| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Sir Frederick" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2005 10:01:01 AM |
| Object: |
Explain This |
PSYCHIATRY: ON THE HIGH RATE OF PHYSICIAN SUICIDE
ScienceWeek http://scienceweek.com
The following points are made by Eva Schernhammer (New Engl. J.
Med. 2005 352:2473):
1) Although physicians tend to have healthier lifestyles than
those of the general public and thus to live longer, it has been
known for some time that suicide rates among doctors are higher
than those in the general population[1]. And when these tragic
events make it into the headlines, as did the recent suicide of
gifted heart surgeon Jonathan Drummond-Webb, we begin to wonder
why these healers apparently cannot heal the hurt in their own
lives.
2) The gap in suicide rates evidently begins as early as medical
school, where overall suicide rates are higher than in the age-
matched population. This increased rate of suicide is driven
largely by higher rates among women: female medical students
commit suicide at the same rate as male medical students,[2]
whereas in the United States in general, suicide rates are much
higher among men. Evidence from a large study of physician
suicide indicates that female doctors, in particular, are much
more likely than other women to take their own lives. The
combined results of 25 studies suggest that the suicide rate
among male doctors is 40 percent higher than that among men in
general, whereas the rate among female doctors is 130 percent
higher than that among women in general.[1]
3) Several factors that may contribute to the suicide of
physicians, especially female physicians, deserve closer
examination. Physicians may have a higher prevalence of
depression than nonphysicians, and depression is clearly an
important risk factor for suicide; among female physicians, the
risk may be exacerbated by sexual harassment; and when they
become suicidal, physicians generally choose effective suicide
methods.
4) A prevalent view is that both biologic and psychosocial
factors play a role -- and interact -- in the decision to commit
suicide. There is a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders
among physicians than in the general population. Some 30 to 70
percent of all persons who attempt suicide apparently have an
affective disorder (generally depression), a substance-use-
related disorder, or schizophrenia.[3] Evidence further suggests
that drug abuse and alcoholism, possibly under circumstances of
heightened stress or depression, are often associated with the
suicides of physicians. Female physicians, in particular, have
been shown to have a higher frequency of alcoholism than women in
the general population. Drug abuse is also related to specialty,
being particularly prevalent among psychiatrists,
anesthesiologists, and emergency physicians. Recent reports
emphasize that the exposure that anesthesiologists have to drugs
as they work represents a risk factor for drug addiction and
possibly suicide, indicating that access to drugs may support
higher suicide rates among physicians by a variety of pathways.
In the general population, according to autopsy studies and other
evidence, as many as 25 percent of all persons who commit suicide
are drunk at the time of their deaths.[4,5]
References:
1. Schernhammer ES, Colditz GA. Suicide rates among physicians: a
quantitative and gender assessment (meta-analysis). Am J
Psychiatry 2004;161:2295-2302
2. Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell F, Rockwell D, Core N. Fifty-two
medical student suicides. Am J Psychiatry 1981;138:198-201
3. Litman RE. Mental disorders and suicidal intention. Suicide
Life Threat Behav 1987;17:85-92
4. Kirsling RA, Kochar MS. Suicide and the stress of residency
training: a case report and review of the literature. Psychol Rep
1989;64:951-959. [ISI][Medline]
5. Frank E, Brogan D, Schiffman M. Prevalence and correlates of
harassment among US women physicians. Arch Intern Med
1998;158:352-358
Science http://www.sciencemag.org
--------------------------------
Related Material:
PUBLIC HEALTH: TRENDS IN THOUGHTS OF SUICIDE IN THE US
The following points are made by R.C. Kessler et al (J. Am. Med.
Assoc. 2005 293:2487):
1) Suicide is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. As a
result, the World Health Organization[1] and the US surgeon
general[2] have highlighted the need for more comprehensive data
on the occurrence of suicidal thoughts and attempts, according to
the assumption that such data would be useful for planning
national health care policy, as well as for evaluating efforts to
reduce suicide and suicide-related behaviors. The latter are
among the official national health objectives in the United
States.[3] The assumption that information on suicide-related
behaviors, including thoughts, plans, gestures, and nonfatal
attempts, is important for understanding completed suicides can
be called into question because only a small fraction of suicide
attempters eventually complete suicide.[4] However, suicide
attempts are significant predictors of subsequent completed
suicide, as well as important in their own right as indicators of
extreme psychological distress.
2) Little is known about trends in suicidal ideation, plans,
gestures, or attempts or about their treatment. Such data are
needed to guide and evaluate policies to reduce suicide-related
behaviors. The objective of this study was to analyze nationally
representative trend data on suicidal ideation, plans, gestures,
attempts, and their treatment. Data came from the 1990-1992
National Comorbidity Survey and the 2001-2003 National
Comorbidity Survey Replication. These surveys asked identical
questions to 9708 people aged 18 to 54 years about the past
year's occurrence of suicidal ideation, plans, gestures,
attempts, and treatment. Trends were evaluated by using pooled
logistic regression analysis. Face-to-face interviews were
administered in the homes of respondents, who were nationally
representative samples of US English-speaking residents.
3) Results of the study: No significant changes occurred between
1990-1992 and 2001-2003 in suicidal ideation, plans, gestures, or
attempts, whereas conditional prevalence of plans among ideators
increased significantly, and conditional prevalence of gestures
among planners decreased significantly. Treatment increased
dramatically among ideators who made a suicidal gesture and among
ideators who made an attempt.
4) The authors conclude: Despite a dramatic increase in
treatment, no significant decrease occurred in suicidal thoughts,
plans, gestures, or attempts in the United States during the
1990s. Continued efforts are needed to increase outreach to
untreated individuals with suicidal ideation before the
occurrence of attempts and to improve treatment effectiveness for
such cases.[5]
References (abridged):
1. World Health Organization. Prevention of Suicide: Guidelines
for the Formulation and Implementation of National Strategies.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1996
2. The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Suicide.
Washington, DC: US Public Health Service; 1999
3. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People
2010, 2nd ed: With Understanding and Improving Health and
Objectives for Improving Health. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office; 2000
4. Kuo WH, Gallo JJ. Completed suicide after a suicide attempt.
Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:633
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury
Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) [Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention Web site]. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm. Accessed March 21,
2005
J. Am. Med. Assoc. http://www.jama.com
--------------------------------
Related Material:
PUBLIC HEALTH: METHODS OF SUICIDE AMONG ADOLESCENTS
The following points are made by Centers for Disease Control
(MMWR 2004 53:471):
1) In 2001, suicide was the third leading cause of death among
persons aged 10-19 years.(1) The most common method of suicide in
this age group was by firearm (49%), followed by suffocation
(mostly hanging) (38%) and poisoning (7%).(1) During 1992-2001,
although the overall suicide rate among persons aged 10-19 years
declined from 6.2 to 4.6 per 100,000 population,(1) methods of
suicide changed substantially. To characterize trends in suicide
methods among persons in this age group, CDC analyzed data for
persons living in the US during 1992-2001.
2) The results of that analysis indicated a substantial decline
in suicides by firearm and an increase in suicides by suffocation
in persons aged 10-14 and 15-19 years. Beginning in 1997, among
persons aged 10-14 years, suffocation surpassed firearms as the
most common suicide method. The decline in firearm suicides
combined with the increase in suicides by suffocation suggests
that changes have occurred in suicidal behavior among youths
during the preceding decade. Public health officials should
develop intervention strategies that address the challenges posed
by these changes, including programs that integrate monitoring
systems, etiologic research, and comprehensive prevention
activities.
3) Among persons aged 10-14 years, the rate of firearm suicide
decreased from 0.9 per 100,000 population in 1992 to 0.4 in 2001,
whereas the rate of suffocation suicide increased from 0.5 in
1992 to 0.8 in 2001. Rate regression analyses indicated that,
during the study period, firearm suicide rates decreased an
average of approximately 8.8% annually, and suffocation suicide
rates increased approximately 5.1% annually. Among persons aged
15-19 years, the firearm suicide rate declined from 7.3 in 1992
to 4.1 in 2001; the suffocation suicide rate increased from 1.9
to 2.7. Rate regression analyses indicated that, during the study
period, the average annual decrease in firearm suicide rates for
this age group was approximately 6.8%, and the average annual
increase in suffocation suicide rates was approximately 3.7%.
Poisoning suicide rates also decreased in both age groups, at an
average annual rate of 13.4% among persons aged 10-14 years and
8.0% among persons aged 15-19 years. Because of the small number
of suicides by poisoning, these decreases have had minimal impact
on changes in the overall profile of suicide methods of youths.
