NationStates Jolt Archive

These are some facts I found in a book (Indypedia A-K to be exact) that might make you wonder what the heck is going on in the world:

1: 291million Africans survive on less than $1 a day
2: 30,000 children die in Africa die every day due to preventable poverty
3: Every year 4.5million African children die before they reach the age of 5
4: Africa loses $2billion a year because of trade barriers imposed by richer countries
5: African countries spend $12billion on arms every year, of which $200million goes to the UK
6: 31 African countries are "Rampatly Corrupt", this costs Africa $85billion a year
7: China is reponsible for 90% of all executions
8: One young man in five and one young woman in 10 think violence against women can be acceptable
9: The world cocaine market is worth $400billion
10: 37% of terrestrial species could be extinct by 2050 unless something is done
11: 10 million people die of famine every year - 4.5million are children
12: 1000 people are killed by guns every day
13: 12 children have been executed in Iran, 30 are to be executed
14: Between 100,000 to 200,000 people in North Korea are in prison camps
15: Food handouts of cereal in North Korea ahve been decread from 300g a day to 250 g a day
16: For every barrel of oil discovered, six are consumed


Shocking stuff, eh'?

Not really. I thought it was a little worse, actually.

So what's the bad news?

Gah dunno, I just thought it was quite interesting

These are some facts I found in a book (Indypedia A-K to be exact) that might make you wonder what the heck is going on in the world:

1: 291million Africans survive on less than $1 a day
2: 30,000 children die in Africa die every day due to preventable poverty
3: Every year 4.5million African children die before they reach the age of 5
4: Africa loses $2billion a year because of trade barriers imposed by richer countries
5: African countries spend $12billion on arms every year, of which $200million goes to the UK
6: 31 African countries are "Rampatly Corrupt", this costs Africa $85billion a year
7: China is reponsible for 90% of all executions
8: One young man in five and one young woman in 10 think violence against women can be acceptable
9: The world cocaine market is worth $400billion
10: 37% of terrestrial species could be extinct by 2050 unless something is done
11: 10 million people die of famine every year - 4.5million are children
12: 1000 people are killed by guns every day
13: 12 children have been executed in Iran, 30 are to be executed
14: Between 100,000 to 200,000 people in North Korea are in prison camps
15: Food handouts of cereal in North Korea ahve been decread from 300g a day to 250 g a day
16: For every barrel of oil discovered, six are consumed


Shocking stuff, eh'?

Mwahaha, I have L-Z. Personally, I found the cover article of the Independent on Saturday shocking.

Anyway, you missed the most shocking fact.
UK deaths resulting from shaking vending machines in attempts to shake free packets of crisps (and other items) since 1978: 37.

30,000 children die in Africa die every day due to preventable poverty

is poverty a cause of death?

"yes, sorry about your sister.... we did all we could, but she was too poor"

surely they are dying of disease of malnutrition or something

Mwahaha, I have L-Z. Personally, I found the cover article of the Independent on Saturday shocking.
Yeh, 50 litres for a bag o' salad ain't right if ya ask me

That can actually happen in the US.

is poverty a cause of death?

"yes, sorry about your sister.... we did all we could, but she was too poor"

surely they are dying of disease of malnutrition or something
Yes, Poverty is now a disease, like alcoholism. [/sarcasm]

is poverty a cause of death?

"yes, sorry about your sister.... we did all we could, but she was too poor"

surely they are dying of disease of malnutrition or somethingWhich are maladies the rest of us avoid, because we're not (as) poor.

People die from poverty in your own country as well.

Anyway, you missed the most shocking fact.
UK deaths resulting from shaking vending machines in attempts to shake free packets of crisps (and other items) since 1978: 37.


37?

In a row?

10 points for whoever gets that reference.

37?

In a row?

10 points for whoever gets that reference.

Not in a row...that's the total number of people, since 1978.

9: The world cocaine market is worth $400billion

Now thats a market I want in on.

37?

In a row?


Dante Hicks: Well?
Veronica Loughran: Something like... 36...?
Dante Hicks: What? Something like 36?!?!?
Veronica Loughran: Lower your voice!
Dante Hicks: Wait a minute, what is that anyway, something like 36? Does that INCLUDE me?
Veronica Loughran: Ummm... 37.
Dante Hicks: I'm 37?!?!

Dante Hicks: Well?
Veronica Loughran: Something like... 36...?
Dante Hicks: What? Something like 36?!?!?
Veronica Loughran: Lower your voice!
Dante Hicks: Wait a minute, what is that anyway, something like 36? Does that INCLUDE me?
Veronica Loughran: Ummm... 37.
Dante Hicks: I'm 37?!?!

Very clever :).

Ummm....what?

Which are maladies the rest of us avoid, because we're not (as) poor.

People die from poverty in your own country as well.
poverty isn't a cause of death.

I don't know of anyone that dies from poverty.

I know of many people that die from malnutrition, that is a cause of death, actually they probably die from heart failure or something caused by dehydration.... but not from "being poor"

Ummm....what?
Democratic Colonies put "37" into a "row"... i.e. an argument.

Yes, Poverty is now a disease, like alcoholism. [/sarcasm]



Please don't use [/sarcasm] tags.

It ruins otherwise perfectly good sarcasm.

If someone can't tell you're being sarcastic, they're retarted.

For those who like figures, a tiny few ones showing the complete absurdity of neoliberalism...

Estimated cost for providing to every single human being of the world:


Basic education 6 G$/year
Clean water 9 G$/year
Basic healthcare 12 G$/year
Food and sanitation 13 G$/year
Total of previous 40 G$/year


Estimated yearly spendings


Ice creams in Europe 11 G$/year
Perfumes in USA and Europe 12 G$/year
Increase of USA military spendings in 2002 40 G$/year
Tabacco in Europe 50 G$/year
Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105 G$/year
Hard drugs in the world 400 G$/year
World advertising 400 G$/year
World military 780 G$/year


Source: UN, 1999

In the world...

- 30 000 children die each day from disease we know cures to

- 1.3 billion don't have drinkable water

- 54 countries were poorer in 2000 than in 1990

- The 225 richest persons of the world have more in stock than the 45% of the poorer earn in one year

- The ratio between the richest and the poorest country: 1820: 3 to 1,
1913: 11 to 1, 1950: 35 to 1, 1992: 72 to 1, 1997: 727 to 1

- Each year, rich countries give to poor countries 50 G$ as help. Each year, poor countries pay to rich countries 350G$ as repayment and interests of the debt.

- The cumulated anual income of the 5 biggest corporations of the world is 526 G$, while the cumulated anual GDP of all countries of Sub-Saharian Africa is 269 G$.

The stock market

- 80% of the stock are sold back the same week in which there are bought

- 0.5% of the population owns 40% of the stock; 1% own 50%; 10% own 90%

France, after 30 years of neoliberal policies

- Between 1993 and 2003, the profist given to stock owners increased by +73%, while the wages increased by +8%, less than the cumulated inflation of about +20%

- The total amount of money given by the 40 biggest french corporations to stock holders in 2004 was more than the total cost, all taxes included, of paying at the minimal wage the 3 millions of unemployed people France has

- In the 20% of richest families, only 1 kid over 5 is late when he's at the age of 15; on the 20% of poorest families, 2 kids over 3 are late when he's at the age of 15

UK, lovely neoliberal paradise

- The GDB increased by +20% between 1990 and 2000, the number of poor by +1 million

- 1/4 of workers declare wanting to do two jobs, because one doesn't pay enough

- The internal debt is at 140%, while in France or Germany it's around 70% (which is already a lot)

USA, even more lovely neoliberal paradise

- 47 millions of people don't have any health coverage

- Between 1973 and 1995, the average GDB/habitant raised by +36%, while the average wage of factory workers decreased by -14%

- Drug industry in 2000: 106 billions of $ of income: manufacturing and transport of drugs = 27 billions of $; medical research = 19 billions of $; cash given to stock owners = 19 billions of $; advertising: 41 billions of $ (twice more than what was invested in research).

- The personal cumulated wealth of Bill Gates is more than the total cumulated wealth of the 100 millions of poorest US citizen

- While in Europe 33.5% of workers are in companies of 10 workers or less, only 11.8% in USA.

- While in Europe only 33.7% of workers work in comapnies of more than 250 workers, in USA, 47.5% work in companies with more than 500 workers.

