Child Maltreatment Prevention: Past, Present, And Future: Fill & Download for Free

Love Brings Sanity to Mental IllnessI have been declared sane after years of living in insanity. My mother was paranoid schizophrenic and my father was an alcoholic. There was no sanity in my growing up. I did not know I was not living in truth. The crisis, chaos, and turmoil were normal to me. My mother's fear was passed on to me in the womb, I know today. Therefore, I arrived in this world already fearful from her experiences transferring to me. As a good child, I did what I was told and adopted behaviors for my reacting from fear for my survival.My mother's mental frame of mind was my model of how to live my life. She had experienced sexual abuse and plenty of abandonment issues including attending 29 schools while growing up. Trying to function in her life, she stuffed her feelings, as she could be hurt again. She did not want to be vulnerable or maltreated again. She stayed within her heart with a big wall of protection, like the walls of a bank vault, and never emotionally ventured out to be real. She lived her life in this fantasy thinking that if she did not address it, it would go away. Eventually, I learned that I was maladjusted to life. I was in full flight from reality and an outright mentally defective person, too. These unhealthy ways to live life resulted in a chemical imbalance in my body to sustain this life. My life was not in harmony.Realistically, when you do not share the abuse, problems, or harms with a counselor or appropriate person who understands this pain, it increases. It became a huge bubble of protection for safety, keeping out reality. I followed her silent way to handle my abuse. In addition, she taught me how to get what I thought I needed by being passively controlling in my life. On the surface, I looked good while behind the scenes I took extreme measures to run from facing life, as she taught me. It took fifty years to realize I was a control freak, and I learned it from her.My father's fears started at the age of five, when he was coming to America. He was under the threat of being killed leaving Russia. He drank to ignore his fears. As mom got older, the doctors gave her medications. These stuffed her feelings which prevented her facing them and moving beyond the past. I was set up to be mentally ill, drink, and use prescriptions to run from reality.Stopping my drinking and later stopping taking medications was a decision because the side effects were worse than the problems. I had to face the truth about myself. Fortunately, I found a psychiatrist who understood this condition. In explaining my mother to me, he told me that alcoholism is not a choice, but mental illness is. Today, I understand this. There were steps to growing beyond my old learned reactions. My new way taught me to surrender to a higher power that could restore me to sanity. This allowed me to replace my fears with love as my new motivation in life. With my new spiritual life, my chemical balance returned.While meditating I heard the silent inside voice. "Marilyn, are you ready to move out of your Bipolar Disorder as you mother could not move out of her mental prison of paranoid schizophrenia?" I thought for a moment and said, "Yes". The withdrawal lasted several months, but it was worth finding my sanity. I found the drugs acted like blinders to seeing what I was doing. They stopped my being able to change my behavior to a healthy conduct. I was learning healthy behaviors to replace the old reactions from fear. Gradually, I had enough knowledge to stop my reactions and could comeback in loving solutions when the old buttons were pushed when I was free of all toxic substances. Now, I substitute God's love for the medications. I can practice responding in my new loving and healthy ways. I can see what I am doing when I do not take any more medications. Challenges can continue for me to identify, however, I do not want to react, but I can handle these situations and move forward with healthier actions, today.I was off my Depakote for a while, when on returning home from a month vacation with relatives in another state; I noticed a class on the east coast I wanted to attend. I was exhausted from the long drive home from Colorado and really needed to stay home. However, my childhood did not allow me to rest from chores or sickness. I had to keep running. I had to do the next task sick or tired, or else. When I realized in calling in to reserve my place in the class, something was wrong; I could not do that while medicated. The price for attending got higher and higher. Suddenly, I realized that the cost was climbing beyond $5,000 and this was going to be too expensive.In meditation, I was told to call them back and cancel my class reservation. My head cleared when I made the call. I had not kept running, even when exhausted. The relief of coming into sanity was obvious to me. The moment I did this, my brain and reality was restored, immediately. Today, I can evaluate the situations that appear less often and act with appropriate responses for the situation.Later, I had an episode where my paranoia schizophrenia surfaced to leave, emotionally. My anger came out like Mt. Vesuvius. This is a good sign that the past energy is leaving. I allowed the anger to go, so I would be free to live in the present or be current in my life. The prescriptions had stopped my fearful feelings from flowing out or leaving to be replaced for loving feelings. The medications had stopped my emotional growth, as I felt the little girl inside releasing the anger.I have a healthy life today in reality because I have not had a drink in 32 years and I have not taken a prescription for 16 years. I moved out of the bubble of fantasy. With many inventories to remove my past harms