Peace Laureates speak

bonkey

There was a rather interesting prog on CNN yesterday, which was essentially a showcase for previous Laureates of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Some interesting stuff - mostly about these peoples differing views on the current Afghan situation. One thing I noted is that not all the speakers were necessarily anti-violence. Some ceded that voilence is often necessary, and may even have been necessary in this case. What I found most interesting, however, is that those who did say that that violence is sometimes necessary generally tempered it with a comment that they did not necessarily agree with the approach currently being taken.

On a related note, which may or may not have been brought up in the boards before...

One of the speakers pointed out that more people died on Sep 11 from AIDs than did from the attack on the WTC. While this is true of many fatal causes, I'm sure, I found it interesting. When we see the reaction to "innocent deaths" and the amount of money the world is willing to spend on an armed conflict to resolve this threat, it is sobering to remember comparatively how stingy we are at spending our money in dealing with other threats and problems.

jc

Gargoyle

Originally posted by bonkey
One of the speakers pointed out that more people died on Sep 11 from AIDs than did from the attack on the WTC. While this is true of many fatal causes, I'm sure, I found it interesting. When we see the reaction to "innocent deaths" and the amount of money the world is willing to spend on an armed conflict to resolve this threat, it is sobering to remember comparatively how stingy we are at spending our money in dealing with other threats and problems.

jc

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at here Bonkey. AIDS research is among the most heavily funded diseases in the world per person who dies from it. In fact (this from CNN For every $10 spent per cancer death on cancer research, $110 is spent per AIDS death on AIDS research and $3 is spent per heart disease death on heart disease research.

So more people die of heart disease Sept.11 than died in the WTC/pentagon. The same could be said of cancer or natural causes, for that matter. Does this mean we should be less concerned with eliminating the threat from terrorism as well?

Yes, the US is spending quite a lot to try and reduce the terrorist threat. However, please keep in mind that American researchers and physicians have won 67 (59%) of all the Nobel Prizes in Medicine awarded since 1951. It might be an understatement to say that US academia, government labs and industry are responsible for the majority of medical advancements in the latter half of the 20th century. Perhaps, rather than criticizing America's priority of funding, Europe should do more of its share in advancing modern medicine as well.

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at here Bonkey. AIDS research is among the most heavily funded diseases in the world per person who dies from it.

Let me make it simpler. Compare military annual spending to the investment in medicine. Rationalise the difference.

Does this mean we should be less concerned with eliminating the threat from terrorism as well?

What it means is that there is a hyprocicy in the massive amounts of money being suddenly launched into this great new "threat" all of a sudden.

The deathtoll is high, in its relative area but you dont see billions being spend when there is flooding in a Southern American country leaving thousands dead, and you dont see the same urgency and massive resources being adequately thrown at AIDS research.

Basically, the point is once again underlying the horrific amounts of money we spend on armies, and the comparatively pathetic amounts we spend on medicine and medical research.

However, please keep in mind that American researchers and physicians have won 67 (59%) of all the Nobel Prizes in Medicine awarded since 1951. It might be an understatement to say that US academia, government labs and industry are responsible for the majority of medical advancements in the latter half of the 20th century. Perhaps, rather than criticizing America's priority of funding, Europe should do more of its share in advancing modern medicine as well.

Perhaps you should re-read my original post - as well as admitting to "not getting it", you're now obviously misinterpreting what I said. When you re-read it, you may see the words "the world" in there which you have apparently interpreted as "the USA". Yes, I think American should do more in medical research. I also think that every other nation who spends more on military than on medicine should do more.

Newsflash - when I talk about "the world", I generally mean "the world" as opposed to "a country in the world". I was not criticising the USA explixitly - I was criticising every nation who has large military expenditure. It doesnt always have to be about the USA.

Also - isnt the Nobel prize annual? How can 67 awards form 59% of the last 50 years of awards? That makes about 113 awards in 50 years.

jc

Hobbes

Smoking in the US in a year caused.

- 4,550 cervical cancers in the US.
- 5,600 deaths from Oral cancer.
- 26,500 stroke deaths.

(The overall figures are a lot higher, I just took the first 3 I found from the CDC).

That's 36,650 (100 a day). Kind of makes the twin towers look childish. Bin Laden should of opened a tabacco company instead.