. Not that they have your sympathy, as you sit in your complacent little world, dealing only in hypothetical argument. You appear to have little grasp of the conditions so many live in - hardly better than medieval.
-
You just don't get it, do you?
Pretty sure it's me that does and you that (still) doesn't.
Whatever is improving, it is not correct to say, in a sweeping generalisation, we are better of now.
Why does all the evidence point in that direction then?
-
Pretty sure it's me that
I'll try again: some are, but by no means all. Got that? Unless you are naively suggesting we are all better off? It's hard to consider you're better off if you are starving to death - a child dies every three seconds from disease or malnutrition!
-
The point I am making is that things certainly are better, especially if you live in the affluent West. But they are not better if you live in Africa, parts of Asia, and even in the affluent West. They are not a whole lot better if you live in Syria, and the like! So, things are better, for some; but you cannot say they are better, full stop: there are millions who are not better.
And the point we are making is that the evidence overwhelmingly says that you are better off if you're in Africa than you would have been. You aren't as well off as you would be if you were in Europe, but that doesn't mean that you aren't better off.
O.
-
BA,
You just don't get it, do you?
Actually he does, better than you do in fact.
Whatever is improving, it is not correct to say, in a sweeping generalisation, we are better of now.
Yes it is - collectively "we" are "better off". You're approach is a bit like being told that recovery rates from leukaemia have improved hugely, and replying, "but my friend Fred just died of it so you must be wrong".
-
And the point we are making is that the evidence overwhelmingly says that you are better off if you're in Africa than you would have been. You aren't as well off as you would be if you were in Europe, but that doesn't mean that you aren't better off.
O....
How can starvation, by the million, be considered as being better off! I'm astounded by such complacent thinking!
-
BA,
How can starvation, by the million, be considered as being better off! I'm astounded by such complacent thinking!
If, say, 100 years ago 10% of the population died of starvation and now 1% of the population dies of starvation then collectively the population is "better off".
No-one is suggesting that the position of the 1% isn't awful, nor that we shouldn't aim to make it 0%. The fact remans though that collective "better off-ness" is demonstrably a fact.
-
BA,
If, say, 100 years ago 10% of the population died of starvation and now 1% of the population dies of starvation then collectively the population is "better off".
No-one is suggesting that the position of the 1% isn't awful, nor that we shouldn't aim to make it 0%. The fact remans though that collective "better off-ness" is demonstrably a fact.
But collective "better off-ness" is better described as better off-ness for the majority. You may be a dollar or two better off than years ago, but that is not stopping you from being really poor, and dying from starvation. Try telling the starving millions not to moan: "you're better off these days."
-
BA,
But collective "better off-ness" is better described as better off-ness for the majority. You may be a dollar or two better off than years ago, but that is not stopping you from being really poor, and dying from starvation. Try telling the starving millions not to moan: "you're better off these days."
You're still not getting it. If recovery rates from leukaemia have doubled in the last 20 years but you happen to know three people who have recently died of it does that mean that recovery rates haven't doubled over the last 20 years at all?
You can point to the comparatively smaller incidences of bad stuff still happening, but that says nothing to the underlying trends.
-
BA,
You're still not getting it. If recovery rates from leukaemia have doubled in the last 20 years but you happen to know three people who have recently died of it does that mean that recovery rates haven't doubled over the last 20 years at all?
You can point to the comparatively smaller incidences of bad stuff still happening, but that says nothing to the underlying trends.
It's not much comfort to those in distress and dying - and I repeat, we are talking in many million - to learn that others are doing well and are better off.
-
I'm better off than my Grandmother, I have more free time and money.
She used to walk miles everyday just to get the milk and she had to hand wash clothes for a big family, who worked on the land.
She used candles as they had no electricity and the toilet was outside.
-
Acquisitive materialists and indeed as this thread shows philosophical materialists see improvement in material terms.
It seems in a secular humanist society we must celebrate improvements and shut up about the shortcomings.
