Reply
Fri 7 Oct, 2011 03:59 pm
Context:
Society’s failure to protect a precious resource: antibiotics
Since their discovery last century, antibiotics have served society well by saving tens of millions of lives. Too many individuals—including illustrious composers and writers such as Schubert, Mahler, Mozart, and Wilde—died prematurely in the pre-antibiotic era from bacterial infections that are now treatable. Antibiotics are called miracle drugs because they kill bacteria, and thereby cure people of potentially fatal infectious diseases. Antibiotics are also unique drugs, because they act not only on the bacteria causing the infections, but also on a myriad of commensal bacteria, which can then disseminate widely, creating a reservoir of resistant organisms.
Using humankind seems rather strange, i don't see a good reason for using it. However, negligence would be an apt description, from the text, for the use of the word failure.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Using humankind seems rather strange, i don't see a good reason for using it. However, negligence would be an apt description, from the text, for the use of the word failure.
Thank you Set.
What is the definition of the "Society" there? Human society? If so, that is why I used "humankind" there.
@oristarA,
Well, the problem i see with using humankind is that it is not sufficiently specific. People who live on the fringes of organized society--unsophisticated tribesmen, subsistence farmers and the like--do not participate in the activities of society, but they certainly are a part of humankind. For example, some of the tribesmen of Papua-New Guinea are barely aware of the outside world, and they essentially live a stone-age existence. It would be absurd to consider them a part of society--but they certainly qualify as part of humankind.
Humankind is simply not a term which i believe a native speaker of English would use as a cognate for society.
@oristarA,
"Humankind" is just the p.c (politically correct) version of "mankind", which would have been used until recently as a contrast to "bacteria", implying an inter-species struggle without consideration of a social dimension.
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
Context:
Society’s failure to protect a precious resource: antibiotics
I've still not yet got the exact meaning of the title above.
Does it mean:
1) Society has failed in protecting the precious resource: antibiotics ?
Or:
2) Society will continue to fail in protecting the precious resource: antibiotics ?
What does exactly the word "failure" mean there?
@oristarA,
"Failure" means that commercial interests and consumer demands for "a quick fix" have undermined wiser prescribing policies. Only global "policing" would solve that, but "society" (like a delinquent) resists global rules (compare with attempts on global warming legislation).
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
"Failure" means that commercial interests and consumer demands for "a quick fix" have undermined wiser prescribing policies. Only global "policing" would solve that, but "society" (like a delinquent) resists global rules (compare with attempts on global warming legislation).
Thank you.
But the reply of yours gave me the impression that the "society" particularly refers to the global medical community (medical field), common people not included.
@oristarA,
No. There is no global medical community with the power to prevent corrupt practice. (Watch the Jackson trial for a sample !).
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
No. There is no global medical community with the power to prevent corrupt practice. (Watch the Jackson trial for a sample !).
But what on earth is the "society"?
@oristarA,
"Society" has various levels of cohesiveness...." The Royal Society", "British Society", "Western Society"...etc. It implies a loose communicative group with common goals or purposes.
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
"Society" has various levels of cohesiveness...." The Royal Society", "British Society", "Western Society"...etc. It implies a loose communicative group with common goals or purposes.
Thank you.
I need the exact and particular definition of the "society" in the context in the first post in this thread.
@oristarA,
There is no exact definition. The implication of "society" here is "rational thinkers no matter where they are". But rationality does not automatically mean "will" or "ability to act "for the best. In that sense society "fails".
In the first place, stop putting the definite article in front of society. It's not "the" society, it's just society. What it means here is the general, organized human community, it is no more specific than that.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace