How do sweatshops contribute to poverty in the global economy?

[Math Is Hard]

I have a final tomorrow and I need to be able to talk a little bit about globalization and the poverty related to it.

I think the question I am trying to work out is how free trade zones are established. I am specifically trying to figure out how sweatshops came about. Why do countries enter into these agreements that have no legal restrictions to protect the workers? Are corrupt (greedy) governments to blame?

I have been reading about a garment worker in Nicaragua who earns about $15 dollars a week, but her expenses of living are closer to $30 a week. I don't know how these people survive.

Incidentally, the corporation she produces garments for earns several billion dollars in profits each year.

 

[Aquamarine]

First, as discussed in the capitalism thread, global poverty is declining rapidly. And fastest in those countries most capitalistic.

Secondly, multinational corporations often pay much higher wages than the local average. So even if people are working hard for low pay in sweatshops compared to the western world, they still earn much more than the alternatives in their countries. Alternatives like prostitution, begging or primitive agriculture.
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/525.html

Thirdly, regarding the workers in Nicaragua. Here are their own opinions. (And note that the criticism are often from their competitors, western world unions.)
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/507.html

 

[loseyourname]

I have been reading about a garment worker in Nicaragua who earns about $15 dollars a week, but her expenses of living are closer to $30 a week. I don't know how these people survive.

Incidentally, the corporation she produces garments for earns several billion dollars in profits each year.

Please tell me you weren't reading those exposes by the LA Times.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Thanks for the feedback. LoseYourName, all my data came from my teacher in my anthropology class. We had essay exams this morning and I was just trying to prepare to answer the questions.
I ended up not writing about sweatshops, but I did write a little bit about the global expansion of corporations and the extent of their control. I mentioned specifically the example of Montesanto requiring farmers to pay use their seeds. (Actually I think I accidentally said "rice", instead of "seeds" so I probably botched that essay.)

 

[russ_watters]

Did these topics come from your teacher? They sound pretty left-wing and maybe a little misleading.

Ie, Monsanto sells seeds - farmers buy them. This benefits both the farmers and Monsanto. There was a recent essey about Monsanto and Iraqi seeds written for and promulgated by various anti-globalism/anti-US websites that was factually inaccurate.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Hi Russ, yes these are topics we are discussing in class. We do talk about problems associated with capitalism and globalization. It is a cultural anthropology class so we have to look at the effects that this has on other societies around the world.
I try to be as objective as possible, and I realize that I might only be seeing one side's viewpoint. These particular topics were difficult for me because it is hard to write convincingly about a subject if I'm not quite finished forming my opinion. I think it would probably take me a few years of looking into this subject in detail (and also gaining better knowledge of history) to actually form a solid opinion on these issues.
That said, there still were certain things that I learned in that class that were upsetting to me.

 

[Dayle Record]

I just read about a projected disemployment of millions of garment workers in Pakistan, because of globalization that is expected to shift their jobs to China and India. When the world globalizes, and the world economy answers only to the lowest bid for goods and services, then employers will shake their workers down, to the lowest wages possible to maximize their profits. The corporate milieu has no personal interest, and in fact loses, if it does have a personal interest in the plight of individuals that come out to work. When the wealth of nations is held by a few, then workers, and the people of those nations, foot the bills created by the wealthy few. There are blazing instances where the privileged in power make deals with the world bank that result in crushing debt, that the people of nations have to retire, by surrender of their natural resources.

A great example of this kind of stuff, occurred in Bolivia. Bechtel came in at the invite of the elite, payed off the elite, and took over the water supply of Bolivia. Then Bechtel set forth to raise water rates to the very poor people of Bolivia, at a rate of 300% or more. The people could not pay for their water, and felt that they should not have to pay exhorbitant prices for their own natural resources, that they never chose to outsource in the first place. They threw Bechtel out.

