The real debate here is if there are more people who are dead because of science than alive.
Alive easily
Explain?
How many more have been saved then those who have died by bombs and bullets and wheels and diseases, all in the name of science?
Way way way less than would have died of disease or starvation without science.
Doubtful.
There is a reason why the population explosion didn't happen until science helped technology advance to the point where it was possible. Even in hellholes, the chances of living to 18 are better than before all the technological improvements. We would still be farming based on extremely primitive methods without science.
This information is only meaningful if you overlay a chart of human deaths per years on top of it.
which will increase at a slower rate than the population
The real debate here is if there are more people who are dead because of science than alive.
Alive easily
Explain?
How many more have been saved then those who have died by bombs and bullets and wheels and diseases, all in the name of science?
Way way way less than would have died of disease or starvation without science.
Doubtful.
There is a reason why the population explosion didn't happen until science helped technology advance to the point where it was possible. Even in hellholes, the chances of living to 18 are better than before all the technological improvements. We would still be farming based on extremely primitive methods without science.
This information is only meaningful if you overlay a chart of human deaths per years on top of it.
False. Deaths per year have to exceed births per year in order for science to have killed more than it has saved. If that happened, the population growth chart would show not-growth.
I was born early. Without incubators and other technology for early babies, I'd be dead. (And so would my mother; the reason I was born early was because they had to do an emergency C-Section to get me out of the way so they could stop her kidneys from failing)
False. Deaths per year have to exceed births per year in order for science to have killed more than it has saved. If that happened, the population growth chart would show not-growth.
I completely disagree with Obs' point, but here I think you're wrong.
Births could have risen regardless due to the simple exponential factor of breeding.
It's the "currently alive" number that matters more, if I'm thinking this through correctly.
Because it would be irrelevant if more people were born if science were just killing them off, or even keeping them alive. Either way, whoever is right, births are irrelevant.
I was born 4 weeks early and had to spend a week or so in one of those premee(sp?) boxes w/ the lamp warmers and breathing thing-a-ma-jgs. So yah, probably alive because of science...
Although science also had doctors put a video tube up my pee hole. Considering they didn't find anything from that, kinda pissed at science for it.
False. Deaths per year have to exceed births per year in order for science to have killed more than it has saved. If that happened, the population growth chart would show not-growth.
I completely disagree with Obs' point, but here I think you're wrong.
Births could have risen regardless due to the simple exponential factor of breeding.
It's the "currently alive" number that matters more, if I'm thinking this through correctly.
Because it would be irrelevant if more people were born if science were just killing them off, or even keeping them alive. Either way, whoever is right, births are irrelevant.
I think...
The growth couldn't occur without advanced agriculture, infrastructure, medicine, etc.
False. Deaths per year have to exceed births per year in order for science to have killed more than it has saved. If that happened, the population growth chart would show not-growth.
I completely disagree with Obs' point, but here I think you're wrong.
Births could have risen regardless due to the simple exponential factor of breeding.
It's the "currently alive" number that matters more, if I'm thinking this through correctly.
Because it would be irrelevant if more people were born if science were just killing them off, or even keeping them alive. Either way, whoever is right, births are irrelevant.
I think...
population growth is exponential
.'. the number of people alive is growing faster than the number of people dying.
.'. science for the win.
I had pneumonia when I was in 2nd grade. Our pediatrician was out, so the guy who looked at me thought I had a cold.
Later my right lung collapsed. My mom called in our pediatrician at 10 at night, and had him come into the office. He took one look at me, told her I was super super sick (which she already knew). He gave me a shot of something, I don't know what. I thought it was penicillin at the time, but my mom says it was some new drug they were trying out. He said if I didn't get better in like 4 hours, take me to the ER because I was dying. I got better.
Fucking science man.
Tofystedeth on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
Oh yeah and I had pneumonia at 2 years old which would have killed me without
On a related note, has anyone ever listened to the "Ask Dr. Science" bits that usually air on public radio? Ren & Stimpy did a version too, Ask Dr. Stupid.
Oh, after suffering my previously mentioned head injury I took part in a study on the effects of head trauma on brain development. So I participated in SCIENCE! that could help others be saved by SCIENCE!
My own skin tried to kill me one time. I'm alive because doctors cut parts of it off and then sewed me back together. And then gave me a prescription for Codine.
I don't really have any medical stories, but I've had a good number of near deaths turned into close calls via safety equipment.
They put seatbelts in cars for a reason, people. Mostly so when you hit that cow doing 50 you don't fly through the window and merge with it physically.
