How'd I forget sequels always suck?
Nov. 6th, 2009 08:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
katestineIt's a pity I haven't been able to chase down my review of Freakonomics from my pop-econ period, bc I remember loving the book and after reading the sequel, I wonder how that could be. I'm not sure if I'm that more knowledgeable about economics these days or if they dumbed it down: I'm pretty sure it's the latter. They immediately break the fourth wall, acknowledging this book will also be a best seller, and then proceed with a rapid fire discussion of topics you've heard about elsewhere: the birth month bulge, the Milgram experiment, hand washing and puerpal fever, monkey prostitution, etc. As a friend, I highly recommend you skip this one.
That said, I hope lots of other, more ignorant people read it bc it provides some interesting statistics on cancer. Did you know that with some forms of cancer, it costs $40K to extend the patient's life an average of 2 months? Are you kidding me? I love my life, but there are very few reasons for which I'd want an extra 2 months of poor quality life. This is why, while I think everyone should be able to get some medical care, I don't believe anyone has a right to that kind of care: if it's your money, it's your choice; if it's my money, no, whether it's me or someone I love.
Dubner and Levitt also have a line about "age-adjusted mortality rate for cancer is essentially unchanged over the past half-century": based on what they say, it sounds like most of the life-extension gains of the past 50 years are people not dying of heart attacks bc we know about cholesterol and statins.
I also like that Dubner and Levitt provide actual statistics to back up a remark from my fave Gulf War 1 vet: in the two wars we've fought between 2002 to 2008, there was an average of 1643 fatalities per year; over a similar period in the early 80s (i.e. peace time), we had more than 2100 military deaths per year. The accidental death rate for soldiers in the early 1980s was higher than the death rate by hostile fire for every year the US has been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. So yeah, other people, not my cool friends who already know this stuff, should read the book.
I had also never heard the background story on the Kitty Genovese case: it's such an iconic and discussed cases, why doesn't no one ever mention that the story in the NY Times came to pass bc the Police Commissioner had reasons for wanting to get the focus off the police response and thus dangled the interesting hook in front of the NY Times editor to do so.
There also was a discussion of Azyxxi and vr hospital info stations. cool!
'course, to read about that, you have to get past verbal stupidity like the line where they talk about the "beautiful mind of John Nash" or this is the x that fooed the bar that Jack built. ugh.
My favorite part of the book was the discussion of Nathan Myhrvold; I've decided when I grow up, I want to be him: "nature photographer, chef, mt climber, and a collector of rare books, rocket engines, antique scientific equipment, and, especially, dinosaur bones: he is co-leader of a project that has dug up more T. rex skeletons than anyone else in the world." Which must mean he's spent a lot of time in Montana, bc I think most T. rex come from that state. I wonder where he's climbed - I looked everywhere and couldn't figure it out and I wonder if he's an actual climber or if he's basically relied on his guides. Maybe he also went to hang out with dinosaurs before he climbed Grand Teton, in which case, I'm halfway there ;)
By far the most controversial part of the book is the chapter on global warming. I don't have a strong enough background to weigh in on their remarks, however I found it interesting though that they cited an article about how a higher CO2 environment is better for trees. (Oh yes, I like that they cite things, unlike, oh, Malcolm Gladwell.) However, they also discuss cheap ways of changing the environment, like floaties that will warm locally change ocean temperature to decrease the likelihood of hurricanes or piping greenhouse gases into a higher level of the atmosphere to create a shield to cool the planet. How crazy do you have to be to think that messing with a system we don't understand is good idea??
That said, I hope lots of other, more ignorant people read it bc it provides some interesting statistics on cancer. Did you know that with some forms of cancer, it costs $40K to extend the patient's life an average of 2 months? Are you kidding me? I love my life, but there are very few reasons for which I'd want an extra 2 months of poor quality life. This is why, while I think everyone should be able to get some medical care, I don't believe anyone has a right to that kind of care: if it's your money, it's your choice; if it's my money, no, whether it's me or someone I love.
Dubner and Levitt also have a line about "age-adjusted mortality rate for cancer is essentially unchanged over the past half-century": based on what they say, it sounds like most of the life-extension gains of the past 50 years are people not dying of heart attacks bc we know about cholesterol and statins.
I also like that Dubner and Levitt provide actual statistics to back up a remark from my fave Gulf War 1 vet: in the two wars we've fought between 2002 to 2008, there was an average of 1643 fatalities per year; over a similar period in the early 80s (i.e. peace time), we had more than 2100 military deaths per year. The accidental death rate for soldiers in the early 1980s was higher than the death rate by hostile fire for every year the US has been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. So yeah, other people, not my cool friends who already know this stuff, should read the book.
I had also never heard the background story on the Kitty Genovese case: it's such an iconic and discussed cases, why doesn't no one ever mention that the story in the NY Times came to pass bc the Police Commissioner had reasons for wanting to get the focus off the police response and thus dangled the interesting hook in front of the NY Times editor to do so.
There also was a discussion of Azyxxi and vr hospital info stations. cool!
'course, to read about that, you have to get past verbal stupidity like the line where they talk about the "beautiful mind of John Nash" or this is the x that fooed the bar that Jack built. ugh.
My favorite part of the book was the discussion of Nathan Myhrvold; I've decided when I grow up, I want to be him: "nature photographer, chef, mt climber, and a collector of rare books, rocket engines, antique scientific equipment, and, especially, dinosaur bones: he is co-leader of a project that has dug up more T. rex skeletons than anyone else in the world." Which must mean he's spent a lot of time in Montana, bc I think most T. rex come from that state. I wonder where he's climbed - I looked everywhere and couldn't figure it out and I wonder if he's an actual climber or if he's basically relied on his guides. Maybe he also went to hang out with dinosaurs before he climbed Grand Teton, in which case, I'm halfway there ;)
By far the most controversial part of the book is the chapter on global warming. I don't have a strong enough background to weigh in on their remarks, however I found it interesting though that they cited an article about how a higher CO2 environment is better for trees. (Oh yes, I like that they cite things, unlike, oh, Malcolm Gladwell.) However, they also discuss cheap ways of changing the environment, like floaties that will warm locally change ocean temperature to decrease the likelihood of hurricanes or piping greenhouse gases into a higher level of the atmosphere to create a shield to cool the planet. How crazy do you have to be to think that messing with a system we don't understand is good idea??