Again I say that the western economic system, doesn't have to become the world's economic system. All our food, doesn't now have to be raised in the middle of South America, so that we can sell all our farmland to developers. Now food from foreign nations doesn't have to be labeled as to its foreign origin. So even if you felt badly about what they do to workers here, or there, or if you wanted to boycott foods from one repressive regime or another, now you don't get to know where things come from. Ahhhh globalization, it isn't in the best interests of the people of the world, in my opinion. It just means, that we have created an even bigger set of fish to feed at the top of the food chain.

 

[the number 42]

You can't have it both ways i.e. you can't have people in S.America on decent wages without putting the prices of sneakers etc through the roof.

 

[plus]

What do you class as descent wages? If the cost of living in a place is 5 dollars a day, then clearly it is better to receive 10 dollars a day over there than it is to receive 50 dollars a day in the USA.
Some countries are richer than other and poverty should be compared with respect to others living in the same society rather than in different societies.

 

[sage]

globalisation(or capitalist economy for that matter) is simply not that magic wholesale poverty removing medicine to be applied wherever possible. it has its advantages and disadvantages and it needs to be carefully tailored to the specific needs of the country or culture at large. if globalisation means companies can get away with producing cheaper goods in third world countries at the cost of local environment, or submit ignorant people to potentially lethal trials of their new drugs by luring them with money then globalisation is bad. these things happen. vital inustrial processes that have been banned in the west due to their toxicity, are being done instead in the thirld world. global companies had gone away with mass murder in the past. perpetrators of bhopal gas tragedy still roam free in USA. after all poor workers in a far off country is an "expendable commodity" is'nt it?

 

[russ_watters]

There are two sets of people being discussed here: the people in the prosperous, capitalist country who'se companies are exporting jobs and the people in the 3rd world countries who are getting those jobs. In this thread, people are arguing separately that globalization hurts both sets of people (and benefits only a handful of people who own these companies, which really is another misconception altogether). Does it really?

We've had threads before where we discussed the effect of companies outsourcing jobs from the US. Being the most prosperous country in the world, outsourcing should hurt us more than it hurts anyone else. So does it hurt us when a $10 an hour job in the US gets sent to China and given to someone who makes $10 a day? The state of the US economy (high/increasing GDP, extremely low unemployment) says no.

For the people getting those low-pay jobs, does it hurt them? While there certainly are examples of companies that have exploited workers and caused injury or death, the fact of the matter is that most of these low-paying jobs are going to places where there is extremely high unemployment and poverty (that's why you can pay people $10 a day and they'll accept it). So if the alternative to $10 a day is starvation, how can it be said that it is exploitation to pay someone $10 a day? Answer: it can't be.

The one real problem with globalization I alluded to in the last paragraph, but didn't really say what the real cause is. If companies are doing things that are hurting people, the real problem is the governments of those countries aren't doing their jobs. The US (and every industrial country) went through the same problems early in the industrial revolution. We fixed our problems: these 3rd world countries need to fix theirs. It all goes back to democracy: set up a good democracy and these problems are easily dealt with.

 

[Aquamarine]

The developing countries have nothing except low wages with to compete. If they had the same wage as in the western world, their companies would go into bankruptcy. They have problems with poor infrastructure, corruption, long distance to consumer markets in the west, crime and little education. It is those wages or nothing except prostitution, begging or primitive agriculture.

And these jobs are soon abandoned as the country get richer. Like in Japan or the East Asian tigers before. Therefore, those jobs have moved to Southeast Asia, Latin America and China. And may move in the future to Africa when the wages get to high in the current countries. And after that, there will be no place to go and those jobs will disappear. But they are essential for building capital and skills in the countries. Global poverty is rapidly declining due to globalization and most in the developing countries most capitalistic.

Regarding Bolivia and water, another myth. From the company website, which they are legally responsible for, unlike the lies perpetrated on the anti-globalization websites under the protection of free speech.

