Stephen T-B

Yiou might try
http://www.worldbank.org/research/journals/wbermast.htm

and
http://www.globalhealth.gov/worldhealthstatistics.shtml

and
http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/peace/home.html



The information's out there; I just don't have the time to find it.

Whispers

The information is indeed out there. However, I never asked you to find it!!! =p the other poster was going to....

DMB

Whispers: I don't know why you are tetchy with Stephen. I told you I was a bit short of time. The problem with websites is that on the whole they show only the latest data, rather than historical data. So far I have found this site, which gives a comparison of life expectancy at birth in selected countries. You will see that everyone has benefited from an increase in life expectancy, which has to mean either better nutrition or better health or both.

The figures are least good for sub-Saharan Africa, which has, of course, been heavily affected by AIDS in recent years. But AIDS was a wholely new problem and science is beginning to get to grips with it. Uganda was the worst-affected country in the world a few years ago and fatally delayed tackling the AIDS epidemic partly as a result of strong opposition from the catholic church to the use of condoms. After a change of Government, they have had a very successful campaign that has considerably reduced the rate of new infections.

Clarice O'C

Hello Whispers,

That's because these people have traded off one addiction for another. Rarely does it last and if it does it's because the person has found her/his own self-worth (but attributes the change to a god). These people cannot achieve their fullest selves unless and until they take full credit for their change.

Jamie is right:

Best,
Clarice

DMB

Another note for Whispers: see this site, from whihc I take the following quote:
This proves my contention that the proportion of people in absolute poverty has gone down, since population has gone up.

This effect is more marked over a greater time span than a decade, but I have not yet, in the limited time I am prepared to devote to this found the figures for, say, the last 50 years.

DMB

Whispers: It so happens that I do have one book with some figures in it and have just found it among my limited collection here. It is Vital Signs 2003, published by Norton for the Worldwatch Institute in cooperation with the UNEP. On page 45 there is a table showing gross world product for years from 1950 to 2001 (with provisional figures for 2002) measured in constant 2002 dollars. The per capita figures are $2641 for 1950 and $7617 for 2001. I understand that the base data come from the OECD and the IMF.

Now this would seem to bear out my claim about increased average prosperity. The main caveat is that this is a very crude measure. The calculation of GDP, and hence of GWP, is often criticised for a variety of reasons. I am sure you must be aware of some of them. That was why the UN introduced the Human Development Index, which takes into account many factors that promote a good life.

I am not aware that I argued that there had been an increase in peace and have nothing to add on that count.

I think I have now spent enough time on these questions and you ought to be satisfied. As Stephen suggested, these are well accepted facts. I was careful not to make stupid claims such as that people are necessarily happier as a result of certain kinds of material progress.

The world still faces enormous problems: poverty and inequality, lack of human rights, environmental degradation, senseless and brutal wars and terrorism, rapid population growth, to name but a few. But we have made a lot of progress in many respects and science and technology have been a contributing factor.