Cancer is a product of industrial environment

#101
#101
#102
#102
utgibbs said:
I believe the math will be less than 0.1% but I was rounding up.

If you want the peer-reviewed literature:

Antiquity of cancer - Capasso - 2004 - International Journal of Cancer - Wiley Online Library (full paper, quote from the conclusions)



An experimental study of mummification pertinent to the antiquity of cancer - Zimmerman - 2006 - Cancer - Wiley Online Library (abstract only, but well cited paper):



Game, Set, and Match.
Click to expand...

Sure. Analyzing the 4,000 year old remains of royalty from a culture that invented surgery is a splendid way to measure the frequency of cancer in a pre-industrial society.
 
#104
#104
utgibbs said:
MG - KIDS GET CANCER AT AN ACCELERATED RATE NOW. Life expectancy is a specious arguement.
Click to expand...

Not when the cancer rate has barely risen in the last forty years and the five year survival rate for kids is 80%.
 
#105
#105
Sometimes I think giblet gravy is an ultra conservative
with a talent for presenting the idiocy of the liberal
mindset in a unique way.

largeimagetmrkt110203.gif


Or then he could be an advance party of some space
alien society that would like to rid Earth of humans
so they can migrate here from some dying planet.
 
#106
#106
g8terh8ter_eric said:
That's what I am saying. They will get us things when they get them, and me or anyone else worrying about it that doesn't have a biochemist or other degree is foolish. That's why I don't bother with politics anymore. There are just too many people who think they are right, instead of worrying about how they can help their friends or family on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
I've got a biochemistry degree with honors...and it's often over my head.
 
#107
#107
utgibbs said:
A short summary of my position would be the social sphere would reign supreme over the economic sphere in our current arrangement. The tools of the Enlightment would be first directed towards social concerns, namely, increasing the health and opportunity of the people, or "promoting the general welfare." If you want to call this socialism, that's fine. It seems to capture the true meaning of the world.

Now, it is crucially important the social sphere be grounded in an understanding of the true human predicament. Although I respect ecosophy, and it is helpful, I don't think it is as powerful a philosophy (or living philosophy, whatever the nuance of ecosophy vs ecophilosophy, is) as it could be. I think a full understanding of the human condition assimilates all the vital points of ecosophy.

In short, our social requirements must be met with a strict adherence to the real world outside the back door which could be summarized crudely as "the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment." Wrecking ecosystems carelessly, as we have done with religious zeal, just won't do.
Click to expand...

For someone that speaks of the real world you certainly ignore it to the point of absurdity.

You've completely written off the gains afforded by Capitalism and Industrialization yet long for Enlightenment to be used to serve mankind.

You provide no mechanism for such service. What's the role of competition? Private property and pursuit of wealth? What motives drive individuals to abandon their interests for the collective? How do you counter world history of individual pursuits of individual betterment?

In other words, where is the incentive - the motivation for mankind to switch to your world view?

What is your view of those who don't buy into the collective view - who instead focus on individual pursuits? Are they less valuable? Should they be made to conform to the greater good?

Looking out your backdoor, how many people believe as you do? How many will subordinate their individual dreams/desires to your view of what should be?
 
#108
#108
volinbham said:
For someone that speaks of the real world you certainly ignore it to the point of absurdity.

Actually, I've demonstrated ad infinitum others ignore it to absurdity.

You've completely written off the gains afforded by Capitalism and Industrialization yet long for Enlightenment to be used to serve mankind.

I've demonstrated these things did not promote the gains. You are mistaking the gains of the Enlightenment, and the gains of social revolutions with the gains of C and I. Industrialization stunted life and health; only through social revolution and the science of the Enlightenment did we ameliorate those degradations. And for many of us, only within our parents lifetimes.

You provide no mechanism for such service. What's the role of competition? Private property and pursuit of wealth? What motives drive individuals to abandon their interests for the collective? How do you counter world history of individual pursuits of individual betterment?

Who said anything about the Borg? This is part of y'all's (ironic) collective reflex response to different ideas.

In other words, where is the incentive - the motivation for mankind to switch to your world view?

Survival. Better health. Happier. More positive freedom.

What is your view of those who don't buy into the collective view - who instead focus on individual pursuits? Are they less valuable? Should they be made to conform to the greater good?

Having a worthy world project in no way creates "collectivism." In fact, what I describe is a substantial INCREASE in positive freedom. Understanding limitations is essential to the human experience; in fact, it accentuates our humanness. Y'all have a distorted cornucopian vision of the world which is directly at odds with the real world outside the back door. The lessons of Faust and Icarus would be well worth considering.