CLAIM: “After privatizing the water systems in Cochabamba, Bolivia, a Bechtel subsidiary made the price of water so expensive that many, particularly the poorest, could no longer afford it. Bechtel then, at best, sat still while the Bolivian government met mass public protests with deadly force.”

FACT: As it had done in the capital of La Paz, the Bolivian government turned to the private sector because public mismanagement of Cochabamba’s water system left 40 percent of the population without service. The rest got poor quality water only a few hours each day.

A private consortium, which was 27.5 percent owned by Bechtel and included Bolivian investors, began operating the city’s water system in November 1999. The government raised water rates in Cochabamba by an average of 35 percent in January 2000 to pay down previous debts and finance improvements in the water system. Even these higher rates were 20 percent lower than the South American average. Responding to public criticism, the government rolled back rates in February and the consortium refunded customers the difference.

Unrest in Cochabamba was sparked by multiple causes and peaked two months after rates had been rolled back.

http://www.bechtel.com/iraqdemonstrationresponse.htm
http://www.bechtel.com/cochabambaresponse.htm

 

[Math Is Hard]

The developing countries have nothing except low wages with to compete. If they had the same wage as in the western world, their companies would go into bankruptcy. They have problems with poor infrastructure, corruption, long distance to consumer markets in the west, crime and little education. It is those wages or nothing except prostitution, begging or primitive agriculture.

What's the problem with "primitive agriculture"? For that matter, what's wrong with foraging? It's the oldest subsistence technology known to Man.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A private consortium, which was 27.5 percent owned by Bechtel and included Bolivian investors, began operating the city’s water system in November 1999. The government raised water rates in Cochabamba by an average of 35 percent in January 2000 to pay down previous debts and finance improvements in the water system. Even these higher rates were 20 percent lower than the South American average. Responding to public criticism, the government rolled back rates in February and the consortium refunded customers the difference.

Unrest in Cochabamba was sparked by multiple causes and peaked two months after rates had been rolled back.

So the consortium is unable to meet its debt service now? Also, if the rollback was mandated by the government, how is that a point for capitalism? Seems to me from the point of view of the peasants, it's a point for mixed economy, or even dirigisme. From the point of view of the investors, it just proves that you can't make this kind of investment pay; the government will always take away your toys.

 

[Aquamarine]

One problem with primitive agriculture and foraging is that it cannot feed many people. The population growth, even if stabilizing, means that more capital-intensive agriculture is required to avoid starvation.

And primitive agriculture is hazardous, dirty and hard. Requiring living in close proximity to animals and their pests. Being exposed to the many tropical diseases spread by contaminated water and insects. Absence of health care, meaning even teeth diseases can bring miserable pain and small cut can mean death from infection. Little education, entrainment or news. Little possibility to get a loan in order to realize new ideas. Oppression from officials, big landowners or traditional customs. Often deficient nutrition from eating similar food every day, meaning various diseases like blindness or mental retardation.

Regarding Bolivia, I am not saying that the water privatization was any good example of how privatization should be done. But that the statements of the anti-globalization movement in the case are outright wrong. Here are more detail.
http://www.bechtel.com/cochabambaresponse.htm

About water privatization in general:
http://www.rppi.org/water/index.html

 

[Dayle Record]

Here is a discussion of this thing with Bechtel and Bolivia. One statement was that the water bill was 1/4 of the Bolivian personal income. Anyway. Here is a link. There was another lengthy discussion of economic hit men, who start out in US Government, but are moved over into corporations like Bechtel, to acquire the natural resources of poor nations, by paying off the wealthy ruling class, in exchange for miring poor nations in debt. Then the people of the poor nations, Ecudor was mentioned especially, have to surrender their oil and whatever else to service debt, they never agreed on. It is our operational policy, in the third world. The pretense is that we are offering a great new life.

http://www.earthjustice.org/urgent/display.html?ID=107

 

[Dayle Record]

And here is this article. I just found these interesting, and the authors won't be Time's Person Of The Year.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

 

[Aquamarine]

The link about Bolivia contains several misleading facts, intentional or not.