One recent metric was how happy young people are....not very by the results....they are certainly not as well of as people on this board who were the generation that did get what they wanted, free education, Dole, Welfare state and have still found time in their dotage to disrespect other people on the grounds of religion, income, disability etc.
so for those who say ''progress'' what they are really saying is ''I'm alright Jack''.
-
Acquisitive materialists and indeed as this thread shows philosophical materialists see improvement in material terms.
When you have an empty belly, cholera and only a hole in the ground to shit in, material terms look pretty attractive, I'd imagine.
It seems in a secular humanist society we must celebrate improvements and shut up about the shortcomings.
Improvements are always worth celebrating, are they not?
One recent metric was how happy young people are....not very by the results....they are certainly not as well of as people on this board who were the generation that did get what they wanted, free education, Dole, Welfare state and have still found time in their dotage to disrespect other people on the grounds of religion, income, disability etc.
Who on this forum has disrespected anyone on the grounds of disability? I think we'll need to see some evidence of that.
-
These things are relative because people get use to the ease of their life and take it to be the norm. Only when this norm is violated do they feel that things are getting worse or extreme. It is about expectations.
-
It's not much comfort to those in distress and dying - and I repeat, we are talking in many million - to learn that others are doing well and are better off.
Absolutely true, it's of little comfort to them, and I'm glad that I'm not in their situation. To fail to appreciate that we've improved things, though, is to risk failing to acknowledge which actions and methods have resulted in the improvements that we have seen, and which changes have risked it or made no difference.
We have made a difference - infrastructure projects, widespread health-care programmes, multi-national oversight programmes in contested areas, organisations like the Red Cross, Oxfam and others... these have made a huge difference.
O.
-
I'm better off than my Grandmother, I have more free time and money.
She used to walk miles everyday just to get the milk and she had to hand wash clothes for a big family, who worked on the land.
She used candles as they had no electricity and the toilet was outside.
Would you consider yourself better off than your Grandmother if, despite your indoor toilet, etc, if your children were starving to death?
-
a child dies every three seconds from disease or malnutrition!
But , if 50 years ago, a child died from disease or malnutrition every two seconds, we'd have to say things are better today.
Fifty years ago, two billion out of three billion lived on the equivalent of less than a dollar a day. Today it is one billion out of seven billion. If we had simply maintained the status quo, the figure would be more than four billion. You'd have to be a moron not to agree that isn't an improvement.
Still sucks to be one of those one billion, of course, but at least we know that, to improve things, we should do more of the same not less of the same.
-
Would you consider yourself better off than your Grandmother if, despite your indoor toilet, etc, if your children were starving to death?
No. Along with other things that aren't happening...
Do you understand the difference between absolute measurements - some people are still starving - and relative statements - fewer people are starving now than used to be?
O.
-
Isn't life in general so much better now that there are far fewer religious believers about, I'm sure there's a link there, what do you think, B A?
ippy
P S Only life in those countries like the UK where religion seems to be in terminal decline, well everyone wants to get here, look at where the refugees keep telling the reporters they want to go to, all of them are countries with mostly non-religious populations, this has to be telling all of us something.
I thought I aught to add this PS because the original post does look like a bit of a wind up.
-
Isn't life in general so much better now that there are far fewer religious believers about, I'm sure there's a link there, what do you think, B A?
ippy
P S Only life in those countries like the UK where religion seems to be in terminal decline, well everyone wants to get here, look at where the refugees keep telling the reporters they want to go to, all of them are countries with mostly non-religious populations, this has to be telling all of us something.
I thought I aught to add this PS because the original post does look like a bit of a wind up.
Religion has nothing to do with this OP, Ippy And the OP should have been, more accurately worded as, "Have things got better for all of us; or just some?" Sits back and waits for the arguments from those sitting there comfortably and with plenty: things have certainly got better for them (and I include myself in that; though I don't think I am as complacent as most of them.) Finally, to argue that if you earn two dollars now, instead of one, you're better off, is pure derision.