My family has a fairly long list of things that science saved us from. Like when my mom's immune system tried to eat her.
Open heart surgery when I was 6, to repair a ventricular septal defect (a hole in one of the chambers of my heart). Had it not been repaired I would've died at about age 21, when my heart would've basically been worn out from having to work much harder to pump blood. As it was at age 6 my heart was about the size of a 16 year old's.
Other than that, I've never had anything worse than chicken pox.
Hey, me too! Apprently was a pretty big deal at the time (early 80s).
Had surgery when I was an infant, and again when I was 6. Spent a lot of time in the childrens' wards of hospitals.
MichaelLC on
0
Options
YamiNoSenshiA point called ZIn the complex planeRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I had a crazy stomach problem when I was tiny. I wouldn't have made it to 1 without science. Science saved me again when I tried to OD and kill myself a few years ago. Yay science!
How are we defining "science" here? I mean, it seems like we're debating whether or not mankind is going forwards or backwards, or if progress in general is better or worse, and not really about any hard definition of "science." Did science cause WWII? Did it cause crop rotation? I think no in both cases.
But anyone who thinks the weapons science has given us outweigh the survival and longevity... you're a fool.
More interesting to me would be to ask whether or not religion has hurt more people than helped (I know how most here feel about that), or to ask how many more brothers and sisters we might all have if our parents were less educated. Because the larger debate of "science: yes or no?" is not really a two-sided debate.
Or, you know, just stick to the OP. I do not think that I have been directly saved by any modern medical technology. I have never had a broken bone or any serious illness. Though I would probably have wooden teeth by now, which would totally suck.
Gallstones in my early 20's, had my gall bladder removed about 6 months after being diagnosed.
I'm not sure if they would've killed me, but I don't know how much longer I could've gone on like that without wishing I were dead.
Tonsils removed at age 6 or 7, and I had the Chicken Pox that same day. No drastic measures involved, but they kept me at the hospital overnight just to be safe. That could've gone bad.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I'll give the flipside of the OP: I am almost not alive because of a lack of science.
My mother had polio as a child. Almost died and one leg was crippled for life (as an adult she is 4'11" tall).
The vaccine had actually been invented at the time but it was very new and her family was hell of poor. Nowadays there should be no such excuse in the first world.
There are few things more disgusting and immoral in the modern world than anti-vaxxers.
I don't really have any medical stories, but I've had a good number of near deaths turned into close calls via safety equipment.
They put seatbelts in cars for a reason, people. Mostly so when you hit that cow doing 50 you don't fly through the window and merge with it physically.
My family has a fairly long list of things that science saved us from. Like when my mom's immune system tried to eat her.
I'm not sure if seatbelts are considered Science!, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.
Also, I am dissapointed in the distinct lack of Animal Parts stories. I hate to think all my time creating the Monkoppotimaid has gone to waste.
I was nearly killed by science, but then I was saved by science.
When I was 6 or so, went into the hospital for surgery on my eye. As they were putting me under, my body started freaking out, 106 degree fever, convulsions, the whole 9 yards.
No one knew what was happening, I wasn't allergic. One doctor (God fucking bless him to this day) immediately knew what was going on. He identified it as Malignant Hyperthermia, a fairly rare and mostly unknown at the time genetic disease that essentially kills me if I inhale anesthetics.
The doctor, and the doctor's training in SCIENCE, told the nurses to get dantrolene, a chemical created and refined by SCIENCE. They administered it, and instead of dying really fucking quickly, I was out of the hospital in a few days. Survived for a few decades now.
My eye still sucks, though.
galenblade on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If it haven't been brought up then consider that every birth would be ministered by people without washed hands. How far back do we go in time when calculating this? Hunter-gatherer societies maybe? I'd say that just the child mortality rate due to lack of science would easily amount to hideous levels of death.
This would lead to less people being born -> less people being killed. Maybe not being born at all + living in caves up to age 30 when you die from a common cold would be preferable to some...
Posts
Also, a third of Europe died from the plague. Not so much from the last couple big wars.
which will increase at a slower rate than the population
The side effect was that ever since I've had crippling "murder me now" headaches.
More people died from the influenza outbreak of 1918 than all of WWI.
False. Deaths per year have to exceed births per year in order for science to have killed more than it has saved. If that happened, the population growth chart would show not-growth.
More during the black death than ww2, and ww2 had nukes, it doesn't get any more science than that.
People who died from the 1918 flu pandemic: 20-100 million
People who died from WWI: 20 million including civilian and military deaths
I completely disagree with Obs' point, but here I think you're wrong.