1. Saying that "Families received water bills equal to as much as 25 percent of their monthly income." says nothing about the average family. And the rate increase was 35%, meaning that this extreme family paid 18% of their income before the raise.
2. The protests started 2 months after the rate increases had been taken back.
3. The consortium did not buy and did not own Cochabamba’s water utility or water resources. It operated the water and wastewater system.
4. It was the government who increased prices to pay back old debt and improve the infrastructure.
5. Bechtel owned only a minority of the project.

Regarding "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", it describes a large scale conspiracy between the CIA, NSA, World bank and IMF. Even if true, this is an example of government intervention and central planning. And not something done by the free market. So it is in fact an argument for capitalism, a system where the government intervene as little as possible.

 

[russ_watters]

What's the problem with "primitive agriculture"? For that matter, what's wrong with foraging? It's the oldest subsistence technology known to Man.

You're serious? The average life expectancy of a primitive hunter-gatherer is like 35! and and the quality of life is just dismal. I though the point here was its better to not live in poverty/squalor - now you're arguing in favor of it?!? Beyond bizarre.

 

[Math Is Hard]

You're serious? The average life expectancy of a primitive hunter-gatherer is like 35! and and the quality of life is just dismal. I though the point here was its better to not live in poverty/squalor - now you're arguing in favor of it?!? Beyond bizarre.

Actually, the foragers we studied about (primarily the !Kung San people of the Kalahari) did not lead dismal lives. They had good diets and were choosy about what they ate. They worked about 3 hours a day and were quite content with their situation.
I really felt sorry for them and the situation they are in now. Most of them no longer have access to the land where they used to hunt and gather food. They have been herded into small communities where the staple of their diet has become government-rationed meal. This certainly can't be better than their previous way of life.

 

[Aquamarine]

In recent years, however, strong doubts have arisen that the !Kung were quite as affluent as 1960s anthropologists made them out to be. As anthropologist Thomas Headland summarizes the current research, "The lives of the !Kung are far from idyllic. An average lifespan of thirty years, high infant mortality, marked loss of body weight during the lean season--these are not the hallmarks of an edenic existence."

they lived in the Kalahari not because it was their habitat of choice from time immemorial but because they had been driven into the desert from their erstwhile agricultural lands by more powerful invaders who coveted their original territory.

"are small by world standards and . . . this smallness probably indicates some degree of undernutrition in childhood and adolescence." When Zhu individuals are raised "on cattle posts on an essentially Bantu diet of milk and grains," he acknowledged, they "grow significantly taller" than foraging Zhu.

Finally, Lee has greatly revised the length of the workweek he formerly attributed to the Zhu; the average workweek for both sexes, he wrote in 1979, is not eighteen but 42.3 hours.[27]

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/whither.html

 

[Math Is Hard]

Aquamarine, thank you for your posts. I have to tell you I am feeling quite confused. I went back to school in an attempt to educate myself, but I feel that in this area of study I just don't know what information to trust. Luckily, I am not a social science major. I don't think I would fare well.

 

[Aquamarine]

Universities, especially humanities, are dominated by the left. They will, often unconsciously, present whatever are supporting their view of the world. That is part is the psychological need to diminish cognitive dissonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

One has to dig a little to find the usually very large cracks. That is part of the charm, in the "hard" sciences most basic things teached have been settled for centuries.

As for why they are dominated by the left:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/021304A.html

 

[Dayle Record]

Going to a corporate website to get the truth about their doings, and economic policies, is not the way to learn about any company. Official websites are run by the public relations, and security units of any corporation. There will be no incriminating statements or admissions there. This applies to any corporation. You have to look for the effect of the corporation's doings. How many times in your life have people turned out in the streets to protest what a large construction company is doing in the US? It takes gross misconduct to disrupt the daily lives of citizens, over an issue like water.