4) Among persons aged 10-14 years, suffocation suicides began
occurring with increasing frequency relative to firearm suicides
in the early- to mid-1990s, eclipsing firearm suicides by the
late 1990s. In 2001, a total of 1.8 suffocation suicides occurred
for every firearm suicide among youths aged 10-14 years. Among
youths aged 15-19 years, an increase in the frequency of
suffocation suicides relative to firearm suicides began in the
mid-1990s; however, in 2001, firearms remained the most common
method of suicide in this age group, with a ratio of 0.7
suffocation suicides for every firearm suicide.
5) The findings in this report indicate that the overall suicide
rate for persons aged 10-19 years in the US declined during 1992-
2001 and that substantial changes occurred in the types of
suicide methods used among those persons aged 10-14 and 15-19
years. Rates of suicide using firearms and poisoning decreased,
whereas suicides by suffocation increased. By the end of the
period, suffocation had surpassed firearms to become the most
common method of suicide death among persons aged 10-14 years.
6) The reasons for the changes in suicide methods are not fully
understood. Increases in suffocation suicides and concomitant
decreases in firearm suicides suggest that persons aged 10-19
years are choosing different kinds of suicide methods than in the
past. Data regarding how persons choose among various methods of
suicide suggest that some persons without ready access to highly
lethal methods might choose not to engage in a suicidal act or,
if they do engage in suicidal behavior, are more likely to
survive their injuries.(4) However, certain subsets of suicidal
persons might substitute other methods.(5) Substitution of
methods depends on both the availability of alternatives and
their acceptability. Because the means for suffocation (e.g.,
hanging) are widely available, the escalating use of suffocation
as a method of suicide among persons aged 10-19 years implies
that the acceptability of suicide by suffocation has increased
substantially in this age group.
References (abridged):
1. CDC. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System
(WISQARSTM). Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, 2004.
2. National Center for Health Statistics. Multiple cause-of-death
public-use data files, 1992 through 2001. Hyattsville, Maryland:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2003
3. Anderson RN, Minino AM, Fingerhut LA, Warner M, Heinen MA.
Deaths: injuries, 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2004;52:1-5
4. Cook PJ. The technology of personal violence. In: Tonry M, ed.
Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 14.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1991:1-71
5. Gunnell D, Nowers M. Suicide by jumping. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica. 1997;96:1-6
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov
ScienceWeek http://scienceweek.com
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"I would rather do an experiment. That doesn't mean
I think theory is unimportant. It just means I would
rather do an experiment."
-- Costas Spyropoulos (1928-1984)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
21 Aug 2005 10:38:02 AM |
|
|
As another proof that the medical profession
is ripe with con games :
The split of the dental profession from the
mainstream medical. Talk about farce!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
22 Aug 2005 06:09:25 AM |
|
|
Material reductionism?
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:t7heg1dpkno7ijrvsst9lonp91mep4d07e@4ax.com...
PSYCHIATRY: ON THE HIGH RATE OF PHYSICIAN SUICIDE
ScienceWeek http://scienceweek.com
The following points are made by Eva Schernhammer (New Engl. J.
Med. 2005 352:2473):
1) Although physicians tend to have healthier lifestyles than
those of the general public and thus to live longer, it has been
known for some time that suicide rates among doctors are higher
than those in the general population[1]. And when these tragic
events make it into the headlines, as did the recent suicide of
gifted heart surgeon Jonathan Drummond-Webb, we begin to wonder
why these healers apparently cannot heal the hurt in their own
lives.
2) The gap in suicide rates evidently begins as early as medical
school, where overall suicide rates are higher than in the age-
matched population. This increased rate of suicide is driven
largely by higher rates among women: female medical students
commit suicide at the same rate as male medical students,[2]
whereas in the United States in general, suicide rates are much
higher among men. Evidence from a large study of physician
suicide indicates that female doctors, in particular, are much
more likely than other women to take their own lives. The
combined results of 25 studies suggest that the suicide rate
among male doctors is 40 percent higher than that among men in
general, whereas the rate among female doctors is 130 percent
higher than that among women in general.[1]
3) Several factors that may contribute to the suicide of
physicians, especially female physicians, deserve closer
examination. Physicians may have a higher prevalence of
depression than nonphysicians, and depression is clearly an
important risk factor for suicide; among female physicians, the
risk may be exacerbated by sexual harassment; and when they
become suicidal, physicians generally choose effective suicide
methods.
4) A prevalent view is that both biologic and psychosocial
factors play a role -- and interact -- in the decision to commit
suicide. There is a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders
among physicians than in the general population. Some 30 to 70
percent of all persons who attempt suicide apparently have an
affective disorder (generally depression), a substance-use-
related disorder, or schizophrenia.[3] Evidence further suggests
that drug abuse and alcoholism, possibly under circumstances of
heightened stress or depression, are often associated with the
suicides of physicians. Female physicians, in particular, have
been shown to have a higher frequency of alcoholism than women in
the general population. Drug abuse is also related to specialty,
being particularly prevalent among psychiatrists,
anesthesiologists, and emergency physicians. Recent reports
emphasize that the exposure that anesthesiologists have to drugs
as they work represents a risk factor for drug addiction and
possibly suicide, indicating that access to drugs may support
higher suicide rates among physicians by a variety of pathways.
In the general population, according to autopsy studies and other
evidence, as many as 25 percent of all persons who commit suicide
are drunk at the time of their deaths.[4,5]
References:
1. Schernhammer ES, Colditz GA. Suicide rates among physicians: a
quantitative and gender assessment (meta-analysis). Am J
Psychiatry 2004;161:2295-2302
2. Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell F, Rockwell D, Core N. Fifty-two
medical student suicides. Am J Psychiatry 1981;138:198-201
3. Litman RE. Mental disorders and suicidal intention. Suicide
Life Threat Behav 1987;17:85-92
4. Kirsling RA, Kochar MS. Suicide and the stress of residency
training: a case report and review of the literature. Psychol Rep
1989;64:951-959. [ISI][Medline]
5. Frank E, Brogan D, Schiffman M. Prevalence and correlates of
harassment among US women physicians. Arch Intern Med
1998;158:352-358
Science http://www.sciencemag.org
--------------------------------
Related Material:
PUBLIC HEALTH: TRENDS IN THOUGHTS OF SUICIDE IN THE US
The following points are made by R.C. Kessler et al (J. Am. Med.
Assoc. 2005 293:2487):
1) Suicide is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. As a
result, the World Health Organization[1] and the US surgeon
general[2] have highlighted the need for more comprehensive data
on the occurrence of suicidal thoughts and attempts, according to
the assumption that such data would be useful for planning
national health care policy, as well as for evaluating efforts to
reduce suicide and suicide-related behaviors. The latter are
among the official national health objectives in the United
States.[3] The assumption that information on suicide-related
behaviors, including thoughts, plans, gestures, and nonfatal
attempts, is important for understanding completed suicides can
be called into question because only a small fraction of suicide
attempters eventually complete suicide.[4] However, suicide
attempts are significant predictors of subsequent completed
suicide, as well as important in their own right as indicators of
extreme psychological distress.
2) Little is known about trends in suicidal ideation, plans,
gestures, or attempts or about their treatment. Such data are
needed to guide and evaluate policies to reduce suicide-related
behaviors. The objective of this study was to analyze nationally
representative trend data on suicidal ideation, plans, gestures,
attempts, and their treatment. Data came from the 1990-1992
National Comorbidity Survey and the 2001-2003 National
Comorbidity Survey Replication. These surveys asked identical
questions to 9708 people aged 18 to 54 years about the past
year's occurrence of suicidal ideation, plans, gestures,
attempts, and treatment. Trends were evaluated by using pooled
logistic regression analysis. Face-to-face interviews were
administered in the homes of respondents, who were nationally
representative samples of US English-speaking residents.
3) Results of the study: No significant changes occurred between
1990-1992 and 2001-2003 in suicidal ideation, plans, gestures, or
attempts, whereas conditional prevalence of plans among ideators
increased significantly, and conditional prevalence of gestures
among planners decreased significantly. Treatment increased
dramatically among ideators who made a suicidal gesture and among
ideators who made an attempt.
