mushin wrote:People in industrialized nations now have better lives, but how bout the other 80% of the world population.
My argument is that industrialization has lengthened lives worldwide, which is statistically and historically confirmed. You've thrown out some strange numbers in this most recent post, but I hope to rectify your confusion.
mushin wrote:There has to have been a better way. We are slaves to the machines in our lives. That's absolute crap.
I also contend that industrialization has increased leisure time and thus, in many ways, quality of life, however this is in many ways a question of perspective. I don't feel like I'm a slave to machines, but I believe that perhaps you do. I'm interested in knowing how you feel that you are a slave to machines.
mushin wrote:Also, the statement that life expectancy in most places was 30's is a gross oversimplification. It depends on where you were. Also life expectancy was skewed by infant mortality rates, which are still around today outside of the industrialized world. But people in pre-industrialized England regurlarly lived into their 60's. In fact, if you want to get into the "realities" of this great world, lets look at the life expectancy of humans today. Not just in Industrialized nations.
Life expectancy worldwide has increased in the past 300 years. I mentioned European life expectancy in the middle ages because Europe is where the phenomenon known as the Industrial Revolution began. By looking at Europe before and after, we get the clearest picture of its immediate effects. Even today, though, where you compare societies (even within the same countries) that are "industrialized" versus those that aren't (mostly native groups who live nearly entirely outside of the grasp of machines), you see extreme differences in life expectancy. Today non-industrialized native groups have life expectancies of around 30 years. As to infant mortality rates, they don't exist only outside the industrialized world. Infants die everywhere and always have. The ability of a society to keep infants alive is largely based on issues that I've already mentioned: sanitation, availability and effectiveness of health care, living conditions, etc. All of these factors have been amplified by technological progress.
mushin wrote:The fact of the matter is that more people have lived in a total state of poverty and deprivation since the industrial revolution than ever before. The percentages are crazy. While Europe was in the Dark Ages, the Islamic world was having a golden period, Africa was experiencing a time of prosperity. The rest of the world was doing okay. The percentage of humans living in total squalor was nowhere near what it is today.
Now, I agree that a larger number of people live in "squalor" today than ever before---because the population of the Earth today is much, much larger than ever before. But percentage-wise?? If you can provide me with a reputable link or evidence, I might be convinced, but it seems contrary to logic and to historical realities.
mushin wrote:And if you don't think that there are countries today that have a life expectancy of Midieval Europe (33), while 34 countries, as of January 2006, had life expectancies of 34 years or less.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, no, my friend. According to the World Factbook, one of the most respected sources of demographic information, in 2007 only one country had a life expectancy under 34 years: Swaziland, a country embroiled in civil struggle for decades and with the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world. Nearly every country in the world with life expectancies under 50 years is severely afflicted with HIV/AIDS, a disease not invented by machines or technological progress, but which modern invention has fought against and, I believe, will one day win the battle against.
.jpg)
