Please tell me this is not representative of the rest of India

[KarlGrenze]

[dengue hijack]

Dengue is not as closely entwined with poverty or big masses of humanity like cholera. Dengue is endemic in urban areas that are not necessarily slums. Dengue is endemic, for example, in the US territory of Puerto Rico. I lived there 18 years, visit there regularly, and have never gotten it, despite being eaten by mosquitoes for most of my life.

With that said, there are mild and there are severe forms of dengue. It is possible I may have had a very mild form of dengue that I attributed to some other cold/virus, and since it didn't progress to anything threatening, I never cared.

The dengue example mentioned earlier, though, was not typical dengue. It was hemorrhagic dengue, a small subset of all dengue cases. Some types of dengue may be more prone to cause hemorrhagic version, but overall, hemorrhagic dengue is the most severe form and is not the "typical" form most people get. It is because of this type, though, that prevention methods and PSA are common in areas endemic to dengue. Nobody wants to get it.

[/dengue hijack]

[monstro]

An outbreak of dengue happened in Key West not too long ago.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by penultima thule

Yet another merkin who don't get the irony thingy.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Yeah, I think I may be missing your "irony" too. When you said

Originally Posted by penultima thule

Of course, corpses are never seen floating in the Thames, or Sydney Harbour or New York Harbor or the other waterways of first world cities.

You were being "ironic" because... sometimes corpses are seen floating in those places? Implying that India isn't really that different?

An implication that (as has already been pointed out) is false, because it happens much less frequently and tends to make the news when it does, so--- what's the grand ironic statement that you feel is being missed by us "merkins"?

[kenner116]

Varanasi is in Uttar Pradesh, which ranks 32nd out of 35 Indian states in development, so I imagine it is one of the poorest areas in the country. That state alone has 200 million people, which is pretty incredible.

I hope to make it there within the next couple of years. I think it would be easy to spend half a year wandering around that country. But it's hard for me to imagine the level of poverty in these parts of India. Is it much worse than in Cambodia or Burma? Those countries have similar HDI (human development index) numbers as the poorest states in India, but I don't consider them shockingly poor.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

what's the grand ironic statement that you feel is being missed by us "merkins"?

"Shut up, racist!" is usually a good guess for these things.

[Acsenray]

Also note that because of its status as a holy city, a lot of poor people end up on Benares.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by ZipperJJ

Serious question: How is it that huge swaths of India's poor don't get wiped out by plagues?

That's always been a mystery to me too. How are a billion people able to survive to reproductive age, (I know people will fuck anyone, anywhere), successfully gestate fetuses, and raise kids to reproductive age...in what should be lethally toxic conditions and perpetual famine?

I know the answer has something to do with, "They're the lucky 10%, India is beating The Grim Reaper by sheer force of numbers." But I'm hoping there's a different answer.

[Acsenray]

Perpetual famine? If sufficient food is being produced and isn't being withheld from the market by political forces why would there be perpetual famine? I believe the last major famines in India were under British rule and were caused by a combination of catastrophic agricultural failures (drought) and faulty policy reactions. India actually is as of now a food-exporting country, so why would there be perpetual famine?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by phouka

A strong government, like our own, could fix that. India lacks a strong government, so it's going to stay that way for the time being.

I don't understand this comment.

Firstly other posters have already remarked there are areas in the USA where the poor face difficult situations. Your strong Government hasn't fixed that.

Secondly, what is your knowledge of the Indian government? I have none regarding modern times but it certainly seems strong in regard to military matters and extending influence.

And finally, Government is so broad reaching. Again, I have no recondite knowledge of how India operates but in the "government" responsible for kerbing and sewerage? Or is that down to local councils?

You have made a very broad statement with no details to back it up.

[ToeJam]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

That's always been a mystery to me too. How are a billion people able to survive to reproductive age, (I know people will fuck anyone, anywhere), successfully gestate fetuses, and raise kids to reproductive age...in what should be lethally toxic conditions and perpetual famine?

I know the answer has something to do with, "They're the lucky 10%, India is beating The Grim Reaper by sheer force of numbers." But I'm hoping there's a different answer.

Perhaps the answer to that is because a Billion people aren't living in toxic conditions and perpetual famine?

Economics of India Wiki

The Economy of India is the eleventh largest in the world by nominal GDP and the third largest by purchasing power parity (PPP).[1] The country is one of the G-20 major economies and a member of BRICS. In 2011, the country's per capita income stood at $3,694 IMF, 129th in the world, thus making a lower-middle income economy.

India recorded the highest growth rates in the mid-2000s, and is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. The growth was led primarily due to a huge increase in the size of the middle class consumer, a large labor force and considerable foreign investments. India is the nineteenth largest exporter and tenth largest importer in the world. Economic growth rates are projected at around 7% for the 2011-12 fiscal year.

The problem is that India has pockets- there are some areas of extreme affluence, but there are also plenty of areas of EXTREME poverty and malnourishment. It's got 1st world nation areas and 3rd world nation statuses just as well.

A movie that surprisingly gets it right is "Slumdog Millionaire", not so much for the plot, but just for showing the background- where you can see the various slums and conditions of people all living together, but contrasted with the later parts of the film, where you see the characters standing in highrise buildings and looking out at the developing city. That's what I tend to think of when I see India- more of the developing nations part, and India always feels like it's 10 years behind culturally, but it has been doing well for itself. The problem is not all of it is doing well for itself- but you can't look at either extreme of rich/poor and assume that's what the whole sub-continent is like- India is a land of diversity and mixed influences in all regards.