China fact of the day

In China, 164 people drown every day — many of them children who can’t swim

Here is further information.  Elsewhere, Camille Paglia chats with…Jordan Peterson.


For some context:

"From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 332 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents. About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger."

13 He’s
10 for’s
6 he’s
5 e’s
1 Nor
1 we

JWatts is spot on. The China factoid is utterly meaningless without a point of comparison.

Quickly checking base rates, that WHO page says there are 372,000 drowning deaths per year worldwide. That's almost exactly 1000 per day. The population of China is about 1.4bn, or about 19% of the world's population, with 16% of the drowning deaths. So this 'China fact' seems to be 'Chinese people drown slightly less often than people in the average country'.

It is notable that richer countries have less drowning deaths (about 10 per day in the US, or 1% of the total deaths, with about 4% of the total population). So the China fact might actually be 'China is an above average-ly rich country, but not yet a rich country'.

...but, but, but we just had 58 people killed in Las Vegas -- which most everybody reacted to as one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the universe ??

Are the American media, government, and populace unable to rationally assess daily risks in life. Youbetcha.

Also consider daily automobile deaths in U.S. --- 100 per day, with people suffering horrible agonizing deaths in twisted wreckage ... and many times that # horribly injured. But nobody even thinks twice about riding in a car each day.
Worldwide automobile deaths are well over a million annually.

Well, it's not like no one is ever going to Vegas again either. Are you claiming the largest mass shooting in US history isn't newsworthy?

Sure, but you have to admit that our response to these mass shootings is just beyond anything remotely rational. Our media is a joke, closer to Hollywood than anything else.

People aren't robots. Massive death by crazed gunman is a legit story.

I don't dispute that. But it is definitely overblown for many unsavory reasons (monetary, political, etc.). I mean, 1500 people die every year from knife attacks and I don't remember the last time I've seen any news about it. Actually, the over exposure and notoriety given to these mass shootings is one of the more likely reasons why we are seeing an increase in such occurrences (just read about the VT guy and you can see that pretty clearly).

Fair point, but again, this is the biggest ever, it's got to be covered pretty heavily. If someone killed 50 people at once with a knife you'd hear about that too. Heck even 20.

Biggest ever? Doesn't Wounded Knee count?

Our response? We've done exactly nothing about any of these mass shootings for years. No response at all, FYI, much less anything rational.

I mean if you want complain about some inconsequential shit getting a lot of attention, why don't you focus on the AL playoffs?

...."Wounded Knee" indeed counts, but not if you get your "news" from the corporate media and knowledge of history from government schools.

Any innocents killed by U.S. government around the world in last 25 years?

Mass murders are commonplace in American history. How about that Utah 'Mormon Meadows Massacre' in 1857 with 120 men/women/children in a wagon train slaughtered by Mormon gunfire.

Leo October 6, 2017 at 7:17 pm

Mass murders are commonplace in American history. How about that Utah ‘Mormon Meadows Massacre’ in 1857 with 120 men/women/children in a wagon train slaughtered by Mormon gunfire.

Actually in the English speaking world as a whole, mass murders are extremely uncommon. Hence your need to go all the way back to 1857. Less common in Canada than in the United States but still uncommon.

"Actually in the English speaking world as a whole, mass murders are extremely uncommon"

....yes, we can most certainly dismiss the non-English speaking world, Native Americans, Asian/Latino immigrants, and American blacks. And who cares what happened before year 2000 or 1900 ?

That lone Norwegian guy who killed 80 in 2011 should not be considered... it would detract from our mawkish wallowing in Vegas 2017. Forget about the Greenwood Oklahoma Massacre in 1921... the victims were merely black.

FBI defines Mass Murder as 4+ killings in a single event -- that's almost unheard of in 20th/21st America, by your reckoning.

"Are the American media, government, and populace unable to rationally assess daily risks in life."

Does it ever occur to you that "hey, maybe it's not everyone in the world but me who can't see straight?"

What John Faben upstream says is true: this is not news. A bit more interesting is that people who live near water, in a lot of developing countries like the Philippines, and the Caribbean, Africa, don't know how to swim. Once in a while you hear about people posing near the sea shore, a rogue wave sweeping one of the people out to sea, and the remaining people watching helplessly as that person drowns (I've read that twice). Swimming is a First World luxury. Swimming pools are a First World luxury. The Olympic gold medalist a while ago from Zimbabwe was a rich white girl.

Swimming is a First World luxury. Swimming pools are a First World luxury.

Swimming way predates First World luxury and swimming pools.

In general I am right. In particular historical episodes, like the famous Indonesians who would travel thousands of miles in their outriggers, and the Aborigines of Australia who supposedly swam or crossed the straits separating northern Australia from the rest of the islands up there (or was there a land bridge like in the Bering Sea? It's not entirely clear), or the ancient Cyprus prehistoric men who sailed or swam or drifted from Turkey to Cyprus, or of course the Easter island peoples (did they come from the West, most probably, or the East, ala "Kon Tiki"?), you are right.

