http://www.laurushealth.com/HealthN...y0512200329.htm Western capitalism and industrialism is disproportionately harming residents of the 3rd world, now, is it?
I am really scared to death of being killed in a car accident (that sounds ironic). Everytime i go on the road i see people driving crazy, running lights, talking on phones all oblivious to the physics involved in a 2000 lb box of steel crashing. The important things like driving and gun ownership are too easy in america.
For some reason people in thirld world nations tend to drive like maniacs. I know it is an extreme problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Lots of people die because of it. Unemployment, poverty, cheap booze and a beat up BMW on rural roads make a bad combination.
Weird, it was there a few hours ago. Anyway here's the article (it's from a wire service) on a different site: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/12/injury030512
I think most societies are simply far less "organized" than ours. The basic idea of the "line" for instance, is totally alien to more than half the world. So when it comes to traffic rules, for many places it's just open season. Note: this doesn't explain why Koreans are such crazy drivers. God I saw some bus drivers do some nutty things in Seoul.
So many people dying because of oil guzzling evil cars. Now I understand better the true motives of the good people who were marching with signs that said 'No blood for Oil'.
The number of deaths in the US has gone up recently to around 42K but the rate per miles driven is the same as it was in 1990. If the rate had remained unchanged since the 60s the current death toll would be over 100K. Seat belts, air bags, generally safer vehicles, and MADD's efforts have helped drive the rate down. Funny thing is, I don't feel any safer than I did years ago.
Around 115 people die every day in this country in auto accidents. To put that in perspective: --our fatalities in the Iraq conflict amounted to one and half day's worth of traffic deaths. --deaths on the highway are basically equivalent to having a major plane crash every third day. Every Monday and Thursday, like clockwork. --our traffic deaths equate to one September 11th level of fatalities every four or five weeks, every single year, year after year after year. Just goes to show, it's the unusual events that shocking, while the usual events that SHOULD be shocking elicit just a shoulder shrug.
Is the purpose of this thread to rationalize the horrible travesty and injustice of war? Are we supposed to say "ah, I guess war isn't so bad after all"? Traffic deaths are an accepted risk of an activity that is of unarguable benefit to mankind. Although of course we must enact whatever laws and infrastructure to reduce the number of deaths, accidents are an inherent risk that will prove difficult to eliminate altogether.
Well, no...but how about the horrible travesty and injustice of Saddam Hussein's regime? You know, it's a matter of perspective. Which brings me to...... Suppose you tune into a newscast, and the lead story is "Today, 115 people died in.........[fill in the blank]." Would you just sit on the edge of your chair to find out what that is? Rioting and looting in Baghdad? Victims of SARS? A 737 Plane crash? Immigrants roasted in a tractor trailer? A half dozen suicide bombers in Israel engaging in a coordinated set of attacks? That's not to say such hypothetical events aren't tragic. But what characterizes them? They are, in a word, unusual. Or dramatic because infrequent and in some cases not repeatable for significant lengths of time. You rightly point to the concept of risk here. There are risks to waging war. Risks to getting in plane. Risks to illegally immigrate. Risks to living in Israel. Risks to driving a car. The fact is that most people have a very poorly developed sense of risk. It is far far riskier to get into a car than an airplane. And there are risks in allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power...and risks to going to war to depose him. We must understand the risk/reward tradeoffs of everything we do. Really understand them.
Is it really an unarguable benefit to mankind that everyone and their mother are driving one ton hunks of carbon monoxide belching metal at 60 mph everywhere they go on a day to day basis? I think it's more of a Pandora' box situation...Automoblies are here, we have to deal with it. The benefits to mankind must be weighed seriously not only against the number of deaths caused world wide by these things (which is enormous)... but also with the amount of environmental destruction caused by constructing roadways, creation of synthetics for car parts, and harvesting of fossil fuels. And what's often overlooked but just as important are the political and legislative side effects of automobiles. Think about how many laws have been created since these things were invented...how many fines and dues must be payed by drivers... how much taxes are allotted for paved roads, bridges, parking lots, ect....how weighed down the court systems have become with traffic cases...The buracracy that has grown around these machines is astounding. I haven't even mentioned wars for oil, yet... The collateral damage could be reduced significantly by better public transportation, and by smaller, cleaner, slower cars...but there is no real economic impetus to do any of this, so it probably won't happen. No, the sooner we invent those star trek transporter things the better. But even then, we'll have accidents..like that monkey in the remake of The Fly...reduced to a bubbling pile of goo when his molecules got rearranged...