4) The authors conclude: Despite a dramatic increase in
treatment, no significant decrease occurred in suicidal thoughts,
plans, gestures, or attempts in the United States during the
1990s. Continued efforts are needed to increase outreach to
untreated individuals with suicidal ideation before the
occurrence of attempts and to improve treatment effectiveness for
such cases.[5]
References (abridged):
1. World Health Organization. Prevention of Suicide: Guidelines
for the Formulation and Implementation of National Strategies.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1996
2. The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Suicide.
Washington, DC: US Public Health Service; 1999
3. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People
2010, 2nd ed: With Understanding and Improving Health and
Objectives for Improving Health. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office; 2000
4. Kuo WH, Gallo JJ. Completed suicide after a suicide attempt.
Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:633
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury
Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) [Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention Web site]. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm. Accessed March 21,
2005
J. Am. Med. Assoc. http://www.jama.com
--------------------------------
Related Material:
PUBLIC HEALTH: METHODS OF SUICIDE AMONG ADOLESCENTS
The following points are made by Centers for Disease Control
(MMWR 2004 53:471):
1) In 2001, suicide was the third leading cause of death among
persons aged 10-19 years.(1) The most common method of suicide in
this age group was by firearm (49%), followed by suffocation
(mostly hanging) (38%) and poisoning (7%).(1) During 1992-2001,
although the overall suicide rate among persons aged 10-19 years
declined from 6.2 to 4.6 per 100,000 population,(1) methods of
suicide changed substantially. To characterize trends in suicide
methods among persons in this age group, CDC analyzed data for
persons living in the US during 1992-2001.
2) The results of that analysis indicated a substantial decline
in suicides by firearm and an increase in suicides by suffocation
in persons aged 10-14 and 15-19 years. Beginning in 1997, among
persons aged 10-14 years, suffocation surpassed firearms as the
most common suicide method. The decline in firearm suicides
combined with the increase in suicides by suffocation suggests
that changes have occurred in suicidal behavior among youths
during the preceding decade. Public health officials should
develop intervention strategies that address the challenges posed
by these changes, including programs that integrate monitoring
systems, etiologic research, and comprehensive prevention
activities.
3) Among persons aged 10-14 years, the rate of firearm suicide
decreased from 0.9 per 100,000 population in 1992 to 0.4 in 2001,
whereas the rate of suffocation suicide increased from 0.5 in
1992 to 0.8 in 2001. Rate regression analyses indicated that,
during the study period, firearm suicide rates decreased an
average of approximately 8.8% annually, and suffocation suicide
rates increased approximately 5.1% annually. Among persons aged
15-19 years, the firearm suicide rate declined from 7.3 in 1992
to 4.1 in 2001; the suffocation suicide rate increased from 1.9
to 2.7. Rate regression analyses indicated that, during the study
period, the average annual decrease in firearm suicide rates for
this age group was approximately 6.8%, and the average annual
increase in suffocation suicide rates was approximately 3.7%.
Poisoning suicide rates also decreased in both age groups, at an
average annual rate of 13.4% among persons aged 10-14 years and
8.0% among persons aged 15-19 years. Because of the small number
of suicides by poisoning, these decreases have had minimal impact
on changes in the overall profile of suicide methods of youths.
4) Among persons aged 10-14 years, suffocation suicides began
occurring with increasing frequency relative to firearm suicides
in the early- to mid-1990s, eclipsing firearm suicides by the
late 1990s. In 2001, a total of 1.8 suffocation suicides occurred
for every firearm suicide among youths aged 10-14 years. Among
youths aged 15-19 years, an increase in the frequency of
suffocation suicides relative to firearm suicides began in the
mid-1990s; however, in 2001, firearms remained the most common
method of suicide in this age group, with a ratio of 0.7
suffocation suicides for every firearm suicide.
5) The findings in this report indicate that the overall suicide
rate for persons aged 10-19 years in the US declined during 1992-
2001 and that substantial changes occurred in the types of
suicide methods used among those persons aged 10-14 and 15-19
years. Rates of suicide using firearms and poisoning decreased,
whereas suicides by suffocation increased. By the end of the
period, suffocation had surpassed firearms to become the most
common method of suicide death among persons aged 10-14 years.
6) The reasons for the changes in suicide methods are not fully
understood. Increases in suffocation suicides and concomitant
decreases in firearm suicides suggest that persons aged 10-19
years are choosing different kinds of suicide methods than in the
past. Data regarding how persons choose among various methods of
suicide suggest that some persons without ready access to highly
lethal methods might choose not to engage in a suicidal act or,
if they do engage in suicidal behavior, are more likely to
survive their injuries.(4) However, certain subsets of suicidal
persons might substitute other methods.(5) Substitution of
methods depends on both the availability of alternatives and
their acceptability. Because the means for suffocation (e.g.,
hanging) are widely available, the escalating use of suffocation
as a method of suicide among persons aged 10-19 years implies
that the acceptability of suicide by suffocation has increased
substantially in this age group.
References (abridged):
1. CDC. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System
(WISQARSTM). Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, 2004.
2. National Center for Health Statistics. Multiple cause-of-death
public-use data files, 1992 through 2001. Hyattsville, Maryland:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 2003
3. Anderson RN, Minino AM, Fingerhut LA, Warner M, Heinen MA.
Deaths: injuries, 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2004;52:1-5
4. Cook PJ. The technology of personal violence. In: Tonry M, ed.
Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 14.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1991:1-71
5. Gunnell D, Nowers M. Suicide by jumping. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica. 1997;96:1-6
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov
ScienceWeek http://scienceweek.com
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"I would rather do an experiment. That doesn't mean
I think theory is unimportant. It just means I would
rather do an experiment."
-- Costas Spyropoulos (1928-1984)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
22 Aug 2005 06:24:57 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:09:25 -0400, "tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Material reductionism?
Please explain.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"I would rather do an experiment. That doesn't mean
I think theory is unimportant. It just means I would
rather do an experiment."
-- Costas Spyropoulos (1928-1984)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
22 Aug 2005 11:17:08 AM |
|
|
Doctors would perhaps be some of the most intimate with the organic source
of our existence. Years of training and study looking deeply into the
'material' foundations of life perhaps might lead to a sense of
meaninglessness. Reductionism in itself, I've always argued is the tendency
to define our existence as totally 'organic' [ergo material], and the notion
of spirit or anything of a higher order whereby any rationale to 'moral'
justification is more or less destroyed. We must consider that much of why
a doctor becomes a doctor has some sense of 'higher servitude' to it...ie to
fellow man etc [or whatever]...to sustain the high degree of training and
personal sacrifice. But then as the very study unravels the very 'moral'
givings that perhaps led him/her to this profession, perhaps it creates a
kind of conundrum whereby disallusionment can set in??
I've always argued that three things kill the human spirit...disappointment,
injustice, and disallusionment [though there may be more general headings].
For a physician, perhaps the possibility of disallusionment is much greater
than most of us.
Of course, you'll want to argue some sort of neural pathway disorder or
whatever. Fine. Six one, half a dozen another I suppose. If we could
manipulate the neural pathways to equate the same things as your 'stories'
provide, perhaps we could be on the same page. But then that would be too
'god-like' for me on the mortal level.
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:cedjg1lji82hr8ro74frgbu9u6ioj2d4mi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:09:25 -0400, "tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Material reductionism?
Please explain.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"I would rather do an experiment. That doesn't mean
I think theory is unimportant. It just means I would
rather do an experiment."
-- Costas Spyropoulos (1928-1984)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
30 Aug 2005 07:41:45 PM |
|
|
Medicine has yet to catch up with science. There's no need to memorize
vast amounts of data. A diagnostician who sat at a terminal like this
and interviewed the patient and fed in the test results would have far
better results from a database vaster than any man could remember.
The med schools are setup to limit the number of physicians so as to
maintain the income of the members of the AMA. They use stress in the
med schools to eliminate many who have the intuition to read faces and
inflection in the patient, in favor of those who can recall in tests
what the professors want.
Women suffer in such a millieu, they care about the patients, but that
dont do them any good. I've seen a report on the health in Cuba, where
they have different values, which end up with a *longer* life span than
in the US with a tiny fraction of the money. The data no doubt affected
the success of the deal Fidel and Chavez made, to import Cuban doctors
to Venuzelan villages while Cuba gets Venuzelan oil.
The god complex foisted upon med students, which arises out of a
patriarchic acacemic system no doubt produces some cognative dissonance
that sometimes leads to suicide when repression of the facts fails.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steveo" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
01 Sep 2005 02:28:19 AM |
|
|
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:ucsRe.2545$vz5.73793710@typhoon.cei.net...
Medicine has yet to catch up with science. There's no need to memorize
vast amounts of data. A diagnostician who sat at a terminal like this
and interviewed the patient and fed in the test results would have far
better results from a database vaster than any man could remember.
The med schools are setup to limit the number of physicians so as to
maintain the income of the members of the AMA. They use stress in the
med schools to eliminate many who have the intuition to read faces and
inflection in the patient, in favor of those who can recall in tests
what the professors want.