*sniffs the OP and walks off*

poverty isn't a cause of death.

I don't know of anyone that dies from poverty.

I know of many people that die from malnutrition, that is a cause of death, actually they probably die from heart failure or something caused by dehydration.... but not from "being poor"No they don't. People die because their brains cease to function. That's the only cause of death...

What are you trying to say? That if I kick in your skull, I should be held blameless & my boot hauled off to jail?

...

is poverty a cause of death?

"yes, sorry about your sister.... we did all we could, but she was too poor"

surely they are dying of disease of malnutrition or something

I know it's not funny, but this made me laugh.

To the OP, what is the source of their statistics?

Certainly Smunkee's point illustrates that what one considers a death that was caused or majorly contributed to by poverty another may not. Technically, if I have a heart condition and I could have paid someone a million dollars to give me their heart when they die, but I don't have it, didn't I die of poverty (assuming my heart condition kills because I can't get a donor)?

No they don't. People die because their brains cease to function. That's the only cause of death...

What are you trying to say? That if I kick in your skull, I should be held blameless & my boot hauled off to jail?

...
sure, that's exactly what I am saying. :rolleyes:

For those who like figures, a tiny few ones showing the complete absurdity of neoliberalism...

Estimated cost for providing to every single human being of the world:


Basic education 6 G$/year
Clean water 9 G$/year
Basic healthcare 12 G$/year
Food and sanitation 13 G$/year
Total of previous 40 G$/year


Estimated yearly spendings


Ice creams in Europe 11 G$/year
Perfumes in USA and Europe 12 G$/year
Increase of USA military spendings in 2002 40 G$/year
Tabacco in Europe 50 G$/year
Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105 G$/year
Hard drugs in the world 400 G$/year
World advertising 400 G$/year
World military 780 G$/year


Source: UN, 1999

In the world...

- 30 000 children die each day from disease we know cures to

- 1.3 billion don't have drinkable water

- 54 countries were poorer in 2000 than in 1990

- The 225 richest persons of the world have more in stock than the 45% of the poorer earn in one year

- The ratio between the richest and the poorest country: 1820: 3 to 1,
1913: 11 to 1, 1950: 35 to 1, 1992: 72 to 1, 1997: 727 to 1

- Each year, rich countries give to poor countries 50 G$ as help. Each year, poor countries pay to rich countries 350G$ as repayment and interests of the debt.

- The cumulated anual income of the 5 biggest corporations of the world is 526 G$, while the cumulated anual GDP of all countries of Sub-Saharian Africa is 269 G$.

The stock market

- 80% of the stock are sold back the same week in which there are bought

- 0.5% of the population owns 40% of the stock; 1% own 50%; 10% own 90%

France, after 30 years of neoliberal policies

- Between 1993 and 2003, the profist given to stock owners increased by +73%, while the wages increased by +8%, less than the cumulated inflation of about +20%

- The total amount of money given by the 40 biggest french corporations to stock holders in 2004 was more than the total cost, all taxes included, of paying at the minimal wage the 3 millions of unemployed people France has

- In the 20% of richest families, only 1 kid over 5 is late when he's at the age of 15; on the 20% of poorest families, 2 kids over 3 are late when he's at the age of 15

UK, lovely neoliberal paradise

- The GDB increased by +20% between 1990 and 2000, the number of poor by +1 million

- 1/4 of workers declare wanting to do two jobs, because one doesn't pay enough

- The internal debt is at 140%, while in France or Germany it's around 70% (which is already a lot)

USA, even more lovely neoliberal paradise

- 47 millions of people don't have any health coverage

- Between 1973 and 1995, the average GDB/habitant raised by +36%, while the average wage of factory workers decreased by -14%

- Drug industry in 2000: 106 billions of $ of income: manufacturing and transport of drugs = 27 billions of $; medical research = 19 billions of $; cash given to stock owners = 19 billions of $; advertising: 41 billions of $ (twice more than what was invested in research).

- The personal cumulated wealth of Bill Gates is more than the total cumulated wealth of the 100 millions of poorest US citizen

- While in Europe 33.5% of workers are in companies of 10 workers or less, only 11.8% in USA.

- While in Europe only 33.7% of workers work in comapnies of more than 250 workers, in USA, 47.5% work in companies with more than 500 workers.

USA? Neoliberal? *takes out eyeballs and cleans them with a damp cloth* Yep, still says that. On what planet is the USA neoliberal? Is that in comparison to Syria?

Please don't use [/sarcasm] tags.

It ruins otherwise perfectly good sarcasm.

If someone can't tell you're being sarcastic, they're retarted.

You mean, like, they were a tart and then they weren't and now they are again. They're re-tarted?

You mean, like, they were and tart and then they weren't and now they are again. They're re-tarted?


Exactly.

sure, that's exactly what I am saying. :rolleyes:Very well then, what were you trying to say?

That the symptoms that kill are unrelated to the cause of the sumptoms, or what?

poverty isn't a cause of death.

I don't know of anyone that dies from poverty.

I know of many people that die from malnutrition, that is a cause of death, actually they probably die from heart failure or something caused by dehydration.... but not from "being poor"

Then you haven't seen the African child that dies of not being able to pay for exorbitantly priced HIV/AIDS medication? It isn't the AIDS that is the cause of its death - it's not being able to afford medication. Denial of that fact will lead to even more children dying.

But don't mind reality. Go on with your pointless semantical bullshittery.

USA? Neoliberal? *takes out eyeballs and cleans them with a damp cloth* Yep, still says that. On what planet is the USA neoliberal? Is that in comparison to Syria?

Liberalism is a right-wing economic philosophy.

But don't mind reality. Go on with your pointless semantical bullshittery.Thank you for not being completely insane.

These are some facts I found in a book (Indypedia A-K to be exact) that might make you wonder what the heck is going on in the world:

1: 291million Africans survive on less than $1 a day
2: 30,000 children die in Africa die every day due to preventable poverty
3: Every year 4.5million African children die before they reach the age of 5
4: Africa loses $2billion a year because of trade barriers imposed by richer countries
5: African countries spend $12billion on arms every year, of which $200million goes to the UK
6: 31 African countries are "Rampatly Corrupt", this costs Africa $85billion a year
7: China is reponsible for 90% of all executions
8: One young man in five and one young woman in 10 think violence against women can be acceptable
9: The world cocaine market is worth $400billion
10: 37% of terrestrial species could be extinct by 2050 unless something is done
11: 10 million people die of famine every year - 4.5million are children
12: 1000 people are killed by guns every day
13: 12 children have been executed in Iran, 30 are to be executed
14: Between 100,000 to 200,000 people in North Korea are in prison camps
15: Food handouts of cereal in North Korea ahve been decread from 300g a day to 250 g a day
16: For every barrel of oil discovered, six are consumed


Shocking stuff, eh'?

1: PPP (Purchasing Parity Power? Purchasing Power Parity? ahh what the hell). That means, sure, they survive on less than one dollar a day. However, if you were in the same place, you too could survive on less than one dollar a day. It's not possible when your lunch alone costs you two euroes.

2: Poverty might help to kill and I certainly don't condone it, but poverty itself does not kill. I get the message they are trying to send, but after reading point 1, I am already somewhat doubtful of their intellect.

3: That's bad. Need anything more be said? I'd prefer to do something, but am in a tough position to do anything direct. Indirectly, I might help though.

4: So much for the WTO.

5: wow, 200 million out of 1,2billion is so much. Anyway, 1,2 billion is a lot, relative to the fact that supposedly, it is possible to survive on 1 a day.

6: I honestly think that's a lot more the problem of the africans than me. I don't see how I am supposed to reduce corruption in a system that I am not welcome in.

7: They are also responsible for a sixth of the world population. Point taken though, it's still bad. Is it true though? I'd like a source.

8: Any excuses for this?

9: so...?

10: Species die, evolve and new ones come from this. Of course, they are dying a bit too fast, but they'll recover.

11: Yet if we flood their markets with the surplus food of the EU, we put their apparently inefficient or greedy farmers out of a job, thus causing more harm in the long-term. Self-sufficiency is quite important and that will take a while.

12: 1000? Only?

13: And is this true? It might be, but again, if you make such accusations (because that is what they are), you provide a source. If it is true, then there isn't much of an excuse against it. If it isn't true: stop spreading lies.

