More advanced world=More deaths?
3351 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / In my butt. Oh go...
Offline
Posted 3/31/08
Well,i'm thinking, is there more pple dieing today,in the modern world due to advanced technology and advanced system in the country?
Many pple commited suicide due to the stress and due to the advanced technology,there had been so many lethal weapons and even the nuclear weapons that could destroy the Earth.Terrorist bombings killing many people also due to the advanced weapons.
As technology advances,our needs gets satisified and we desire more stuff,that is human nature and many would do anything to get it.Some examples are those corrupted governments.So is it better that technology doesn't advance at all?
Hmm,well i hope you catch my drift,well what are your opinions?
3769 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Offline
Posted 3/31/08
I think statistically as the world population rises there will be "more deaths" when looked at as just a number. When you compare to the deaths per total population though, I think there are over all less deaths in present day, as compared to in the past.
22734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 4/1/08
not really,it is now where the drawing of lines between countries r clear therefore lesser war r needed and lesser death
8432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 4/1/08

HikariYamino wrote:

Well,i'm thinking, is there more pple dieing today,in the modern world due to advanced technology and advanced system in the country?
Many pple commited suicide due to the stress and due to the advanced technology,there had been so many lethal weapons and even the nuclear weapons that could destroy the Earth.Terrorist bombings killing many people also due to the advanced weapons.
As technology advances,our needs gets satisified and we desire more stuff,that is human nature and many would do anything to get it.Some examples are those corrupted governments.So is it better that technology doesn't advance at all?
Hmm,well i hope you catch my drift,well what are your opinions?


Human life expectancy has doubled since the medieval period. How is more percentage of people dying today? What are you comparing this to? The more advanced weapons are, the less chance of it actually being used. How many times have you seen nuclear weapons actually being used for anything more than a thing to threaten people with? A knife has killed more people than nuclear weapons.
19849 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
69 / M / Limbo
Offline
Posted 4/1/08
Death is a part of the cycle of life. Technology and suicide have nothing to do with anything. Thats mental health... and as for nukes, they're all bluffing... and if not... Oh well, big deal then we all die.
3769 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Offline
Posted 4/1/08

Hugegnome wrote:


HikariYamino wrote:

Well,i'm thinking, is there more pple dieing today,in the modern world due to advanced technology and advanced system in the country?
Many pple commited suicide due to the stress and due to the advanced technology,there had been so many lethal weapons and even the nuclear weapons that could destroy the Earth.Terrorist bombings killing many people also due to the advanced weapons.
As technology advances,our needs gets satisified and we desire more stuff,that is human nature and many would do anything to get it.Some examples are those corrupted governments.So is it better that technology doesn't advance at all?
Hmm,well i hope you catch my drift,well what are your opinions?


Human life expectancy has doubled since the medieval period. How is more percentage of people dying today? What are you comparing this to? The more advanced weapons are, the less chance of it actually being used. How many times have you seen nuclear weapons actually being used for anything more than a thing to threaten people with? A knife has killed more people than nuclear weapons.


Twice to be exact. Some 250,000 estimated initial casualties combined, along with thousands affected by radiation. The Iraq war has claimed some 650,000 estimated Iraqi lives, but no nuclear weapons were used. Not that I am agreeing with the OP, but nuclear weapons have been used as more than a threat, and they are not the only cause of mass deaths.
8432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 4/1/08

memphit wrote:


Hugegnome wrote:


HikariYamino wrote:

Well,i'm thinking, is there more pple dieing today,in the modern world due to advanced technology and advanced system in the country?
Many pple commited suicide due to the stress and due to the advanced technology,there had been so many lethal weapons and even the nuclear weapons that could destroy the Earth.Terrorist bombings killing many people also due to the advanced weapons.
As technology advances,our needs gets satisified and we desire more stuff,that is human nature and many would do anything to get it.Some examples are those corrupted governments.So is it better that technology doesn't advance at all?
Hmm,well i hope you catch my drift,well what are your opinions?


Human life expectancy has doubled since the medieval period. How is more percentage of people dying today? What are you comparing this to? The more advanced weapons are, the less chance of it actually being used. How many times have you seen nuclear weapons actually being used for anything more than a thing to threaten people with? A knife has killed more people than nuclear weapons.


Twice to be exact. Some 250,000 estimated initial casualties combined, along with thousands affected by radiation. The Iraq war has claimed some 650,000 estimated Iraqi lives, but no nuclear weapons were used. Not that I am agreeing with the OP, but nuclear weapons have been used as more than a threat, and they are not the only cause of mass deaths.


Two times is not a lot considering how long they have been around for and how many time has a knife been used for killing or a rock? Advanced weapons do not equate to more deaths. As the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people do. If someone is intent on killing someone, a rock, a gun, or a laser beam won't make much of a difference.
2159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / オレンジ 郡 カリフニャ
Offline
Posted 4/1/08
i feel like there are underlying influences to enforce a maintained certain restricted number of living people in the populous. There will always be murdering/killing to a certain degree; which is something thats ugly and pessimistic to say, but how come we're still within the 6 billion mark when we just boomed and doubled in populution within only the last 80 years? very strange how we live in a world of instant communication, a stronger understanding of our diversity and a generally more sympathetic humanity than years ago, yet we're soo into war and killing still. Humans can be greedy evil creatures indeed.
3769 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27
Offline
Posted 4/1/08

Hugegnome wrote:


memphit wrote:


Hugegnome wrote:


HikariYamino wrote:

Well,i'm thinking, is there more pple dieing today,in the modern world due to advanced technology and advanced system in the country?
Many pple commited suicide due to the stress and due to the advanced technology,there had been so many lethal weapons and even the nuclear weapons that could destroy the Earth.Terrorist bombings killing many people also due to the advanced weapons.
As technology advances,our needs gets satisified and we desire more stuff,that is human nature and many would do anything to get it.Some examples are those corrupted governments.So is it better that technology doesn't advance at all?
Hmm,well i hope you catch my drift,well what are your opinions?