and future worries. My mind is focused on the "Now". That is reality. I no longer live my life based in my past or my mother's past. I have moved into the love of the moment and enjoy life as it comes.My adventure has brought me many insights into life, our consciousness, and how to restore sanity. Dr. Scott Peck, the author of the book, "People of the Lie", says that the levels of mental illness are the levels of dishonesty with oneself. I vowed to be as honest as I could be, as I did not want to be like my mother.I found a higher power of love with forgiveness can replace the past abuse, difficulties, and events. If I choose to change my mind and live in the presence of love I find that Love Never Fails. I discovered that love is a choice and heals. I found my psychiatrist was right mental illness is a choice. The choice is to live in reality or continue the past boogie men taking up space in my brain. It takes courage to face the darkness and turn on the light/love within my heart. This becomes my new basis for life.Currently, I discovered the secret that was the underlying source of the mental illness in the family. With my continuing to release more negativity for sanity, it was ready to be revealed. Nowadays I have a new honest basis for my life. We are only as sick as our secrets. Knowing the truth will set you free from the ego's protection of deceit.John Forbes Nash, Jr., who won the Nobel Laureate in Economics, was depicted in the movie, "A Beautiful Mind". In the end of the show, he is no longer plagued by his mental illness. His comment was, "I quit listening to the voices in my head." I also fired the voices and now listen to loving messages for others and myself. I have moved out my brain and into my heart. It is glorious to be free from the ego's messages that kept me in mental illness.���?�n�z!���?�n�z!

The question asked is the question whether human beings should continue existing or not.Given that there is a large amount of suffering in every human life, and that bringing a child into this world therefore implies exposing a human being to such suffering, one might argue that childbearing should be avoided and the human species should thus be allowed to grow extinct. In fact, there’s a philosophical position called anti-natalism, which maintains just that. See the page Antinatalism - Wikipedia and David Benatar’s article ‘We Are Creatures That Should Not Exist’: The Theory Of Anti-Natalism. Benatar is Professor and Head of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and the author of Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence (Oxford, 2006).Having lived for at least the past 19 years with a recurrent illness that causes immense suffering (see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Life: What is the worst thing that can happen in life?), I have often thought about the anti-natalist position. In fact the thought that it’s reckless to bring a child into this world, and thus expose a human being to the risk of horrible suffering, occurred to me before I even knew that there was a philosophical position called anti-natalism, and was what prompted me to find out whether other people also had such thoughts.Prof. Benatar lists a number of "Statistical effects of creating people", according to Antinatalism - Wikipedia, which I shall comment below."more than fifteen million people are thought to have died from natural disasters in the last 1,000 years": a rather modest estimate. Natural disasters, including famines not caused by human agency, caused 136 million deaths in the 20th Century alone according to David McCandless’ 20th Century Death — Information is Beautiful infographic, vs. 1,680 million deaths from infectious diseases (a figure too low rather than too high as it includes an underestimate of deaths from tuberculosis, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Which is the world's most dangerous disease? Why?), 530 million deaths from cancer, 1,970 million deaths from non-communicable diseases other than cancer and 980 million deaths attributed to "Humanity". The last of these figures is much too high as it contains a number of double-counts besides those identified, which I have brought to McCandless’ attention."approximately 20,000 people die every day from hunger": currently more than that, according to Worldometers - real time world statistics."an estimated 840 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition": currently less than that, according to Worldometers - real time world statistics. In this context one should also mention that the percentage of people who are undernourished has decreased considerably since 1990, see Max Roser, "Hunger and Undernourishment". The number of famine deaths also declined sharply after the Great Chinese Famine, see Max Roser, "Famines". And the share of the world’s population living in poverty and absolute poverty (which was, respectively, 94 % and 84 % in 1820) has been steadily going down and is currently at an all-time low (see Esteban Ortiz-Ospina and Max Roser, "World Poverty", especially the chart "Share of the World Population living in Absolute Poverty, 1820–2015")."between 541 ce and 1912, it is estimated that over 102 million people succumbed to plague": another estimate on the low side, considering that the Black Death alone may have reduced the world’s population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century, a loss of between 75 and 100 million or between 17 % and 22 % of the world’s population in 1300. In Europe the proportion of deaths during the peak years (1346-1353) is generally assumed to have been about one third of the population, but it may have been higher. According to medieval historian Philip Daileader in 2007, quoted on the page Black Death - Wikipedia, the trend of recent