replies to Rakesh, Wojtek, Charles, Chris Anarchism / Marxism debates

kelley kcwalker at syr.edu
Mon Aug 23 12:46:58 PDT 1999


there are other indicators used such as mortality rates to measure "progress". there are two different rates commonly used to address the issue of infant and child mortality and the impact it has had, historically, on Life Expectancy at birth, infant [first yr.] v. child [5 and under] v. child [5-14] v. adult mortality rates [15-59 yrs].

still, it is clear that *adult* mortality rates have declined with industrialization and modernization ['progress'], as have *infant* mortality rates. people did die at younger ages inthe olden daze; not all can be explained by decreased infant mortality rates. an indicator of that is the fact that more US children in 1890 lived in a single parent family due to death than they do now due to divorce!

for example: in 1870 only 37% of women born in 1870 survived to age 65. [surely the 63% can't be entirely explained by infant/child morality] in 1930 77% of women born in 1930 reached the age of 65.

also, rakesh, princeton has a huge database and houses an archive of papers on comparisons of various indicators of mortality, LE, and health, etc. something like the institute for population research, not sure.

k


>Since 1980, life expectancy has improved by 6%. There has been a 21%
>reduction in infant mortality, a 37% reduction in under five mortality,
>and a 15% decrease in adult mortality for both women and men. There are no
>aggregate statistics for the reduction in child mortality which seems to
>have moved downward the least of all. This is very troubling since it can
>be argued that nothing better guages the functioning of the health
>monitoring system than children's health. Much of the reduction in
>infant mortality and under five mortality rates could be the result of the
>poor having fewer children as they are urbanized, while the reduction in
>adult mortality could be enjoyed disproportionately by the better off
>classes. The lives of the adult poor may well remain brutish and short.
>
>Yours, Rakesh
>
>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list