-
Religion has nothing to do with this OP, Ippy And the OP should have been, more accurately worded as, "Have things got better for all of us; or just some?" Sits back and waits for the arguments from those sitting there comfortably and with plenty: things have certainly got better for them (and I include myself in that; though I don't think I am as complacent as most of them.) Finally, to argue that if you earn two dollars now, instead of one, you're better off, is pure derision.
I'd agree that the original discussion wasn't particularly about religion, though it is one of the influencing factors in many, many discussions around quality of life in various places.
I think what you want isn't that rewording of the original question, I think what you want is to say 'Is it enough that things have generally improved?'
I think we'd all agree that whilst there are still people starving, still people dying in childhood from entirely preventable diseases, still people struggling to access clean water, still people condemned to live in oppressive regimes without rights or freedoms then we haven't finished.
That doesn't mean that we can't both celebrate and learn from the very creditable successes that we have had. That fewer people are starving isn't of any comfort to the people that still are, I'm sure, even if they know; it puts a dampener on our sense of achievement, but it doesn't nullify it.
The chances that we will ever have an entirely perfect world are extremely slim, given that there is a range of impressions of what perfection is, but there are some things that we can all presumably agree are bad things, and we have done a lot of good work at reducing the prevalence of those.
O.
-
There is no doubt that in Africa the number of people living in abject poverty has decreased. Access to basic health care has improved as have other measures used to assess the quality of life. Nevertheless, speaking from the perspective of an African born and raised in Africa, I would suggest that the reaction of the great majority of the inhabitants of this continent, when informed that the stats shows significant improvements to quality of life, would be to refer to that Oscar Wilde quote about there being lies, damn lies and statistics.
-
Would you consider yourself better off than your Grandmother if, despite your indoor toilet, etc, if your children were starving to death?
No but they're not, that's the point.
My children have had far more opportunities than my grandparents had.
Back in those days even the children had to work hard, and there was not a lot of chance of self improvement.
It's more than material things that make it better, it's the wider experience, and ability to try different foods from the other side of the planet and experience " the other" and explore and learn about other spiritual things.
Also the attitudes have changed for the better. ( unmarried mothers, children born outside marriage, divorce, living together etc etc) it's much better now.
Years ago, it wasn't like that :(
We, in the UK now have much more opportunities to explore and have much more say in what we do, back then you were virtually tied to your employer and could even be sold into service. ( perhaps the class thing was more noticeable in the country)
Back in my grandmothers day, they never had the opportunity to really explore or read about Christian religion, it was something you were expected to do once a week ,to put your best clothes on and attend church on a Sunday and you sat and listened as was expected of you.
If the men had to get the harvest in, the women went on their behalf.
In my grandmothers day, the working classes were nothing......... Except skivvies and underlings etc ( all things bright and beautiful the hymn captures it in the line ......"and ordered their estate"/ social position etc etc you were poor because that's how you were born to be... To serve your betters!)
If you aspired to improve yourself you would have been seen as "getting above your station in life".
I think my grandmothers life was quite hard, full of hard work, and not much in the way of inspiration.
Even reading was difficult in the winter, because by the time you had done a days hard graft, fed your family, cleared up, darned clothes it was too dark to read much by candlelight.
It's no good going on about starving children in Africa or elsewhere because it isn't comparing like with like.
You would need to look at their generations and their grandmothers.
It may well be that their grandmother might have had to drink dirty water from a river, but the current generation might have a well with clean water.
Or that in their grandmothers day there was no oxfam, or Christian aid or water aid or Red Cross or the things they might now have access too.
It might be their grandmothers generation was inflicted with rickets or blindness or even smallpox, help of any sort might not have been possible then, not having the modern ability to raise aid and get it to where it's needed.
It's all relative.
If you compare same with same, I think you would find it has improved, but unfortunately wars and conflicts often destroy progress in many places.
Even looking at my mother through her 20-30s she couldn't buy something without her husbands permission.
She couldn't have a loan, couldn't be independant and have a mortgage, she had to get a man to approve.
She couldn't even open a bank account without a man saying she was a responsible person.
No one took women seriously, you couldn't start up in business, without a man being in charge.
Yes things have got better!
