-Caveat Lector- 8/3/02 8:58:29 AM, thew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>-Caveat Lector- > >It wasn�t about the worth of an individual. It was about the proportion of >people killed to the total size of the society. > >In a country of 10 people, killing one wipes out 10% of the population, and >will cause a greater overall effect on the society, that the death of one >person in a society of 100 million. I think that was the point, no? When using proportions instead of actual real numbers, the effect is more dramatic as you've managed to illustrate AGAIN. Thus, we have -- because of the "big" numbers -- an increase in emotionalisation of the statistics which are construed as facts. Which "one" is being referred to? One equals one. If we went about relying on percentages and proportions, we could justify eliminating portions of any population, humanimal, fauna or flora just because the numbers "look" okay. If we take the number of those killed in NYC on 11th September last (and only in the WTC- connected events, excluding the drug overdoses, natural deaths, murders, suicides and whathaveyou APART from the airplanes meet buildings events) and compare them against the total population, we come up with about 0.0375% (3,000 against 8,000,000) and less if you include commuters and visitors from outside of the city that inflate the total population, let's say to 12,000,000, in which case we get about 0.025%. Not a "bad" loss. An equivalent number of Afghans (non-combatants) were killed for a population of about 25 million, so they only lost about 0.01% or so in the first few weeks of the American bombings. So, the Americans lost about double what the Afghans lost. Except when we forget that the event was only in one city and then look at the total population of the U.S. and the Americans look much, much better in terms of a smaller % loss. So, according to the original position, we could afford to lose many more before the numbers became equivalent and both countries bore the same loss. What's all the excitement about then? (Which is the hidden agenda in the original post.) At this point, numbers become all-important and the human factor is lost because each person who has died and contributed to the statistics has lost significance outside of the calculations. As these numbers come to represent something once but no longer human, their values take on a whole 'nother context. Was it Stalin who uttered that a single death is a tragedy and many deaths are but statistics? But I doubt if he ever had to go tell this the families of the Soviet Republics nor will Bush have to confront the Afghans nor will Sharon have to meet with the Palestinians and talk to them about their individual losses. But, all can rest assured that if they had to, they could make the numbers dance and dazzle 'em. It doesn't matter if it's one in ten or one in however much larger another number is. It's still one. What seems to matter is the 10 percent against the much smaller percentage that supposed to get everyone riled up or made to feel better. The Americans only lost such a small percentage of its people so why get all uptight about it and make wars? Americans cannot afford to lose one any more than anyone else can afford to lose one, regardless of how the calculations are made. Shoot ... the people who lost that little girl in Utah still had 83% of their kids whereas the Ramsey's only had 50% left (100% loss in females). Does this mean that one family's loss was better than another's? JonBenet was a celebrity and potential moneymaker before her demise; does that make her more important than the other girl? Or how about the Afghan family that had to sell their daughter into marriage for $75 so the rest of the family could eat? They all had the same loss but different in percentage terms and different in intrinsic value. But which one was better, middle, and worst in overall terms? One equals one equals one. Except when someone's trying to whip up the emotions and then the definition of "one" becomes relative. A<>E<>R <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