Women suffer in such a millieu, they care about the patients, but that
dont do them any good. I've seen a report on the health in Cuba, where
they have different values, which end up with a *longer* life span than
in the US with a tiny fraction of the money. The data no doubt affected
the success of the deal Fidel and Chavez made, to import Cuban doctors
to Venuzelan villages while Cuba gets Venuzelan oil.
The god complex foisted upon med students, which arises out of a
patriarchic acacemic system no doubt produces some cognative dissonance
that sometimes leads to suicide when repression of the facts fails.
This simple hypothesis is pretty darn good. Nice thinking.
Now, how do we change the paradigm?
steveo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
03 Sep 2005 12:02:43 AM |
|
|
steveo wrote:
The god complex foisted upon med students, which arises out of a
patriarchic acacemic system no doubt produces some cognative dissonance
that sometimes leads to suicide when repression of the facts fails.
This simple hypothesis is pretty darn good. Nice thinking.
polite discourse is appreciated. thanx.
Now, how do we change the paradigm?
Very painfully. Cognative dissonnance is abundant everywhere in the
United States of Denial.
I can see where the global market elite has realized that they cannot
afford to live in the style to which they have become accustomed, and
still support the American consumer in the style which he has had. As
Diamond, in "Guns, Germs, & Steel" and his new "Collapse" shows, what
passes for the American lifestyle isnt based on sustainable resources,
but limited reserves of oil and soil.
But no political mandate can be democratically produced which can cut
the cost of entitlements to what the American economy can support on a
sustainable basis. Thus we've seen the rich support demagogues who use
cultural values for support, but without any policy to deal with any of
it in a rational fashion. But even the rich are blind; another point
that Diamond makes about cultures which collapsed. The upper classes
exacerbate the mal-distribution of wealth until anarchy and revolution
breaks out.
*We* will not change the paradigm. It aint upta us, we are too few to
have any electoral impact on policy. I'm struck by the export of poor
Blacks from New Orleans to *Texas*, another region where there is a
minority which also has political leaders that see if they increase
their birth rate they can take over the electoral process. The effort
twards draconian political power will eventually produce leaders,
like Malosevic, who will foment genocidal war. The best that *we* can
do is get the ***** out of the way.
"The Long Emergency" by Kunstler, and the points made by Diamond, say
that we'd do well to find a lower population density region that had
decent soil & rainfall so that small scale agriculture can function
to feed a local population- that doesnt have significant 'minorities',
and therefore their demagogues creating opposing demagogues among the
majority. I chose the Ozarks.
While lily white, the Ozarks are a very religiously diverse place; no
clerical rants against 'birth control', 'abortion', or 'be fruitful
and multiply' have much effect, and the most gullible part of the
population, the Rednecks, are experiencing a crank epidemic which has
dramatically reduced their birth rate. Whatever our liberal sympathies
mite be, we lack the resources to feed starving masses; since those
who tried, failed to supply birth control, the masses are now beyond
our ability to cope with.
Diamond shows a number of obscure populations who realized they were
living on a limited resource base, and therefore stabilized their own
populations. He even found one island of 130 people, who'd done this
for hundreds of years. And- he provides more numerous examples of the
cultures which exceeded their bases and... collapsed into famine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steveo" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
03 Sep 2005 03:09:47 AM |
|
|
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:7daSe.2568$%F7.76791858@typhoon.cei.net...
steveo wrote:
The god complex foisted upon med students, which arises out of a
patriarchic acacemic system no doubt produces some cognative dissonance
that sometimes leads to suicide when repression of the facts fails.
This simple hypothesis is pretty darn good. Nice thinking.
polite discourse is appreciated. thanx.
Now, how do we change the paradigm?
Very painfully. Cognative dissonnance is abundant everywhere in the
United States of Denial.
I can see where the global market elite has realized that they cannot
afford to live in the style to which they have become accustomed, and
still support the American consumer in the style which he has had. As
Diamond, in "Guns, Germs, & Steel" and his new "Collapse" shows, what
passes for the American lifestyle isnt based on sustainable resources,
but limited reserves of oil and soil.
But no political mandate can be democratically produced which can cut
the cost of entitlements to what the American economy can support on a
sustainable basis. Thus we've seen the rich support demagogues who use
cultural values for support, but without any policy to deal with any of
it in a rational fashion. But even the rich are blind; another point
that Diamond makes about cultures which collapsed. The upper classes
exacerbate the mal-distribution of wealth until anarchy and revolution
breaks out.
*We* will not change the paradigm. It aint upta us, we are too few to
have any electoral impact on policy. I'm struck by the export of poor
Blacks from New Orleans to *Texas*, another region where there is a
minority which also has political leaders that see if they increase
their birth rate they can take over the electoral process. The effort
twards draconian political power will eventually produce leaders,
like Malosevic, who will foment genocidal war. The best that *we* can
do is get the ***** out of the way.
"The Long Emergency" by Kunstler, and the points made by Diamond, say
that we'd do well to find a lower population density region that had
decent soil & rainfall so that small scale agriculture can function
to feed a local population- that doesnt have significant 'minorities',
and therefore their demagogues creating opposing demagogues among the
majority. I chose the Ozarks.
While lily white, the Ozarks are a very religiously diverse place; no
clerical rants against 'birth control', 'abortion', or 'be fruitful
and multiply' have much effect, and the most gullible part of the
population, the Rednecks, are experiencing a crank epidemic which has
dramatically reduced their birth rate. Whatever our liberal sympathies
mite be, we lack the resources to feed starving masses; since those
who tried, failed to supply birth control, the masses are now beyond
our ability to cope with.
Diamond shows a number of obscure populations who realized they were
living on a limited resource base, and therefore stabilized their own
populations. He even found one island of 130 people, who'd done this
for hundreds of years. And- he provides more numerous examples of the
cultures which exceeded their bases and... collapsed into famine.
But all these points are based on the premise of (not limited oil but)
limited energy. Suppose that we find a method to produce near-limitless and
clean energy (e.g. cold fusion) and technology continues to enhance our
agricultural efficiency. The arguments you cite would fail because the
economic pressure would obviously dissipate.
I see both these things as likely, and occurring in the not too distant
future. Even so, I don't see the world spontaneously joining together to
sign hymns around the camp fire.
The structural dilemma--of which I see our currently unsustainable lifestyle
being a symptom of--is a lack of vision and purpose. Science, while
enhancing our physical well-being has robbed us of wonder and
mystery--things that help give us purpose and joy. When we as a species, or
at least one society/culture, rediscover that reason d'etre, then, I believe
we will begin to progress.
steveo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
03 Sep 2005 05:16:38 AM |
|
|
In article <dTcSe.61$sx2.53@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:7daSe.2568$%F7.76791858@typhoon.cei.net...
steveo wrote:
The god complex foisted upon med students, which arises out of a
patriarchic acacemic system no doubt produces some cognative dissonance
that sometimes leads to suicide when repression of the facts fails.
This simple hypothesis is pretty darn good. Nice thinking.
polite discourse is appreciated. thanx.
Now, how do we change the paradigm?
Very painfully. Cognative dissonnance is abundant everywhere in the
United States of Denial.
I can see where the global market elite has realized that they cannot
afford to live in the style to which they have become accustomed, and
still support the American consumer in the style which he has had. As
Diamond, in "Guns, Germs, & Steel" and his new "Collapse" shows, what
passes for the American lifestyle isnt based on sustainable resources,
but limited reserves of oil and soil.
But no political mandate can be democratically produced which can cut
the cost of entitlements to what the American economy can support on a
sustainable basis. Thus we've seen the rich support demagogues who use
cultural values for support, but without any policy to deal with any of
it in a rational fashion. But even the rich are blind; another point
that Diamond makes about cultures which collapsed. The upper classes
exacerbate the mal-distribution of wealth until anarchy and revolution
breaks out.
*We* will not change the paradigm. It aint upta us, we are too few to
have any electoral impact on policy. I'm struck by the export of poor
Blacks from New Orleans to *Texas*, another region where there is a
minority which also has political leaders that see if they increase
their birth rate they can take over the electoral process. The effort
twards draconian political power will eventually produce leaders,
like Malosevic, who will foment genocidal war. The best that *we* can
do is get the ***** out of the way.
"The Long Emergency" by Kunstler, and the points made by Diamond, say
that we'd do well to find a lower population density region that had
decent soil & rainfall so that small scale agriculture can function
to feed a local population- that doesnt have significant 'minorities',
and therefore their demagogues creating opposing demagogues among the
majority. I chose the Ozarks.
