Shocking Stats

[Griffin NoName]

I heard on the TV tonight that "Every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent." - I found this so hard to believe that I looked up the statistic and found it along with some other ones http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/statistics/child_homicide_statistics_wda48747.html

Probably naive, and I know all the stuff about social services bla bla, but I just don't understand how this happens. Not with such frequency.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Lotsa people in the world-- even the UK.

With that?  Lookin' at your basic bell-curve, we see that lots and lots more folk out in the wee ends of either side of that bell-- and some folk out on the very-very tips, where previously, we saw one of those a century or less.

Now we see those whackos every few years, and obviously, we see not-quite-so-extreme (but just as bad from the child's perspective) whacos every 10 days ...!

And since we have way-way more transparency?  With regards to news, that is-- we see (and hear) about these extreme cases, where in our grandda's day, such things made local gossip chains--but not the actual news.

It's a function of having... what?  Eight billion and counting? 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Not to minimize the tragedy but 23 death babies on a population of ~55 million or .0000004% of the population sounds like a relatively decent statistic. About .000001% for children under 16. For reference 1900 people died last year in traffic accidents in the UK and ~760 murders per year (or 1.23 per 100.000 in the UK).

For other point of reference, in 2008 1,494 children under 18 were murdered in the US or five times the number in the UK accounting for population differences.

(I don't even want to look for the same statistics in Colombia  )

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Interesting times.

Not that long ago, it would've been quite difficult to come by the statistics you posted above-- if not downright impossible.

Having these statistics around?  I think is a good thing-- how else may we work towards fixing our world, unless we are aware of what ills it?

[Griffin NoName]

Yes, I know when you break it down, it's a small proportion. But it still shocks me.

[Swatopluk]

It is an old joke that Daimler and Benz would never have gotten a licence for their invention, if they had told that it had the side effect of killing the population of a decently sized city every year. Daimler famously said that he did not believe that there would ever be more than 1 million cars in the world. German factories produce more than that each year these days.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I wonder if there were statistics of coaches and horse riding accidents and normalize with ownership and population to determine if cars are actually that much dangerous.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I wonder if there were statistics of coaches and horse riding accidents and normalize with ownership and population to determine if cars are actually that much dangerous.

Who can say?

There are several factors at work: 

1) a lot fewer people, when we were still using horses
2) no horse could sustain the high speeds we do as a matter of routine--even in city traffic, 30-40mph is 2 times what a horse or horses could do
3) horses will not naturally run into stuff, if they are able to avoid doing so.  In many ways, horses are smarter than today's drivers are.  By a large margin....!  

A car?  Is literally as dumb as a rock-- it will cheerfully and without complaint, plow into pretty much anything you point it at, and jam on the gas-pedal--including flying off of a cliff. 

[Swatopluk]

In the early days cars were probably less dangerous (slow and loud). I guess they reached maximum letality some time after WW2. Then began the general infringement on the liberty of automobilists with things like seat belts, airbags, (new) speed limits, unleaded petrol etc. taking all the fun out of driving. Not to forget that the damned Nazis came up with cars for the masses (as if the Tin Lizzy had not been bad enough). In the old days the rich and noble had the roads to themselves and nobody worth mentioning complained about some run over peasants.

In reply to Bob who posted while I was still preparing this post: One key difference is also that in the horse and carriage days the drivers/riders had similar risks in accidents as the people they hit. Horses can bolt easily even with a competent ride/driver. In a car-vs.-walker accident the risk for the car driver is usually minimal.

But I guess the penny-farthing must have been about the most dangerous way of driving invented for normal use.

As far as speed goes, in Germany the first official speed limits applied not to cars but horses (at a time when the first cars already had hit the road).

[Bluenose]

Actually, in terms of lethality overall, I believe that cars resulted in a significant reduction overall, primarily due to the reduction in horse excrement.  Of the many issues, one of the worst was typhoid spead by flies which were attracted in enormous numbers to the horse manure, whether it was left on the side of the road ar gathered together in enormous piles in manure yards for "rotting".  So, it may be that more people are killed per head of population by collissions involving cars than was previously the case with horses and carts (although fatalities there were hardly unknown) once you consider the overall fatality rate that can be accrued to each mode of transport, cars are really a lot safer.

[Swatopluk]

Once we go into indirectly caused death, the stuff gets complicated (in a 'for the loss of a nail' way). Cars so fundamentally changed our way of life that even just the secondary effects would be difficult to calculate. How many died due to air pollution or will die due to climate change? It's not all the big power plants, esp. on the local level.

[Griffin NoName]

Then began the general infringement on the liberty of automobilists with things like seat belts, airbags, (new) speed limits, unleaded petrol etc. taking all the fun out of driving.

Some few years ago I changed from leaded to unleaded petrol. It didn't change my liberty or take the fun out of driving. Except in terms of being a few ££££s worse off.

