# Nobel peace laureate claims HIV deliberately created



## Nightingale (Oct 12, 2004)

> Nobel peace laureate claims HIV deliberately created
> 
> Kenyan ecologist Wangari Maathai, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, today reiterated her claim that the AIDS virus was a deliberately created biological agent.
> 
> ...




considering we didn't even know what DNA did at the time of the first HIV case (1959), I think she's smoking something...

opinions?

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9802/03/earliest.aids/


----------



## Spud (Oct 12, 2004)

I'm at a loss to throw out a meaningful comment (nothing new I suppose). 

 Perhaps this illustrates how enormous the divide is between our cultures. I don't doubt she is a thoughtful and caring person, but I am disturbed by her lack of logic and by my own inability to understand how she came to such a conclusion. 

 Wow.


----------



## bignick (Oct 12, 2004)

She's not the only one that has believed that conspiracy...a lot of people thought/think that it was created to wipe out everything from black people to homosexuals....

The fact that she's a Nobel Prize winner just gives her a louder voice


----------



## Bammx2 (Oct 12, 2004)

I'm not giving an opinion,I'm asking another question....

1) is it not possible that someone has learned how to duplicate the virus based on info that has been gained since the first supposed case in 1959?
Anthrax hasn't been a substantial problem since the early part of the 20th century.....now look at it.
2) I am curious at peoples arguements as why it could not be man made...or manipulated.
Any takers?

Personally....
I don't have an opinion either way.
 I have lost friends directly related to HIV and it just sucks.
We need to get rid of it FIRST...then we can sqabble over where it came from!


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 12, 2004)

Well, sure it's remotely possible that some bio-engineer isolated a sample of AIDS and somehow manipulated it. However, I think the point is more that if you make an assertion, especially one as sweeping and controversial as hers, you need to be able to back it up yourself; others' failure to provide a counterclaim doesn't prove your own. 

And determining where the virus came from, as the article goes into some depth over, is very important to the process of getting rid of it, both in containing the spread and finding the cure. 

All I really have to say on the issue.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 12, 2004)

The sad thing is that the world's response to the AIDS crisis, which has been based on, alternately, a mixture of religious bigotry and financial greed, has been so disastrous that it lends credence to this sort of conspiracy theory.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 12, 2004)

That's why she won the Nobel Prize for Peace, and not for Medicine.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 12, 2004)

I suspect if it were that easy to "create" it'd be much easier to "cure".

Her statement concerning monkeys is silly.  As we push back the boundaries of the forests we encounter new species, come closer to species we knew existed.  Viruses mutate and jump species.  Nature is perfectly capable of engineering something like HIV.  

I think she's reaching and trying to place blame where it need not go.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## GAB (Oct 12, 2004)

Well,
Saying something like that after winning the prize?

I say make her come up with some stats. 

If she does not, give it to the second choice, because it is pretty clear she is stirring the pot, and that is not peaceful.

On a side note, the medical community is concerened about another epidemic,
like the one in 1914 that killed about .05% of the population.

Then World War 1, so we have been there (war) and nature has done it before.

Regards, Gary


----------



## auxprix (Oct 12, 2004)

I apreciate what she has apparently done, but if I had the power, I would revoke her prize. That statement is crazy, paranoid, and insubstantial. How 'peaceful' is it to claim on record, with out any evidence, that another country has caused a scurge that we are all suffering from?

Misinformation breeds misunderstanding and hate. It scares me that when she says BS like this that someone may actually be listening.

Sorry, this stupidity really makes me angry...


----------



## Xequat (Oct 13, 2004)

The thing is, the burden is on her to prove that it did happen, not on the accused to prove that it didn't.  How do you prove that something never happened?  It's a conspiracy theory, so if there's a conspiracy, where are the doctors that created the virus?  I mean, there had to be more than one person who created it, so why hasn't someone come out and written a book exposing the creation of HIV and making millions on the book deal?  There must have been several doctors, the head of the lab, and several persons in the government who oversaw and funded the project.  Somebody would have come forward by now.  Another case of leaders preying upon people's ignorance instead of trying to educate and enlighten their people.


Besides, the A in AIDS stands for acquired.  Maybe she should focus on preventing drug use and unprotected sex so that it is not acquired any more.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 13, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that the world's response to the AIDS crisis, which has been based on, alternately, a mixture of religious bigotry and financial greed, has been so disastrous that it lends credence to this sort of conspiracy theory.