While lily white, the Ozarks are a very religiously diverse place; no
clerical rants against 'birth control', 'abortion', or 'be fruitful
and multiply' have much effect, and the most gullible part of the
population, the Rednecks, are experiencing a crank epidemic which has
dramatically reduced their birth rate. Whatever our liberal sympathies
mite be, we lack the resources to feed starving masses; since those
who tried, failed to supply birth control, the masses are now beyond
our ability to cope with.
Diamond shows a number of obscure populations who realized they were
living on a limited resource base, and therefore stabilized their own
populations. He even found one island of 130 people, who'd done this
for hundreds of years. And- he provides more numerous examples of the
cultures which exceeded their bases and... collapsed into famine.
But all these points are based on the premise of (not limited oil but)
limited energy. Suppose that we find a method to produce near-limitless and
clean energy (e.g. cold fusion) and technology continues to enhance our
agricultural efficiency. The arguments you cite would fail because the
economic pressure would obviously dissipate.
However, what motivation is there for any nation to explore such a
solution where that solution benefits one's enemies at the same time?
.
|
|
|
| User: "steveo" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
03 Sep 2005 02:23:02 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-001EE3.06163803092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <dTcSe.61$sx2.53@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:7daSe.2568$%F7.76791858@typhoon.cei.net...
steveo wrote:
<snip>
Diamond shows a number of obscure populations who realized they were
living on a limited resource base, and therefore stabilized their own
populations. He even found one island of 130 people, who'd done this
for hundreds of years. And- he provides more numerous examples of the
cultures which exceeded their bases and... collapsed into famine.
But all these points are based on the premise of (not limited oil but)
limited energy. Suppose that we find a method to produce near-limitless
and
clean energy (e.g. cold fusion) and technology continues to enhance our
agricultural efficiency. The arguments you cite would fail because the
economic pressure would obviously dissipate.
However, what motivation is there for any nation to explore such a
solution where that solution benefits one's enemies at the same time?
If that were a serious factor inhibiting innovation, then we would still be
hunter-gatherers living in caves.
The oil industry, of course, will attempt to stall any developments in
non-oil energy creation. Not because they are evil, but because it is
natural to try and protect your own livelihood.
I don't see them being successful, as there are hundreds of experiments
being conducted every year on all sorts of interesting ideas.
Besides, who says that the developing country has to share? Eventually the
knowledge will disseminate, but in the short run that would be quite the
advantage.
Thinking in a geo-political sense, sharing the knowledge would effectively
neuter OPEC and might very well cause such a huge upheaval that several
wars/revolutions would break out.
steveo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
03 Sep 2005 05:13:29 PM |
|
|
In article <pKmSe.920$sx2.383@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-001EE3.06163803092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <dTcSe.61$sx2.53@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:7daSe.2568$%F7.76791858@typhoon.cei.net...
steveo wrote:
<snip>
Diamond shows a number of obscure populations who realized they were
living on a limited resource base, and therefore stabilized their own
populations. He even found one island of 130 people, who'd done this
for hundreds of years. And- he provides more numerous examples of the
cultures which exceeded their bases and... collapsed into famine.
But all these points are based on the premise of (not limited oil but)
limited energy. Suppose that we find a method to produce near-limitless
and
clean energy (e.g. cold fusion) and technology continues to enhance our
agricultural efficiency. The arguments you cite would fail because the
economic pressure would obviously dissipate.
However, what motivation is there for any nation to explore such a
solution where that solution benefits one's enemies at the same time?
If that were a serious factor inhibiting innovation, then we would still be
hunter-gatherers living in caves.
Sorry. But you could explain why you have linked these two items.
Establishing an endless source of energy reduces supremacy for those who
control resources. A widely available resource is no longer a commodity
that can be used to accumulate wealth.
The oil industry, of course, will attempt to stall any developments in
non-oil energy creation. Not because they are evil, but because it is
natural to try and protect your own livelihood.
Who cares about evil?
The avoidance of alternate energy sources is not reducible to only one
factor -- livelihood. There are other plausible explanations for such
actions.
I don't see them being successful, as there are hundreds of experiments
being conducted every year on all sorts of interesting ideas.
Besides, who says that the developing country has to share? Eventually the
knowledge will disseminate, but in the short run that would be quite the
advantage.
Solar power is free. Anyone can catch a cup o' rays. It's difficult to
create wealth and power through something that anyone can access with
ease. The desire for profit and wealth eliminates the extended use of
solar energy as one option. It doesn't pay to exploit low cost and free
sources of energy. Our collective greed is prohibitive.
Thinking in a geo-political sense, sharing the knowledge would effectively
neuter OPEC and might very well cause such a huge upheaval that several
wars/revolutions would break out.
Indeed. The status quo is continued and for fear of consequences. O
course, the irony is that the reluctance to explore other options only
bankrupts the west and makes the Middle East and other oil producing
areas wealthier.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steveo" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
03 Sep 2005 06:47:50 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-A14052.18132903092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <pKmSe.920$sx2.383@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-001EE3.06163803092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <dTcSe.61$sx2.53@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:7daSe.2568$%F7.76791858@typhoon.cei.net...
steveo wrote:
<snip>
Diamond shows a number of obscure populations who realized they were
living on a limited resource base, and therefore stabilized their
own
populations. He even found one island of 130 people, who'd done this
for hundreds of years. And- he provides more numerous examples of
the
cultures which exceeded their bases and... collapsed into famine.
But all these points are based on the premise of (not limited oil but)
limited energy. Suppose that we find a method to produce
near-limitless
and
clean energy (e.g. cold fusion) and technology continues to enhance
our
agricultural efficiency. The arguments you cite would fail because
the
economic pressure would obviously dissipate.
However, what motivation is there for any nation to explore such a
solution where that solution benefits one's enemies at the same time?
If that were a serious factor inhibiting innovation, then we would still
be
hunter-gatherers living in caves.
Sorry. But you could explain why you have linked these two items.
The two items being improved energy creation and improved food creation? I
linked them because they are the two most precious resources. Generally,
conflict arrises when resources are scarce.
Day Brown's reply to my post was that the US lifestyle was not sustainable
because we consume unreplaceable resources too rapidly, which was in
response to my question on how to change the paradigm of the doctors
creating a poor system for conducting medicine. I proposed the question of
what would happen if the resources weren't so limited.
Establishing an endless source of energy reduces supremacy for those who
control resources. A widely available resource is no longer a commodity
that can be used to accumulate wealth.
Good. Reduces conflict and enhances economic potential.
The oil industry, of course, will attempt to stall any developments in
non-oil energy creation. Not because they are evil, but because it is
natural to try and protect your own livelihood.
Who cares about evil?
I do.
The avoidance of alternate energy sources is not reducible to only one
factor -- livelihood. There are other plausible explanations for such
actions.
We would have limitless electricity had not JP Morgan destroyed N. Tesla's
atmospheric experiments. This was done because Morgan couldn't find a place
to place the meter.
True, there are gaps in our understanding, but I wasn't saying that we would
have these marvels tomorrow. It was a hypothetical situation.
It seems to me that personal economics _are_ the driving force behind the
lack of energy-technology progress. I say personal because making resources
more abundant always enhances the overall state of the world economy on the
large scale.
I don't see them being successful, as there are hundreds of experiments
being conducted every year on all sorts of interesting ideas.
Besides, who says that the developing country has to share? Eventually
the
knowledge will disseminate, but in the short run that would be quite the
advantage.
Solar power is free. Anyone can catch a cup o' rays. It's difficult to
create wealth and power through something that anyone can access with
ease. The desire for profit and wealth eliminates the extended use of
solar energy as one option. It doesn't pay to exploit low cost and free
sources of energy. Our collective greed is prohibitive.
See arguments above. If and when solar power becomes much more efficient
I'll bet that there would be no cheaper and cleaner way to go. Hopefully
this happens soon.
There are too many independently wealthy Americans who pour money into
research projects to say that our individual greed would inhibit anything in
the long term.
Thinking in a geo-political sense, sharing the knowledge would
effectively
neuter OPEC and might very well cause such a huge upheaval that several
wars/revolutions would break out.
Indeed. The status quo is continued and for fear of consequences. O
course, the irony is that the reluctance to explore other options only
bankrupts the west and makes the Middle East and other oil producing
areas wealthier.