🌹
-
I'm very much with JRR Tolkien on this, that if by progress one means the advancement of the machine then we are not better off (except, perhaps, superficially). Humans today are just as capable of the grossest acts of evil than they ever were and the machine merely enables us to do so on a much larger scale.
General standards of personal and social morality have improved immensely. England in the Middle Ages was a Third World country of the worst kind, with all the nastiness of the nastiest places today. Greed, dishonesty, every kind of corruption, and casual violence were everyday norms. And the Roman Church was into every racket that the finest Italian minds could dream up.
Even in my younger days, most people wouldn't have been trusted with a credit card, if they'd been invented. Not that it would have been safe to use one. It's amazing who we trust nowadays.
Even the megalomaniacs tend to be misguided rather than bloodthirsty now. They get fixated on what they believe to be the greater good.
-
The war machine is more effecient than ever and what about the mass killing of the unborn in the womb?
-
The war machine is more effecient than ever and what about the mass killing of the unborn in the womb?
Yes - you would have thought God would have arranged things more efficiently than having all these miscarriages.
-
That's called a woman's control over her own body and reproductive chouces, one of the hallmarks of any decent, civilised society.
-
That's called a woman's control over her own body and reproductive chouces, one of the hallmarks of any decent, civilised society.
I agree. At least these days terminations of pregnancy are carried out in a civilised manner, rather than using a backstreet abortionist and a knitting needle as in the past!
-
More to the point, the overwhelming majority are performed early.
-
Yes - you would have thought God would have arranged things more efficiently than having all these miscarriages.
Very droll, but you know I'm referring to abortion. Miscarriage is a result of the fall.
-
Very droll, but you know I'm referring to abortion. Miscarriage is a result of the fall.
What's autumn got to do with all this?
-
Very droll, but you know I'm referring to abortion. Miscarriage is a result of the fall.
I didn't have a fall before I had my miscarriage in 1972!
-
The war machine is more effecient than ever and what about the mass killing of the unborn in the womb?
Better to bring unwanted children into the world? Better to burden women (mainly) with financial and social weight that they may not be equipped to carry?
Or better to prevent a few cells becoming a person?
It's a tough choice, I don't envy anyone that's had to make the call, but the availability of abortion improves people's options. Of course, I'd always advocate contraception as a better option.
O.
-
Religion has nothing to do with this OP
Correct.
And the OP should have been, more accurately worded as, "Have things got better for all of us; or just some?"
Incorrect.
Finally, to argue that if you earn two dollars now, instead of one, you're better off, is pure derision.
You should watch the video to find out what was actually said instead of just making crap up.
-
Better to bring unwanted children into the world? Better to burden women (mainly) with financial and social weight that they may not be equipped to carry?
Or better to prevent a few cells becoming a person?
It's a tough choice, I don't envy anyone that's had to make the call, but the availability of abortion improves people's options. Of course, I'd always advocate contraception as a better option.
O.
I agree. It is far better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy rather than to have to have an abortion.
-
There is no doubt that in Africa the number of people living in abject poverty has decreased. Access to basic health care has improved as have other measures used to assess the quality of life. Nevertheless, speaking from the perspective of an African born and raised in Africa, I would suggest that the reaction of the great majority of the inhabitants of this continent, when informed that the stats shows significant improvements to quality of life, would be to refer to that Oscar Wilde quote about there being lies, damn lies and statistics.
So what you are saying is that most Africans do not have a grasp of what life is and was like on their own continent, the implication being that, despite things being better, they don't think so.
Also, I'm not familiar with Oscar Wilde's quote about lies, damned lies and statistics. Could you tell us what it is? I am familiar with Mark Twain's quote (that he attributed to Disraeli) and that quote is a bit of a millstone as it is used far too often to dismiss true statistical facts.
-
The war machine is more effecient than ever and what about the mass killing of the unborn in the womb?
Stone age man makes a comment.
ippy
-
The war machine is more effecient than ever and what about the mass killing of the unborn in the womb?
There were 8.9 million deaths of infants under one year of age in 1990. There will be an estimated 4.5 million deaths of infants under one year of age in 2015.