 

[russ_watters]

You have to look for the effect of the corporation's doings. How many times in your life have people turned out in the streets to protest what a large construction company is doing in the US? It takes gross misconduct to disrupt the daily lives of citizens, over an issue like water.

Clearly, Bolivia's water situation was not good before Bechtel. Ironically, it often takes an improvement in a situation for people to start protesting - otherwise there is no baseline from which to measure how good or bad things are. Its like in the US - people complain about and protest everything here. Why? Because they have seen and experienced how good things can be.

How can you explain tap water to someone who has never seen it? Or a refrigerator? My boss adopted two Vietnamese refugees who were teenagers and had never seen things like these. The utter lack of comprehension was breathtaking. They would stand in front of the refrigerator, opening and closing it over and over again because the idea that you could have tomorrow's food already in your house (and what the heck is a "house?") never occurred to them. The first time they rode in a car, they jumped out before it stopped (at 15mph) because they just didn't understand the concept of a "car."

I know I can't say I understand their side of the coin either (I have had friends in the Peace Corps, but I never experienced it myself), but the attitudes I am seeing here are just apalling. I'm still hung up on the suggestion that a primitive hunter-gatherer society is somehow something "good." Just unbelievable.

 

[russ_watters]

And I just saw this:

Universities, especially humanities, are dominated by the left. They will, often unconsciously, present whatever are supporting their view of the world. That is part is the psychological need to diminish cognitive dissonance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

This is true, but its also related to what I said in my last post about only protesting when things improve. There was another study done on business productivity:

People in a factory were medium-productive and a study was done to see how their productivity could be improved. Things like improved lighting, longer luch hours, music, etc. all improved morale and productivity. Unsurprising. But here's the killer: taking those things away also improved productivity and morale. As it turns out, it isn't the incentive that improves morale and productivity, but the attention.

How does this relate to Bolivia's water supply? People don't complain unless they know someone is listening.

In any case, the thing that scares me most in politics is colleges leaning left. And its not the fact that colleges lean left itself, but the dis-association with reality that grows out of it. People come out of college with liberal ideas that are based on things they learned that just plain aren't true. That's why I jumped on this thread: I could smell the implication of facts learned that aren't true.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I'm still hung up on the suggestion that a primitive hunter-gatherer society is somehow something "good." Just unbelievable.

I don't know if my teacher would make the argument that it is something "good", as much as she would say that it is not something "bad".
Of course, I can't speak for her.

My anthropology textbook calls foragers "the original affluent society". Why "affluent"? Because they desired less!

[so what do you think of that, Russ? Over the top?]

 

[russ_watters]

[so what do you think of that, Russ? Over the top?]

It quite honestly scares the hell out of me.

 

[sage]

perhaps i can help you here. in comparison to a primitive agricultural society(that existed throughout the middle ages in europe and exists still in third world countries) the hunter-gatherer society is incomparably better of. but primitive agricultural societies have the potential to evolve and become ultimately better than a hunter-gatherer society . furthermore to be prosperous hunter gatherer societies need much larger living space which today is not available. so at present nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle is no longer viable though, right upto the 18th century it was the dominant way of living(%of global area inhabited) on earth. note that humans knew agriculture very early but chose not to practice it till 10000 years ago and then only in isolated pockets where the depleted natural resources could not sustain the earlier mode of living.

 

[Math Is Hard]

sage, thanks for your comments. It seems like you have studied this subject quite a bit. Let me ask you - is it common for anthropologists to use the word "primitive"? I got the impression that this was something we weren't supposed to say (not PC or something).

"..but primitive agricultural societies have the potential to evolve and become ultimately better.."

I wonder how well it would have gone over if I had said that (the above phrase) in class. Wouldn't it sound like I am supporting the old 19th century Unilineal Cultural Evolution model?