I don't think she is correct in her assertions, but 

a) why should she give back her Nobel Prize? This is exactly why the tenure system is in place - so academics can have views, even highly unpopular views, and be somewhat protected from the political climate of the day. Give back her prize? It was for something else entirely. 

b) by the way, no-one seems ruffled by the fact that a large number of leading scientists, including a number of Nobel Pirze winners, have critiqued the current Administration's misuse and disregard for science, and rejecting the evidence on global climate change.

c) I can completely understand her frustruation and anger. As PeachMonkey referred to, a generation of Africans are dying, a generation of children are orphans, and our country is too weak to turn to drug companies here and insist on cheaper, more accessible medical aid for HIV prevention and HIV drug treatment. It sickens me. If I saw my countrymen and -women suffering, I would be more likely to try to start pointing fingers at powerful nations who had it in their power to try to help more effectively, and chose not to.

p.s. 





> Besides, the A in AIDS stands for acquired. Maybe she should focus on preventing drug use and unprotected sex so that it is not acquired any more.


HIV has already spread to a huge part of the population.  Some "rural myth" cures for disease among men include having sex with a virgin who cleans you of the disease.  So 12-year-old (and younger) girls are raped and infected.  Education is important.  Condom use is important.  These are different cultures with *very different* attitudes towards sex, monogamy, and promiscuity, and Americans tend to forget that.  And how will only focusing on prevention tactics affect all the kids who are HIV+?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 13, 2004)

The Lady is allowed her opinion.

I would personally first go back and do some research about the Polio Vaccine. If you research into this, and the fact that kindeys from monkeys were used to create many of the trial runs for the vaccine are how it crossed over. I believe there were three teams working on getting down a good process and were in a race to be approved by the US government, to make lots of money. Some used healthy monkeys (* The team that was award the go ahead for the US program *), others used what ever they could get cheap.

Also investigate where the trial runs were executed. You will see 100% HIV in those towns and areas in Africa. You can also watch the spread outward from this area. 

So, in my limited knowledge on this subject, I would form the opinion that one could state that greed helped create this enemy to our population. I would not make the comment that it was deliberate to attack a specific group or region of this planet. Yet, this is my opinion as well.

As to where to look for your investigation, I do not know if there are web links or not. I did this many years ago the hard way, with articles and books in libraries. Therefor, it is from memory, which I am the first to say, I am not always right.

Good Luck in your investigations
:asian:


----------



## Xequat (Oct 13, 2004)

"b) by the way, no-one seems ruffled by the fact that a large number of leading scientists, including a number of Nobel Pirze winners, have critiqued the current Administration's misuse and disregard for science, and rejecting the evidence on global climate change."

Sorry, but I don't see how that is even slightly relevant.  Maybe you could elaborate a little because to say that Bush is somehow responsible for the spread of AIDS seems unfair and unfounded.  I'm sure you have reason for putting that in there, but I don't know what it could be.

I think we might be on the same page about education, but maybe we worded it differently.  I wsa trying to be concise by saying that AIDS/HIV doesn't spread by itself; it is spread by human activity.  That is a fact.  But education is the key, as you said.  I was trying to keep it simple by saying that we should educate people not to do the things that spread the disease, such as needle-use drugs and unsafe sex.  As for protecting the kids who already have HIV, we can only treat them the best we know how.  To say that countries who have the ability to do more should be doing more is not reasonable, in my opinion.  Maybe, if you were in one of those countries, you might accuse the more powerful nations of causing it, but that would only get you more followers, but not solve the problem because it is reckless, ignorant, and unprovable.  We are trying to cure AIDS, along with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc, so what else do you think we should do?  If there were a chepaer way to treat HIV, then the drug companies would jump at the opportunity.  Drug companies do not exist, unfortunately, to make the world a better place, primarily.  They exist to make money, and their method for making money is to treat and cure illness, which happens to help everyone.  

I understand that there are different attitudes about sex.  But education is what can change that.  You and I know that AIDS is acquired, but the uneducated and/or ignorant people do not know that.  That is why I said that the Nobel Laureate should focus on prevention tactics.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 13, 2004)

> I understand that there are different attitudes about sex. But education is what can change that.