I can't find equivalent stats for abortions, but between 1995 and 2003, the number of abortions dropped from approximately 46 million to 42 million and it is still at about 42 million today in spite of the increased population.
So things are better than they were in the past, even taking into account abortions.
-
What's autumn got to do with all this?
He means the fall down the stairs.
-
So what you are saying is that most Africans do not have a grasp of what life is and was like on their own continent, the implication being that, despite things being better, they don't think so.
Also, I'm not familiar with Oscar Wilde's quote about lies, damned lies and statistics. Could you tell us what it is? I am familiar with Mark Twain's quote (that he attributed to Disraeli) and that quote is a bit of a millstone as it is used far too often to dismiss true statistical facts.
Thanks for the correction on the source of the quote. I was quoting from memory - not necessarily a wise move nowadays.
Africans are only too aware of what life is and was like on their own continent. Unfortunately, in many instances the stats on Africa represent little more than the poor quality of the source data. Plus plenty of massaging to reflect a situation which those in authority wish to project. Only too often the facts on the ground reflect to the contrary.
-
Correct.
Incorrect.
You should watch the video to find out what was actually said instead of just making crap up.
All the adjectives of the English Language to choose from, tens of thousands of them, and all you can come up with is that. Absolutely pathetic!
-
We need to be vigilant, because there are forces out there looking to cut back against these improvements,
Yeh, You guys are OK as long as you can conjur up an ''out there''
and ''Forces''......what you mean is a ''within'' and ''people''.
Mystical bollocks designed to keep oneself off the hook.
-
Yeh, You guys are OK as long as you can conjur up an ''out there''
and ''Forces''......what you mean is a ''within'' and ''people''.
Mystical bollocks designed to keep oneself off the hook.
I wonder if you can expect a reprimand from BA for your obscene language?
-
I wonder if you can expect a reprimand from BA for your obscene language?
Of course, but you will find it engaging: poor you!
-
I wonder if you can expect a reprimand from BA for your obscene language?
He hasn't spared me before. He is his own man and I realise I do not do cross the T's and dot the I's for him.
As you know like Icelandic rotten fish....I am an acquired taste.
-
He hasn't spared me before.
I can think of at least one occasion when he did exactly that.
-
I can think of at least one occasion when he did exactly that.
Point it out to me, and I will severely reprimand him - unless your mind is playing tricks, and you are mixing him with one of the resident atheists!
-
Which is awful, and due in no small part to the effect of religious teaching.
Any evidence for this assertion, bhs.
Another horrendous stat was one I heard on the Beeb's Breakfast Show this morning - regarding the prevalence of child abuse. It is thought that only 1 case in 8 is actyually known about by the authorities. We like to call ourselves a civilized nation - but can a society that has the level of abuse that appears to exist really be regarded as a civilized one?
-
Hope,
Any evidence for this assertion, bhs.
Yes. Now then, should I point you towards it, or should I "do a Hope" and claim loudly and repeatedly to have posted it already and then disappear?
Hmmm...
Another horrendous stat was one I heard on the Beeb's Breakfast Show this morning - regarding the prevalence of child abuse. It is thought that only 1 case in 8 is actyually known about by the authorities. We like to call ourselves a civilized nation - but can a society that has the level of abuse that appears to exist really be regarded as a civilized one?
Of course child abuse of any kind is horrific, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the underlying trends have improved or worsened. Victorian child abuse for example was much more commonplace than it is now.
-
Hope,
Yes. Now then, should I point you towards it, or should I "do a Hope" and claim loudly and repeatedly to have posted it already and then disappear?
Hmmm...
Of course child abuse of any kind is horrific, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the underlying trends have improved or worsened. Victorian child abuse for example was much more commonplace than it is now.
We like to tell ourselves so, but is it?
It seems it's hidden nowadays more, but there has been so much in the news over the last few years.
-
Yeh, You guys are OK as long as you can conjur up an ''out there''
and ''Forces''......what you mean is a ''within'' and ''people''.