Human life expectancy has doubled since the medieval period. How is more percentage of people dying today? What are you comparing this to? The more advanced weapons are, the less chance of it actually being used. How many times have you seen nuclear weapons actually being used for anything more than a thing to threaten people with? A knife has killed more people than nuclear weapons.


Twice to be exact. Some 250,000 estimated initial casualties combined, along with thousands affected by radiation. The Iraq war has claimed some 650,000 estimated Iraqi lives, but no nuclear weapons were used. Not that I am agreeing with the OP, but nuclear weapons have been used as more than a threat, and they are not the only cause of mass deaths.



Two times is not a lot considering how long they have been around for and how many time has a knife been used for killing or a rock? Advanced weapons do not equate to more deaths. As the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people do. If someone is intent on killing someone, a rock, a gun, or a laser beam won't make much of a difference.

Would you then also agree that it is easier to kill a mass of people with a nuclear weapon, as compared to a knife? Twice is a lot taking into consideration it would take a MINIMUM of 250,000 knife incidents to create as many casualties. The ratio of effort exerted to damage created is far less than using a knife, and that is why they are dangerous. Please don't tell me you would go to war with a rock because "if you are intent on killing someone, the weapon won't make much of a difference". If so, I challenge you to a dual with your rock, I myself would prefer to use a gun, but like you said it doesn't matter, so may the better man win.

4659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / over the hills an...
Offline
Posted 4/1/08

memphit wrote:

I think statistically as the world population rises there will be "more deaths" when looked at as just a number. When you compare to the deaths per total population though, I think there are over all less deaths in present day, as compared to in the past.


thats true ... also the less death there is the more shocking it becomes to people
13202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 4/1/08
not if that advancement comes with advanced safety lol
2669 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Noitacol
Offline
Posted 4/1/08
...oo dont know
350 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / Northern Singapore
Offline
Posted 4/1/08
To me, its more of each invention creates new threat indirectly (as in new method to die is created. Thus increase the chances and number of death). And yeeah... its applicable to the idea of new method to kill is created as well.
8432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 4/1/08

memphit wrote:


Hugegnome wrote:


memphit wrote:


Hugegnome wrote:


HikariYamino wrote:

Well,i'm thinking, is there more pple dieing today,in the modern world due to advanced technology and advanced system in the country?
Many pple commited suicide due to the stress and due to the advanced technology,there had been so many lethal weapons and even the nuclear weapons that could destroy the Earth.Terrorist bombings killing many people also due to the advanced weapons.
As technology advances,our needs gets satisified and we desire more stuff,that is human nature and many would do anything to get it.Some examples are those corrupted governments.So is it better that technology doesn't advance at all?
Hmm,well i hope you catch my drift,well what are your opinions?


Human life expectancy has doubled since the medieval period. How is more percentage of people dying today? What are you comparing this to? The more advanced weapons are, the less chance of it actually being used. How many times have you seen nuclear weapons actually being used for anything more than a thing to threaten people with? A knife has killed more people than nuclear weapons.


Twice to be exact. Some 250,000 estimated initial casualties combined, along with thousands affected by radiation. The Iraq war has claimed some 650,000 estimated Iraqi lives, but no nuclear weapons were used. Not that I am agreeing with the OP, but nuclear weapons have been used as more than a threat, and they are not the only cause of mass deaths.



Two times is not a lot considering how long they have been around for and how many time has a knife been used for killing or a rock? Advanced weapons do not equate to more deaths. As the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people do. If someone is intent on killing someone, a rock, a gun, or a laser beam won't make much of a difference.

Would you then also agree that it is easier to kill a mass of people with a nuclear weapon, as compared to a knife? Twice is a lot taking into consideration it would take a MINIMUM of 250,000 knife incidents to create as many casualties. The ratio of effort exerted to damage created is far less than using a knife, and that is why they are dangerous. Please don't tell me you would go to war with a rock because "if you are intent on killing someone, the weapon won't make much of a difference". If so, I challenge you to a dual with your rock, I myself would prefer to use a gun, but like you said it doesn't matter, so may the better man win.



You can count the number of people that has the authority to use the nuclear weapons with ten fingers and possibly your toes. Knives are a lot less accessible and thus much more widely used. The main reason why nuclear weapons are safer than knives is the fact that they are so destructive that people fear using it. I can't say the same about conventional weaponry. I'm pretty sure there are much more than 250,000 knifing incidents since the second World War. The ratio of effort exerted to damage created is far than using a knife but the effort required to acquire a knife is also proportionately less, at least in most developed countries.

You using a gun and me using a rock to kill each other instead of two people using guns still equate to people dying, it's just me dying instead of possibly both.
You must be logged in to post.