 

[NoahAfrican]

I think that the problem with living in our Western society is that we do not entertain the notion that we live under a system of propaganda. The things we are taught are designed to propagate the system, because the elites have a vested interest in the continuation and propagation of the system that benefits them the most. Thus, although we have freedom and all kinds of access to information…by the time we mature intellectually; the system has already conditioned a bias within us in favor of what exists. It kind of akin to growing up conditioned to be a Christian and hence rejecting all other forms of worship from being valid. Had we simply grew up in a different culture, we would have been conditioned to be of another religion.

The truth of the matter is that humans have survived and flourished long before theoretical capitalism. Moreover, there have been wealthy and powerful communities long before our model of capitalism existed as well. Thus, to link wealth and poverty in this world, which has existed for thousands of years, to a recent theoretical phenomenon known as capitalism is counter intuitive. More than likely, capitalism is a façade that simply mask the empirical means of the creation of wealth. A Trojan horse, if you will.

What moved the economics of survival closer to a zero sum game has been the private ownership of land. Land and the resources on and under it is the most valuable resource for human survival. There was a time when most people lived off the land…and flourished. One can still find evidence of this in the Amazon jungles and in parts of Africa. These people are WEALTHY, HEALTHY and INDEPENDENT. What capitalism does is that is takes the ability of independence away via putting the land in the hands of private owners, who eventually exploit or develop the land, moving the inhabitants off it and into the “system”, were they become DEPEENDANT, POOR and UNHEALTHY….and hence ripe for exploitation.

I often view capitalism as a sprint, while other forms of economics are more like a marathon. What I mean by that is that capitalism seeks to go full throttle and to maximize the usage of resources and energy to reach a certain point quickly, while other forms of economics moves more slowly and does not produce the type of output and gains in juxtaposition with the sprinter. However, it comes down to an issue of strategy based upon…..where the finish line is. If the race is short, then the sprinter strategy is sound. However, if the race is long, then the sprinter strategy is foolish, because it consumes energy and recourses faster than they can be replenished, which will eventually lead to burn out. Thus, at a point in time all could look great and superior for the sprinter, if one is ignorant of that point in time relative to the distance remaining to go.

 

[russ_watters]

The truth of the matter is that humans have survived and flourished long before theoretical capitalism. Moreover, there have been wealthy and powerful communities long before our model of capitalism existed as well. Thus, to link wealth and poverty in this world, which has existed for thousands of years, to a recent theoretical phenomenon known as capitalism is counter intuitive.

The standard of living that a lower-middle class American family has today would make an 18th century king weep. This is due to things, primarily: the industrial revolution and American capitalism.

There was a time when most people lived off the land…and flourished. One can still find evidence of this in the Amazon jungles and in parts of Africa. These people are WEALTHY, HEALTHY and INDEPENDENT.

Now that's just absurd. Having nothing is not wealth. Living under constant threat of death from the smallest illness is not health. Being utterly at the mercy of their environment is not independent.

Had we simply grew up in a different culture, we would have been conditioned to be of another religion.

No one of any level of intelligence can misunderstand the implications of a refrigerator or tap-water (though they would seem like magic). These things have nothing to do with conditioning.

Thus, to link wealth and poverty in this world, which has existed for thousands of years, to a recent theoretical phenomenon known as capitalism is counter intuitive.

You miss the point. Its not the existence of poverty and weath, but the change in poverty/wealth that capitalism is relevant to.

I often view capitalism as a sprint, while other forms of economics are more like a marathon.

The finish line for a human is death. How long it takes to get there depends greatly on your place in the economic scheme of things.

But I'll bite - you say other forms take a long-term approach. When can I see the benefits of another system and how many billions of people have to die before they are realized? The human race has been civilized for upwards of 20,000 years, and the average life expectancy remainded roughly constant for the first 19,900 years. In the last 100 years, it has doubled. I think 19,900 years is enough time to spend waiting for the benefits of another system to occur and try a new system...

I find it extrordinary that so many people today have so little regard for how good they really have it. Could you even imagine what life would be like without electricity, refrigeration, indoor plumbing, pennicilin, concrete, etc?