I like Blue's typhoid link. It's always good to hear how bad things were in the old days, when one is fretting about how bad things are now.

[Swatopluk]

The Spanish flu killed far more people than the Black Death (it reached all the world not just Eurasia and had far more potential victims).
The Franco-German war of 1871 had more French die of smallpox than of bullets and related ways of death. The German troops were almost completely inoculated and only a few units that were not were decimated. The Vietnam war annulled almost all successes against the Malaria (because the GIs acted as if it was their goal to breed resistance against all known anti-malarial drugs). Bush's glorious Iraq and Afghanistan adventures brought several diseases back that were on their way to be only found in old textbooks but not in real life). Oh yes, and the CIA under Obama may be responsible for the return of polio to Central Asia because they gathered intelligence disguised as part of the polio eradication campaign (which has now totally discredited the latter).

The good old days may actually have been bad but we do a lot to match them by applied stupidity.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That sounds like a pre-grad course: Applied Stupidity Studies.

[Swatopluk]

That sounds like a pre-grad course: Applied Stupidity Studies.

ASS - no presricption needed 
(that's Aspirin for those that do not want to pay extra for the name BAYER)

[Griffin NoName]

That course sounds really interesting. Is there any PhD funding for a thesis in Applied Stupidity Studies?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'm sure that someone would be willing to provide funding.

[Swatopluk]

The Texas GOP platform contains at least the seed for that with their demand to get rid of critical thinking in schools. I think to do that professionally one would need some well-funded research.

[Roland Deschain]

Interesting link there, Griffin, if more than a little sad. I started a thread in TOP (this feels like not saying "Voldemort", lol) a while ago on statistics I found relating to this in the US, which were much higher by adjusted figures, but these are no less sad.

I agree that we need to see these statistics, and to disseminate them as far and wide as possible. Only by pointing out our society's own glaring faults can we even begin to address them, and although there are plenty of groups aiming to do this, i'm not sure how effective many of them are. As i've said in other threads before on social issues, we need to alter our social consciousness as a nation, and then a planet, if we are ever going to lower these figures to what may be considered negligible (poor wording, I know, but i'm sure you understand my meaning).

That it happens at all is bad, but this is the fact of our animal heritage and our evolution since less sentient times. It's a cycle of abuse leading to poor upbringing leading to abuse, etc. If a child has no good start in life, it is more likely to continue with that attitude into adulthood then parenthood, and not necessarily in that order. We need social systems in place with real teeth to do what is necessary to break that cycle, and start treating certain things thought of as just parenting as abusive behaviour.

As a case in point, and this is all too common, I was out having a coffee in my hometown today, sitting there minding my own business, when a guy at a nearby table started arguing about some carp with another guy who just happened to walk past. I got the jist of it in that it was about a woman who was pregnant with guy #1's baby (allegedly his; i'm a little confused about that part) fucking guy #2 ('scuse the language, as quoting words used).

The woman in question came along with her daughter (around 6-7 years old, I think), and maybe a baby in a pushchair (I was listening more than watching), at which guy #1 became even more abusive, using language such as that used above, along with other words along those lines, even performing actions to mimic the aforementioned carnal act. This was all in front of the young girl, who was standing around 8 feet away watching it all with a smile on her face. Guy #1 appeared a little drunk, but again, i'm not overly clear on all salient points, as I wasn't intently watching. Guy #1 then offered guy #2 out "behind the cafe", and followed them down the road and around the corner out of ear- and eye-shot.

This is the sort of behaviour we need to stamp out at a bare minimum. These are the attitudes we need to change. This is the beginning of a life of no hope for a child, a life of them almost doomed to follow in their parents' footsteps. I was so close to just opening my mouth and giving them all a rather succinct piece of my mind in words of more than one syllable. This is human life at some of its lowest, and it makes me sick to see it so very often.

[Aggie]

This is human life at some of its lowest, and it makes me sick to see it so very often.

Ayuh, and the worst of it is when you can see the human being for the situation.  While some of the past's attitudes towards 'improving the lot of the poor' were offensive and condescending, throwing it all by the wayside is not a positive step.

I don't know if there's much of a push to improve things much anymore; given how ubiquitous credit is these days, you can fleece more out of the poor by keeping them financially (and functionally) illiterate than getting them established as middle-class consumers. There are big profits in low-quality goods and usurious lending. In the days of a cash economy, those at the top had some reason to ensure that those at the bottom got to the point where they could send some of that cash further up the line.

I hate to look at it in terms of profits, but that's how public policy gets set these days.  Ditto for women's emancipation in developing nations; wave the humanitarian flag while ensuring that GDP is increased by getting the other half of the adult population into the workforce.

[Griffin NoName]

We need social systems in place with real teeth to do what is necessary to break that cycle, and start treating certain things thought of as just parenting as abusive behaviour.