The problem is that your view of proper "education" is having everyone conform to your particular cultural values and social norms. Because, clearly, if they don't have _your_ attitude concerning sex, then they _must_ be "uneducated".   

In academic circles, thats called "ethnocentrism".


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 13, 2004)

For the most part, I think I can agree with most of what you've said here, if what you mean is that she shouldn't have been pointing fingers without having some sort of evidence to support that.  In her position of prominence, that was irresponsible.

However, 


			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> To say that countries who have the ability to do more should be doing more is not reasonable, in my opinion.


Why is it not reasonable?  If we agree that the threat of AIDS is essentially impossible to contain, therefore impossible to eliminate the risk of having it infect our people, ought not those who CAN help, do so?  This is everyone's problem, yes, some more than others, but nonetheless, everyone's problem.  Not every country has the resources to assist in combatting this plague.  So those that do, should.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 13, 2004)

Yeah, there's also that little thing called "moral responsibility".

Its kinda part of what our country was supposed to have been founded on, if you hadn't been paying attention in American History.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 13, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The problem is that your view of proper "education" is having everyone conform to your particular cultural values and social norms. Because, clearly, if they don't have _your_ attitude concerning sex, then they _must_ be "uneducated".
> 
> In academic circles, thats called "ethnocentrism".


You're way off.  I'm not saying that anyone should conform to any of my moral beliefs.  I think sex is great and my attitude has nothing to do with it.  I am advising that people get educated about what causes HIV and AIDS.  It is a fact that it has been spread by unsafe sex and sharing needles.  There are other ways, too, but the fact remains that AIDS is not like a cold which spreads on its own...it can only be spread via a person's activity, whether that be a bad blood transfusion or something that isn't the recipient's fault, or by something that the recipient does to allow the virus into their body.

"Yeah, there's also that little thing called "moral responsibility".

Its kinda part of what our country was supposed to have been founded on, if you hadn't been paying attention in American History."

Thank for the history lesson...I always thought it was freedom.

Flatlander...my mistake, I'm sorry...I guess I wasn't clear.  I'm not saying that we should do nothing about the disease; I'm saying that we already are doing something about it.  We are also spending money and resources combatting other illnesses, which actually cost more lives in our country thatn AIDS and HIV.  We only have so much money and resources, so we have to prioritize their use, and a logical way to do it is to spend the most on the diseases that cost the most.  The point is, we already spend a lot of time end effort trying to cure HIV and IADS, so I don't see what else we can do.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 13, 2004)

Continue working at finding a cure, and educating those at risk.  This stuff requires money.  Every country that can help should be doing so.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 13, 2004)

Agreed.  And I know the US already is, so I guess other countries are, too.  I just hope it all works out.  In fact, since AIDS is acquired, maybe education would be cheaper and more efficient.  Although it wouldn't be up to my standards of morality because the people who already have it would continue to suffer.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 13, 2004)

> You're way off. I'm not saying that anyone should conform to any of my moral beliefs. I think sex is great and my attitude has nothing to do with it. I am advising that people get educated about what causes HIV and AIDS. It is a fact that it has been spread by unsafe sex and sharing needles. There are other ways, too, but the fact remains that AIDS is not like a cold which spreads on its own...it can only be spread via a person's activity, whether that be a bad blood transfusion or something that isn't the recipient's fault, or by something that the recipient does to allow the virus into their body.



*shrugs* May have been a mistake on my part. My bad. 

The context in which I quoted you, however, seemed to be in reference to Feisty Mouse's comments on monogamy, premarital sex, and other things. 

Again, if this was a mischaracterization on my part, I apologize.



> Thank for the history lesson...I always thought it was freedom.



They aren't mutually exclusive. Freedom comes with responsibility, a fact that many people would rather ignore at times.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 13, 2004)

No problem.  I see what you're saying.




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> They aren't mutually exclusive. Freedom comes with responsibility, a fact that many people would rather ignore at times.


Good point.  I just think we are doing something about it already, although in some ways, we are only doing it for money, because a cure for AIDS would mean a lot of money for the one who discovers or invents it.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 13, 2004)

> "b) by the way, no-one seems ruffled by the fact that a large number of leading scientists, including a number of Nobel Pirze winners, have critiqued the current Administration's misuse and disregard for science, and rejecting the evidence on global climate change."
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see how that is even slightly relevant. Maybe you could elaborate a little because to say that Bush is somehow responsible for the spread of AIDS seems unfair and unfounded. I'm sure you have reason for putting that in there, but I don't know what it could be.