 

[the number 42]

If wealth were about nothing but TVs, nannies and the like, capitalism wins. But is that all we are going to judge our standard of living by? What about justice, equality, freedom?

Lets not forget relative wealth. The gap between the rich and poor continues to widen in the US
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/13/national/main635936.shtml
and UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...gap08.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/08/ixhome.html

Someone has to make the TV, and be the nanny. Is the nanny glad she doesn't have to live in a ditch and die at 28? She'd be nuts not to. But that's a pretty desperate yardstick by which to measure the success of capitalism.

 

[hitssquad]

Life-expectancy vs life-expectancy at age

the average life expectancy remainded roughly constant for the first 19,900 years. In the last 100 years, it has doubled.

It has been pointed out on http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.life-extension/search?group=sci.life-extension&q=%22life+expectancy%22+infant&qt_g=1 that the concept of life-expectancy is nonsensical without an accompanying at the age of qualification. For example, has life-expectancy for 20-year-olds really doubled?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.life-extension/browse_frm/thread/2722719147c2613a/ddffa455c3a6f103?q=%22life+expectancy%22+infant&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.life-extension%2Fsearch%3Fgroup%3Dsci.life-extension%26q%3D%22life+expectancy%22+infant%26qt_g%3D1%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#ddffa455c3a6f103

• Paul Antonik Wakfer Sep 1, 3:02 pm
  
  Newsgroups: sci.life-extension
  From: Paul Antonik Wakfer <t...@morelife.org>
  Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:02:01 -0400
  Local: Wed, Sep 1 2004 3:02 pm
  Subject: Re: Statistics regarding lifespan
  
  Doug Brooks wrote:
  > This was posted on an online forum. Is there any truth to this?
  
  > "Unfortunately most improvement in longevity stems directly from
  > improved neonatal care.
  
  > I had a biostatistician look at last 150 years of life tables from
  > Metropolitan Life, and his conclusion: If you survived the first 3 days
  > after birth in 1930, your life expectancy was within 6 months of what it
  > is now, despite all the heart surgery and chemotherapy... "
  
  It is my understanding from many credible sources that this is generally
  correct, although to hear all the doctors and drug companies talk, you
  would never know it. It is that basis of why people like Jay Olshansky
  (and Aubrey de Grey, for that matter) argue that with today's
  technology, even extrapolated into the near future, there is going to be
  little increase in either the average or maximum life expectancy of the
  human species. This is Aubrey's basis for promoting a big push for
  research into radically new technologies to increase human lifespan.

 

[NoahAfrican]

If you were a true scholar Russ, you would realize that in nature….the only true metrics of success is perpetuation of the bloodline. You spend too much time evaluating the pleasure and longevity of a particular life, under a particular form of economics, when that is not NATURES measure of success.

The wealthiest nations have the weakest humans and the lowest rates of reproduction, which promotes FAILURE in nature’s standards. Why? The reason being is that the natural selection process is stymied. There is little resistance to life that promotes the natural selection processes, which in turn makes each subsequent generation stronger. Also, the low rates of reproduction of wealthy moves them closer to the extinction threat….regardless of how long and how well the people who are living.

People in Africa may have a low life expectancy….but they have triple the rates of reproduction and population growth than does wealthier more advanced peoples….and by the laws of natural selection, they are biologically stronger due to the resistance they face and genetically mutating and evolving to survive. Thus, they are actually more successful than the West.

Most of the things that make us live longer in the West are artificial and not genetic. We stay alive via drugs and medicine, not evolved biological strength as a resultant of having to be biologically strong to survive. Moreover, we pollute our bodies with all sorts of chemical, destroy the environment, air quality and atmosphere…all to live a more comfortable life. In the short turn….that manifest into a benefit…but what are the long term implications on future generations? Likely bad.

Russ, your problem is that you have a superficial short term intellect and you do not understand NATURE.