research is "pointing to a figure more like 45–50% of the European population dying during a four-year period". Norwegian historian Ole J. Benedictow ("The Black Death: The Greatest Catastrophe Ever", published in History Today, Volume 55, Issue 3 March 2005; cf. Benedictow, The Black Death 1346-1353: The Complete History, pp. 380ff.), estimated that the plague killed about 60 % of Europe’s population between 1346 and 1353, or about 50 million out of 80 million inhabitants. This would be far more than World War II in Europe (about 42 million, according to Matthew White’s page Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls) even in absolute terms, not to mention in proportion to the population. Even assuming that the Black Death killed "only" one third of Europe’s population, and that it had the above-mentioned worldwide impact of a reduction by 17-22%, the Black Death was the largest demographic catastrophe ever, if you consider Europe and the world as a whole (in the Americas, however, there was a proportionately much larger demographic catastrophe in the 16th and 17th centuries, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Was the colonization of North America the worst genocide in modern human history?). Nothing before or after killed so large a percentage of Europe’s or the world’s population, and reduced the world’s population like the plague of the 14th Century. The only man-made disaster that could equal or surpass the Black Death in terms of proportional worldwide mortality is one that will hopefully never happen – a global thermonuclear war, see my blog Germs vs. guns, or death from mass violence in perspective and Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to How would everyone really die in a nuclear war (see details)?. In fact, the impact of a nuclear war has been compared to that of the Black Death by history professor William L.Langer, see Peter R. Kann, "Langer says Black Death Provides Comparisons to Nuclear War", May 1, 1963, The Harvard Crimson (Langer says Black Death Provides Comparisons to Nuclear War | News | The Harvard Crimson)."the 1918 influenza epidemic killed 50 million people": possibly twice that number (see John M. Barry, "1918 Revisited: Lessons and Suggestions for Further Inquiry", in: Stacey L. Knobler, Alison Mack, Adel Mahmoud, Stanley M. Lemon, Editors, The Threat of Pandemic Influenza, online under The National Academies Press; Barry’s article is under 1 The Story of Influenza). The "Spanish" influenza was probably the fastest killer in history, as most of its victims died within a period of just 24 weeks. Influenza "killed more people in a year than the Black Death of the Middle Ages killed in a century; it killed more people in twenty-four weeks than AIDS has killed in twenty-four years" (John Barry, The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History, p. 5; note that the comparison with the Black Death only holds true if plague killed no more than 75 million people in the 14th Century and the influenza killed most of 100 million within 24 weeks of 1918)."11 million people die every year from infectious diseases": that number has already been exceeded by almost two million in the current year, according to Worldometers - real time world statistics. In this context it should be mentioned that infectious diseases (with tuberculosis, smallpox and possibly malaria far ahead of plague and influenza as concerns absolute numbers, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Which is the world's most dangerous disease? Why?) have been the largest cause of human death and suffering throughout history by a wide margin in relation to all other causes, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to What has caused more human death in all of history - hatred, natural disasters or disease?"malignant neoplasms take more than a further 7 million lives each year": in the current year that number has already been exceeded by over one million, according to Worldometers - real time world statistics."approximately 3.5 million people die every year in accidents": see item 13 below."approximately 56.5 million people died in 2001, that is more than 107 people per minute": the current year’s overall death toll is approaching 60 million according to Worldometers - real time world statistics. Enormous though that number is, it reflects a worldwide mortality rate that is lower than ever before in history, ca. 0.8 % per year, see Mortality rate - Wikipedia. For comparison, in the early 19th Century 0.8 % to 1 % of Europe’s population died each year from tuberculosis alone, (John Frith, "History of Tuberculosis. Part 1 - Phthisis, consumption and the White Plague", Journal of Military and Veterans’ Health, Volume 22 No. 2). Applied to the current world population approaching ca. 7,475 million (according to Worldometers - real time world statistics), the average of these rates (0.9 %) would mean about 67,275,000 annual deaths from tuberculosis alone, which is more than 7 million above the current total number of annual worldwide deaths from all causes. Even the lower rate mentioned by Frith, 0.8 % per year, would mean about 59,800,000 annual deaths from tuberculosis alone, roughly the same as the current annual total from all causes. In 14th Century England before the Black Death, the annual mortality rate regularly reached ca. 5 %, as you may read by following the link The Third Horseman, which takes you to the pertinent excerpt from William Rosen, The Third Horseman. Climate Change and the Great Famine of the 14th Century. If that was the worldwide death rate nowadays, about 373,750,000 people would die every year - more than 6 times the current actual number."before the twentieth century over 133 million people were killed in mass killings": way too low, at least under a