John Wayne Gacy will do.
yes wayne
may i call you "john"?
Falklands
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It is not because of medical advancement that we haven't seen a major epidemic for nearly a century, it is because our living conditions have improved many times over.
You're skipping the important questions Brian.
I'll outline again. The black death killed over 100 million. We had a similar thing in San Francisco at the beginning of the 20th century and it was controlled nicely.
Smallpox, throughout its history, has killed more people than every single war in the 20th century put together. 1914-1977 alone, 500 million people. It killed 60 million Europeans...in the 18th century. 1 in every 7 children in North Europe would die of Smallpox. 1 in every 10 Russian children would. Smallpox effectively wiped out the Natives in South America, 90-95% of them.
120 million have died of Malaria in the 20th century.
150 million have dies of TB since 1914.
Typhus killed 3 million people in the early 1920s.
So forgive me for not being too impressed with your claim that nukes are the most important invention of the 20th century.
Another thing to put above nuclear weapons on your list of inventions that have saved the most lives in the 20th century.
As I just said, medical advancement is not responsible for avoiding epidemics - dedicated sewage systems, clean water, less pollution, properly heated homes, no damp conditions is why we haven't seen epidemics in the west for generations.
Better living conditions are not an invention.
a) the West isn't the world
b) I don't really think you understand the medical concepts behind these things.
c) as I said, all those things go above nukes in the definitive list of saving lives
b) I don't really think you understand the medical concepts behind these things.
c) as I said, all those things go above nukes in the definitive list of saving lives
ok, i don't buy that but even if i do, then sewage systems, clear watter and "less polution
" saved more lives that nuclear weaponsThey effectively are when they were practically non-existent for the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history.
And systems to clean your water and ensure that sewage isn't mixed in with everyday life certainly are inventions.
yes they are
sewage sistem is an invention, potable water sistem too, and i don't know where you get the "less polution" but however it was achieved, was by an invention
A) Thanks for that, there have been no epidemics in the west but there has in other parts of the world.
B) Medicine as we known it was born in the sixties and has been advancing since then, yet there were no epidemics in the west for nearly fifty years before that.
C) Stop changing the goalposts, I said the atomic bomb was the most important invention of the twentieth century - no world wars, international stability, the biggest boom in living standards and prosperity in history can be attributed to their influence.
And I forgot about antibiotics in my earlier post. Likely to have saved tens, if not hundreds of millions of lives.
'Better living conditions' is a concept and an innovation.
that comes from inventions
a) Stop being so focused on the West then.
b) No it wasn't. Medicine as we know it has a rich and deep history, originating from Hippocrates, taking routes through the likes of Avicenna and then starting to resemble what we would now term biomedicine in the 1860s or so, in France and Germany especially. Modern biomedicine has been around for a long time now.
c) I'm not changing the goalposts. You said they were the most important inventions. What happens in world wars and unstable situations? People die. Medicine has saved more lives than nukes have. As have innovations and discoveries in public health and hygiene.
Better living conditions is not a monolithic concept, it has tenants to it, like a sewage system, which were invented.
I hate to break this to you but British and French provision of dedicated sewage systems and clean water date before the twentieth century.
so the A bomb saved lives!
yes, you got me there
and i hate to break it to you, but the pandemics in the 20th century, then, werent prevented by the sewage system and clear waters
duuuh
With a type 45 destroyer? I think that there are only 3 currently in service, so it's an odd vessel to send when it could be needed elsewhere, to, you know, deal with a real threat.
It's possible that a Vanguard class submarine is somewhere in the South Atlantic, for the laughs.
You're making no sense now. There were inventions before the 20th century, right?
And surely then, their provision had nothing to do with the epidemics, considering that they continued even with their provision?
A) Focusing on the west proves my point, we have advanced living conditions and don't succumb to epidemics - other parts of the world however...
B) Hippocrates? How many heart transplants took place in his time? How many blood transfusions? How many courses of chemotherapy? What was life expectancy? Before the sixties medicine was in the dark ages yet epidemics had long since ceased in the West.
C) Countries also suffer, it is no coincidence that peace and tranquility in the western world has allowed for the creation of wealth on a level never seen before. The world wars left Europe on its knees, striken in poverty as would any hypothetical third world war.
I said the atomic bomb was the most important invention of the twentieth century, not of all time.
so the A bomb saved lives!
yes, you got me there
and i hate to break it to you, but the pandemics in the 20th century, then, werent prevented by the sewage system and clear waters
duuuh
It is no coincidence that the Spanish Flu coincided with the First World War, which brings me back to the atomic bomb preventing any further world wars.
but you also said that the cures didnt prevented the epidemics, that that was done by the sewage system and clear water
then you said that they are not inventions
then you said that they were invented before the 20th century
so we are saying that then, they didn't prevented pandemics, because there were pandemics after the sewage and clear water sistems were invented
a) No it doesn't. Epidemics on the scale seen in the past are pretty much gone from our world now. The West has better living conditions, medicines and scouting networks than the rest of the world. I will point this out for you one more time, seeing as you seem unable to absorb it. Smallpox killed more people throughout its history than all the wars in the 20th century together. How was that eradicated? Oh right.
