As many have pointed out, technological advancement is pointless without social advancement. We have learnt how to treat diseases 10 times over at this point, and yet people still live with them. That is a failure at engineering our social system. Social change is the decisive factor. Technological change without social change is just giving the rich new ways to subjugate or ignore the poor.
This is total bullshit. Rich or poor, infant mortality rate and maternal mortality rate have plunged. The rich do better than the poor, but you're not losing your firstborn to cholera and shit. We have antibiotics and post-natal care. Shit is good now. Forget 200 years ago like the OP said. Try just 1900: 9 out of every 1000 live births resulted in mum dying. Today? In the bottom quartile in my state of California? 18. Per. Hundred Thousand. That's right, two orders of magnitude, almost three.
Back then there were cities in the US where a third of newborns wouldn't see their first birthday. Look at us now! We stand like a colossus. Our children stand healthy. Strong.
You've created some fictional subjugation narrative that is nothing near the truth.
No it's not bullshit. Obviously over time all our conditions improve, partially because eventually it just becomes so cheap to do this stuff that even the peasants can get it, or because there was actual TANGIBLE SOCIAL CHANGE. It's usually both. In the UK the NHS was created after ww2, by golly isn't it a feat of technology that less poor people die here. In fact our life expectancy for the poorest is several years higher than in the US, and some countries in Europe have a life expectancy for the poorest people that is 10 years higher than the US. God, I thought the US had some of the most advanced technology on earth? How can this be the case? Surely it can't be beacause of social policy?????? heavy /s
