True or false: Eradicating diseases promotes democracy?

[Deja Q]

http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/06/27/billion-donation-gates-cz_ts_0627buffett.html
(also determine which smiles seem the most genuine... and the most disingenuous...)

"It is a huge opportunity for eradication of major diseases in the Third World; when you impact health, you can promote democracy."

Also, forgive the twit of a writer, he actually means "Ford, Hewlett Packard, and Mellon." :blush: I've never heard of "Hewlett" or "Packard and Mellon" either.

[enki23]

1. i think it might. democracy requires an engaged, educated populace.

that's why ours is dying, after all. and an engaged, educated populace is a hell of a lot more likely to exist in a place that isn't ravaged by terrible disease. of course, eradicating poverty would be a better, more basic starting point.

[Deja Q]

3. Yes, but corporate leaders know that an educated populace is:

1. not profitable.
2. more inclined to realize they are worth something and demand fair treatment.

Corporations want neither of those to happen. Just look at what happened in the United States. Workers demanded their salaries go up, so they could continue to live at the same level as the cost of living rose. That eats into their profits. And workers are inconvenient slime to them.

And is it really going on, this interest in the 3rd world, because of altruism? Or because offshoring is HUGE to these countries and they don't want their ROI and TCO to be whittled down thanks to Mommy Nature having a big tantrum? When it comes to corporate activity, nothing should be accepted at face value. Not anymore.

And I agree. Eradicating poverty would be awesome. But I wouldn't mind it eradicated in the US first. If we, the richest country on Earth, can't eradicate it here at home - just how will we do it everywhere else in the world?

As for education... education as freedom to learn... or learn what is expected of them and nothing more? The latter isn't education at all. It's programming. Indoctrination. That isn't freedom. Or democracy.

[NNadir]

2. I absolutely think this is true.

A higher standard of living, including health care, is most conducive to democracy.

[Deja Q]

5. Splendid. When will the US get the same treatment again?

[raccoon]

20. Or is it the other way around? nt

[mcscajun]

4. Couldn't vote -- neither of your choices are for me.

If you eradicate disease, you eliminate an incredible burden on the indigent of the world. When people are constantly concerned for their basic survival, they don't really have too much time to consider their government or their rights.

In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the physiological (basic biological needs: air, water, good, sleep, warmth) is at the bottom level, with safety (employment, income, physical security, health) right above it. In this hierarchy, the level at the bottom is the most basic, and comes before the higher levels.

Actualization
Status (Esteem)
Love/Belonging
Safety
Physiological (Biological needs)

If there are billions of people who can't get past level one, or level two (where health care comes into play) the rest are of no concern to them. Solve the first two levels, and people can progress to the higher concerns.

[Deja Q]

6. Fascinating.

So why are we giving other countries democracy and all these good things... while our own are being torn asunder?

The word "hypocrisy" comes to mind.

Helping others is great. But killing one's self in the process is not logical. Especially when the same people doing all this then whine and rant America is losing its status in the world! Are they really that thick; unable to see what they're doing is the cause of America losing its status??

[mcscajun]

7. What BushCo is doing has nothing at all to do with the philanthropy

of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, which is the article under discussion.

You can't fault Gates and Buffett for the crimes of BushCo, all too numerous to mention.

[Avalux]

8. Our government is trying to force us back to to level one.

I've been convinced of it for awhile now; if they strip us of our safety nets and make us worry about food in our mouths and a roof over our heads, we don't have any power against them.

It's easy to see what they're doing.

[mcscajun]

11. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

I hoped someone would pick up on that point.

It's the wholesale political equivalent of "barefoot and pregnant".

[Deja Q]

18. The belittled have no power; their self-esteem eradicated.

That's the plan.

Democracy - for the US or any other country is utterly bogus. Well, I don't see why it's purportedly built overseas by the same people destroying it here. Funny how some do, but with luck I'll be enlightened by someone in due course. As it stands, I don't how anyone is going to be in a democracy.

And I've pointed out to my management I will do what it takes, offered via e-mail ideas that show I care and am knowledgeable, that I will do what it takes. It doesn't matter. And I see my management kissing up too. (little that will do for them in the end.)