Watched a program on TV last night about fathers in 1920's and 1930's. It started from the premise that fathers at this time were always portrayed as cold, authoritarian, given to corporal punishment, and disinterested in their children. It then set out to demolish this by showing endless pictures/videos and quoting from letters, of fathers being utterly wonderful with their children etc. They did not consider any middle ground. I found it all a bit sickening, saccharine sweet, and unrealistic. Possibly because my own father was super extra authoritarian, coporially given to punishment, uninterested and never played with us, etc. at a later date. Slightly puzzled why this great need to alter people's perception of male parenting in the 20s' and 30's.... especially as from all horrid, to all nice. They had serious academics talking in raptures (sounded very silly) about the wonderful fathers. I wonder if TV is dumbing down academics? Or academics dumbing down TV? (actually I am being unfair as mostly academia and TV work well) - hopefully it was just these two idiots being exceptionally silly.

[Roland Deschain]

I definitely don't advocate throwing anything by the wayside but those policies and actions that cause no good, or even cause harm. Unfortunately we have to educate our children, and by that I mean all of them, whilst at the same time trying to get through to the adults as well. As I said, something new and effective must be thought of, based upon scientific fact rather than anecdotal evidence and hearsay (i'm referring to politicians, and others with vested interests).

I don't know what will work, which makes my complaining pretty useless in the short term, but if enough people speak up about something, others take note of it. Unfortunately you hit the nail on the head. So many people in power do not have it within their vested interest to elevate the poor of the world to a higher standard of living and education.

Just look at the way Africa is being raped, wars being waged over rare raw materials, and the way corporations come in waving money around to the politicians, who then screw over their own people in pursuit of that money. It's been done in South America, Central America, Africa, and Asia. It's even being done with tacit approval in the western world, all in the name of progress (it's not our progress!).

Governments step in to conflicts almost only when there's something at stake, such as having a seat in the middle east, oil reserves, or gas reserves. Somalia has been in desperate need of help for decades, with Islamic extremists being bred daily for campaigns of bombings, yet the only nations to really step in to help are South Africa and a few others. If it's a hotbed of terrorism and extremists, it serves the west to intervene to bring peace to what has been a war-torn and broken nation for far too long, but they don't have anything worth taking!

I'll end my rant here, lol. Griffin, I, too, dislike sugar-coating the past. Yes, there were decent people, but there were also bad ones. This has always been so, with only the moral zeitgeist to show what the overall situation is like. What channel was that on?

[Griffin NoName]

Monday late night BBC4. First of four programs in series.

The fact that Standard Chartered just has to pay a fine for acting illegally reflects general corruptness, uselessness, and lack of integrity in the world today. Why aren't all the top management set prison terms as any individual would be in such a case?

I'm very pessimistic. I think we've gone beyond a point where mere education can save us. Corruption underpins global life.

[Roland Deschain]

But you can't imprison bankers! They keep teh ecomony going!

[Griffin NoName]

Going where?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

It's been done in South America, Central America, Africa, and Asia. It's even being done with tacit approval in the western world, all in the name of progress (it's not our progress!).

It has been done and still frequently done with the explicit approval, encouragement, suggestion or plain ordered by many corporate and governmental heads in the western world. Don't worry, the western world population is getting more and more of the same since the fall of communism, and by my estimates will be not that different from the 3rd world in a number of years.

Ironically, one of the things that protected the western middle classes was the inherent white supremacy of the elite, who considered that the suffering of 'those people' wasn't a problem because they were lesser beings. They don't have that problem anymore, therefore they can do the same with their own without a hitch.

[Roland Deschain]

Going where?

Well, do you want the polite answer or the rude one? The rude one has more truth in it.

Pretty much, Zono. Massive land grabs from indigenous populations, large swathes of rainforest cut down for lumber or to clear the way for strip mining, and nobody but the rich getting richer from it.

[Griffin NoName]

Going where?

Well, do you want the polite answer or the rude one? The rude one has more truth in it.

I was joking. Forgot the smilie rule.

The rude one will do.

[Roland Deschain]

Going where?

Well, do you want the polite answer or the rude one? The rude one has more truth in it.

I was joking. Forgot the smilie rule.

The rude one will do.

Those ******* ******** are ******* us up the ****, and doing it as hard as possible with no lubrication.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Going where?

Well, do you want the polite answer or the rude one? The rude one has more truth in it.

I was joking. Forgot the smilie rule.

The rude one will do.

Those ******* ******** are ******* us up the ****, and doing it as hard as possible with no lubrication.

Sand.  There's sand involved too.... lots and lots of abrasive sand...

... meh.

[Roland Deschain]

Going where?

Well, do you want the polite answer or the rude one? The rude one has more truth in it.

I was joking. Forgot the smilie rule.

The rude one will do.

Those ******* ******** are ******* us up the ****, and doing it as hard as possible with no lubrication.

Sand.  There's sand involved too.... lots and lots of abrasive sand...

... meh.

Indeed. Sand gets everywhere eventually.