I was not saying Bush is responsible for the spread of AIDS - although I think his administration has taken a massive step backwards by only funding educational programs that talk about abstinence, or predominantly abstinence, rather than condom use and distribution.

I was saying that people are getting fired up about what one Nobel laureate said, rightly or wrongly, but I'm saddened to see a lack of people getting fired up about a statement hundreds of prominent scientists, including Nobel laureates, made about another huge problem we're facing.  

That's all.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 13, 2004)

Ah, OK.  Thanks for clarifying.  Yeah, I pretty much agree with you that the "abstinence-only" crowd is a little unrealistic and narrow-minded.


The other point...so you're saying that people shouldn't be as worried about AIDS as global warming?  That probably belongs in a different thred.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 13, 2004)

> in some ways, we are only doing it for money, because a cure for AIDS would mean a lot of money for the one who discovers or invents it.


This is true. Even for those companies that have developed drugs to increase life expectancy and quality of life for those afflicted with the virus, there is considerable cash to be earned. These companies charge a LOT for their drugs. They point to the huge expense of research and development to justify these prices. And it is true that they invest a lot of money into developing new treatments. But these prices make the treatments impossible to the vast majority or people living with the disease. Not too many Africans can shell out the thousands of American dollars for these lifesaving drugs.

What is the apropriate balance between encouraging investment (ie: allowing profit) and addressing a real humanitarian need?


----------



## raedyn (Oct 13, 2004)

I don't pretend to have the answer to this question, I only think it is worth considering.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 13, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I don't pretend to have the answer to this question, I only think it is worth considering.


Raedyn, welcome to Martial Talk!  It's great to see you dive right in to the discussion.  Help yourself to the great bounty of information abundant on the forum, and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Enjoy yourself, and happy posting!


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Oct 13, 2004)

Just tossin' this out there -

The commonly accepted theory (or possibly still just a hypothesis at this point) is that the HIV first spread to humans from some sort of monkey or ape. For the most part, HIV is a sexually transmitted disease. If you have sexual intercourse with someone that has HIV/AIDS, there is a good chance you will acquire it as well. That person who had it first got it from someone else (likely through sexual contact), and so on down to first cause - someone had sex with a monkey?

Okay, even saying that's possible, or the likely source of the AIDS virus, it doesn't stop there. Where did that monkey/ape get HIV from? Sex with other monkeys/apes? Eventually, if you go back far enough, there has to be the first victim of the virus. Given the radical mutating ability of HIV, it's possible that it first started out as some other sort of virus that affects primates, and over time evolved into something that spreads easily through sexual contact (a useful biological mechanism), and continues to mutate to make it hard to develop immunity or find a vaccine (another useful biological mechanism).

Also, I don't think it's impossible that it was first created by humans as a bio-warfare agent (I just think it's highly unlikely). The fact that the virus is so tough and has a dastardly set of qualities (mutates constantly to resist immunity/vaccine, affects the immune system of its victims directly - weakening it, and spreads through sexual contact), makes it almost too good (from the virus's perspective) to be true. However, I have full faith in evolution's ability to create all sorts of nasty, destructive organisms - humans of course being one of them.

BTW, I once did volunteer work for the Red Cross as a HIV/AIDS peer educator at middle schools and high schools. I'm proud of my opportunity to help educate people on the dangers of the disease, how it is acquired, and how to prevent exposure to it.


It is my view that if it turns out that this disease cannot be defeated by our immune systems or our medicines, the only other option is to win by attrition, isolate the disease to a point where it has no where to spread - this means taking whatever precaution necessary to avoid exposure to viruses sexually, or otherwise. Eventually, and unfortunately, the victims of the disease will all have died, and the virus will die with them.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 13, 2004)

> The other point...so you're saying that people shouldn't be as worried about AIDS as global warming? That probably belongs in a different thred.


Oh no - just that this is such a hoo-ha because a Nobel laurate said something odd or unpopular.  But others are saying other things, and being ignored.

I think both the AIDS epidemic and global climate change are massive crises that no one nation can solve or handle on it's own.