broad definition of "mass killings" that doesn’t include only one-sided killings (if the latter is what Benatar means, his figure is probably much too high). According to Matthew White’s book Atrocitology: Humanity's 100 Deadliest Achievements: Matthew White: 9780857861221: Amazon.com: Books, cited in Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to What was/is the most violent century recorded in history?, the deadliest events of collective violence before the 20th Century (events with at least 300,000 deaths) add up to a total of 297,009,000 deaths, vs. 193,755,000 deaths in the 20th Century’s worst mass killings (and 203 million in all mass killings of the 20th Century, according to White’s page Worldwide Statistics of Casualties, Massacres, Disasters and Atrocities)."in the first 88 years of the twentieth century 170 million (and possibly as many as 360 million) people were shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hanged, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners": the "possibly as many" number is way too high, whereas 170 million for the 20th Century’s first 88 years is realistic, see previous comment."there were 1.6 million conflict-related deaths in the sixteenth century, 6.1 million in the seventeenth century, 7 million in the eighteenth, 19.4 million in the nineteenth, and 109.7 million in the twentieth": all figures are too low. The deadliest events of collective violence listed by White killed 54,684,000 people in the 17th Century, 24,670,000 in the 18th Century, 62,585,000 in the 19th Century and 193,755,000 in the 20th Century, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to What was/is the most violent century recorded in history?"war-related injuries led to 310,000 deaths in 2000": the figure is obviously based on the World Health Organization’s 2001 report (http://www.who.int/whr/2001/en/whr01_en.pdf?ua=1), where it can be found on page 148 together with the following figures: 520,000 deaths from violence other than war, 815,000 self-inflicted deaths (suicides), 3,403,000 deaths from unintentional injuries (thereof 1,260,000 in traffic accidents, 315,000 deaths from accidental poisoning, 283,000 deaths from falls, 238,000 deaths from fires, 450,000 deaths from drowning, and 857,000 deaths from other unintentional injuries). The 2016 World Health Statistics, which can be downloaded under World Health Statistics, contain the following information: "In 2015, it is provisionally estimated that 152 000 people (90% uncertainty range 89 500–234 600) were killed in wars and conflicts, corresponding to around 0.3% of all global deaths.1 This estimate does not include deaths due to the indirect effects of war and conflict on the spread of diseases, poor nutrition and collapse of health services. Between around 1990 and 2011 there was a decline in both the number and intensity of wars and conflicts.2 Although WHO estimates of global direct conflict deaths (injury deaths) vary substantially by year, there was a statistically significant average decline during 1990–2010 of 2% per year if the Rwandan genocide of 1994 is excluded (Fig. A.29.1)." In this context it should be mentioned that, in historical terms, lethal violence is at an all-time low, despite the widely reported horrors in Iraq and Syria that might give the casual observer a different impression. For details see Max Roser, "War and Peace after 1945", Max Roser, "War and Peace over the Long Run", Mohamed Nagdy and Max Roser, "Civil Wars", Mohamed Nagdy and Max Roser, "Genocides" and my blog "Germs vs. guns, or death from mass violence in perspective". One of the most noteworthy developments as concerns interpersonal violence has occurred in the city of Medellín in my native Colombia, which used to be the murder capital of the world. See Impact: Medellin - Inter-American Development Bank."about 40 million children are maltreated each year": this figure is mentioned in various online sources, including Child Abuse Statistics and Abuse and Neglect Information (citing the WHO)."more than 100 million currently living women and girls have been subjected to genital cutting": according to UNICEF, "at least 200 million girls and women have been cut in 30 countries with representative data on prevalence", see Female Genital Mutilation and Cutting - UNICEF DATA. According to a February 2016 article in The Guardian (FGM: number of victims found to be 70 million higher than thought), this number is 70 million higher than was previously assumed."815,000 people are thought to have committed suicide in 2000 (currently it is estimated that someone commits suicide every 40 seconds, more than 800,000 people per year)": see item 13 above. The current year’s number of suicides is already well over 1 million, according to Worldometers - real time world statistics.You see that I have either confirmed Prof. Benatar’s statements, or expanded on them, or updated/corrected them in a more pessimistic direction.However, I also see developments that give reason for optimism, namely in items 3 (reduction of malnutrition and poverty), 9 (reduction of mortality) and 13 (reduction of lethal violence). Further such reasons include the following, which are closely related to those mentioned under items 3, 9 and 13 and refer to developments that largely occurred in the 20th Century and continue in the present century:World life expectancy is as high as never before, see Life expectancy - Wikipedia and Max Roser, "Life Expectancy".Infant mortality is at an all-time low, see Max Roser, "Child Mortality". The total number of under-five deaths in the world fell from 12.7 million in 1990 to 6.3 million in 2013, according to the 2014 report on "Level and Trends in Child Mortality" (https://www.unicef.org/media/fil...). On page 9 of that report one reads the following: "A