Live data from Hacker News

What are children dying from and what can we do about it?

ourworldindata.org

81–84 of 84 posts

Re: What are children dying from and what can we do about it?

#81
post #37
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well not just children. E.g. the proportion of women needing c-sections is increasing. I don't think dependence on technology would improve human life in the long run, since the genetic maladaptation load would eventually overwhelm the ability of technology to keep up and we'd be back to where we started. But the key is that we're getting the ability to engage in genetic engineering, so realistically we should be app…

Isn't C-section for some people like a luxury to keep the body nice or something like that? Genuine question because I heard (yes, hearsay) that C-sections are for people in the USA like fashion? The again, I can't imagine any doctor, in my country at least, doing a C-section unless it is absolutely necessary.

Yes and no. C-sections are often medically necessary to ensure the health of the mother and baby. At the same time, elective C-sections are quite common as well, either for pain/recovery reasons or to lockdown the timing of the delivery.

Re: What are children dying from and what can we do about it?

#82
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With enough time and money, I don't see why this is out of the question. Time already changes all norms, so the money just speeds things up. I can absolutely see my society being changed, and I along with it. Smoking has had buckets of money thrown at it to hold it afloat for a long bloody time, but it has only taken 30 odd years to really cast it as being shunned by consistent government health campaigns (Australian…

Nothing was ever propping smoking up. We've been smoking for literally thousands of years, long before any notion of formal marketing. Nor was it killed by some sort of marketing campaign. A large part of what happened was we had a generation grow up with ubiquitous electronic devices. You see a cascade of similar social effects such as declines in teen pregnancy, declines in violence, and a wide array of other pheno…

You mean like my country, where plain packaged cigarettes came into effect? I'm not sure where you're getting negligible from. Anyone who smokes has stigma attached to them and the only ones still smoking are those who have too little willpower left over to pull themselves out of that social hole.

Re: What are children dying from and what can we do about it?

#83
post #75
post #21

I have a pet theory that saving children from natural deaths is harmful to future generations. Surely by intervening so much, we're giving unhealthy people as much evolutionary advantage as healthy people. If the whole world reaches western standards of infant mortality and stays there long enough, will children eventually become dependent on even more interventions and be even more vulnerable to death without them?…

Genetic diversity is a main factor for survival of any species, as long as your children are functional to reproduce is fine. Is unhealthy to have blue eyes, 100% round erythrocites and white skin in Africa. You have a much higher risk of develop skin cancer or Malaria. Is also unhealthy to have black eyes, curly hair and black skin in Norway. You lose more heat and have problems with vitamin D absortion... but both…

Most mutations are entirely harmful. Those are included in the ones that we're promoting by saving young children. We've evolved to this point without saving children from them. So have all species. Surely the continual re-guiding of the evolutionary path is important to prevent a species from degenerating into something that's worse in every way? If we were to remove all selection pressures, the species would surely lose all kinds of qualities we like - not just less able to stay alive but less intelligent, more often deformed in painful ways, less tolerant to various foods, shorter life, less fertile, etc. I think some ever-present evolutionary pressure is needed to fight off entropy.

You're talking about specialization, which is quite different from random damage. Accordingly, we should keep the races distinct if we want to preserve those qualities, in the same way ecologists try to prevent closely related species from interbreeding and diluting their advantages. Though perhaps it doesn't matter anymore with housing, clothing, medicine, sun screen, etc. that allow blacks to safely live in Norway/etc.

Re: What are children dying from and what can we do about it?

#84
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To emphasize the flaws of this argument, flip it around. You are effectively arguing that you can change the views, values, and beliefs of an entire nation by marketing. This doesn't sound so unreasonable when it's an 'us vs them' because it's easy to underestimate others. So instead let's make it a 'them vs us' argument. If what you're saying is accurate then similarly you ought be able to radically shift the views,…

>If what you're saying is accurate then similarly you ought be able to radically shift the views, values, and beliefs of America using marketing. If someone had the money and the motivation, I have no doubt that they could. There's reasonably compelling evidence that Russia is engaged in exactly that as we speak, albeit on a fairly modest budget. It's undoubtedly true that the USA has done so overseas; the CIA, the S…

Giving rings, frequently of precious metals, as a symbol of marriage is, once again, a cultural value and one that dates back thousands of years. De Beers simply increased the popularity of one rock. They didn't even invent the tradition of diamonds which again predates their founding by hundreds of years.

As for the Russia thing, do you think if our tech companies were so directed they could not find evidence of, for instance, Saudi Arabia, Israel, or any other countless other nations also funding various organizations, purchasing ads, etc in ways that they perceive likely to benefit their interests? In my opinion the only reason the Russia thing was given the light of day is because Hillary lost and threw an extremely well connected temper tantrum in an effort to undermine the presidency. And Russia makes a pretty good bogeyman due to the mixture of their 'outsider' status and competence of their agencies and individuals. In any case it's obviously not some meaningful cultural shift. At best they played a negligible role in appealing to preexisting divides within society.

Soft power I think is a much better argument. The Cold War era in particular would be much more meaningful than e.g. Voice of America et al as funded by the USAGM. But there too I'd question the notion of marketing. This [1] is a list of socialist states, past and present. These nations invariably end up resorting to force of arms, suppression of expression, and repressive secret intelligence organizations in order to sustain their power. Unsurprisingly, they don't last long. The USSR, lasting almost 70 years, had quite a long life relative to average. When people have no freedom and your economy collapses (at least relative to free market societies), a nation is already on its way out.

People longing for free markets, free expression, and so on are not doing so because of marketing from the freer nations. The desire for freedom is inherent. It was their governments holding them back. And while we certainly played a significant role in flaunting our successes, the USSR would have inevitably gone the way of all socialist nations. As an aside, no conversation on this topic is complete without this [2]. It's a great list of some Soviet Era jokes told within the USSR. You couldn't criticism the government in public, but private politicization and criticism was ubiquitous.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

[2] - https://www.johndclare.net/Russ12_Jokes.htm

Post reply on HN