14: Did you know that 2 million americans are in prison? Sure, it's not a prison camp and I don't want to necessarily compare the two, but have you considered that maybe prison camps are for... yes, Criminals?

15: Because 300 grams was so much in the first place. Still smells of 1984 to me though, and again, more accusations, no source. Not very good though.

16: Hence - renewable energy.

Then you haven't seen the African child that dies of not being able to pay for exorbitantly priced HIV/AIDS medication? It isn't the AIDS that is the cause of its death - it's not being able to afford medication. Denial of that fact will lead to even more children dying.

But don't mind reality. Go on with your pointless semantical bullshittery.

I believe her point is that the statistic is fairly inspecific. We happen to know that being poor can very much affect your overall health in most countries. If my parents use powdered milk instead of real milk it's less healthy. Ramen instead of real soup (is tasty) but unhealthy. Meat is expensive so tends to be eaten less frequently than most. More hours are spent working, less caring for oneself. That's not even getting into actual medical care.

Without a definition of how poverty killed these people, it's nearly meaningless. I'm fairly well to do, but if I die of old age, but younger than I would have had I grown up rich, you could argue that I died of poverty at 78 years old, as a rich man.

Thank you for not being completely insane.

You're missing her point. She's talking about what are the specifics of how they come to such a conclusion. Certainly you and I would not necessarily agree on what dying of poverty consists of.

2: Poverty might help to kill and I certainly don't condone it, but poverty itself does not kill.

:rolleyes:

Sometimes you people on this board are so intellectually disappointing, I start to wonder if it's because you really are stupid, or because you just don't want to know better.

France, after 30 years of neoliberal policies
- In the 20% of richest families, only 1 kid over 5 is late when he's at the age of 15; on the 20% of poorest families, 2 kids over 3 are late when he's at the age of 15

Do you mean what I think you mean? Rich boys actually show up to things and poor kids can't be bothered?

That honestly makes no sense...

...

...unless you made a typo and meant She instead of He.

:rolleyes:

Sometimes you people on this board are so intellectually disappointing, I start to wonder if it's because you really are stupid, or because you just don't want to know better.

I meant that poverty can be a factor that leads other factors to kill you, Sometimes. It doesn't do so everytime (and it would be foolish to think that it does), hence the Might.

Dante Hicks: Well?
Veronica Loughran: Something like... 36...?
Dante Hicks: What? Something like 36?!?!?
Veronica Loughran: Lower your voice!
Dante Hicks: Wait a minute, what is that anyway, something like 36? Does that INCLUDE me?
Veronica Loughran: Ummm... 37.
Dante Hicks: I'm 37?!?!

Top Movie!!!

I believe her point is that the statistic is fairly inspecific. We happen to know that being poor can very much affect your overall health in most countries. If my parents use powdered milk instead of real milk it's less healthy. Ramen instead of real soup (is tasty) but unhealthy. Meat is expensive so tends to be eaten less frequently than most. More hours are spent working, less caring for oneself. That's not even getting into actual medical care.

Without a definition of how poverty killed these people, it's nearly meaningless. I'm fairly well to do, but if I die of old age, but younger than I would have had I grown up rich, you could argue that I died of poverty at 78 years old, as a rich man.

This is not relative poverty. This is actual poverty. As in not having money, at all.

This is not relative poverty. This is actual poverty. As in not having money, at all.

I get it. And I believe poverty kills. However, it's not the direct cause and it's quite open to interpretation what could be considered dying due to poverty. I agree with the examples you gave and I'm quite sure Smunkee does too, but it still doesn't explain how close to the vest they measured deaths due to poverty.

Are they deaths where someone died from not having the money for medical care? Are they deaths from malnutrition? Are they deaths from disease because of filthy living conditions? Are they deaths from rats and such? All of the above? None of the above? How big a factor does poverty have to play in their death? What if they would have had a 50% chance to live if they were rich and only a 25% chance if they were poor? I would say poverty caused their death but many would disagree with me. The statistic is very general and while under any definition it's concerning it is not clear enough for my tastes.

Liberalism is a right-wing economic philosophy.

Ah, I get it. I retract my statement. I just looked it up.

I believe her point is that the statistic is fairly inspecific. We happen to know that being poor can very much affect your overall health in most countries. If my parents use powdered milk instead of real milk it's less healthy. Ramen instead of real soup (is tasty) but unhealthy. Meat is expensive so tends to be eaten less frequently than most. More hours are spent working, less caring for oneself. That's not even getting into actual medical care.
pretty close.


Are they deaths where someone died from not having the money for medical care? Are they deaths from malnutrition? Are they deaths from disease because of filthy living conditions? Are they deaths from rats and such? All of the above? None of the above? How big a factor does poverty have to play in their death? What if they would have had a 50% chance to live if they were rich and only a 25% chance if they were poor? I would say poverty caused their death but many would disagree with me. The statistic is very general and while under any definition it's concerning it is not clear enough for my tastes.
exactly. Thank you.

I was not saying that poverty can't contribute to illness or death, but that it's not something you die from. You can die from a lot of stuff, and the fact that you don't have money for health care may up your chances of it, but you don't really die because you don't have money, you die because you are sick. (or something else that won't piss Fass off)

some stuff I know:

-there are more than a 1000 chemicals in a cup of Coffee. Of these, only 26 have been tested and half caused cancer in rats (scary shit)

-you way slightly less during a full Moon due to gravitational effects

-termites eat wood twice as fast when listening to heavy metal music

Where would I be without: http://www.hookedonfacts.com/index.htm

(maybe a tad off topic but you did say facts you should know and these are pretty important stuff)

I was not saying that poverty can't contribute to illness or death, but that it's not something you die from. You can die from a lot of stuff, and the fact that you don't have money for health care may up your chances of it, but you don't really die because you don't have money, you die because you are sick. (or something else that won't piss Fass off)

So, to take an example already used, if I were to kick you in the head until you died (not threatening by the way, just making a point lol) would you say that I killed you? Or would you be similarly pedantic and asinine and say my shoe killed you. After all, my action of swinging the heavy, toughened leather and plastic object repeatedly into your vulnerable cranial area didn't actually kill you did it - it only contributed to it.


And don't worry Fass and Similized - I know what you're saying and I whole-heartedly agree. (Good grief that makes me sound like such a creep).

So, to take an example already used, if I were to kick you in the head until you died (not threatening by the way, just making a point lol) would you say that I killed you? Or would you be similarly pedantic and asinine and say my shoe killed you. After all, my action of swinging the heavy, toughened leather and plastic object repeatedly into your vulnerable cranial area didn't actually kill you did it - it only contributed to it.
it's not a fair comparison.

it would be more like "I got cancer and the tumor spread into my lymph system killing me, I died because I don't like apples."

So, to take an example already used, if I were to kick you in the head until you died (not threatening by the way, just making a point lol) would you say that I killed you? Or would you be similarly pedantic and asinine and say my shoe killed you. After all, my action of swinging the heavy, toughened leather and plastic object repeatedly into your vulnerable cranial area didn't actually kill you did it - it only contributed to it.


And don't worry Fass and Similized - I know what you're saying and I whole-heartedly agree. (Good grief that makes me sound like such a creep).

Yes, I would say you killed her, but the point is there is nothing vague about that. You are not a vague concept. YOU are a being. There would be little chance that if I said Mooseica killed her that people would argue that you don't really qualify as Mooseica or that someone else also qualifies as Mooseica.

Poverty is not a clearly defined entity. Again, one could argue that I could die of old age at 78 as a rich man and have died of poverty. We are simply suggesting the statistic is unclear.

Poverty is not a clearly defined entity. Again, one could argue that I could die of old age at 78 as a rich man and have died of poverty. We are simply suggesting the statistic is unclear.


and with that, I quit. You know it almost annoys me how clearly you are able to understand what I am saying when the rest of the world just reads it and thinks "gee, she's a bitch"

and with that, I quit. You know it almost annoys me how clearly you are able to understand what I am saying when the rest of the world just reads it and thinks "gee, she's a bitch"

I don't think there is anything unclear about your point. I think sometimes people read something that's not there and never want to admit that they are reading something in that you didn't say.

Poverty is not a clearly defined entity.

It is.

Those who are not clear about it are those who are not/never been poor.