But for modern times, even for people near the sea, swimming is unknown.

But for modern times, even for people near the sea, swimming is unknown.

You are such a complete moron. And you live in the Philippines, a Third World country full of people living on the sea who can swim

For that matter, swimming even predates humans.

My grandfather learned to swim in the Fraser River. He claimed he pushed blocks of ice ashore, for housewives' ice boxes. When boys were boys. A suburban "swim school" for me. It was a place along the main street with a swimming pool, before backyard pools were common. No ice.

By the way, driving the western part of Canada highway 1, the Fraser river is incredibly pretty, makes me want to camp nearby with a river view.

The people who don't know how to swim don't live that close to the water. The Badjao people, for instance, certainly don't have first world standards of living but are expert swimmers and divers.

@Ricardo- pace those African, Cambodian, and Vietnamese fishermen who are featured regularly as experts in their craft but don't know how to swim. For every general rule (like mine) there are exceptions.

I want to support Ray on this one - almost no Indonesian's I knew could swim, despite many of them living next to the sea. Even people who regularly use boats. Its probably a self-reinforcement thing, if no-one you know swims, then you won't learn to swim either as a youngster. Of course as people get richer they can hire tutors to teach their kids to swim and the cycle gets broken. Most of us learned I am sure to swim at school and not from our friends or parents.

Swimming was ubiquitous in my wife's Indonesian (Sumatran) village.

"Camille Paglia chats with…Jordan Peterson."

Speaking of drowning.... I need to wear floaties so that I won't drown in all those words. I think Paglia says more words in 15 minutes than I do all year.

Holy smokes, that was good.

More Frazier river grandfather stories, less sarcasm please!

Maybe I just have mood affiliation for other extreme coffee drinkers.

Clean your room, bucko!

I love both these thinkers, and while I find them a bit repetitive, they are also very dense - I can go back to something they said before and hear something I missed before.

An excellent conversation, although of course quite a black pill too.

Wow. Camille! Jordan! That conversation (conversation on Jordan's side if not Camille's) was a blast. I got sucked right in.

By the way, I have a pretty good idea of who emptied those coffee urns in background of Camille's shots. That gal seems well caffeinated.

I know of Paglia because of you, and I thank you.

I bought Sexual Personae way back in 1990. I think her work has deteriorated since then.

To be fair, so has most of western civilisation.

To be fair, "people who can't swim" would seem to be drowning's natural target market.

I wonder what the Straussian implications of Tyler calling "Jordan Peterson" and not "Jordan B. Peterson" are?

Meant to say "calling him," not just "calling," sorry.

Probably they did each other.

If they can't swim, maybe they shoukd enter the pool.

Tyler Cowen is just linking to media associated with a Jordan Peterson who seems a lot like a white supremacist.

After watching maybe 100 hours of his lectures, I haven't seen a single element of white supremacy in him other than perhaps conservative support for western culture. This should really be a more difficult claim to level.

Society should invest in swim lessons for kids.



I would very much like to see a conversation between Tyler and Jordan.

Protip: If you're drowning, just lay on your back and you'll float. It's really not that hard...

Hey, Tyler -- Talk about burying the lede! The Jordan/Paglia was very good.

With respect to the Peterson/Paglia chat, an excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy account of "moral epistemology" by Richmond Campbell of Dalhousie Univ. (grammatical infelicities or typos included):

"In order to see how feminist critiques of bias in prominent theories of justice lead to paradox, recall the feminist rejection of impartiality as an epistemic ideal. As noted, feminist have defended this rejection by noting that partiality can lead to more accurate accounts of reality just as it can lead to distortion and misrepresentation. Partiality that is positive in its results, as in the discovery of the different development of coronary heart disease in women, should not be rejected. In the heart disease example, however, it is possible to ascertain the worthiness of the result independently of the bias. Whatever led to the broader study of coronary heart disease, the results of the study can be independently verified by feminist and non-feminists alike. Compare partiality in the moral case. Is it possible to know that the resulting feminist theories of justice are more objective, less distorting in their representations of justice than the theories under criticism? It may be hard to see how the truth of the new feminist theory can be recognized independently of the sense of justice that motivated the critique. Does the feminist sense of justice constitute a partiality that leads to a more objective, less distorting representation of moral reality? That depends on whether the justice in question is identifiable independently of the feminist sense of justice. If there is no understanding of true justice that is independent of the partiality that motivates the critique of the traditional theory, then the appeal to true justice appears question-begging and self-serving."

Feminism: the fetish of phallic individualism with which women seduce themselves and each other.

Comments for this post are closed