State of the World
Sep. 17th, 2004 11:00 amSo, disregarding the dodgy anecdotal evidence, how are the developing countries and the world's poor actually doing from globalisation? Karl Schroeder (an excellent SF author whose novels Ventus and Permanence you should all read) has posted some figures from the UN. And the answer is, they're doing very well indeed.
From 1982 to 2002:
Apparently, the world is not going to hell in a handbasket, but rather in the other direction.
From 1982 to 2002:
- World infant mortality per 1000 live births dropped from 86.7 to 52.4
- Calories of food per capita in poor countries went from 2382 to 2740
- Percentage of households with access to safe water supplies went from 60.7% to 80.9% -- more households now have safe water than the total number of households in 1982, I should imagine
- Literacy rate in poor and middle income countries went from 64.7% to 78%
- World life expectancy went from 56.8 years to 63.8 years, despite the impact of AIDS
Apparently, the world is not going to hell in a handbasket, but rather in the other direction.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-18 02:13 am (UTC)That's part of the point - the lack of nutrients isn't the barrier they thought it was.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-09-18 02:49 am (UTC)I find it hard to believe that a full rain forest can grow ex nihilo. I also find it hard to believe that there was a 'bare' mountainside with no nutrients whatsoever. I suspect that at the very least there will be quite literally a shitload of guano, and since this is rich in nitrates, one of the key nutrients missing from established rain forest soil, this could explain a lot of the sudden growth.