19 Nov 11
Most people are likely to agree that the rise of Hitler and the consequent Second World War were the worst things that happened during the twentieth century (and possibly in all history). But what was the greatest disaster that happened in world history since the end of World War II? By "greatest disaster", I mean the event or set of events that had the most negative consequences overall for human life, welfare and happiness.
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe election of Ronald Reagan.
Most people are likely to agree that the rise of Hitler and the consequent Second World War were the worst things that happened during the twentieth century (and possibly in all history). But what was the greatest disaster that happened in world history since the end of World War II? By "greatest disaster", I mean the event or set of events that had the most negative consequences overall for human life, welfare and happiness.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeMaybe the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
Most people are likely to agree that the rise of Hitler and the consequent Second World War were the worst things that happened during the twentieth century (and possibly in all history). But what was the greatest disaster that happened in world history since the end of World War II? By "greatest disaster", I mean the event or set of events that had the most negative consequences overall for human life, welfare and happiness.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyA politically correct answer to be sure.
Maybe the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
However, consider the following. Just looking at the US, it appears that about half a million people die every year in the US from cancer. Compare that to a little over half a million deaths in the US that have been reported since the outbreak of the disease.
There is no comparison. In fact, it is estimated that about 1 in 3 people will have cancer at some point in their lives.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by whodeyIsn't this thread about "the world" rather than "the U.S."?
However, consider the following. Just looking at the US, it appears that about half a million people die every year in the US from cancer. Compare that to a little over half a million deaths in the US that have been reported since the outbreak of the disease.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by whodeyPolitically correct? Whatever dude.
A politically correct answer to be sure.
However, consider the following. Just looking at the US, it appears that about half a million people die every year in the US from cancer. Compare that to a little over half a million deaths in the US that have been reported since the outbreak of the disease.
There is no comparison. In fact, it is estimated that about 1 in 3 people will have cancer at some point in their lives.
Cancer has been an ongoing affliction since long before the end of World War II, so I don't think you're keeping within the bounds of the OP.
19 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyHas cancer always been 1 in 3 people?
Politically correct? Whatever dude.
Cancer has been an ongoing affliction since long before the end of World War II, so I don't think you're keeping within the bounds of the OP.
From what I have read, cancer is most prevalent in well developed nations and almost absent in the third world. This can be attributed to several things. Perhaps it is because people in the well developed nations live longer, thus increasing their chances to obtain cancer. Or perhaps it is due to better medical coverage in the well developed nations who are able to diagnose this illness as where in the third world it does not get diagnosed. However, another way to see this is that in the name of consumerism, corporate America toys with our foods to the point of killing us. After all, shelf life and appearance when it comes to food is the name of the game. It's all about the money!! I think the 20th century has been the beginnning of this trend.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by FMFAre you forgetting the murder of 1/3 of Cambodia's citizens by Pol Pot? He was just as evil or more so than Hitler. Also, the pogroms of the 1968 Chinese 'cultural' revolution, killing whole villages, killing anyone who wore glasses since they would have been considered an intellectual.
What definition of "politically correct" are you using when you apply it to the suggestion that the AIDS epidemic in Africa is perhaps the greatest disaster in the world since 1945?
Then there is the central hypocrisy of the US where a half million people die each year for tobacco and they put people in jail for smoking pot which I can assure you has killed MAYBE 10 people in the last 20 years. So considering the last 20 years, that adds up to 10 million people who died as a result of smoking tobacco.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyLike it or not, the AIDS epidemic is politically charged. You you political activist groups, mostly within the gay community, which elevate this illness above all else. In addition, it is a disease that is mostly attributed to behavior, unless you are getting a blood transfusion. And lets be honest here, the gay community accounts for well over half the AIDS cases even though they are only about 5% of the population.
[b]Politically correct? Whatever dude.
19 Nov 11
Originally posted by sonhouseNo. If you want to propose that, fine. But I don't see the relevance of whether or not you think I am "forgetting" something.
Are you forgetting the murder of 1/3 of Cambodia's citizens by Pol Pot? He was just as evil or more so than Hitler.
I wouldn't vote for the hypocrisy of the U.S. pot laws as being the worst disaster in the world since 1945.
19 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyRegardless of the relevance of that statistic to the matter at hand, this is anyway not the case in Africa, where heterosexual transmission is the main route to infection.
And lets be honest here, the gay community accounts for well over half the AIDS cases even though they are only about 5% of the population.