Looking out your backdoor, how many people believe as you do? How many will subordinate their individual dreams/desires to your view of what should be?

The majority of the world, actually, feels these things, and deeply.
Click to expand...

Some answers.
 
#109
#109
sjt18 said:
Reboot your own life... leave mine alone. If you want to warn me, fine... but liberals seldom if ever stop there. If someone will not do the "right thing" on their own... then liberals have to make them do it for their own good.

If you don't want the conveniences of an "industrial environment" then pool money with all your liberal friends, buy some remote land, and have at it. Again, just leave the rest of us alone.
Click to expand...

It's very confusing why you (and others would give you a thumbsup) would even consider posting something like this? What on earth are you talking about?

How is my posting different ideas on a sports board forcing you to reboot your life?

Unless, of course, it is touching upon some concerns you are holding deeply. Unless it is touching upon a nagging discontent within your own world view.
 
#110
#110
MG1968 said:
we can't even manage forests, how can we remove carcinogens?
Click to expand...

Because, MG. We know exactly what the carcinogens are.

We don't even know what lives in every thimble-full of dirt in our forests.

:facepalm:

Ecosystems are some of the most complex systems in science. We've spent a lot of time and effort identifying carcinogens in our daily life.
 
#111
#111
BigPapaVol said:
First, the data is utter trash and second, you're arguing as if the onset of the industrial revolution has increased poverty numbers, which is patently stupid.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This is your lame, standard excuse, and I'm beginning to think it is NOT beneath you.

The data is solid.

Even suggesting poverty has not increased demonstrates completely ignoring the real world outside your back door.

If it weren't for Communist China, the numbers would be APPALLING.
 
#112
#112
kptvol said:
Sure. Analyzing the 4,000 year old remains of royalty from a culture that invented surgery is a splendid way to measure the frequency of cancer in a pre-industrial society.
Click to expand...

The lame retorts of an empty argument. Why don't you tell us your better way to measure cancer in antiquity?

You must have forgotten to read too: cancer tissues are better preserved than normal tissues.

If it were there, we would find it. Even Kylie got cancer in our times.

Game, Set, and Match.
 
#113
#113
kptvol said:
Don't look now, you're standing all alone again and attempting to classify the opposition as a minority.
Click to expand...

:lolabove:

I almost feel sorry for you after this post; it's rather sad. If you think the opinions on VN are in any way representative of the real world outside the back door, it is no wonder you struggle so.

You are in the superminority, standing virtually alone with five other posters on VN.

It must be why you hang around.

http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf
 
#114
#114
utgibbs said:
This is your lame, standard excuse, and I'm beginning to think it is NOT beneath you.

The data is solid.

Even suggesting poverty has not increased demonstrates completely ignoring the real world outside your back door.

If it weren't for Communist China, the numbers would be APPALLING.
Click to expand...

No the data is not solid because defining poverty is a fool's game. You just don't like that the arbitrary nature of the definition makes it simply a lefty tool to argue for redistribution.

The real world back door gorilla is just allsome. Your punchline has made you one.

Keep telling us all how the industrial revolution had brought us poverty and how the middle class in China would be anything but poverty stricken in America.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#115
#115
BigPapaVol said:
No the data is not solid because defining poverty is a fool's game. You just don't like that the arbitrary nature of the definition makes it simply a lefty tool to argue for redistribution.

The real world back door gorilla is just allsome. Your punchline has made you one.

Keep telling us all how the industrial revolution had brought us poverty and how the middle class in China would be anything but poverty stricken in America.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The Industrial Revolution DRAMATICALLY decreased quality of life over the feudal system for a damn long time. Social revolutions and scientific advancement ameliorated these excesses. Not the IR, not in any convolution of your imagination.

You are also mixing your relativistic grab bag a little much, methinks. If poverty is relative, than the "middle class" in China is just that. So, is poverty a fool's game, or is it measurable?

Uh oh!

Also, see New Thread about to pop up. :wink:
 
#116
#116
utgibbs said:
If poverty is relative, than the "middle class" in China is just that. So, is poverty a fool's game, or is it measurable?
Click to expand...

i see so you'd be happier if 80% of this country made around $2,500 a year like in china. we'd all be happier right?
 
#117
#117
droski said:
i see so you'd be happier if 80% of this country made around $2,500 a year like in china. we'd all be happier right?
Click to expand...

I don't need any help proving my points, droski. Why are you so anxious to help me out?