baby born today has a dramatically better chance of living to age five compared with one born in 1990. The global under-five mortality rate dropped 49 percent, from 90 (89,92) deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 46 (44,48) in 2013 (table 1). Over the same period the total number of under-five deaths in the world fell from 12.7 million in 1990 to 6.3 million in 2013 (table 2). Put another way, 17,000 fewer children died each day in 2013 than in 1990—thanks to more effective and affordable treatments, innovative ways of delivering critical preventive and curative interventions to the poor and excluded, and sustained political commitment. These and other vital child survival interventions have helped save about 100 million lives since 1990." The number of children’s lives saved since 1990 exceeds the combined death toll of both world wars.At least one disease that has scourged mankind since 10,000 B.C. and killed at least 300 million people in the 20th Century alone, smallpox (see Smallpox - Wikipedia) has been completely eradicated. See also Max Roser, "Eradication of Diseases". Another communicable disease, measles, was estimated to have caused 2.6 million deaths per year in 1980. In 1990 deaths from that disease were down to 545,000, and in 2013 there were 96,000 deaths from measles throughout the world (see Measles - Wikipedia). Deaths from malaria, which stood at 2 million per year in the first half of the 20th Century, are now half that many or less (see Rosemary Drisdelle, "Malaria Killed Half the People Who Have Ever Lived", Max Roser, "Eradication of Diseases" and Worldometers - real time world statistics), despite a much larger world population.The 20th Century was the first in history in which non-communicable diseases, which mostly occur at advanced ages, took the place of infectious diseases as the main cause of death. In all previous centuries most people died from infectious diseases. As late as 1900, infectious diseases (pneumonia and influenza, tuberculosis, gastrointestinal infections and diphtheria) caused 52.74 % of all deaths in the US, see Chart: What Killed Us, Then and Now. The proportion of deaths from infectious diseases was probably much higher in many other countries than in the US, particularly in poorer countries like China and India. And it was probably much higher worldwide throughout most of the 19th Century, the 18th Century and previous centuries. An English statistic for the years 1848 to 1854, mentioned in Steffen Kröhnert and Margret Karsch, "Sterblichkeit und Todesursachen", Berlin-Institut für Bevölkerung und Entwicklung: Sterblichkeit, shows that infectious diseases were responsible for 60 % of all deaths in that period. According to a display at the Reuben Fleet Science Museum in San Diego, mentioned under 10 leading causes of death in 1850 and 2000, the 10 leading causes of death in 1850 were all infectious diseases. Regarding causes of death in 17th Century London, see A 17th Century spreadsheet of deaths in London.The 20th Century was the first in history in which world population at the end of the century exceeded the number of deaths from all causes that occurred during the century. In all previous centuries the number of deaths during the century largely exceeded the number of world inhabitants at its end. This statement is based on the calculations rendered in Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Was the twentieth century one of the worst centuries in human history (regarding war, inhumanity, suffering etc.)?, whereby the relation of deaths during a century versus the number of people alive on the planet at its end was the following: 454:100 in the 13th Century (the 1200s), 530:100 in the 14th Century (the 1300s), 454:100 in the 15th Century (the 1400s), 395:100 in the 16th Century (the 1500s), 391:100 in the 17th Century (the 1600s), 326:100 in the 18th Century (the 1700s), 298:100 in the 19th Century (the 1800s) and 84:100 in the 20th Century (the 1900s).Countless millions of human beings (far more than were killed by human agency) were saved from premature deaths in the 20th Century due to advances in medical and other science. Just a few examples:American biologist and humanitarian Norman Borlaug, "the father of the Green Revolution", is credited with having saved over a billion people worldwide from death by starvation. (See Norman Borlaug - Wikipedia. The webpage Who Saved the Most Lives in History credits Borlaug, Norman with "only" about 295 million lives saved, which still exceeds the total of 20th Century deaths from mass violence estimated by White, mentioned in item 10 above.)Landsteiner, Karl and Lewisohn, Richard, through the discovery of blood groups and the invention of blood transfusions, saved a number of lives more than five times higher than the total number of deaths from war and oppression estimated by White.The means against tuberculosis developed in the late 19th and the 20th Century, which Robert Koch’s identification of the tuberculosis bacterium in 1882 made possible, saved the lives of at least 529,765,555 but arguably as many 1,134,290,234 people according to my calculations (see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Heroes: Has anyone ever literally saved the world?).What was achieved for the benefit of humanity in the 20th Century far outweighs the man-made catastrophes that give the 20th Century such a bad image in the eyes of contemporaries. And the count goes on. According to the Science Heroes News page, the number of lives saved by the scientists honored on this website currently exceeds 5,317,210,000, which is more than the total number of deaths from all causes in the 20th Century according to my calculations in Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Was the twentieth century one of the worst centuries in human history (regarding war, inhumanity, suffering etc.)