> Even for those companies that have developed drugs to increase life expectancy and quality of life for those afflicted with the virus, there is considerable cash to be earned. These companies charge a LOT for their drugs. They point to the huge expense of research and development to justify these prices. And it is true that they invest a lot of money into developing new treatments. But these prices make the treatments impossible to the vast majority or people living with the disease. Not too many Africans can shell out the thousands of American dollars for these lifesaving drugs.
> 
> What is the apropriate balance between encouraging investment (ie: allowing profit) and addressing a real humanitarian need?


I think this is when citzens - and governments - can step in and tell companies what they do and don't want to see.  Like making generic versions of drugs, thus cheaper.  Or having companies be able to write off in taxes for huge drug and education packet contributions to African nations.  Ideally, companies don't run our country and tell us what to do - it should be the other way around.


----------



## auxprix (Oct 13, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Ideally, companies don't run our country and tell us what to do - it should be the other way around.


Our country runs our companies? Sounds like socialism. Please clarrify.


----------



## auxprix (Oct 13, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I don't think she is correct in her assertions, but
> 
> a) why should she give back her Nobel Prize? This is exactly why the tenure system is in place - so academics can have views, even highly unpopular views, and be somewhat protected from the political climate of the day. Give back her prize? It was for something else entirely.


The peace prize is a different type of award. It is not earned on intellectual merrit. It is earned on deeds and moving the world towards peace. She may have a past of doing so, but her current actions are uninformed, dangerous, and stupid. Not very fitting of a laureate.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 13, 2004)

auxprix said:
			
		

> Our country runs our companies? Sounds like socialism. Please clarrify.


She did, put the quote back in the context of the paragraph.  I've boldfaced it for you.


> *I think this is when citzens - and governments - can step in and tell companies what they do and don't want to see.* Like making generic versions of drugs, thus cheaper. Or having companies be able to write off in taxes for huge drug and education packet contributions to African nations. Ideally, companies don't run our country and tell us what to do - it should be the other way around.


Perhaps in another format would be better.

The citizenry is able to exert it's influence through government.  The government can legislate the companies.  

Of course, I understand that this isn't always the case.  I recognize that there are times when companies, in fact, exert their influence over governments, which in turn legislate the people, producing profits for the companies.  I don't, however, believe this to be reflective of democratic values.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 13, 2004)

auxprix said:
			
		

> Our country runs our companies? Sounds like socialism. Please clarrify.



This comment reveals a lack of understanding of economic history.

Companies are granted charters of limited liability and the right to issue common stock because these processes are in the best interests not only of those companies, but of society as a whole -- companies that can grow and compete employ citizens and pay taxes and generate goods and services that we need.

Companies must behave by the laws and regulations set by the people, through their elected officials, just like individual citizens.

When companies behave against the best interests of society, they should be punished, up to and including the revocation of their charters.


----------



## auxprix (Oct 13, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> This comment reveals a lack of understanding of economic history.
> 
> Companies are granted charters of limited liability and the right to issue common stock because these processes are in the best interests not only of those companies, but of society as a whole -- companies that can grow and compete employ citizens and pay taxes and generate goods and services that we need.
> 
> ...


On the contrary, I have a degree in economics. I just read that statement and asked for clarification, so not to mis-construe what she was saying.

IMO, we can tell companies not to partake in activities that are outright harmful, but it doesn't work well to tell them what they have to do. You can, however, offer insentive to influence direction.

I'm going to quote this one more time:



> Companies must behave by the laws and regulations set by the people, through their elected officials, just like the individual citizents.


And, just as individuals do, companies have rights. Companies are private industries and operate as entities. I know I wouldn't like it if the government came to my door and told me that I had to research on my own time the AIDS threat. I wouldn't, however, mind if the government offered me something to do so.

I tied the socialism comment in because I associate strong government and socialogical control of industry with it. I was asking Feisty to ellaborate on her statement, because I didn't want to misconstrue.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 13, 2004)

Well, that wouldn't be the first time I've jumped to conclusions.  My apologies.


----------



## auxprix (Oct 13, 2004)

No worries.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 14, 2004)

Flatlander and PeachMonkey clarified what I was trying to say and said so awkwardly.  

Our government, ideally influenced and run by citizens (not corporations) can influence corporations to behave in certain ways.  I don't think anyone has said "we should ransack Eli Lily and Bayer" or anything like that.  But I think we should use our influence to get companies to a) produce generics of the HIV-treatment drugs, and b) set up tax breaks or other incentives in return for donating these drugs to hard-hit African nations - or, alternatively, selling them cheaply to our government, who will then distribute the drugs and education in these nations.

