Re: equation to describe the economy

On 31 May 2005 04:18:25 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>royls@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 13:57:07 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
>
>> >Survival of the species does not equate to the survival of every infant.
>
>> True. And it is precisely the non-survival of every infant that has
>> produced the species.
>
>No idea what you are saying here.

Evolution is based on differential reproductive success, especially,
for large primates, differences in probability of surviving infancy.

>> >There is nothing inherently unreasonable about getting rid of infants
>> >who will never grow up to be self-sufficient.
>
>> _If_ keeping them alive is going to compromise the community's
>> outcomes.
>
>Which, in the main, it doesn't.

But sometimes it does.

>> >They are a drain on the
>> >rest of us. They should be permitted to die, if no one volunteers to
>> >take care of them.
>>
>> I have to say I have a certain sympathy with this view.
>
>Must be quite a creepy feeling finding yourself having sympathy for a
>view held by Ku Klux Kolker.

The most evil person who ever lived believed that 2+2=4.

>More to the point, it should cause you to reexamine the premise, as you
>know full well that KKKolker's only purpose in posting here is to
>spread misinformation and perpetuate hatred.

But he relies on a careful mix of fact and fallacy to give him some
credibility. It is important to isolate what is true and reasonable
from what is fallacious and unreasonable, and argue against the
latter, not the former.

>It is not infants that will "be a drain on society" that die and
>inflate Infant Mortality Rates, but the existence of poverty in the
>community, and children, who never had a chance to be an asset to
>society, die because they had the misfortune of being born in a
>community suffering from poverty.

And to parents, especially mothers, suffering from ignorance,
stupidity and irresponsibility.

>Unlike KKKolker, you know the economic roots of this poverty.

Right. And I also know poverty is only part of the story. Landowner
privilege is even more egregious in Japan than in the USA, yet Japan
has the second lowest rate of infant mortality among the countries you
listed. The reason is quite simple: Japanese women are much more
conscientious about their own health than American women, and they do
not have children they are not prepared to care for. I would hazard a
guess that the ratio of abortions to live births is as good a
predictor of infant mortality as poverty.

>> It costs
>> money to keep infants alive, in some cases a very great deal of money,
>> and in many of those cases that money doesn't buy a commensurate
>> return. Even if you assume that public expenditures on keeping
>> incurably disabled infants alive are all paid for by taxing rents,
>
>'Incurably disabled infants' is a red herring, that it is not what we
>are talking about here.

But that is the kernel of truth in Kolker's claim they are a "drain on
the rest of us." It is important to isolate, identify and address it.

>Infant Mortality Rate does not correlate with instances of 'incurable
>disability,'

It does, especially with incurable neurological damage caused by drug
exposure.

>the vast majority of infant deaths are preventable ones
>caused by lack of common medical attention, nutrition and hygiene for
>mother and child.

Not in the USA they aren't. They're caused by drug abuse.

>All you need to do is look at economic and regional disparity to see
>the proof of this.

Poor Americans who don't abuse drugs or engage in other
self-destructive behavior have middle-class rates of infant mortality.

>I would propose that The USA spends far more money than the average
>nation in my list, to keep 'incurably disabled infants' alive, this, as
>we see, does not translate to generally low infant mortality rates.

Right. Other countries are much more willing to let the really severe
cases die, whereas the USA taxes young working people into poverty to
keep those cases alive.

>The
>availability of common medical attention, as well as good nutrition and
>hygiene does.

How many junkies have good nutrition, even if they are rich?

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: equation to describe the economy
    ... Not in any measurable way that relates to Infant Mortality. ... >>community suffering from poverty. ... >>'Incurably disabled infants' is a red herring, that it is not what we ... does not translate to generally low infant mortality rates. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: equation to describe the economy
    ... >I've lived in many countries, including the US, it is obvious to me ... Infant Mortality, which ranks the ... >Drug abuse is an economic outcome. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: equation to describe the economy
    ... >>>which Infant Mortality is a good indicator of. ... >> to do with birth defects. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: equation to describe the economy
    ... > Individual infant survivial is not a universal ... in my opinion declines in birth rates correlate to low ... infant mortality, and thereby wealth. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: equation to describe the economy
    ... >>Survival of the species does not equate to the survival of every infant. ... > money to keep infants alive, in some cases a very great deal of money, ... 'Incurably disabled infants' is a red herring, that it is not what we ...
    (sci.econ)