Maybe that's why scores of new jails are being built? Asd other DUers have already postulated, it's for us. And :tinfoilhat: is my current take on it all, and I hope I'm totally wrong.

[Wonk]

9. 8 replies so far (this one makes 9) and only 3 votes.

:rofl:

mcscajun beat me to mentioning Maslow's hierarchy of needs...

[brokensymmetry]

10. I voted "False".

I don't think that a robust democracy comes from the
comfortable. Perhaps real democracy only comes from
those who are used to fighting, used to losing - and
I think too much affluence can strangle democracy.

Our own nation created democracy out of conflict. Most
Americans weren't affluent at the time. And where did
French democracy sprout? Not in the aristocrat's halls!

Look where our own Union movement originated. Was it
from the well off? Or the folks who did hard, back-breaking
work seven days a week, and then had to fight company
goons?

Now, who do you want fighting for YOUR democracy?

[sandnsea]

12. Hewlett and Packard are people

There's the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation.

And yes, people who know they're going to live a long time end up thinking they might want to have more control over how they live and demand something better than warlords and dictators.

[Deja Q]

15. I stand corrected - thank you. (about Hewlett...)

I should have realized more quickly El Piano was talking about tax shelters altruistic foundations...

Andf if you ask me, today's corporate leaders are fascists and dictators. When's the last time you'd gone to work, being able to be one's self? Getting paid what you're worth? Nope. It's under their rules, regulations, dress code, at wages they feel are practicable -- even if they are not. And some executives who offshore, I've gathered, whine about the high cost they have to spend on workers there too.

It's a sham, "spreading democracy". It's being spread, but it ain't democracy. People having power is the last thing the controlling mentality wants. It deprives them of control.

[applegrove]

13. People struggling to survive.. and doing things to avoid illness, or

living with illness is terrible. How far do women and kids in Africa have to sometimes walk to get clean water every day? 4 hours? More?

I wish your poll was a little more serious. Cause the facts are that focussing on solving the disease issues of poorer countries can help a great deal. And change lives.

I wonder too at the resentment in the two poll choices. Is this because Buffet..a hero to many GOP.. gave his fortune away to help Bill & Melinda Gates start to solve one research issue after another in the Southern Hemisphere?

Is this supposed to be a new wedgie? I don't know why you didn't just give the option of C) Millions of people's lives will be improved by research applied to their health & agricultural issues. This will allow the poorest to concentrate on raising healthy kids and perhaps having some savings (two cents to rub together) for the first time in hundreds of years. In the end..there will be less taxing on local resources as families will concentrate on educating their kids rather than on subsistance farming. The amount of pain reduced will be perhaps the greatest single event in the 21st century. The environment will be taxed less. People will turn into consumers (slowly at first, in tiny ways) and start to buy American products (agricultural, high tech, service industry & some industrial).

[Deja Q]

16. I wish it was serious too. But many posts on DU show there is none.

No serious way out, especially the romantic options you're extolling on. I wish there was an easy way out.

Your response is a pipedream too.

Overpopulation being one of the key points; think about it. We have observed that when diseases are eliminated, populations rise. Forgive me, my insensitivity, but Asia's population is mammoth. How is it taxing the environment less when we have to make more oil guzzing machines to sow and reap crops, transport them, store them, package them, et cetera? It's quite the contrary, we have to use MORE. And, again, if we can't help our planet with 6 billion, when their population exploides once one of nature's imbalances has been removed, how will they get supported?

BTW: I've yet to hear one word about agriculture. Lots of words on "malaria" and "diseases", but not agriculture. Apart from those articles out there that read to the lines of "running out of space for crops", "fields overworked", and so on? Never mind "global warming", which is due to too much production of goods (ala the capitalistic crap we buy as trinkets, energy we burn to make those trinkets work, et cetera...)

Something's fishy. And noble as you are, what you're saying is not reality. I wish it was. But with all the other articles and topics out there, something about all this magical altruism of late sounds incredible false. Not with the planet as it stands, as it's being reported to us in other articles. I've yet to read any that say there is no food crisis, and the times I posted "peak oil is a hoax" I get slaughtered by everyone else here, so peak oil must be true. And there's plenty out there on global warming too. If you have a lot of reports about how there is no looming food crisis, I'd love to read them. Never mind offshoring, that only leads to some very sinister ideas.