Alright then, how about this:

Person has, say, cancer. Person is barely surviving on their $1 a day - jsut enough to eat to live. Because of this extreme poverty (and yes, I think we can definitely agree that having to survive on barely enough to eat because you can't afford more can definitely be called poverty) they are unable to afford the necessary drugs/treatment that could cure them of this affliction.

Surely then, because there is the means available to cure this person, and the only reason they could not obtain it was because they could not afford it because they are poor, then it was the poverty that killed her.

After all - just as with my previous example, you agreed it was me that killed Smunkee, and my action wasn't just a contributary factor, surely then the poverty is at least as responsible for the persons death as the cancer. In fact, more so - the cancer was readily cureable, so anything that prevents that cure is the true cause of death.

Incidentally I don't think you're a bitch at all, I just think you're misguided.

Alright then, how about this:

Person has, say, cancer. Person is barely surviving on their $1 a day - jsut enough to eat to live. Because of this extreme poverty (and yes, I think we can definitely agree that having to survive on barely enough to eat because you can't afford more can definitely be called poverty) they are unable to afford the necessary drugs/treatment that could cure them of this affliction.

Surely then, because there is the means available to cure this person, and the only reason they could not obtain it was because they could not afford it because they are poor, then it was the poverty that killed her.

After all - just as with my previous example, you agreed it was me that killed Smunkee, and my action wasn't just a contributary factor, surely then the poverty is at least as responsible for the persons death as the cancer. In fact, more so - the cancer was readily cureable, so anything that prevents that cure is the true cause of death.

Incidentally I don't think you're a bitch at all, I just think you're misguided.

misguided, because I said that poverty in itself isn't a cause of death, or because I said that the statistic was pretty much useless since it was so unspecific (actually Jocobia said that, but that's what I originally meant)

in your senario, they died from cancer. Poverty whether being a contributing factor or not was not the cause of death.

in fact, say I had a brain tumor, and had a seizure, was unconcious and died of dehydration, did I die of the brain tumor, or because I was dehydrated?

It is.

Those who are not clear about it are those who are not/never been poor.

Really? Define poverty specifically, please. Because I have been poor and I have never heard that it's a specific entity rather than more a concept.

is poverty a cause of death?

"yes, sorry about your sister.... we did all we could, but she was too poor"

surely they are dying of disease of malnutrition or something



Just wait a few years for unregulated, laissez-faire healthcare in the States; poverty will become the leading cause of death.

Skibidiy dibidy dee bob, ba dooby do wow

Just wait a few years for unregulated, laissez-faire healthcare in the States; poverty will become the leading cause of death.No, because dying from having been denied access to perfectly ordinary & abundant resources because you're poor, doesn't mean that the direct cause of your death is your poverty...

The cause of death is that you're subhuman scum, and people in a position to save your life, are busy aerguing semantics.

Alright then, how about this:

Person has, say, cancer. Person is barely surviving on their $1 a day - jsut enough to eat to live. Because of this extreme poverty (and yes, I think we can definitely agree that having to survive on barely enough to eat because you can't afford more can definitely be called poverty) they are unable to afford the necessary drugs/treatment that could cure them of this affliction.

Surely then, because there is the means available to cure this person, and the only reason they could not obtain it was because they could not afford it because they are poor, then it was the poverty that killed her.

After all - just as with my previous example, you agreed it was me that killed Smunkee, and my action wasn't just a contributary factor, surely then the poverty is at least as responsible for the persons death as the cancer. In fact, more so - the cancer was readily cureable, so anything that prevents that cure is the true cause of death.

Incidentally I don't think you're a bitch at all, I just think you're misguided.

By the way, I do think there are some things that everyone would agree counts as poverty. However, it's still not a specific term. Certainly, where one can no longer be considered in poverty is a point that there would be quite the debate on.

Again, with this new example, you still run into a bit of a problem. Cancer is not curable. There is no cure for cancer. Cutting out the cancer or killing it often causes it to go into remission, but there is no true cure.

That aside, it's an excellent example because it highlights the point. When they measured this how likely was she to die with the medical care? Without? I would argue that if it had any increased chance of survival it contributed to her death. You know what else contributed to her death, the cost of health care, no national health care system, no medicaid, whatever contributed to her getting cancer in the first place, etc. Do I agree that you could say 'poverty' killed her? Sure. But you still are making a fairly nebulous statement, because without all of those details nobody knows what the hell you're talking about.

That is, was and remains the point.

No, because dying from having been denied access to perfectly ordinary & abundant resources because you're poor, doesn't mean that the direct cause of your death is your poverty...

The cause of death is that you're subhuman scum, and people in a position to save your life, are busy aerguing semantics.

Yes, nice strawman. Are you just deliberately trying not to understand her point? It's not semantics. It's a clarification of the concept. You're here rather than doing anything about it so don't act like she's keep you away from your good works. Do you want to make any more appeals to emotion and logical fallacies or would you care to actually address her point? If you're too lazy to actually read and understand her post and then more adequately explain how they qualified poverty as a cause in the statistic, then it's not likely you're actually going to be willing to do anything to help the people referenced in the statistic.

Just wait a few years for unregulated, laissez-faire healthcare in the States; poverty will become the leading cause of death.

Really? Based on what? Poverty in the US is a minor problem in comparison to other places in the world. Don't get me wrong. It doesn't feel minor when you're sister is in the hospital for nine months and it's likely if you had the money you could find a doctor that could cure her in moments (which is eventually what happened), and when you are hiding during dinner time or intentionally getting sent to your room without dinner so your chronically-ill sister will get a bit more to eat.

If I had my druthers I would rather the government spent their dollars addressing the most grievous cases of poverty they can find wherever they find it. That would be more often than not, not in the US. It would mean addressing how American trade, corporate and governmental practices affect the world, as well as setting a minimum standard of living under which people in the US would not fall (and hopefully helping other countries to set similar standards).

That said stating that poverty is likely going to be the leading cause of death in the US soon is a bit of hyperbole, methinks, but feel free to show some evidence that proves me wrong.

misguided, because I said that poverty in itself isn't a cause of death, or because I said that the statistic was pretty much useless since it was so unspecific (actually Jocobia said that, but that's what I originally meant)

in your senario, they died from cancer. Poverty whether being a contributing factor or not was not the cause of death.

in fact, say I had a brain tumor, and had a seizure, was unconcious and died of dehydration, did I die of the brain tumor, or because I was dehydrated?

The former. Agreed unspecific stats are fairly useless.

However, I still can't understand how you can fail to see my point; the cancer was cureable, but the poverty prevented the cure being obtained. Surely then poverty is the ultimate cause of death.

The former. Agreed unspecific stats are fairly useless.

However, I still can't understand how you can fail to see my point; the cancer was cureable, but the poverty prevented the cure being obtained. Surely then poverty is the ultimate cause of death.

Cancer isn't curable and, no, cancer was the ultimate cause of death. Poverty led to the death. Without the poverty, she may have lived, but without the cancer she surely would have.

Yes, nice strawman. Are you just deliberately trying not to understand her point? It's not semantics. It's a clarification of the concept. You're here rather than doing anything about it so don't act like she's keep you away from your good works. Do you want to make any more appeals to emotion and logical fallacies or would you care to actually address her point? If you're too lazy to actually read and understand her post and then more adequately explain how they qualified poverty as a cause in the statistic, then it's not likely you're actually going to be willing to do anything to help the people referenced in the statistic.No. I understand the objection perfectly, but that doesn't make it valid.

Even if I had 1USD to live for a day in my country, I'd be deeply screwed & might die because of the severe problems such extreme poverty would result in.

Unlike some unlucky sod in a poverty stricken 3rd world nation, however, I'd still be able to find food in trash containers, get ANY healthcare I might need, and even when all else fails on a cold winter night, all I'd have to do to avoid freezing to death, is attack some random police station.

To be poverty stricken in an equally poverty stricken country, is to have all options taken away. You might as well get dumped in the middle of a jungle with nothing but a pint of water & a swiss knife.

That's why it's completely idiotic to argue about whether such extreme levels of poverty cause death. You would be lucky to survive a month under such circumstances, as would Smunk & I.

I do what I can do to combat it. I engage in various forms of activism, take active part in the political party I'm a member of, and fork over as much cash I feel I can spare.

World hunger could be eliminated if people limited the consumption of animal products. I'm vegan.