Yes. And the wealth is lost when we send it there because the people
receiving the wealth create a fantasy. Spending billions to build cities in
the desert that aren't there for any 'natural' reason is just a waste, and
unsustainable. What will happen to these countries and cities when we stop
using oil (either from it running out or us finding an attractive
alternative)?
steveo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
03 Sep 2005 07:16:35 PM |
|
|
In article <ECqSe.943$sx2.807@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-A14052.18132903092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <pKmSe.920$sx2.383@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-001EE3.06163803092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <dTcSe.61$sx2.53@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:7daSe.2568$%F7.76791858@typhoon.cei.net...
steveo wrote:
<snip>
Diamond shows a number of obscure populations who realized they were
living on a limited resource base, and therefore stabilized their
own
populations. He even found one island of 130 people, who'd done this
for hundreds of years. And- he provides more numerous examples of
the
cultures which exceeded their bases and... collapsed into famine.
But all these points are based on the premise of (not limited oil but)
limited energy. Suppose that we find a method to produce
near-limitless
and
clean energy (e.g. cold fusion) and technology continues to enhance
our
agricultural efficiency. The arguments you cite would fail because
the
economic pressure would obviously dissipate.
However, what motivation is there for any nation to explore such a
solution where that solution benefits one's enemies at the same time?
If that were a serious factor inhibiting innovation, then we would still
be
hunter-gatherers living in caves.
Sorry. But you could explain why you have linked these two items.
The two items being improved energy creation and improved food creation? I
linked them because they are the two most precious resources. Generally,
conflict arrises when resources are scarce.
Sorry for not being more specific. I was asking if you would mind
explaining how you linked a solution that benefits one's enemies to the
belief that we would be cave-dwellers?
Day Brown's reply to my post was that the US lifestyle was not sustainable
because we consume unreplaceable resources too rapidly, which was in
response to my question on how to change the paradigm of the doctors
creating a poor system for conducting medicine. I proposed the question of
what would happen if the resources weren't so limited.
Self-preservation. A doctor who cures a patient is a doctor who loses
business. A doctor who treats an ailment ensures a stream of business
and over time. A government that supports self-sufficiency is a
government that operates against its own existence.
Establishing an endless source of energy reduces supremacy for those who
control resources. A widely available resource is no longer a commodity
that can be used to accumulate wealth.
Good. Reduces conflict and enhances economic potential.
Assumes that others aren't interested in the accummulation of wealth.
The oil industry, of course, will attempt to stall any developments in
non-oil energy creation. Not because they are evil, but because it is
natural to try and protect your own livelihood.
Who cares about evil?
I do.
We differ here then.
The avoidance of alternate energy sources is not reducible to only one
factor -- livelihood. There are other plausible explanations for such
actions.
We would have limitless electricity had not JP Morgan destroyed N. Tesla's
atmospheric experiments. This was done because Morgan couldn't find a place
to place the meter.
True, there are gaps in our understanding, but I wasn't saying that we would
have these marvels tomorrow. It was a hypothetical situation.
It seems to me that personal economics _are_ the driving force behind the
lack of energy-technology progress. I say personal because making resources
more abundant always enhances the overall state of the world economy on the
large scale.
We disagree. Sunlight is accessible to all for many hours each day and
for many millions of years to come. There is no profit for those who
would make solar devices. There is no division of classes without a
commodity that only some can have. There is no destruction to the planet
as a direct byproduct of this energy source.
I don't see them being successful, as there are hundreds of experiments
being conducted every year on all sorts of interesting ideas.
Besides, who says that the developing country has to share? Eventually
the
knowledge will disseminate, but in the short run that would be quite the
advantage.
Solar power is free. Anyone can catch a cup o' rays. It's difficult to
create wealth and power through something that anyone can access with
ease. The desire for profit and wealth eliminates the extended use of
solar energy as one option. It doesn't pay to exploit low cost and free
sources of energy. Our collective greed is prohibitive.
See arguments above. If and when solar power becomes much more efficient
I'll bet that there would be no cheaper and cleaner way to go. Hopefully
this happens soon.
LOL. Okay. A solar calcular can be purchased and is highly efficient.
Still, people choose non-solar. A solar generator can be purchased for
the cost of approximately 1 month's hydroelectric power. Still people
choose non-solar. Existing solar technology produces no direct harm to
the environment other than the harm that solar energy from the sun
already causes.
There are too many independently wealthy Americans who pour money into
research projects to say that our individual greed would inhibit anything in
the long term.
A nice statement to make.
Thinking in a geo-political sense, sharing the knowledge would
effectively
neuter OPEC and might very well cause such a huge upheaval that several
wars/revolutions would break out.
Indeed. The status quo is continued and for fear of consequences. O
course, the irony is that the reluctance to explore other options only
bankrupts the west and makes the Middle East and other oil producing
areas wealthier.
Yes. And the wealth is lost when we send it there because the people
receiving the wealth create a fantasy. Spending billions to build cities in
the desert that aren't there for any 'natural' reason is just a waste, and
unsustainable. What will happen to these countries and cities when we stop
using oil (either from it running out or us finding an attractive
alternative)?
A desert city powered by solar energy does make sense. A desert
experiences greater amounts of sunlight over time. Desert cities are not
subject to hurricanes, monsoons, tornadoes and flooding and other vast
expensive devastation. Salt water can be purified and made drinkable
also through the use of solar power. A solar power city in the desert is
a lot more sensible than an oil powered one on the Gulf of Mexico.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steveo" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
03 Sep 2005 09:55:34 PM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-E5B7B9.20163503092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <ECqSe.943$sx2.807@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-A14052.18132903092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <pKmSe.920$sx2.383@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-001EE3.06163803092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <dTcSe.61$sx2.53@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:7daSe.2568$%F7.76791858@typhoon.cei.net...
steveo wrote:
<snip>
Diamond shows a number of obscure populations who realized they
were
living on a limited resource base, and therefore stabilized their
own
populations. He even found one island of 130 people, who'd done
this
for hundreds of years. And- he provides more numerous examples of
the
cultures which exceeded their bases and... collapsed into famine.
But all these points are based on the premise of (not limited oil
but)
limited energy. Suppose that we find a method to produce
near-limitless
and
clean energy (e.g. cold fusion) and technology continues to enhance
our
agricultural efficiency. The arguments you cite would fail because
the
economic pressure would obviously dissipate.
However, what motivation is there for any nation to explore such a
solution where that solution benefits one's enemies at the same
time?
If that were a serious factor inhibiting innovation, then we would
still
be
hunter-gatherers living in caves.
Sorry. But you could explain why you have linked these two items.
The two items being improved energy creation and improved food creation?
I
linked them because they are the two most precious resources. Generally,
conflict arrises when resources are scarce.
Sorry for not being more specific. I was asking if you would mind
explaining how you linked a solution that benefits one's enemies to the
belief that we would be cave-dwellers?
Ah. Technological develeopment has benefited everyone. Not all equally,
and not all at the same time, but nonetheless, everyone on the planet has
benefitted. So, you asked what benefit a nation would see from developing
the example technologies if they also benefited the nation's enemies. Well,
look at computers. Developed in the US. Why go to all that work if the
Chinese and the Iranians and the Russians and everyone else gets them too?
I think the answer is pretty obvious that this is not a zero-sum-game. We
benefit independantly of everyone elses' situation, and in fact we benefit
more because they do have the technology. Where would we be if the Japanese
weren't so relentless in their work and research?
Day Brown's reply to my post was that the US lifestyle was not
sustainable
because we consume unreplaceable resources too rapidly, which was in
response to my question on how to change the paradigm of the doctors
creating a poor system for conducting medicine. I proposed the question
of
what would happen if the resources weren't so limited.
Self-preservation. A doctor who cures a patient is a doctor who loses
business. A doctor who treats an ailment ensures a stream of business
and over time. A government that supports self-sufficiency is a
government that operates against its own existence.
That's because the whole system is all screwed up. I'm not a medical expert
or accountant, but it would seem that a better system would be to pay
doctors yearly and to deduct money for each day that you are sick that is
not your own damn fault (eating the tacos from the street vendors in
Tijuana, for example). In a system like that, we all win and are much
healthier in the bargain. And, crappy doctors go out of business instead of
being protected by stupid laws, unions, and contracts.
Establishing an endless source of energy reduces supremacy for those
who
control resources. A widely available resource is no longer a commodity
that can be used to accumulate wealth.
Good. Reduces conflict and enhances economic potential.
Assumes that others aren't interested in the accummulation of wealth.
I would persume that "enhances economic potential" generates increased
wealth. So, what you probably mean is power over others. Yes, there is
that. We will always have to do deal with those, but as we raise the bar on
our collective expectations and actualization of behavior, these will become
less frequeant and less of a distraction.
The oil industry, of course, will attempt to stall any developments in
non-oil energy creation. Not because they are evil, but because it is
natural to try and protect your own livelihood.
