Again, while your theory is thought-provoking and I appreciate that. However I do fundamentally disagree with your theory even if we agree on conclusions.
I bring up insulin in particular, because the unaffordability and exorbitant pricing is a uniquely American problem, where unchecked capitalism is rampant. In countries with a properly functional healthcare system which is most of the developed world, insulin is widely available without having to extort people financially.
So no, it’s not a long term implication of insulin, it is the American for-profit healthcare system that has caused problems with access to its citizens. It may be an inevitability or context of late-stage capitalism, but I want to reiterate it is not of the insulin itself.
You appear to misunderstand what insulin is used for, it’s not pain relief. When a diabetic person cannot produce their own insulin, they can’t regulate their own blood sugar. It’s great that lifestyle changes can cure Type 2 (induced by unhealthy diets) diabetes but there’s no known cure for Type 1 (hereditary) diabetes, so symptom treatment is the best than can be done for that, Eastern and alternative medicine included.
Math, science, technology you portray as “eurocentric”, which has elements of truth in that during the enlightenment and industrial revolution there were major advances whose paces surpassed the rest of the world. It is also true that the roots of these subjects are drawn from India, China, the Middle East, Rome, Greece and others.
I will refrain from debating our initial topic (including the insulin example) any further since nothing of worth can progress the conversation. I thank you nontheless for taking interest.
“Surpassed” isn’t an accurate term; it implies that there exists an objective linearity in human development, which itself is a Western, modernist conception. The divergence in the values of different cultures leads also, more or less, to divergence in development.
Again, while your theory is thought-provoking and I appreciate that. However I do fundamentally disagree with your theory even if we agree on conclusions.
I bring up insulin in particular, because the unaffordability and exorbitant pricing is a uniquely American problem, where unchecked capitalism is rampant. In countries with a properly functional healthcare system which is most of the developed world, insulin is widely available without having to extort people financially.
So no, it’s not a long term implication of insulin, it is the American for-profit healthcare system that has caused problems with access to its citizens. It may be an inevitability or context of late-stage capitalism, but I want to reiterate it is not of the insulin itself.
You appear to misunderstand what insulin is used for, it’s not pain relief. When a diabetic person cannot produce their own insulin, they can’t regulate their own blood sugar. It’s great that lifestyle changes can cure Type 2 (induced by unhealthy diets) diabetes but there’s no known cure for Type 1 (hereditary) diabetes, so symptom treatment is the best than can be done for that, Eastern and alternative medicine included.
Math, science, technology you portray as “eurocentric”, which has elements of truth in that during the enlightenment and industrial revolution there were major advances whose paces surpassed the rest of the world. It is also true that the roots of these subjects are drawn from India, China, the Middle East, Rome, Greece and others.
I will refrain from debating our initial topic (including the insulin example) any further since nothing of worth can progress the conversation. I thank you nontheless for taking interest.
As for the eurocentrism of mathematics, there is an article that I’d recommend if it is of interest for you, “Western mathematics: the secret weapon ofcultural imperialism” by Alan Bishop.
“Surpassed” isn’t an accurate term; it implies that there exists an objective linearity in human development, which itself is a Western, modernist conception. The divergence in the values of different cultures leads also, more or less, to divergence in development.