Mystical bollocks designed to keep oneself off the hook.
I guess that rather depends on what groups it is you think I'm referring to, and what groups it is you think I'm in. It didn't seem the right forum to go into the specifics of whom and how, and I certainly wouldn't include myself in any of them, but you just keep on believing whatever you'd like in the absence of evidence, it seems to be your modus operandi.
O.
-
Point it out to me, and I will severely reprimand him - unless your mind is playing tricks, and you are mixing him with one of the resident atheists!
For some reason, I read this in the "Come again and I shall taunt you once more!" voice :)
O.
-
All the adjectives of the English Language to choose from, tens of thousands of them, and all you can come up with is that. Absolutely pathetic!
Of all the replies you could have made, you chose to whine about the language.
Fuck off. Just go away. I've had enough of your hypocritical "bad language" derails.
So just fuck off.
-
Of all the replies you could have made, you chose to whine about the language.
Fuck off. Just go away. I've had enough of your hypocritical "bad language" derails.
So just fuck off.
All the huge number of adjectives in the beautiful English language, and all you can come up with is the "f" word. What a sad man! You need to go back to school, and learn little decent English.
-
All the huge number of adjectives in the beautiful English language, and all you can come up with is the "f" word. What a sad man! You need to go back to school, and learn little decent English.
So you only complain when an atheist uses expletives.
Why is that?
-
Hope,
Yes. Now then, should I point you towards it, or should I "do a Hope" and claim loudly and repeatedly to have posted it already and then disappear?
I have been involved in several internet boards, and no-one has actually managed to provide any such evidence, so perhaps you ought to point what you believe to be evidence out to us.
Of course child abuse of any kind is horrific, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the underlying trends have improved or worsened. Victorian child abuse for example was much more commonplace than it is now.
I am fully aware of the horrendous ways in which children have been abused throughout the industrail age in the UK - but do we actually have any evidence that sexual child abuse - which is what the latest report is dealing with as far as I am aware - was much more common in Victorian times? I'm not saying that it wasn't, just that everything we believe occurred is largely based on our more recent experiences.
-
So you only complain when an atheist uses expletives.
Why is that?
If I have to tell you why using expletives, by anyone, is objectionable, then it's too late, at your age.
-
If I have to tell you why using expletives, by anyone, is objectionable, then it's too late, at your age.
I told you to fuck off. Unless you are going to stop whining about the language, please fuck off.
-
I am fully aware of the horrendous ways in which children have been abused throughout the industrail age in the UK - but do we actually have any evidence that sexual child abuse - which is what the latest report is dealing with as far as I am aware - was much more common in Victorian times? I'm not saying that it wasn't, just that everything we believe occurred is largely based on our more recent experiences.
I can't speak for Victorian times, but I think it is obvious we are much less tolerant of child abuse now than in — say — the 70's.
-
If I have to tell you why using expletives, by anyone, is objectionable, then it's too late, at your age.
Again you avoid the point.
If you are not going to post these comments to Vlad, do not post them to anyone else.
It just shows you to be a hypocrite.
-
Again you avoid the point.
If you are not going to post these comments to Vlad, do not post them to anyone else.
It just shows you to be a hypocrite.
I'd say "do not post them full stop". We had this discussion on a thread dedicated to the topic and it was decreed that a certain amount of adult language is absolutely fine. Most of the posters here seem to agree with that dance, so the subject should be closed.
Bashful Anthony has lost that particular battle and so he should accept defeat gracefully or fuck off. What he should not do is plaster his whiney complaints on everybody's threads.
-
I told you to fuck o
I'm supposed to be the one who is insulting around here, but you posts are frequently replete with denigration, insult, and the, for you, obligatory, expletives. You must be a popular person where you come from. And you actually purport to be knowledgeable in every subject under the sun: but that, of course, is down to your googling. Though you must be well-regarded amongst the kind of person who cannot speak without swearing. If you don't like what I say do us both a favour and ignore my posts, and shut it up. Bet you won't though! It will be a test of whether it is you or I who is the prime mover - I shall ignore you, which will be easy!