werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (01/28/86)
Worldwide, there is one soldier for every 28 people. There is only
one doctor for every 1050. Put another way, there are almost 40 times as many
soldiers in this world as doctors.
Item: Last week, during a routine training exercise two F-16 fighters
collided in mid-air. In addition to the loss of two pilots, both planes were
destroyed. The replacement cost of those two planes was equal to the entire
1985 budget for AIDS research (approximately $140,000,000).
--
Craig Werner
!philabs!aecom!werner
"The end. 94. 95. The very, very, very end."speaker@ttidcb.UUCP (Kenneth Speaker) (01/29/86)
In article <2222@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: > > Craig Werner > !philabs!aecom!werner > "The end. 94. 95. The very, very, very end." I give up. I see this quote occassionaly and I don't know what it means. Have I lived my life sheltered? Is there some underground sicko-comedy that I have missed? HORRORS! And I thought I was a compleat pervert. Please, Craig, from whence comes this line? --Kne
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (01/30/86)
In article <2222@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: > Worldwide, there is one soldier for every 28 people. There is only >one doctor for every 1050. Put another way, there are almost 40 times as many >soldiers in this world as doctors. I appreciate your sentiment, but let's keep some perspective. It's a lot easier and cheaper to make a soldier than a doctor. Also, the level of intelligence required to be a doctor is found in a much smaller percentage of the population than that required for a soldier. I suspect the figures even out considerably if you compare dollar costs or times required for training soldiers and doctors. (You could even try summing IQ's (-: ). A more relevant question is: Can one doctor adequately serve 1,050 people? My understanding is there's currently a surplus of doctors in the United States. It's the uneven distribution that causes problems. > Item: Last week, during a routine training exercise two F-16 fighters >collided in mid-air. In addition to the loss of two pilots, both planes were >destroyed. The replacement cost of those two planes was equal to the entire >1985 budget for AIDS research (approximately $140,000,000). Again, the wrong question is implied. More relevant: Would spending more than $140 million dollars annually significantly speed up the finding of a cure for AIDS? I'd cheerfully trade a couple of F-16's for a cure, but it's not at all clear that such a tradeoff exists. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp(+)TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Geniuses are people so lazy they Santa Monica, CA 90405 do everything right the first time. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
omo@mcnc.UUCP (01/30/86)
> Worldwide, there is one soldier for every 28 people. There is only > one doctor for every 1050. Put another way, there are almost 40 times as many > soldiers in this world as doctors. According to the ed psych text I read in college, the *average* IQ of the WWI soldier was something like 82. Better they be soldiers than doctors, no?
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (01/31/86)
> Again, the wrong question is implied. More relevant: Would spending more > than $140 million dollars annually significantly speed up the finding of a > cure for AIDS? I'd cheerfully trade a couple of F-16's for a cure, but > it's not at all clear that such a tradeoff exists. No, $140M in a year probably wouldn't cure AIDS, but one tenth of that could vaccinate every child in America fully, which would probably save just as many lives. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died."
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (02/03/86)
>> Worldwide, there is one soldier for every 28 people. There is only >> one doctor for every 1050. Put another way, there are almost 40 times as many >> soldiers in this world as doctors. > > According to the ed psych text I read in college, the *average* IQ of > the WWI soldier was something like 82. Better they be soldiers than > doctors, no? Is it just me, or is it only that people who are missing the point are following up. (Hmm, what is the average IQ of a Usenet poster :-) ) I'm not saying that there should be one doctor for every 28 people, but isn't one soldier for every 28 people too much. Is there not a better use of human resources than war, which consumes so much, and produces so little. Another statistic I like to quote is that the national debt is $2 Trillion. The value of the missiles we have buried is $2.5 Trillion. We don't have a national debt. That is the national investment, but unfortunately it's resale value is worthless. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "... you can do anything you want, but not everything you want."
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/03/86)
In article <2222@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: > Item: Last week, during a routine training exercise two F-16 fighters >collided in mid-air. In addition to the loss of two pilots, both planes were >destroyed. The replacement cost of those two planes was equal to the entire >1985 budget for AIDS research (approximately $140,000,000). Not to say that Craig's sentiment is incorrect, but the figures I have seen for the cost of an F-16 are quite different. According to "The Arsenal of Democracy", we have paid the following prices for F-16s: 1979 145 @ $ 9.482 M 1980 175 @ $ 9.465 M 1981 120 @ $14.088 M 1982 120 @ $17.608 M 1983 120 @ $18.704 M 1984 144 @ $17.717 M 1985 150 @ $24.900 M Two F-16s shouldn't be more than $50 to $70 M in 1986. Some of the prices we have charged other countries for F-16s include: Iran 160 @ $14.844 M, 1978, including a contribution to F-16 R&D costs Israel 75 @ $15.453 M, 1978 55 @ $23.575 M, 1979 Netherlands 30 @ $ 7.199 M, 1980 Pakistan 15 @ $14.5 M, 1981 South Korea 80 @ $ 7.760 M, 1981 Venezuela 24 @ $14.5 M, 1981 -- If you are seen fixing something, you will be asked to fix it every time it breaks from then on. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (02/10/86)
In article <2237@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: >>> Worldwide, there is one soldier for every 28 people. There is only >>> one doctor for every 1050. Put another way, there are almost 40 times as many >>> soldiers in this world as doctors. >> >> According to the ed psych text I read in college, the *average* IQ of >> the WWI soldier was something like 82. Better they be soldiers than >> doctors, no? > > Is it just me, or is it only that people who are missing the point >are following up. (Hmm, what is the average IQ of a Usenet poster :-) ) > I'm not saying that there should be one doctor for every 28 people, >but isn't one soldier for every 28 people too much. Is there not a better >use of human resources than war, which consumes so much, and produces so >little. > Another statistic I like to quote is that the national debt is $2 >Trillion. The value of the missiles we have buried is $2.5 Trillion. We >don't have a national debt. That is the national investment, but unfortunately >it's resale value is worthless. I think its clear that you are quite right. It seems to me that the difficult questions center around "Why are there so many soldiers", "Why so few doctors", and "What do we do about it?". I have my own personal scheme for reorganizng the world which I am trying to implement ...