China is cited as an example of folks lifted out of extreme poverty. Are you saying this hasn't really happened? If so, the poverty figures BPV is decrying as a fool's errand are MUCH MUCH worse.
 
#118
#118
utgibbs said:
It's very confusing why you (and others would give you a thumbsup) would even consider posting something like this? What on earth are you talking about?

How is my posting different ideas on a sports board forcing you to reboot your life?
Click to expand...
You are proposing to limit my freedom... again... under such euphemisms as "my position would be the social sphere would reign supreme over the economic sphere". IOW's, you want to control wealth that is not yours because you don't approve of the way the rightful owners might otherwise use it. The answer is NO.

Unless, of course, it is touching upon some concerns you are holding deeply. Unless it is touching upon a nagging discontent within your own world view.
Click to expand...

Nope... just a very throttled down antagonism toward yours. I am VERY sensitive to folks like you who use innocent sounding language to dupe people into giving up freedom or else working with you to usurp the freedom of third parties.

There are nations on earth that have what you advocate. Please go to one of them and leave us this single bastion of economic AND social freedom. Take your choice... Greece, Spain, France, Sweden, Austria... you can even choose your climate.
 
#119
#119
utgibbs said:
I don't need any help proving my points, droski. Why are you so anxious to help me out?

China is cited as an example of folks lifted out of extreme poverty. Are you saying this hasn't really happened? If so, the poverty figures BPV is decrying as a fool's errand are MUCH MUCH worse.
Click to expand...

you do realize that by american metrics that the majority of people in china would still be considered in extreme poverty right?
 
#120
#120
droski said:
you do realize that by american metrics that the majority of people in china would still be considered in extreme poverty right?
Click to expand...
Of course they would, but the fact that they're dramatically improving if late due to finally industrializing means he's right as rain. You're making points for him.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#121
#121
utgibbs said:
The Industrial Revolution DRAMATICALLY decreased quality of life over the feudal system for a damn long time. Social revolutions and scientific advancement ameliorated these excesses. Not the IR, not in any convolution of your imagination.

You are also mixing your relativistic grab bag a little much, methinks. If poverty is relative, than the "middle class" in China is just that. So, is poverty a fool's game, or is it measurable?

Uh oh!

Also, see New Thread about to pop up. :wink:
Click to expand...

It's not measurable. It's an arbitrary line ascribed by people stupid enough to believe that they know what poor looks like and that proffering the argument will make everyone else feel badly enough to like redistribution. Same crap argument FDR was making when the giant majority of Americans were flat broke but didnt cry about it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#122
#122
utgibbs said:
The lame retorts of an empty argument. Why don't you tell us your better way to measure cancer in antiquity?

You must have forgotten to read too: cancer tissues are better preserved than normal tissues.

If it were there, we would find it. Even Kylie got cancer in our times.

Game, Set, and Match.
Click to expand...

And? Egyptians have been documented to have recognized tumors as bad and to remove them from live patients. Considering their beliefs about burial and it's connection to the afterlife I doubt they planned on sending their kings to the great beyond with disgusting growths attached to them. Additionally, how many of these guys were living long enough to make it to the age when cancer is most prevalent?
 
#123
#123
BigPapaVol said:
It's not measurable. It's an arbitrary line ascribed by people stupid enough to believe that they know what poor looks like and that proffering the argument will make everyone else feel badly enough to like redistribution. Same crap argument FDR was making when the giant majority of Americans were flat broke but didnt cry about it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Well, HDR 2010 is employing a lot of new techniques on measuring poverty. You should read up.

Seems like the Great Depression is still very much on the minds of Americans; seems like it was a very tumultuous time and there was a lot of hand-wringing. Certainly shaped the lives and habits - even over WWII - of my grandparents. And my paternal grandfather was wounded in France....

By the way, the most prolific wealth redistribution in history has been going on over the last 40 years. Of course, wealth is being redistributed in the opposite direction.

The real world.... focus!
 
#124
#124
kptvol said:
And? Egyptians have been documented to have recognized tumors as bad and to remove them from live patients. Considering their beliefs about burial and it's connection to the afterlife I doubt they planned on sending their kings to the great beyond with disgusting growths attached to them. Additionally, how many of these guys were living long enough to make it to the age when cancer is most prevalent?
Click to expand...

Silly, silly boy. You could avoid this embarassment if you would do a little reading.

Cancer rates in children are increasing today. The "life expectancy" issue was dismissed in the abstract of both peer-reviewed papers.

Embarassing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top