Births could have risen regardless due to the simple exponential factor of breeding.
It's the "currently alive" number that matters more, if I'm thinking this through correctly.
Because it would be irrelevant if more people were born if science were just killing them off, or even keeping them alive. Either way, whoever is right, births are irrelevant.
I think...
Just sayin'.
Although science also had doctors put a video tube up my pee hole. Considering they didn't find anything from that, kinda pissed at science for it.
Edit: Incubator...thanks to above poster
twit feed
population growth is exponential
.'. the number of people alive is growing faster than the number of people dying.
.'. science for the win.
also, increase in average lifespans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Read it.
Thank you, science.
Okay that is just cool. Extra points from here on out for anybody Saved by Frikkin Laserbeams.
And yah, grew up in the South Pacific, malaria is very common there. As for the injuries, it seems as a child I was both fearless and mildly retarded.
Good Idea: If you are out of control and about to drive your motorcycle off a two hundred foot cliff, aim for the nearest tree.
Bad Idea: Accelerating.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Later my right lung collapsed. My mom called in our pediatrician at 10 at night, and had him come into the office. He took one look at me, told her I was super super sick (which she already knew). He gave me a shot of something, I don't know what. I thought it was penicillin at the time, but my mom says it was some new drug they were trying out. He said if I didn't get better in like 4 hours, take me to the ER because I was dying. I got better.
Fucking science man.
SCIENCE!!!
Did it blind you?
Septic hip when I was 6
Type one diabetes
yay science
Mostly I'm thankful for the Codine.
They put seatbelts in cars for a reason, people. Mostly so when you hit that cow doing 50 you don't fly through the window and merge with it physically.
My family has a fairly long list of things that science saved us from. Like when my mom's immune system tried to eat her.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Hey, me too! Apprently was a pretty big deal at the time (early 80s).
Had surgery when I was an infant, and again when I was 6. Spent a lot of time in the childrens' wards of hospitals.
Boo charcoal milkshake.
But anyone who thinks the weapons science has given us outweigh the survival and longevity... you're a fool.
More interesting to me would be to ask whether or not religion has hurt more people than helped (I know how most here feel about that), or to ask how many more brothers and sisters we might all have if our parents were less educated. Because the larger debate of "science: yes or no?" is not really a two-sided debate.
Or, you know, just stick to the OP. I do not think that I have been directly saved by any modern medical technology. I have never had a broken bone or any serious illness. Though I would probably have wooden teeth by now, which would totally suck.
I'm not sure if they would've killed me, but I don't know how much longer I could've gone on like that without wishing I were dead.
Tonsils removed at age 6 or 7, and I had the Chicken Pox that same day. No drastic measures involved, but they kept me at the hospital overnight just to be safe. That could've gone bad.
My mother had polio as a child. Almost died and one leg was crippled for life (as an adult she is 4'11" tall).
The vaccine had actually been invented at the time but it was very new and her family was hell of poor. Nowadays there should be no such excuse in the first world.
There are few things more disgusting and immoral in the modern world than anti-vaxxers.
But they might give you genetic mental conditions!
DISCLAMER: SARCASTIC AS ALL HELL
I'm not sure if seatbelts are considered Science!, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.
Also, I am dissapointed in the distinct lack of Animal Parts stories. I hate to think all my time creating the Monkoppotimaid has gone to waste.
There's a couple other times science has saved me since, but I like to just leave it at "If it weren't for science, I would have been born dead!"
When I was 6 or so, went into the hospital for surgery on my eye. As they were putting me under, my body started freaking out, 106 degree fever, convulsions, the whole 9 yards.
No one knew what was happening, I wasn't allergic. One doctor (God fucking bless him to this day) immediately knew what was going on. He identified it as Malignant Hyperthermia, a fairly rare and mostly unknown at the time genetic disease that essentially kills me if I inhale anesthetics.
The doctor, and the doctor's training in SCIENCE, told the nurses to get dantrolene, a chemical created and refined by SCIENCE. They administered it, and instead of dying really fucking quickly, I was out of the hospital in a few days. Survived for a few decades now.
My eye still sucks, though.
If it haven't been brought up then consider that every birth would be ministered by people without washed hands. How far back do we go in time when calculating this? Hunter-gatherer societies maybe? I'd say that just the child mortality rate due to lack of science would easily amount to hideous levels of death.
This would lead to less people being born -> less people being killed. Maybe not being born at all + living in caves up to age 30 when you die from a common cold would be preferable to some...