Who cares about evil?
I do.
We differ here then.
Ok.
The avoidance of alternate energy sources is not reducible to only one
factor -- livelihood. There are other plausible explanations for such
actions.
We would have limitless electricity had not JP Morgan destroyed N.
Tesla's
atmospheric experiments. This was done because Morgan couldn't find a
place
to place the meter.
True, there are gaps in our understanding, but I wasn't saying that we
would
have these marvels tomorrow. It was a hypothetical situation.
It seems to me that personal economics _are_ the driving force behind the
lack of energy-technology progress. I say personal because making
resources
more abundant always enhances the overall state of the world economy on
the
large scale.
We disagree. Sunlight is accessible to all for many hours each day and
for many millions of years to come. There is no profit for those who
would make solar devices. There is no division of classes without a
commodity that only some can have. There is no destruction to the planet
as a direct byproduct of this energy source.
I mentioned below that if solar power could be realized in a cheap and
effective fashion, that would be the best solution.
But, there surely is some ecological damage in the manufacture of the
panels, in their disposal, and there may be an impact on wildlife like
birds. Do you know if there is? I'm not really familiar with solar panels.
There is also the need for batteries to store energy for cloudy days and
nighttime, of course, and batteries are pretty toxic.
Do you know how to make solar panels? Probably not, so you would have to
entice someone who does to give you some. Thus, profit is born. There just
aren't so many nodes on the chain of delivery, and the cost to obtain the
energy is much cheaper.
I don't see them being successful, as there are hundreds of
experiments
being conducted every year on all sorts of interesting ideas.
Besides, who says that the developing country has to share?
Eventually
the
knowledge will disseminate, but in the short run that would be quite
the
advantage.
Solar power is free. Anyone can catch a cup o' rays. It's difficult to
create wealth and power through something that anyone can access with
ease. The desire for profit and wealth eliminates the extended use of
solar energy as one option. It doesn't pay to exploit low cost and free
sources of energy. Our collective greed is prohibitive.
See arguments above. If and when solar power becomes much more efficient
I'll bet that there would be no cheaper and cleaner way to go. Hopefully
this happens soon.
LOL. Okay. A solar calcular can be purchased and is highly efficient.
Still, people choose non-solar. A solar generator can be purchased for
the cost of approximately 1 month's hydroelectric power. Still people
choose non-solar. Existing solar technology produces no direct harm to
the environment other than the harm that solar energy from the sun
already causes.
Yes. The calculator example is a good one. I have a calculator that has
both a panel and a battery, for when the light is insufficient.
As our yield improves on the panels, it is certain that more will be
errected. In the meantime, we can't cover as much ground as we would need
for our power needs with panels. Maybe a space platform would work in the
interim, but I for one am scared of the microwave anntanae calibration going
awry from space dust and frying me as I walk down the street.
There are too many independently wealthy Americans who pour money into
research projects to say that our individual greed would inhibit anything
in
the long term.
A nice statement to make.
Even nicer that it is true. Evolution in technology is speeding up, not
stagnating.
Thinking in a geo-political sense, sharing the knowledge would
effectively
neuter OPEC and might very well cause such a huge upheaval that
several
wars/revolutions would break out.
Indeed. The status quo is continued and for fear of consequences. O
course, the irony is that the reluctance to explore other options only
bankrupts the west and makes the Middle East and other oil producing
areas wealthier.
Yes. And the wealth is lost when we send it there because the people
receiving the wealth create a fantasy. Spending billions to build cities
in
the desert that aren't there for any 'natural' reason is just a waste,
and
unsustainable. What will happen to these countries and cities when we
stop
using oil (either from it running out or us finding an attractive
alternative)?
A desert city powered by solar energy does make sense. A desert
experiences greater amounts of sunlight over time. Desert cities are not
subject to hurricanes, monsoons, tornadoes and flooding and other vast
expensive devastation. Salt water can be purified and made drinkable
also through the use of solar power. A solar power city in the desert is
a lot more sensible than an oil powered one on the Gulf of Mexico.
In that small sense it makes sense, but NO was built because it was such a
great gateway into the interior of the continent, and thus a prime locale
for trade and transportation. There is no economic reason to have these
cities in the Arabian desert except oil, which isn't a sustainable reason.
steveo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
03 Sep 2005 10:32:07 PM |
|
|
In article <ImtSe.958$sx2.183@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-E5B7B9.20163503092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <ECqSe.943$sx2.807@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-A14052.18132903092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <pKmSe.920$sx2.383@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-001EE3.06163803092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <dTcSe.61$sx2.53@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:7daSe.2568$%F7.76791858@typhoon.cei.net...
steveo wrote:
<snip>
Diamond shows a number of obscure populations who realized they
were
living on a limited resource base, and therefore stabilized their
own
populations. He even found one island of 130 people, who'd done
this
for hundreds of years. And- he provides more numerous examples of
the
cultures which exceeded their bases and... collapsed into famine.
But all these points are based on the premise of (not limited oil
but)
limited energy. Suppose that we find a method to produce
near-limitless
and
clean energy (e.g. cold fusion) and technology continues to enhance
our
agricultural efficiency. The arguments you cite would fail because
the
economic pressure would obviously dissipate.
However, what motivation is there for any nation to explore such a
solution where that solution benefits one's enemies at the same
time?
If that were a serious factor inhibiting innovation, then we would
still
be
hunter-gatherers living in caves.
Sorry. But you could explain why you have linked these two items.
The two items being improved energy creation and improved food creation?
I
linked them because they are the two most precious resources. Generally,
conflict arrises when resources are scarce.
Sorry for not being more specific. I was asking if you would mind
explaining how you linked a solution that benefits one's enemies to the
belief that we would be cave-dwellers?
Ah. Technological develeopment has benefited everyone.
I am very reluctant to agree to any notion of all or everyone.
Technology lead to the colonization of the my continent which lead to
mass death and destruction through the transmission of disease to the
indigenous population. Could you clarify how this was beneficial to them?
Technology, contributed to a stock market boom and crash in the 20s that
lead to many deaths? Could your clarify your "reality" of technology for
those who perished through suicide at their sudden and massive losses.
Technology has lead to the creation of guns which are used to kill
thousand upon thousands each year and since their invention. Would you
clarify please, how this is a benefit to them?
Not all equally,
and not all at the same time, but nonetheless, everyone on the planet has
benefitted.
I only provided three examples above, but it seems that your reality is
false.
I'll wait for the response here before proceeding.
So, you asked what benefit a nation would see from developing
the example technologies if they also benefited the nation's enemies. Well,
look at computers. Developed in the US. Why go to all that work if the
Chinese and the Iranians and the Russians and everyone else gets them too?
I think the answer is pretty obvious that this is not a zero-sum-game. We
benefit independantly of everyone elses' situation, and in fact we benefit
more because they do have the technology. Where would we be if the Japanese
weren't so relentless in their work and research?
Day Brown's reply to my post was that the US lifestyle was not
sustainable
because we consume unreplaceable resources too rapidly, which was in
response to my question on how to change the paradigm of the doctors
creating a poor system for conducting medicine. I proposed the question
of
what would happen if the resources weren't so limited.
Self-preservation. A doctor who cures a patient is a doctor who loses
business. A doctor who treats an ailment ensures a stream of business
and over time. A government that supports self-sufficiency is a
government that operates against its own existence.
That's because the whole system is all screwed up. I'm not a medical expert
or accountant, but it would seem that a better system would be to pay
doctors yearly and to deduct money for each day that you are sick that is
not your own damn fault (eating the tacos from the street vendors in
Tijuana, for example). In a system like that, we all win and are much
healthier in the bargain. And, crappy doctors go out of business instead of
being protected by stupid laws, unions, and contracts.
Establishing an endless source of energy reduces supremacy for those
who
control resources. A widely available resource is no longer a commodity
that can be used to accumulate wealth.
Good. Reduces conflict and enhances economic potential.
Assumes that others aren't interested in the accummulation of wealth.
I would persume that "enhances economic potential" generates increased
wealth. So, what you probably mean is power over others. Yes, there is
that. We will always have to do deal with those, but as we raise the bar on
our collective expectations and actualization of behavior, these will become
less frequeant and less of a distraction.
The oil industry, of course, will attempt to stall any developments in
non-oil energy creation. Not because they are evil, but because it is
natural to try and protect your own livelihood.
Who cares about evil?
I do.
We differ here then.
Ok.
The avoidance of alternate energy sources is not reducible to only one
factor -- livelihood. There are other plausible explanations for such
actions.
