4 ms·
" It's how Americans define themselves, which, in the end, generally comes down to how the US doesn't value human life, only the potential earnings thereof." I
by Ididntdothis 7y ago
" It's how Americans define themselves, which, in the end, generally comes down to how the US doesn't value human life, only the potential earnings thereof."
I agree with your observations but this conclusion goes way too far.
- Miner49er 7y agoMaybe from that one data point. But in general, it's very clear that the U.S. favors GDP over human life. There's plenty of data and examples to prove it. The price of medication, the cost of healthcare, homelessness, the people we kill in the Middle East, etc.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- cal5k 7y agoAnd yet, America is directly responsible for the lifting of a billion people out of poverty through trade - far more than any social assistance program in history.
- Miner49er 7y agoNot because of any value for human life. The economy only cares about human life insomuch as a person's productivity and spending power.
- oblio 7y agoDidn't the US have only about 330 million people or so?
- magduf 7y agoYou seem to be forgetting the billions of people in China. Who do you think buys most of the stuff China exports?
- oblio 7y agoThere's not "billions of people in China", there's about 1 billion and 400 million. That's a minor nitpick compared to my other points though. China exports worldwide, see these examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Brazil It's not just the US buying from them. Everyone's buying Chinese goods and services. More than that, the US didn't raise anyone in China out of poverty. Like it didn't raise South Koreans or Iraqis or Aghans or Germans, etc. The Chinese raised China out of poverty. Nobody's buying Chinese goods out of the goodness of their hearts, they're buying it because they're cost effective. They're buying them quite rationally. The only thing the US did was allow them to trade, which we go by American values, should be a sort of universal human right. Now that the US is getting the short end of the stick, should we suddenly become hypocrites and say that China's abusing the system the US used and abused for so long? :-)
- tombert 7y agoI was about to write the same thing. Maybe I'm just being defensive as an American, but I feel like the reason that we tend to define ourselves by what we do tends to be that we put a lot of emphasis on taking pride in our work. I would agree that this is probably done too much, since I was being drilled on what I want to do for a living even in grade school, but I don't know that the conclusion of "omg Americans don't value human life" logically follows. The only conclusion that I think can be reasonably drawn is "Americans sure seem to put a lot of value on work".
- badrequest 7y agoa hit dog'll holler
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y agoI don't think the conclusion is that far off, actually. Ask Americans why they are so afraid of things like single payer and you'll see how quickly they place a dollar value on human life. Most especially the lives of people different from them.
- tombert 7y agoI'm for single-payer, but when I've asked my grandmother about why she doesn't want it, she has said "the government wouldn't do it right, the free market can do it better". I completely disagree with her, and I think she's measurably incorrect about that, but that's not an anti-human stance.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y agoTry asking her to elaborate on how the government would screw it up.
- tombert 7y agoI did; she gave abstract examples of "look at the post office" or "look at the DMV", which I guess in her mind are examples of government inefficiency. I don't really talk to her anymore due to her saying some really horribly racist stuff about my wife a couple years ago, so I'm afraid I won't be able to get her to elaborate more.