World hunger could be eliminated if people limited the consumption of animal products. I'm vegan.

*eats Similization*

Mmm. Tasty. :D

11: 10 million people die of famine every year - 4.5million are children


Can anyone provide a rational reason why it's significant that 4.5mil of them are children?
Why not post the number of Females? of Males? or old People?

Points like these sounds like emotive arguments, and tend to get dismissed because people who use emotive arguments have an agenda.
The proper term is propoganda.

"There are Lies, Dam Lies, and Statistics"

These are some facts I found in a book (Indypedia A-K to be exact) that might make you wonder what the heck is going on in the world:

1: 291million Africans survive on less than $1 a day
2: 30,000 children die in Africa die every day due to preventable poverty
3: Every year 4.5million African children die before they reach the age of 5
4: Africa loses $2billion a year because of trade barriers imposed by richer countries
5: African countries spend $12billion on arms every year, of which $200million goes to the UK
6: 31 African countries are "Rampatly Corrupt", this costs Africa $85billion a year
7: China is reponsible for 90% of all executions
8: One young man in five and one young woman in 10 think violence against women can be acceptable
9: The world cocaine market is worth $400billion
10: 37% of terrestrial species could be extinct by 2050 unless something is done
11: 10 million people die of famine every year - 4.5million are children
12: 1000 people are killed by guns every day
13: 12 children have been executed in Iran, 30 are to be executed
14: Between 100,000 to 200,000 people in North Korea are in prison camps
15: Food handouts of cereal in North Korea ahve been decread from 300g a day to 250 g a day
16: For every barrel of oil discovered, six are consumed


Shocking stuff, eh'?

Why woud I want to know that? Now I'm depressed. :(

I wish I invented cocaine. :p

Can anyone provide a rational reason why it's significant that 4.5mil of them are children?
Why not post the number of Females? of Males? or old People?

Females and males imply adults. Old people are going to die anyway. Here's why I think that they use children on those ads and in statistics. It strikes a nerve with certain people to see children that are starving to death, and they'll be more likely to donate money. No one's going to donate anything if they see an adult that technically should be working to support the family, or if they see an elderly person that is close to the end of their lifespan.

Points like these sounds like emotive arguments, and tend to get dismissed because people who use emotive arguments have an agenda.
The proper term is propoganda.

I'd call it a "marketing" tool.

No one's going to donate anything if they see an adult that technically should be working to support the family, or if they see an elderly person that is close to the end of their lifespan.

I said 'Rational Reason'.
I know it's an emotive position.

I said 'Rational Reason'.
I know it's an emotive position.

That is a rational reason. It gets people to be more generous. More generosity equals more money. It's both emotional and rational.

is poverty a cause of death?

"yes, sorry about your sister.... we did all we could, but she was too poor"

surely they are dying of disease of malnutrition or something
Way to be pedantic!

No. I understand the objection perfectly, but that doesn't make it valid.

Even if I had 1USD to live for a day in my country, I'd be deeply screwed & might die because of the severe problems such extreme poverty would result in.

Are these the only cases they counted? It greatly affects the meaning of the statistic. Did they count only the most extreme cases in which case the statistic is too low? Did they count every case where poverty could be claimed to have played even the smalles part, in which case then numbers are inflated? Is it somewhere in between? If so, where?

Unlike some unlucky sod in a poverty stricken 3rd world nation, however, I'd still be able to find food in trash containers, get ANY healthcare I might need, and even when all else fails on a cold winter night, all I'd have to do to avoid freezing to death, is attack some random police station.

To be poverty stricken in an equally poverty stricken country, is to have all options taken away. You might as well get dumped in the middle of a jungle with nothing but a pint of water & a swiss knife.

That's why it's completely idiotic to argue about whether such extreme levels of poverty cause death. You would be lucky to survive a month under such circumstances, as would Smunk & I.

We're not arguing that it doesn't. We're talking about what the statistic means. No one is arguing that poverty isn't a major factor in the deaths of many, many people in the world. Obviously, it is. But it's not a direct cause and what qualifies as a 'poverty death' (made-up term) would vary from person to person. Without an explanation of where the stat comes from, there is no meaning to it. They mights as well have said 1 billion or 2.

I do what I can do to combat it. I engage in various forms of activism, take active part in the political party I'm a member of, and fork over as much cash I feel I can spare.

World hunger could be eliminated if people limited the consumption of animal products. I'm vegan.
That's a stretch. Yes, yes, I've seen the statistics about how cows take up so much more space than corn. I've also seen competing statistics that argue the other way. The truth is there is plent of food in the world, but we have governments buying it up and destroying it to keep the food market from tanking. We have restaurants overserving people in America while all that extra food would feed all of Africa. Having enough food to go around isn't the problem. Getting it around is.

Meanwhile, you suggest that the argument here is somehow preventing action. That is an obvious appeal to emotion and, frankly, an entirely nonsensical argument. There is no evidence that absent the comments of myself and Smunkee that more would be done to help people.

Way to be pedantic!

This cracks me up. People can't wait to jump all over here for asking for an explanation of the statistic, but they are absolutely willing to repeatedly post what an evil person she is because she questioned a vague statistic on an internet forum. People, all things can be questions. We're not evil to question something just because hearing the statistic makes us feel all weepy.

That's the problem with our side of the equation, we think that we aren't equally required to adhere to the rules of logic because we have right on our side. That's the problem with their side too. We're yelling at them for throwing out unjustified claims, but god forbid anyone question a vague statistic that apparently we all should agree with just because it's really, really sad.

If this statistic is valid, then questioning it should be welcomed as it gives the opportunity to show why the problem is so profound.

By the way, I do think there are some things that everyone would agree counts as poverty. However, it's still not a specific term. Certainly, where one can no longer be considered in poverty is a point that there would be quite the debate on.

Hmm... I would've said that to be defined as being outside of life-threatening poverty one must have enough available income to support themselves with enough of the basic necessities of life to keep them out of physical danger. Oh and this has been done before - some time ago a guy did it in Victorian London. Can't remember details, but I did it in history at GCSE.

Again, with this new example, you still run into a bit of a problem. Cancer is not curable. There is no cure for cancer. Cutting out the cancer or killing it often causes it to go into remission, but there is no true cure.

Yeah - I was somewhat hesitant about it. Originally I was gonna go with AIDS but that's even more rife with problems. I don't suppose you know of any deadly diseases that are completely cureable? Failing that, let's just go with 'hypothetical disease A' - or assume this is set at some point in time where we have a cure for cancer.

That aside, it's an excellent example because it highlights the point. When they measured this how likely was she to die with the medical care? Without? I would argue that if it had any increased chance of survival it contributed to her death. You know what else contributed to her death, the cost of health care, no national health care system, no medicaid, whatever contributed to her getting cancer in the first place, etc. Do I agree that you could say 'poverty' killed her? Sure. But you still are making a fairly nebulous statement, because without all of those details nobody knows what the hell you're talking about.

That is, was and remains the point.

Dammit - this is the problem with hypothetical situations; it's so difficult to sort out the specifics. I'll do my best - we've sorted out this is hypothetical disease A, which is always lethal, but which is fully cureable. With the cure, the person (interesting that you use 'she' incidentally - did I put that in myself or not? Because I was thinking she too) can be fully cured, 100% chance of survival, without it, complete opposite - dead for sure.

Never mind about the healthcare service - let's assume that everything required for a successful cure is there. Except the funding. Surely, with the presence of this marvellous panacea, the disease is no longer a threat. Therefore, the only thing preventing her cure, and thus enabling her death, is her lack of funding - her poverty. Therefore her poverty is the cause of her death - the disease is just the means to the end as it were.

My apologies if this is all somewhat convoluted - I know what I mean, but it's tricky putting it into words you know?

Oh and by the way, this scenario may not be as far fetched as it would appear. In any number of countries people die from diseases that would otherwise not affect them overmuch due not to lack of care facilities or knwledge but funding. In America for example, no national healthcare system right? So if you can't afford the care you're out in the street. Guess where that leads you. (Again not quite as clear cut, but just to show that it's not as far-fetched as all that).

This cracks me up. People can't wait to jump all over here for asking for an explanation of the statistic, but they are absolutely willing to repeatedly post what an evil person she is because she questioned a vague statistic on an internet forum.
No, I don't think she's evil, I just think it's a stupid thing to say. "Dying from poverty" is obviously a catch-all term for dying from malnutrition, disease and other things that can be fixed with money.