And, yes, maybe all of this on their part is 100% genuine. But Gates' history is replete with actions that benefit solely him and/or his company. Indeed, read the line that reads ""Gates will be as tough on this as in private business". Altruism was never there, and he's been quoted on saying insensitive remarks on the competitors he has destroyed. Find "pearls of wisdom" on www.zdnet.com if you care.

[applegrove]

21. I'm sorry you feel that way. In Canada.. we invented Winter Wheat in

the 1930s.. and turned ourselves (and Russia I think) into a breadbasket for once.

In Africa.. they now have a type of tree that pull nitrogen out of the air and turns it into something that can then be mixed with soil as a fertilizer.

For sure the disease and agricultural issues are much different.. but not any more difficult to solve (except that African soil will never be as hearty as North American soil or Chinese soil).

This isn't a pipedream. When parents have the chance to spend time on farming that will give them even a tiny bit of savings.. their kids reach for the stars.

Happens everywhere.

Look at India. Modern techniques now has India feeding itself.

You need to read up more on what happens when people go from nothing.. to having just a little bit more. It was likely not that long ago in your family.. as in mine.. but what they did when they had that little bit extra.. cause government or private organizations like Bill Gates' did/do the research and solved the local problems.

Sure there is global warming. But you will have a real president in 2009.

[Eugene]

14. False choice. True as far as stability helps democracy...

and diseases like AIDS threaten to destabilize large portions
of the developing world.

That said, philanthropy is not the answer to a market system
that prices public health out of the reach of millions of
people who need it.

[Deja Q]

17. Exactly. Price controls are. But that's an antithesis to a market system.

And even then. Nature usually induces illness to keep populations down. Isn't that related to the GAIA theory?

And one or two other DUers have said that we're cheating nature by eliminating diseases, which in turn creates an imbalance.

The market system is based on supply and demand. Not altruism or helping this planet. It's about making money. Period. And more are bred and raised to keep a wedge between the humanitarian aspect and the financial one. But as the humanity is taken away, other things which truly are nasty get put in their place. Most of it shrouded by psychological garbage that proclaims altruism, yet in practice is anything but.

Once again, it's hard to bestow democracy when those in control know that freedom is the last thing they want their labor class to have. They want control. And money is the best way to achieve that.

I'll admit the :tinfoilhat: nature of all this and I genuinely hope I am wrong. But the future is scary; particularly once people look at ALL the articles out there and start connecting some dots.

[The2ndWheel]

19. I'm one that supports the whole balance idea

Probably a tad too late for that though. We're not going to stop this globalization process voluntarily that has really been going on for thousands of years.

We've basically done, or are doing, everything outside of putting people in actual bubbles in terms of distancing ourselves from nature.

I'm not trying to say that a time when a broken leg could mean death was a good thing, nor am I really trying to say that medicating people so that they can live until they're 89 is a bad thing. I'm sure that had tigers evolved to the point where they could start manipulating environments and life spans, they would do the same thing. However, there is a thing as too dominant. Considering how much humans consume, there is a large number of us.

You mentioned agriculture in one of your posts. To me, that's where we went wrong. I know I'm in the minority with that, but that's ok. You wouldn't have had the moon landing, or Shakespeare, or the Constitution, or anything like that without agriculture. At the same time, no empires, no Holocaust, no slavery without it either.

Like I said though, it's a little late to rethink any of this. We're either going to continue increasing in number(one of the ways being the attempt to eradicate disease), or have our numbers decrease by natural events. I have no real worries about a forced decrease by the state, or a voluntary decrease.

As for promoting democracy, it seems to me that the bigger the population, the bigger the institution, the more specialization, the fewer people at the top making sure things work, the less representation.

Also, I like how two wealthy individuals can come in and save the day. 6.5 billion people on the planet, and our saviors are two dudes. What was that word, demo...there might have been a c in there somewhere...democ...I forget.

[ContraBass Black]

22. False dichotomy.

Having healthy citizens promotes a healthy society. Democracy and the freedoms often associated with it may be included in that health.

Your poll offers two nonsensical and invalid choices, with foolish comments tacked onto the ends.