?, and that according to statistics that range from conservative (see the above example of Norman Borlaug) to ridiculously low (as in the case of Robert Koch, see Roberto Muehlenkamp's answer to Heroes: Has anyone ever literally saved the world?). To be sure, not all these benefactors of humanity worked in the 20th Century. The most prominent person to make a live-saving discovery in the 18th Century was Jenner, Edward, who has been credited with saving over 553,737,000 lives as I write this.The above-mentioned and other achievements in reducing human suffering and improving human life are the main reason why, despite the suffering in my own life and my above comments to Prof. Benatar’s "Statistical effects of creating people", I don’t endorse the anti-natalist position.However short, high on suffering and low on joy life in the present era may be for the average human being, it used to be shorter, higher on suffering and lower on joy in times past, especially before the 20th Century. And yet people living under much tougher conditions than we do today didn’t allow the human species to become extinct, but instead maintained it and thus made possible major achievements in increasing life expectancy, improving health and reducing malnutrition, poverty and violence. The current trend (which could be reversed if an aggressive Russia, an expansive China and/or the new man in the White House should mess it all up, perhaps even to the point of factually answering the question How would everyone really die in a nuclear war (see details)?) is (still) towards longer and happier lives and less human suffering throughout the world, as was pointed out by Zack Beauchamp in 5 Reasons Why 2013 Was The Best Year In Human History. Ongoing developments in science, the necessary stable environment provided, are likely to lead to further improvements, including effective treatments for horrible diseases like the one that I and about 350 million people throughout the world (according to the WHO’s page on Depression) suffer from, which return sufferers to the bright side of life. Even if I don’t live to see such improvements, there’s a good chance that someone being born today will, and that such diseases will wholly or to a large extent become past painful memories like the plague, smallpox and tuberculosis (the last of these still kills about 1.8 million people worldwide each year according to the WHO’s page on Tuberculosis (TB), but if death rates from that disease were as high worldwide as they were in Europe in the early 19th Century, see item 9 above, the number of worldwide annual deaths from tuberculosis alone would be at least as high as the current number of worldwide annual deaths from all causes).Life is a struggle - not as much as in the past but still a struggle, and it will never cease to be one however much science, humanitarian ideals and international cooperation may contribute to improving life. The opposite of depression, as someone wrote, is not happiness but vitality, the capacity to enjoy the good and feel bad about the bad that happens in your life, as opposed to feeling bad regardless of what happens good or bad. And an overwhelming majority of human beings, which will hopefully be increased by the progress of medical science, are blessed with that capacity. That’s why I wouldn’t discourage anyone from bringing a child into this world, provided that person is not incapacitated by disease and has good reasons to hope that his or her offspring will live a healthy and fulfilled life, with suffering reduced to the extent humanly possible.At the end of his article ‘We Are Creatures That Should Not Exist’: The Theory Of Anti-Natalism, Prof. Benatar quotes TV series character Rust Cohle as saying that "light’s winning" over darkness. Prof. Benatar disagrees, and I also consider that statement of reconsidering anti-natalist Cohle too optimistic. But I hope to have demonstrated above that light has conquered territory from darkness throughout the history of mankind. Whether it will ever conquer enough territory to render anti-natalism an unsustainable position is open to question, but the attempt to conquer that much territory is an ongoing endeavor worth pursuing. And one way of furthering it is to bring into the world human beings who have a chance of benefiting from such endeavor, and may even actively contribute to it.This answer is dedicated to a lady who expects to bring a child into this world in a couple of months. She is also a philosopher. I wish her and the child all the best.PS:I would like to point out the very pertinent comment by Mike Collins, copied below. I remember it whenever life makes me wonder if I’m really all that convinced about my argument in this answer.Very thorough and interesting answer, one of the best I’ve ever read on the subject of anti-natalism. I’ve read “Better Never To Have Been” and found Prof. Benatar’s arguments quite compelling and solidly constructed. But I have to say, your agreement with some aspects of anti-natalism while putting forth an argument for continued human procreation gave me a lot to think about. Ultimately, though, I believe the anti-natalism viewpoint holds up 100%. If we ever do get to the point where technology completely spares us all from disease, hunger, war, murder, and other physical maladies, then I would be somewhat less staunchly anti-natalist, for at least then we could be sure that any new people we create would suffer far less than those we’re creating today. But… there would still be the issue of emotional and mental suffering. What technology is going to alleviate the intense grief most people experience when a parent dies, or a child, or a husband or wife? This kind of grief is guaranteed