Can anyone provide a rational reason why it's significant that 4.5mil of them are children?
Why not post the number of Females? of Males? or old People?
I suppose because people think of the children as having more potential to grow up to be someone important.

Hmm... I would've said that to be defined as being outside of life-threatening poverty one must have enough available income to support themselves with enough of the basic necessities of life to keep them out of physical danger. Oh and this has been done before - some time ago a guy did it in Victorian London. Can't remember details, but I did it in history at GCSE.



Yeah - I was somewhat hesitant about it. Originally I was gonna go with AIDS but that's even more rife with problems. I don't suppose you know of any deadly diseases that are completely cureable? Failing that, let's just go with 'hypothetical disease A' - or assume this is set at some point in time where we have a cure for cancer.



Dammit - this is the problem with hypothetical situations; it's so difficult to sort out the specifics. I'll do my best - we've sorted out this is hypothetical disease A, which is always lethal, but which is fully cureable. With the cure, the person (interesting that you use 'she' incidentally - did I put that in myself or not? Because I was thinking she too) can be fully cured, 100% chance of survival, without it, complete opposite - dead for sure.

Never mind about the healthcare service - let's assume that everything required for a successful cure is there. Except the funding. Surely, with the presence of this marvellous panacea, the disease is no longer a threat. Therefore, the only thing preventing her cure, and thus enabling her death, is her lack of funding - her poverty. Therefore her poverty is the cause of her death - the disease is just the means to the end as it were.

My apologies if this is all somewhat convoluted - I know what I mean, but it's tricky putting it into words you know?

Oh and by the way, this scenario may not be as far fetched as it would appear. In any number of countries people die from diseases that would otherwise not affect them overmuch due not to lack of care facilities or knwledge but funding. In America for example, no national healthcare system right? So if you can't afford the care you're out in the street. Guess where that leads you. (Again not quite as clear cut, but just to show that it's not as far-fetched as all that).

You're not being convoluted. Not badly anyway. I get your point. I'm trying to show you that your point isn't as easy as all that. And that is Smunkee's and my point. Yes, there are examples that no one would debate that absent of poverty the death would not have happened. However, the statistic remains unclear because there is no evidence that this statistic is only based on extreme cases (and, frankly, I hope it's not since it would mean the real number is much, much higher).

And, yes, I'm well aware of the problems in our health care system. It nearly killed my sister and if I had to bet shortened her life. It was more a problem of the system than poverty as we had insurance at the time, but let's not get too far off the subject.

This is what I think makes liberals have such an issue with being effective, because no matter how much someone agrees with a general point, people will jump all over him or her if they question even one aspect of it. Look at how many people jumped all over Smunkeeville because she, rather humorously I would say, highlighted the fact that the statistic is unclear. People couldn't wait to paint her as unfeeling or unable to understand. I mention that poverty is not a clear and suddenly I must not understand what poverty is like.

When are we going to understand that discussions like this simply polishes our points, gels our interests, better prepares to fight for these things to get better. It's not dissention in the ranks. It's the ranks pointing out where we're unguarded that we might have a better defense... and a better offense.

No, I don't think she's evil, I just think it's a stupid thing to say. "Dying from poverty" is obviously a catch-all term for dying from malnutrition, disease and other things that can be fixed with money.


I suppose because people think of the children as having more potential to grow up to be someone important.

No, it is not obviously a catchall term for anything. It's a vague term that could mean only the most extreme cases or it could mean anything even vaguely attributal to poverty. She simply challenged it for being vague. And she used humor to do it. It's a meaningless statistic and it would be torn apart by conservatives arguing against it's use. It has no statistical relevance as it's written.

Again, if I die at 78 as a rich man from old age, but childhood poverty weakened me throughout my life and absent of poverty I would have lived to be 87, didn't poverty cause my premature death? I could and would argue yes. Was that included in the statistic? Probably not. If I died of malnutrition because I hadn't eaten for a month because I couldn't afford food, would that be included? Well, probably yes. What about all things on the spectrum in between those two instances? Who knows? You might not draw the line where I would. There is nothing obvious about that statistic.

No, I don't think she's evil, I just think it's a stupid thing to say. "Dying from poverty" is obviously a catch-all term for dying from malnutrition, disease and other things that can be fixed with money.

it's a rather vague catchall, I wouldn't have questioned it at all if it said "<certian number> of children die everyday due to preventable diseases because of their poverty"

Are these the only cases they counted? It greatly affects the meaning of the statistic. Did they count only the most extreme cases in which case the statistic is too low? Did they count every case where poverty could be claimed to have played even the smalles part, in which case then numbers are inflated? Is it somewhere in between? If so, where?Check UNHCR & WHO. The source material is free & easily available.

Did they monitor only extreme cases? This becomes a nonsense question when talking about the majority of a population. The reason I mentioned living off 1USD/day in my country, is because I'd still be better off than if I had to do the same in The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example.

That's why this "does poverty kill?" is rubbish. A comparable level of poverty among lower class citizens in the US, for example, would massively decrease the average age of the US population, as well as massively increase infant deaths. Same thing in my country, despite the fact that we both live in societies where it would be far easier to survive even without any money - and I live in a "socialist" welfare state, compared to the US.

Did I imply that splitting hairs over this is counterproductive? Yes I did. It's all I ever hear from nice little feel-good, "cherity-minded"
liberal hypocrites. Perhaps it doesn't apply to Smunk - though I doubt that - and I'd be surprised if it applied to you (I'm a reincarnation of The Similized world, in case you're confused). It's the standard excuse for twiddling thumbs instead of trashing the WTO & abolishing the tax barriers.

"Private cherity can sort it out, but opening our markets for their produce is a baad idea, and releasing our surplus stocks without revenue, will flood their markets indefinetly & prevent their agribusiness from ever taking off".

Meanwhile, the reality of the situation is that private cherity is better at promoting corruption & reinforcing economic dependency, and our tax barriers & subsidised exports are completely destroying any possibility of self sufficiendy.

So yes, I implied that this idiotic hairsplitting is likely contributing to perpetuating a grotesque situation.

it's a rather vague catchall, I wouldn't have questioned it at all if it said "<certian number> of children die everyday due to preventable diseases because of their poverty"What is the difference?

What is the difference?
did you read my original post?

poverty isn't a cause of death, people don't die from being poor, they die of diseases and injuries. It's very different to say "he died of polio" than to say "he died from being poor"

I already said (a few times) that poverty can contribute to health problems and lack of medical care, but it's not a disease.

Check UNHCR & WHO. The source material is free & easily available.

Did they monitor only extreme cases? This becomes a nonsense question when talking about the majority of a population. The reason I mentioned living off 1USD/day in my country, is because I'd still be better off than if I had to do the same in The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example.

That's why this "does poverty kill?" is rubbish. A comparable level of poverty among lower class citizens in the US, for example, would massively decrease the average age of the US population, as well as massively increase infant deaths. Same thing in my country, despite the fact that we both live in societies where it would be far easier to survive even without any money - and I live in a "socialist" welfare state, compared to the US.

Did I imply that splitting hairs over this is counterproductive? Yes I did. It's all I ever hear from nice little feel-good, "cherity-minded"
liberal hypocrites. Perhaps it doesn't apply to Smunk - though I doubt that - and I'd be surprised if it applied to you (I'm a reincarnation of The Similized world, in case you're confused). It's the standard excuse for twiddling thumbs instead of trashing the WTO & abolishing the tax barriers.

"Private cherity can sort it out, but opening our markets for their produce is a baad idea, and releasing our surplus stocks without revenue, will flood their markets indefinetly & prevent their agribusiness from ever taking off".

Meanwhile, the reality of the situation is that private cherity is better at promoting corruption & reinforcing economic dependency, and our tax barriers & subsidised exports are completely destroying any possibility of self sufficiendy.

So yes, I implied that this idiotic hairsplitting is likely contributing to perpetuating a grotesque situation.

ah, so you assume much and know little. That does make more sense.

Check UNHCR & WHO. The source material is free & easily available.

Is that the source material? It's not cited as the source material in the OP. If you recall I asked for that citation. Or do you expect that people post statistics and we will search around until we find the right combination of sources to explain the statistic?

