On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 02:36:58 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =========== > Yup. But, technically, those are diseases not natural disasters. There is > always something especially horrifying about nature acting up. > > And, yup, it would be nice if we could wipe out diseases that we should be > able to wipe out with just some concentrated effort or something (money or > caring about other nations/other peoples or a more equitable distribution of > wealth > and health services or something). > > The worst disease is stupidity. > I suppose it's not so important how one classes the horrendous death toll from malaria and AIDS in third world countries. Are they "natural disasters"? Well, there's a natural component to them, to be sure. They aren't the result of one spectacular event like the events of this past weekend, so they aren't on our radar. Sort of like plane crashes. One goes down every so often, and because hundreds are killed in one horrible event, it's front page news. Yet on every holiday weekend in the summer, similar numbers are killed in automobile accidents, and we hardly hear of it (unless there's a particularly huge, deadly crash, like that one in the fog in France last year). No matter what we call them, the real tragedy as regards the diseases mentioned is that they are largely preventable with public education and prophylactic measures. And, once caught, they are treatable, except that those afflicted can't afford the medications involved. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