for virtually every single person born today, except for those who perish in their early years. If technology somehow allows us to completely escape death or to feel no sense of grief or sorrow, then this raises all sorts of other moral and philosophical questions. Would a life without grief, boredom, loneliness, anxiety, sadness, or any negative emotions really be “life” at all? At that point, we would be redefining “life” as we know it, and all philosophical theories of existence and morality would need to be radically altered.Ultimately, it is a sliding scale, and yes — people born today are likely to endure less absolute suffering than those born 100 or 1,000 years ago. However, every single new person brought into existence is still virtually guaranteed to experience a lot of suffering in their lives, some of it intense, some of it moderate, some long lasting, some brief. How can we justify the creation of this suffering when we know that it is virtually guaranteed to happen for every new being we create? No technology—now or in the foreseeable future— is going to ensure the end of ALL forms of suffering for every sentient being. And until that happens, anti-natalism holds.

There are a ton of statistics and a ton of studies. One that seems to come up multiple times -- to answer your question about what happens to them in society -- is that they are re-victimized, suffer from post-trauma afflictions such as PTSD, etc.:Here are just a few studies from a cursory search -- two just happened to be China -- the last one deals with suicide, which is a "death" term I used in a search to satisfy that part of your question. Let me know what other kinds of death to which you are referring.Chan, Ko Ling. "Association between childhood sexual abuse and adult sexual victimization in a representative sample in Hong Kong." Child Abuse & Neglect; Mar2011, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p220-229, 10p.Objective: The current study investigated the prevalence and impact of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) on adult sexual victimization (ASV) in Hong Kong, China. This study also examines correlates of demographic characteristics, depression, suicidal ideation, and self-esteem with ASV. Methods: A total of 5,049 Chinese adult respondents were interviewed face-to-face about their experiences of CSA, childhood witness of parental violence, ASV (by non-partner), and intimate partner violence (IPV). Self-reports also measured depression, suicidal ideation, self-esteem, and demographic details. Results: Of all respondents, 0.9% reported some form of CSA, with a higher percentage being women. CSA was found to pose a significant risk for preceding year IPV (sexual) after controlling for demographic factors. Gender, age, indebtedness, alcohol and drug abuse, depression, and low self-esteem significantly increased the odds of IPV (sexual), whereas suicidal ideation and being newly arrived from China increased the risk of ASV (by non-partner). Childhood witness of parental psychological aggression and physical violence were also associated with a higher risk of IPV (sexual). Conclusions: Childhood sexual abuse may have an independent association with future sexual victimization in adulthood, but many covariates can also affect the impact of CSA and increase the risk of revictimization. Practical implications: Intervention with ASV should include an assessment of CSA history and thus a screening for multiple victimization from IPV among victims. Prevention of revictimization for IPV victims with CSA histories may focus on making social and individual changes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]Rangul Askeland, Ingunn, Evang, Are, Heir, Trond. Association of Violence Against Partner and Former Victim Experiences: A Sample of Clients Voluntarily Attending Therapy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence; Apr2011, Vol. 26 Issue 6, p1095-1110, 16p.The authors addressed the associations between childhood and adolescence victimization and partner violence in adulthood. Data were collected on 480 men voluntarily attending therapy with a semistructured interview that assessed (a) violent behavior, categorized as physical violence, physical controlling behavior, property violence, psychologically controlling behavior, psychological degradation, indirect aggression, or sexual violence and (b) victim experiences during childhood or adolescence, categorized as physical abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse, or exposure to violence between family members. Prior victim experiences of family violence were reported by 60% of participants. Regression analyses showed that past victim experiences, especially physical abuse, was associated with adult violence (p < .05). Specifically, physical abuse was associated with psychologically controlling behavior (p < .05) and sexual abuse with sexual violence (p < .05). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]Lalor, Kevin, McElvaney, Rosaleen. Child Sexual Abuse, Links to Later Sexual Exploitation / High-Risk Sexual Behavior, and Prevention / Treatment Programs. Trauma, Violence & Abuse; Oct2010, Vol. 11 Issue 4, p159-177, 19p.This paper reviews the literature on the nature and incidence of child sexual abuse, explores the link between child sexual abuse and later sexual exploitation, and reviews the literature on prevention strategies and effective interventions in child sexual abuse services. Our understanding of the international epidemiology of child sexual abuse is considerably greater than it was just 10 years ago, and studies from around the world are examined. Childhood sexual abuse can involve a wide number of psychological sequelae, including low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Numerous studies have