It is so frustruating because the drugs people need exist, but the countries that are hardest hit are far too poor to buy these drugs at the current market price in $US.  It is a dirty shame and a travesty when an epidemic that is so cruel continues to happen, and people continue to suffer, in part because other more well-to-do countries who have the drugs and the educational programs are not motivated to step in.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 14, 2004)

auxprix said:
			
		

> The peace prize is a different type of award. It is not earned on intellectual merrit. It is earned on deeds and moving the world towards peace. She may have a past of doing so, but her current actions are uninformed, dangerous, and stupid. Not very fitting of a laureate.


I forgot to add last time....  Still, it's her choice.

Watson and Crick won the award for "discovering" the double helix (I'll let any other arguments I have with that stand aside)...and just last year (or 2 years ago) Watson was giving one of the most crackpot lecture series I've ever heard of.  "Fat people are happy."  "Dark-skinned people are sexier than light-skinned people."  He had some sort of hypothesis on melatonin and fat or insulin or something, but it was pretty nutty.  No-one suggested his prize be taken away when he clearly was way off base, scientifically.


----------



## auxprix (Oct 15, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I forgot to add last time.... Still, it's her choice.
> 
> Watson and Crick won the award for "discovering" the double helix (I'll let any other arguments I have with that stand aside)...and just last year (or 2 years ago) Watson was giving one of the most crackpot lecture series I've ever heard of. "Fat people are happy." "Dark-skinned people are sexier than light-skinned people." He had some sort of hypothesis on melatonin and fat or insulin or something, but it was pretty nutty. No-one suggested his prize be taken away when he clearly was way off base, scientifically.


 
As for that prize, I think that Rosalind Franklin deserved it just as much as they did.

Ok, so maybe Watson fell from grace. But the discovery is still one of the most important for the scientific community in this century. The peace prize is given to someone who helps bring the world closer to peace and equality. What I'm saying is that whatever benefits she's done can be offset by the baseless accusations she's already started to make. And if this is just the beginning, than we can be prepared for more.

But, upon reading my post, I realize that I was a bit harsh. On reflection, I don't think that her prize should be taken away. I was just initially very frustrated at her 'Non-peaceprize lauriate' behavior.

As for the drug company thing, I agree with you whole heartedly. I just didn't want to misconstrue what you had said (which I unfortunately did).


----------



## Xequat (Oct 15, 2004)

So, I still don't understand what more could be done and how we can do it.  I agree with FeistyMouse that if we have the ability to do something we should, but like I said before, I think that we already are doing what we can.  We have limited resources and we are spending them on other diseases which cost more lives, especially in our own country.  Not to sound harsh, but shouldn't we worry about those first, or at least in proportion?


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 15, 2004)

Ugh. If you even conceivably think that we are going "everything we can"... then, well... what can I say??  :idunno: 

I good first step would be to stop catering to international corporations, which is this all boils down to. I suspect it has as much to do with reforming our political system as anything else.

Tah-tah.  :asian:


----------



## Xequat (Oct 16, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Ugh. If you even conceivably think that we are going "everything we can"... then, well... what can I say?? :idunno:
> 
> I good first step would be to stop catering to international corporations


OK, fair enough...I shouldn't have said we were doing all we can, but we are doing something. You said we should stop catering to international corporations. That's a good idea. It's also the first suggestion of a real solution to the problem on this thread. What else can we do? I'm not saying we do plenty and we should stop trying to do more, I'm asking how, because we already have plenty of resources in use and plenty of responsibility to other causes, so we have to prioritize. It's nice to blame the one on top for the others being on the bottom, but it's usually not true, IMHO.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 16, 2004)

> It's nice to blame the one on top for the others being on the bottom, but it's usually not true, IMHO.



Really?? So... you're saying outsourcing millions of jobs to underpaid workers overseas has nothing to do with the staggering unemployment rate in our country?? Or, that irresponsible environmental policies on the part of apathetic coporations has nothing to do with the diminishing health of certain regions' youth?? Or, that repeated attempts to research cheaper, unpolluting, clean energy sources has nothing to do with corporate strangleholds on our government??