Don't cite me random organizations. Point to a study or studies that the statistic is from.

Did they monitor only extreme cases? This becomes a nonsense question when talking about the majority of a population. The reason I mentioned living off 1USD/day in my country, is because I'd still be better off than if I had to do the same in The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example.

It doesn't become a nonsense question. If you're going to try to support your point with a statistic it's a question you should expect to answer.

That's why this "does poverty kill?" is rubbish. A comparable level of poverty among lower class citizens in the US, for example, would massively decrease the average age of the US population, as well as massively increase infant deaths. Same thing in my country, despite the fact that we both live in societies where it would be far easier to survive even without any money - and I live in a "socialist" welfare state, compared to the US.

No one said that poverty doesn't contribute to deaths, cause lower life expectancies, etc. She said that it is not a direct cause of death, and that she wanted a better explanation of the statistic, something no one has given yet. Instead all that's been done is a bunch of whining that it's insensitive to question such an important statistic./whine.

Did I imply that splitting hairs over this is counterproductive? Yes I did. It's all I ever hear from nice little feel-good, "cherity-minded"
liberal hypocrites. Perhaps it doesn't apply to Smunk - though I doubt that - and I'd be surprised if it applied to you (I'm a reincarnation of The Similized world, in case you're confused). It's the standard excuse for twiddling thumbs instead of trashing the WTO & abolishing the tax barriers.

No, the reason that people don't make progress is because they go with weak statistics like these and once they've been shredded for being unprepared they do not get to hit the reset button and try again. These are the things you need to know to make a compelling argument. They don't want to fix this. We all know it. So we have to have as solid of an argument as possible when we address them. And this statisic is weak.

"Private cherity can sort it out, but opening our markets for their produce is a baad idea, and releasing our surplus stocks without revenue, will flood their markets indefinetly & prevent their agribusiness from ever taking off".

Meanwhile, the reality of the situation is that private cherity is better at promoting corruption & reinforcing economic dependency, and our tax barriers & subsidised exports are completely destroying any possibility of self sufficiendy.

So yes, I implied that this idiotic hairsplitting is likely contributing to perpetuating a grotesque situation.
Or the fact that we hyperbolize any attempt to shore up holes in the arguments into 'idiotic hairsplitting' and thus we are continually unprepared for the argument that we will eventually be forced into with conservatives. I'm sorry, but when I was more conservative I would have shredded that statistic. And all anyone would have as a reply is hemming and hawing and emotive arguments which is all that we've gotten here. The better answer would be to simply supply the source of the statistic (not the book of statistics, but the actual studies) and be done with it. But no, it's much more important that people continually attack Smunkeeville for trying to have a little fun in the thread while getting some clarification.

did you read my original post?

poverty isn't a cause of death, people don't die from being poor, they die of diseases and injuries. It's very different to say "he died of polio" than to say "he died from being poor"

I already said (a few times) that poverty can contribute to health problems and lack of medical care, but it's not a disease.

To be clear, state for the record that you think poverty is a horrendous problem and aggravates many of these problems you mention. I want it be clear that you're looking to better understand the statistic not pretend like the problem doesn't exist.

To be clear, state for the record that you think poverty is a horrendous problem and aggravates many of these problems you mention. I want it be clear that you're looking to better understand the statistic not pretend like the problem doesn't exist.

I believe that if you are sick you are in trouble, if you are poor and sick you are in a lot more trouble. Poverty is not an imaginary problem, it is very real and we as a society need to figure out ways to help people who are poverty stricken. I just think it's misleading to say that it causes death. While I agree that it does contribute to people's poor health, it in of itself isn't an actual health issue but more of a financial one.

Being someone who is sick and doesn't have the means nor the money to get health insurance and has been turned down by doctors many times because of an inability to pay up front, I do understand that your financial problems, sometimes pour over into your healthcare issues. However if I die, please make sure that my kids know that I died from Kidney failure and not poverty.

better?

I believe that if you are sick you are in trouble, if you are poor and sick you are in a lot more trouble. Poverty is not an imaginary problem, it is very real and we as a society need to figure out ways to help people who are poverty stricken. I just think it's misleading to say that it causes death. While I agree that it does contribute to people's poor health, it in of itself isn't an actual health issue but more of a financial one.

Being someone who is sick and doesn't have the means nor the money to get health insurance and has been turned down by doctors many times because of an inability to pay up front, I do understand that your financial problems, sometimes pour over into your healthcare issues. However if I die, please make sure that my kids know that I died from Kidney failure and not poverty.

better?

Well, to be fair, it doesn't just refer to someone who is generally healthy and simply needs medical care. We are talking about people in a situation who are never healthy because they don't have access to the basic necessities of life. Clean water. Enough food. Health care. Adequate shelter. It's often a combination of factors all caused by extreme poverty. In many countries, poverty isn't just a financial problem because money and access to money do not exist.

If your healthy kidney fails and you don't get medical care because of finances, fine you died of kidney failure. But what if you died of multiple organ failure because your body was ravage by malnutrition, disease and unpotable water? Certainly just calling it organ failure is glossing over the point, no?

You're not being convoluted. Not badly anyway. I get your point. I'm trying to show you that your point isn't as easy as all that. And that is Smunkee's and my point. Yes, there are examples that no one would debate that absent of poverty the death would not have happened. However, the statistic remains unclear because there is no evidence that this statistic is only based on extreme cases (and, frankly, I hope it's not since it would mean the real number is much, much higher).

I'm glad I'm managing to come across properly here - something of a relief :) And trust me, as the one trying to argue the point I know how hard it is. However, your side isn't clear cut either - you're arguing that the statistic is cloudy, and I certainly agree with you there, but surely the real point is that it is there at all. You argue that poverty isn't the cause of death, I argue that it can.

Hmm... again it's tricky to put into words exactly what I mean. My point is that poverty can be the cause of death. Does it matter the person's exact financial status and such? Surely if they are unable to afford the treatment, then my example of hypothetical disease A stands - what stands between them and the cure is their poverty. The cause of death is what prevents them getting better right? Therefore the cause of death is poverty.

This is what I think makes liberals have such an issue with being effective, because no matter how much someone agrees with a general point, people will jump all over him or her if they question even one aspect of it. Look at how many people jumped all over Smunkeeville because she, rather humorously I would say, highlighted the fact that the statistic is unclear. People couldn't wait to paint her as unfeeling or unable to understand. I mention that poverty is not a clear and suddenly I must not understand what poverty is like.

Noted. Just to point out that I'm not criticising her for question the validity of the stats, more that she's using that to deny that poverty can be a cause of death. I just think she's missing the real point here.

When are we going to understand that discussions like this simply polishes our points, gels our interests, better prepares to fight for these things to get better. It's not dissention in the ranks. It's the ranks pointing out where we're unguarded that we might have a better defense... and a better offense.

Hehe - works both ways my friend, works both ways... :)

Well, to be fair, it doesn't just refer to someone who is generally healthy and simply needs medical care. We are talking about people in a situation who are never healthy because they don't have access to the basic necessities of life. Clean water. Enough food. Health care. Adequate shelter. It's often a combination of factors all caused by extreme poverty. In many countries, poverty isn't just a financial problem because money and access to money do not exist.

If your healthy kidney fails and you don't get medical care because of finances, fine you died of kidney failure. But what if you died of multiple organ failure because your body was ravage by malnutrition, disease and unpotable water? Certainly just calling it organ failure is glossing over the point, no?
true.

However, I am living about a half notch above the poverty level now (in America) say I quit my part time job, and we dropped below the poverty level would I then have died due to poverty?

my whole point is that poverty is subjective, in fact too subjective to be used in such a statistic, see even though I am just far enough over the poverty level now to be denied government help, making the same amount I would be rich in another country.

I do agree that poverty (the kind I grew up in, where we didn't have water or shelter or heat, or food) can make you very sick, and is a huge problem, esp. in countries that are worse off than my own, that it is a contributing factor and not a cause of death.

true.

However, I am living about a half notch above the poverty level now (in America) say I quit my part time job, and we dropped below the poverty level would I then have died due to poverty?

Nobody is claiming that being in poverty automatically kills you. I haven't seen one claim to that effect. I can get cancer tomorrow. Have I died due to cancer? The answer is "I need more information".

my whole point is that poverty is subjective, in fact too subjective to be used in such a statistic, see even though I am just far enough over the poverty level now to be denied government help, making the same amount I would be rich in another country.