noted that child sexual abuse victims are vulnerable to later sexual revictimization, as well as the link between child sexual abuse and later engagement in high-risk sexual behaviour. Survivors of child sexual abuse are more likely to have multiple sex partners, become pregnant as teenagers, and experience sexual assault as adults. Various models which attempt to account for this inter-relationship are presented; most invoke mediating variables such as low self-esteem, drug/alcohol use, PTSD and distorted sexual development. Prevention strategies for child sexual abuse are examined including media campaigns, school-based prevention programmes, and therapy with abusers. The results of a number of meta-analyses are examined. However, researchers have identified significant methodological limitations in the extant research literature that impede the making of recommendations for implementing existing therapeutic programmes unreservedly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]Luo, Ye, Parish, William L., Laumann, Edward O. A population-based study of childhood sexual contact in China: Prevalence and long-term consequences. Child Abuse & Neglect; Jul2008, Vol. 32 Issue 7, p721-731, 11p.Objectives: This study provides national estimates of the prevalence of childhood sexual contact and its association with sexual well-being and psychological distress among adults in China. Method: A national stratified probability sample of 1,519 women and 1,475 men aged 20–64 years in urban China completed a computer-administered survey in 1999–2000. The data from this survey on both adult-to-child and peer-to-peer sexual contact before age 14 were subjected to descriptive and multivariate analyses that were adjusted for both sampling weights and sampling design. Results: The overall prevalence of reported childhood sexual contact was 4.2%, with prevalence higher among men (5.1%) than among women (3.3%) and higher among those aged 20–29 years (8.3%). Childhood sexual contact was associated with multiplex consequences, including hyper-sexuality (high levels of masturbation, thoughts about sex, varieties of sexual practices, partner turnover), adult sexual victimization (unwanted sex, unwanted sexual acts, sexual harassment), sexual difficulties (genitor-urinary symptoms, sexually transmitted infections, sexual dysfunctions), and psychological distress. Psychological distress was largely mediated by adult sexual victimization, sexual difficulties, and hyper-sexuality. Conclusions: Despite the relatively modest prevalence of childhood sexual contact among Chinese adults, the association with multiplex adult outcomes suggests that much as in the West early sexual contact is a significant issue. Practice implications: The findings underscore the importance of public education about childhood sexual contact and abuse in China. The findings suggest a need for public health campaigns that tackle the stigma associated with being abused and encourage victims to report abusive behavior to proper sources. The findings are also consistent with new efforts to alleviate the negative long-term impact of childhood sexual abuse. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]Dube, Shanta R., Anda, Robert F., Whitfield, Charles L., Brown, David W., Felitti, Vincent J., Dong, Maxia, Giles, Wayne H. Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim. American Journal of Preventive Medicine; Jun2005, Vol. 28 Issue 5, p430-438, 9p.Background: Childhood sexual abuse (CSA) is a worldwide problem. Although most studies on the long-term consequences of CSA have focused on women, sexual abuse of both boys and girls is common. Thus, a comparison of the long-term effects of CSA by gender of the victim will provide perspective on the need for future research, prevention activities, and treatment of survivors. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted from 1995 to 1997 among 17,337 adult HMO members in San Diego, California. Participants completed a survey about abuse or household dysfunction during childhood, and multiple other health-related issues. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the relationships between severity of CSA (intercourse vs no intercourse) and long-term health and social problems (substance use and abuse, mental illness, and current problems with marriage and family) by gender of victim. Models controlled for exposure to other forms of adverse childhood experiences that co-occur with CSA. Among men, the relationship between the gender of the CSA perpetrator to the outcomes was also examined. Results: Contact CSA was reported by 16% of males and 25% of females. Men reported female perpetration of CSA nearly 40% of the time, and women reported female perpetration of CSA 6% of the time. CSA significantly increased the risk of the outcomes. The magnitude of the increase was similar for men and women. For example, compared to reporting no sexual abuse, a history of suicide attempt was more than twice as likely among both men and women who experienced CSA (p&#60;0.05). Compared with those who did not report CSA, men and women exposed to CSA were at a 40% increased risk of marrying an alcoholic, and a 40% to 50% increased risk of reporting current problems with their marriage (p&#60;0.05). Conclusions: In this cohort of adult HMO members, experiencing CSA was common among both men and women. The long-term impact of CSA on multiple health and social problems was similar for both men and women. These findings strongly indicate that boys and girls are vulnerable to this form of childhood maltreatment; the similarity in the likelihood for multiple behavioral, mental, and social outcomes among men and women suggests the need to identify and treat all adults affected by CSA. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]