We would have limitless electricity had not JP Morgan destroyed N.
Tesla's
atmospheric experiments. This was done because Morgan couldn't find a
place
to place the meter.
True, there are gaps in our understanding, but I wasn't saying that we
would
have these marvels tomorrow. It was a hypothetical situation.
It seems to me that personal economics _are_ the driving force behind the
lack of energy-technology progress. I say personal because making
resources
more abundant always enhances the overall state of the world economy on
the
large scale.
We disagree. Sunlight is accessible to all for many hours each day and
for many millions of years to come. There is no profit for those who
would make solar devices. There is no division of classes without a
commodity that only some can have. There is no destruction to the planet
as a direct byproduct of this energy source.
I mentioned below that if solar power could be realized in a cheap and
effective fashion, that would be the best solution.
But, there surely is some ecological damage in the manufacture of the
panels, in their disposal, and there may be an impact on wildlife like
birds. Do you know if there is? I'm not really familiar with solar panels.
There is also the need for batteries to store energy for cloudy days and
nighttime, of course, and batteries are pretty toxic.
Do you know how to make solar panels? Probably not, so you would have to
entice someone who does to give you some. Thus, profit is born. There just
aren't so many nodes on the chain of delivery, and the cost to obtain the
energy is much cheaper.
I don't see them being successful, as there are hundreds of
experiments
being conducted every year on all sorts of interesting ideas.
Besides, who says that the developing country has to share?
Eventually
the
knowledge will disseminate, but in the short run that would be quite
the
advantage.
Solar power is free. Anyone can catch a cup o' rays. It's difficult to
create wealth and power through something that anyone can access with
ease. The desire for profit and wealth eliminates the extended use of
solar energy as one option. It doesn't pay to exploit low cost and free
sources of energy. Our collective greed is prohibitive.
See arguments above. If and when solar power becomes much more efficient
I'll bet that there would be no cheaper and cleaner way to go. Hopefully
this happens soon.
LOL. Okay. A solar calcular can be purchased and is highly efficient.
Still, people choose non-solar. A solar generator can be purchased for
the cost of approximately 1 month's hydroelectric power. Still people
choose non-solar. Existing solar technology produces no direct harm to
the environment other than the harm that solar energy from the sun
already causes.
Yes. The calculator example is a good one. I have a calculator that has
both a panel and a battery, for when the light is insufficient.
As our yield improves on the panels, it is certain that more will be
errected. In the meantime, we can't cover as much ground as we would need
for our power needs with panels. Maybe a space platform would work in the
interim, but I for one am scared of the microwave anntanae calibration going
awry from space dust and frying me as I walk down the street.
There are too many independently wealthy Americans who pour money into
research projects to say that our individual greed would inhibit anything
in
the long term.
A nice statement to make.
Even nicer that it is true. Evolution in technology is speeding up, not
stagnating.
Thinking in a geo-political sense, sharing the knowledge would
effectively
neuter OPEC and might very well cause such a huge upheaval that
several
wars/revolutions would break out.
Indeed. The status quo is continued and for fear of consequences. O
course, the irony is that the reluctance to explore other options only
bankrupts the west and makes the Middle East and other oil producing
areas wealthier.
Yes. And the wealth is lost when we send it there because the people
receiving the wealth create a fantasy. Spending billions to build cities
in
the desert that aren't there for any 'natural' reason is just a waste,
and
unsustainable. What will happen to these countries and cities when we
stop
using oil (either from it running out or us finding an attractive
alternative)?
A desert city powered by solar energy does make sense. A desert
experiences greater amounts of sunlight over time. Desert cities are not
subject to hurricanes, monsoons, tornadoes and flooding and other vast
expensive devastation. Salt water can be purified and made drinkable
also through the use of solar power. A solar power city in the desert is
a lot more sensible than an oil powered one on the Gulf of Mexico.
In that small sense it makes sense, but NO was built because it was such a
great gateway into the interior of the continent, and thus a prime locale
for trade and transportation. There is no economic reason to have these
cities in the Arabian desert except oil, which isn't a sustainable reason.
steveo
.
|
|
|
| User: "steveo" |
|
| Title: Re: Explain This |
04 Sep 2005 01:38:47 AM |
|
|
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-32F676.23320703092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <ImtSe.958$sx2.183@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-E5B7B9.20163503092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <ECqSe.943$sx2.807@fed1read02>, "steveo" <gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-A14052.18132903092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <pKmSe.920$sx2.383@fed1read02>, "steveo"
<gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Ron" <homo@home.com> wrote in message
news:homo-001EE3.06163803092005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <dTcSe.61$sx2.53@fed1read02>, "steveo"
<gnsemail@cox.net>
wrote:
"Day Brown" <daybrown@artelco.com> wrote in message
news:7daSe.2568$%F7.76791858@typhoon.cei.net...
steveo wrote:
<snip>
Diamond shows a number of obscure populations who realized
they
were
living on a limited resource base, and therefore stabilized
their
own
populations. He even found one island of 130 people, who'd
done
this
for hundreds of years. And- he provides more numerous examples
of
the
cultures which exceeded their bases and... collapsed into
famine.
But all these points are based on the premise of (not limited
oil
but)
limited energy. Suppose that we find a method to produce
near-limitless
and
clean energy (e.g. cold fusion) and technology continues to
enhance
our
agricultural efficiency. The arguments you cite would fail
because
the
economic pressure would obviously dissipate.
However, what motivation is there for any nation to explore such
a
solution where that solution benefits one's enemies at the same
time?
If that were a serious factor inhibiting innovation, then we would
still
be
hunter-gatherers living in caves.
Sorry. But you could explain why you have linked these two items.
The two items being improved energy creation and improved food
creation?
I
linked them because they are the two most precious resources.
Generally,
conflict arrises when resources are scarce.
Sorry for not being more specific. I was asking if you would mind
explaining how you linked a solution that benefits one's enemies to the
belief that we would be cave-dwellers?
Ah. Technological develeopment has benefited everyone.
I am very reluctant to agree to any notion of all or everyone.
Technology lead to the colonization of the my continent which lead to
mass death and destruction through the transmission of disease to the
indigenous population. Could you clarify how this was beneficial to them?
Technology, contributed to a stock market boom and crash in the 20s that
lead to many deaths? Could your clarify your "reality" of technology for
those who perished through suicide at their sudden and massive losses.
Technology has lead to the creation of guns which are used to kill
thousand upon thousands each year and since their invention. Would you
clarify please, how this is a benefit to them?
Not all equally,
and not all at the same time, but nonetheless, everyone on the planet has
benefitted.
I only provided three examples above, but it seems that your reality is
false.
I'll wait for the response here before proceeding.
Hm. I am in a conundrum here. What I meant by "everyone" was the human
species, which would include everyone, but clearly on an individual basis
this may not be applicable, even with the caveat I inserted. I guess I will
proceed that the human species <> "everyone" on an individual basis and
concede you that point.
But, let's look at some examples. We'll use yours.
Guns - People don't need guns to kill people. I would agree that the form
of the technology represented by "gun" is not necessarily a good thing, but
the technology is not the gun. The technology is chemical science being
applied through a manufactured means to bring about a consistent effect
produced through engineering skill and knowledge of physics. What about
that is not good or useful? These concepts have produced pharmaceuticals,
refrigeration, fertilizers, GM foods that are resistant to pests and drought
that help feed tens of millions in poor countries, and many more.
Colonization - Technology is a tool or a means, not a force. I'm not sure
if you mean the Arabs invading Africa, the Arabs invading Europe, the
Egyptians (the ancient ones are considered a separate 'race,' are the not?)
invading Asia, the Mongols invading Europe, the Mongols invading the
Americas, the Chinese invading Oceania, the Europeans invading Africa or the
Europeans invading the Americas, but people move around a lot and tend to
settle in where they find desirable conditions. That doesn't make it fair,
but in the long run the knowledge transfer and assimilation enhances the
strength of the species as a whole through dissemination of ideas, skills,
and technologies and, occasionally, positive synergies. Which continent do
you own?
Stock Market Crash of 1929 - I don't see how 'technology' caused this. The
primary reasons for the crash were the instability of 'global' economy that
was developing, the imbalance in the US economy that was created by the
transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one, and the Treaty of
Versailles that ended WWI and imposed stringent conditions on Germany, which
was a (the?) leading economy in the world at that time. I'm sure I wouldn't
look at it this way if I lived through it, but I see it as being analogous
with a fever. The body (economy) had to purge itself of impurities (legacy
of agrarianism and being isolationist) before it could get well. As for
those wh | | | | | | | | | | | | |