I do agree that poverty (the kind I grew up in, where we didn't have water or shelter or heat, or food) can make you very sick, and is a huge problem, esp. in countries that are worse off than my own, that it is a contributing factor and not a cause of death.
I have nothing to say to this. I think it makes your point clearly.

Just to point out that I'm not criticising her for question the validity of the stats, more that she's using that to deny that poverty can be a cause of death. I just think she's missing the real point here.

for poverty to be a valid cause of death in my mind it would have to be alone enough to kill someone, it is not however, you need to be sick, and being poor doesn't make you sick as much as it keeps you from getting well.

but maybe I should just stop, before I annoy Jocabia too. ..

Really? Define poverty specifically, please. Because I have been poor and I have never heard that it's a specific entity rather than more a concept.

Defining poverty in terms of "1 dollar a day, 2 dollar a day, 250 calories, 130 food gram values blah blah blah" may be unclear, but poverty can be easily defined once you don't have money to buy food and don't have the means to raise food yourselves and don't have nothing to barter for food.

And when that person dies because of that, I would not argue if he died because of hunger or malnutrition or food particles not travelling to his stomach etc etc. He died of poverty because there is ample food in the world for all humans.

Nobody is claiming that being in poverty automatically kills you. I haven't seen one claim to that effect. I can get cancer tomorrow. Have I died due to cancer? The answer is "I need more information".

By them saying poverty is a cause of death, it sounds really to me like they are saying that poverty is a cause of death.

when I read the words "cause of death" I think of an autopsy report (which is what started my whole OP) and poverty isn't something that kills you, it's a contributing factor, but it's not a valid cause of death.

It would be like me saying that someone who died from a heart attack, died due to cheese fries. Sure eating food like contributed to their heart condition but weren't the actual cause of death, a heart attack was.

By them saying poverty is a cause of death, it sounds really to me like they are saying that poverty is a cause of death.

when I read the words "cause of death" I think of an autopsy report (which is what started my whole OP) and poverty isn't something that kills you, it's a contributing factor, but it's not a valid cause of death.

It would be like me saying that someone who died from a heart attack, died due to cheese fries. Sure eating food like contributed to their heart condition but weren't the actual cause of death, a heart attack was.
But that's not the point. Saying that poverty cause your death is not the same as saying if you fall into poverty you will die. For one thing, there are varying levels of poverty. And without question, there is a level of poverty that will invariably kill you if you remain in it for any substantial amount of time.

It would be like me saying that someone who died from a heart attack, died due to cheese fries. Sure eating food like contributed to their heart condition but weren't the actual cause of death, a heart attack was.

Yes, we should all be increasing emergency response system and heart treatment, because we very well know that it will solve the problem of heart attack deaths.:rolleyes:

Taking the focus away from poverty (preventable, by the way) serves to delude us into thinking that we don't have anything to do with it. It becomes their problem. It serves to alienate the feelings that one naturally has towards those suffering in poverty.

But that's not the point. Saying that poverty cause your death is not the same as saying if you fall into poverty you will die. For one thing, there are varying levels of poverty. And without question, there is a level of poverty that will invariably kill you if you remain in it for any substantial amount of time.
but did you die from poverty or from the conditions that it contributed to you being in?

I really have to quit soon, I can feel myself sinking deeper and deeper, just playing devil's advocate.


seriously, all I was doing to begin with was asking what they meant by poverty and how they determined who died due to it, and who just died.

Defining poverty in terms of "1 dollar a day, 2 dollar a day, 250 calories, 130 food gram values blah blah blah" may be unclear, but poverty can be easily defined once you don't have money to buy food and don't have the means to raise food yourselves and don't have nothing to barter for food.

And when that person dies because of that, I would not argue if he died because of hunger or malnutrition or food particles not travelling to his stomach etc etc. He died of poverty because there is ample food in the world for all humans.

Your definition of poverty is not everyone's definition of poverty. Simply because you have a clear definition does not mean everyone does. That is the flaw in the statistic. I already gave several examples of how poverty can be mostly responsible for death, all the way responsible, partially responsible or not responsible at all. How much does poverty have to contribute to be considered the cause of death for that statistic? What level is considered poverty? Some people would argue that a lack of education is a symptom of poverty. Others would not include the lack of education if it was a contributing factor in a death. Etc.

but did you die from poverty or from the conditions that it contributed to you being in?

I really have to quit soon, I can feel myself sinking deeper and deeper, just playing devil's advocate.


seriously, all I was doing to begin with was asking what they meant by poverty and how they determined who died due to it, and who just died.

Which is a fair point and I've been defending it. However, it becomes a lot more convoluted when you suggest that either poverty directly kills you or it doesn't kill you at all.

Which is a fair point and I've been defending it. However, it becomes a lot more convoluted when you suggest that either poverty directly kills you or it doesn't kill you at all.
I didn't mean to suggest that at all. I think you are right though, it's getting entirely too convoluted, and I have dug myself into a hole from which there is no escape. I know what I am trying to say, and then I know where I jumped on the devil's advocate wagon, the line between them while fuzzy to most is clear to me. I have to go cook dinner though. Thanks for your help.

Then you haven't seen the African child that dies of not being able to pay for exorbitantly priced HIV/AIDS medication? It isn't the AIDS that is the cause of its death - it's not being able to afford medication. Denial of that fact will lead to even more children dying.

But don't mind reality. Go on with your pointless semantical bullshittery.

*skips two pages of reading and goes straight to the reply*

If the kid was able to afford the medicine, he'd still have AIDS. Curing AIDS would be much more beneficial than curing poverty.

I believe that if you are sick you are in trouble, if you are poor and sick you are in a lot more trouble. Poverty is not an imaginary problem, it is very real and we as a society need to figure out ways to help people who are poverty stricken. I just think it's misleading to say that it causes death. While I agree that it does contribute to people's poor health, it in of itself isn't an actual health issue but more of a financial one.

Being someone who is sick and doesn't have the means nor the money to get health insurance and has been turned down by doctors many times because of an inability to pay up front, I do understand that your financial problems, sometimes pour over into your healthcare issues. However if I die, please make sure that my kids know that I died from Kidney failure and not poverty.

better?

Surely in the examples given - as Jocabia has pointed out - we're not talking about you in America with your (comparably) excellent standard of living (although, as I pointed out, that isn't as far-fetched as all that). We're talking more about death from a combination of severe malnutrition, rife disease and so on, caused by lack of money! Surely it's therefore more accurate to say that poverty is the [ultimate] cause of death, disease is the contributing factor.

Aaaw dammit - well, Lost is now finished for the night, it's high time I was in bed, and I'm outta excuses. I don't suppose you could freeze the discussion here for me? I'll be back in about sixteen hours :D

But seriously, I'm off, which sucks because this was a good discussion. Even if it was all sparked by a horrible misunderstanding :) Night night...

Surely in the examples given - as Jocabia has pointed out - we're not talking about you in America with your (comparably) excellent standard of living (although, as I pointed out, that isn't as far-fetched as all that). We're talking more about death from a combination of severe malnutrition, rife disease and so on, caused by lack of money!


which is one of the reasons why I said that the word "poverty" is so vague, surely you can see that poverty in America is very different than poverty in a third world country.
Surely it's therefore more accurate to say that poverty is the [ultimate] cause of death, disease is the contributing factor.
I'm sure you could say that, but I would rather say that they died because their body stopped working due to disease that was made worse by poverty.

Which are maladies the rest of us avoid, because we're not (as) poor.

People die from poverty in your own country as well.
No, they die because their parents are stupid.

No, they die because their parents are stupid.

The "intelligent and caring parent" should be put on the endangered list. I suppose I'm lucky, my mother is better than most mothers of friends that I know. Some parents treat their kids like free slave labor.

- 47 millions of people don't have any health coverage

I don't have health coverage because I have "pre-existing conditions," aka I have depression, so they think I'm gonna kill myself. Some goes for my dad, who is bi-polar, and my mum, who has hyperthyroidism. My sister is the only person in the family who can get health coverage and also happens to be the only one who doesn't need any medications :X. I spend $500 a month on medication T_T...

I think this is more of a problem with the insurance system than the nation at large. If insurance companies didn't have lame policies, a lot more people could get health insurance.