Opportunity needs to be tempered by responsibility its true, but this assumes that there is an opportunity in the first place.


----------



## auxprix (Oct 17, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Really?? So... you're saying outsourcing millions of jobs to underpaid workers overseas has nothing to do with the staggering unemployment rate in our country??


 
"Outsourcing" has very little to do with the current unemployment. Traditionally, outsourcing has created and saved jobs, it's just difficult to directly attribute the creation. I know you're going to jump right on me about this, but I'll point out the rate of growth in the 90's, where the economy was soaring and record jobs were moving to mexico. True, some of the growth can be attributed to information technology advances, but alot was also due to cutting costs in manufacturing.

Like it or hate it, globalization is going to happen, so total resistance isn't going to take us anywhere but down. Better to be competitive and stay in business.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 17, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Really?? So... you're saying outsourcing millions of jobs to underpaid workers overseas has nothing to do with the staggering unemployment rate in our country?? Or, that irresponsible environmental policies on the part of apathetic coporations has nothing to do with the diminishing health of certain regions' youth?? Or, that repeated attempts to research cheaper, unpolluting, clean energy sources has nothing to do with corporate strangleholds on our government??
> 
> Opportunity needs to be tempered by responsibility its true, but this assumes that there is an opportunity in the first place.



Heretic,

I believe it was in May of this year that Money Magazine, and some really nice articles. I made a post on this, you could search for "Outsource - Unemployment - Parsons - Robertson" and come up with the post. 

In general though round number speaking in the a three year period there were about 120,000 jobs outsourced. That three year period being 2000-2002. In the same period due to increased productivity there was a loss of 1.2 million jobs per year. Or a factor of 30 times more jobs lost do to improvements in technology, then to outsourcing in the same time frame.

The outsource cry is something to be concerned about, it is not the najor concern though, from the data I have seen or read.


As to large corporations, I owe my job due to CARB and the EPA. Without the increased requirements they put on the vehicle manufacturers there would be no need to increase the technology to meet those clean air standard. And at todays cost of $2 plus per gallon, and only getting 8 to 12 MPH versus the 20 to 30 MPH today, would be a difficult time to begin.

I agree that policies, need to be tightened, including the Federal Government that has the authority to ignore the rulings of the EPA.  The fact that the Clean Water act form the 70's said that "Navigable" water needs to meet certain standards. Now, it is being debated about what the word Navigable, meaning large water ships and ocean going ships, so the Great lakes would be safe, only that, the water ways that feed them would not be safe. Yes, this needs to remain, and or increased. Yet the fines from the 70's legislation is not sufficient nor always enforcable. I believe that good regulation by our governement will help. This meas that our elected officals will have to decide between the votes to remain in the office or the election campaign money to run again. Hence it is not just the large corporations, it is also the responsibility of the people to vote and make their opinions known. 

So, vote everyone. Your vote is not wasted, they (* The large two politcal groups *) count all the third party votes to see how serious people are.

As to cheaper, forms of energy, some of the regulations actually enforced recently was with teh pwoer companies and the amount of sulfur coal they can burn. Hence the cheapest form of energy is nto available to them. They now turn to natural gas, and there are no reserves for this winter, so these compaies will now have to pay the higher winter market prices and pass the prive onto you. As to investigating cheaper, cleaner, I agree that solar and wind woudl be nice, only the return for investment is still not there. They amount of windmills is not productive for the land is deemed to be better used elsewhere. As to solar the storage and conversion cells are still expensive, and yes, it would be nice to have them cheaper. 

Fuels cells aka hydrogen Oxygen to form water, reactions are just now getting to 50% on the reaction alone. The problem is that it costs more to produce the HYdrogen, then other methods. Plus the safety issues of dealing with Hydrogen on large scales has not been dealt with compeletly. I agree that it should continue, and it is. 

 :asian:


----------



## Xequat (Oct 18, 2004)

Not much time...I'm at work, so two quick points.  5.4 percent is not staggering.  Check the Burea of Labor Statistics (I think it's at bls.gov) and you can see the numbers.  Second, and I'll try to find the source later andpost it if nobody beats me to it, I've heard that the number of foreign companies providing jobs in the US far exceeds the number of US jobs overseas.  It's a world market and a world economy.  

PS are we too far off topic or do you think the HIV this has been exhausted anyway?


----------