b) Medicine is much more complicated than that and if you studied medicine, you would understand. Go read a history of medicine book.
c) The only negative effect of countries suffering is its people suffering and dying. Wealth does not necessarily correlate with health; look at the Cuban, Keralan and Iranian health care systems as an example. I genuinely can't believe there is anyone that has this view. Vaccines, antobiotics, whatever have all saved significantly more lives and been far more important than nukes.
but you also said that the cures didnt prevented the epidemics, that that was done by the sewage system and clear water
then you said that they are not inventions
then you said that they were invented before the 20th century
so we are saying that then, they didn't prevented pandemics, because there were pandemics after the sewage and clear water sistems were invented
They were part of a larger list of innovations, and they were only present in a couple of countries meaning that whilst no epidemics originated in the UK since the mid-late nineteenth century it didn't mean that one overseas could begin and make its way to the British Isles.
And I said that 'better living conditions' were not an invention, not sewage systems or anything else.
I think that you'll find that the transistor was the most important invention of the 20th century.
i beg to differ
the Apple Macintosh was the most important of the 20th century
FACT
again, you only base your concept in the western countries that have/had sewage and clear water sistems
but not the whole world lives in europe, north america and a few other countries
A) The eradication of smallpox was a process that lasted two hundred years, having been begun in my home county of Gloucestershire in 1796.
Though epidemics still exist outside of the West - Dengue Fever, Cholera and Malaria outbreaks for instance.
B) No it isn't, we knew nothing about nothing regarding medicine in the early twentieth century. In 1900 the United Kingdom was by far and away the most developed country in the world and at the time we treated cancer with leaches - I don't know about you but to me that is a medical dark age.
C) I am not trying to connect wealth with health, my point is nuclear weapons have stopped devastating continental and world wars from taking place meaning countries can focus on long-term domestic development.
Transistors have not stopped world wars, though if you are going down this route I'd put the microchip ahead of it.
What part of epidemics having been consigned to history in western countries that have advanced living conditions but in the third world still exist do you not understand?
lets recap
you said that the a bomb was the best invention of the 20th century because of the lifes it saved
we said that medicin inventions saved more lifes than the ones that were lost in the world wars
then you said that what saved those lifes wasnt the medicin but the better living conditions as sewage sistems and clear waters
we say that those sistems only existed for less than a quarter of the populations, so, medicine advances still are what saved the most amount of lifes
You're forgetting that I also said the western world is wealthy beyond comprehension because of the atomic bomb.
The UK would be far wealthier if it wasn't for the world wars, as such it doesn't take a genius to work out that it would be far poorer if there were further world wars - the same can be said for Europe as a whole.
The UK would be far wealthier if it wasn't for the world wars, as such it doesn't take a genius to work out that it would be far poorer if there were further world wars - the same can be said for Europe as a whole.
some very few people in the west are wealthy beyond comprehension
if you want to say it¡s because the atomic bomb, say it
i think it's because many other causes
"we" "western" "us" "wealth" "me"
btw, you¡ll also be a lot poorer if there was a pandemic
a) Wait a minute, I thought medicine was in the dark ages then? Can't possibly have been so? I'm not sure what your point is there. Smallpox was eradicated by the principles and techniques of modern medicine. And vaccinations. But according to you that is impossible because we didn't know anything about medicine before the 1960s.
b) I'm not going to waste my time educating you about the history of medicine. In 100 years time, they'll probably be able to zap away at cancer cells and cure it at an instant. They'll laugh at how we injected toxic substances which kill our own cells into our bodies in a futile attempt to cure it. It doesn't meant that we are in the 'dark ages'. As I said, go read a book on the history of medicine. I recommend 'The Greatest benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity', by Roy Porter.
c) Peace and tranquility in West------unparalleled wealth in world. Brian, are you aware at all of how eurocentric your views are? There are still billions of people worldwide who are living in poverty. Those same people would still be living in poverty if there were no nukes. But at least they wouldn't be dying of smallpox and have a fighting chance against all the other diseases they're exposed to.
Compared to how wealthy we were in 1945 we are wealthy beyond comprehension.
In the First World War the United Kingdom devoted its entire economic output to fighting a war for four years, we nearly bankrupted ourselves in the process and we lost a generation of men which severely hampered our economy.
In the Second World War we got much closer to bankrupting ourselves, we gave many overseas assets to the Americans to help fund the war - we lost more civilians in the war than we have lost soldiers in the seventy years since ten years over. One in three buildings in London were damaged, One in six had to be knocked down and rebuilt. We spent six years fighting the war and the fifteen years following it recovering.
Hence it is not a stretch that we are far less wealthy that we had to rebuild ourselves twice in such a short period. As the United Kingdom has not been threatened since we can focus all our attention on economic growth, it goes without saying that a third world war would have had similar consequences for the United Kingdom and the Continent.