One Million Deaths Per Year
July 15, 2009 - 12:04pm
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Savings Lives with Self-Control:
"With all the talk of swine flu, universal health insurance and computerizing medical records, you'd think epidemics and inadequate medical care were the major threats to public health in this country. But an important new study on preventable deaths will quickly disabuse you of that notion. Read the report and you'll likely conclude that the biggest premature killer of Americans is . . . Americans.
Too many of us appear to be bent on slow-motion suicide. Consider smoking; if we could get every American to stop, we'd save 467,000 lives annually. Solving high blood pressure (much of it arising from unhealthy lifestyles) would save 395,000. And if we could get everyone to slim down to an appropriate body weight, we'd save 216,000 lives.
You can't aggregate all the lives that would be saved from the 12 lifestyle factors covered by the study because of some serious overlap; obesity, for instance, causes a lot of hypertension. But Dr. Majid Ezzati, a Harvard School of Public Health professor who co-authored the report, estimates that if you net out the double-counting, somewhat more than a million people die annually from the 12 behavioral risk factors, which include the obvious (immoderate alcohol consumption) and the less so (eating too little fish, which provides omega-3 fatty acids).
Put more starkly: Of the 2.5 million deaths that occur annually in America, something approaching half could be prevented if people simply led healthier lives.
The study, "The Preventable Causes of Death in the United States: Comparative Risk Assessment of Dietary, Lifestyle, and Metabolic Risk Factors," has some serious policy implications. Take universal health insurance -- which Dr. Ezzati fully advocates. It would surely save lives, but as the authors acknowledge, "the results of our analysis of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors show that targeting a handful of risk factors has large potential to reduce mortality in the US, substantially more than the current estimated 18,000 deaths" that advocates say universal coverage might avert."
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Here's a direct link to the published study itself:
The Preventable Causes of Death in the United States: Comparative Risk Assessment of Dietary, Lifestyle, and Metabolic Risk Factors
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Down with the advertisers of death!
Down with the advertisers of death!
Last time I walked by a McD's, no one was putting a gun to anyone's head to order and eat a Big Mac and a large order of fries.
Besides, advertisers have nothing to do with people being couch potatoes and doing little or no exercise (which is probably the biggest problem).
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Libertarianism is so rational, so individualistic, so disconnected from social/psychological reality, so God-like in its certainties.
The study indicates that 1 million lives are lost each year due, largely, to lifestyle choices. I'm not in favor of banning things (look how well that worked with alcohol in the 1920s and with the current "war on drugs"). But, I do favor a more proactive government with respect to education.
In addition, as a society, can't poor lifestyle choices (like not exercising and overeating) start to be equated with, say, smoking? Smoking over the last twenty years has come to be viewed by most people as an ugly habit to be avoided. It's so much less socially acceptable. Parties used to be filled with smokers. Now, smokers are becoming the rare exception because, in no small part, smoking is viewed so negatively by society.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Sven, do you think the elimination of pro-smoking advertisments player a part in that diminishment?
I really do get sick of McDonalds ads telling me how much fun and how many friends id have if I would just go buy a Big Mac
I really do get sick of McDonalds ads telling me how much fun and how many friends id have if I would just go buy a Big Mac
Do those ads cause you to eat at McD's? Or, do you tune the ads out and make other choices? I choose to tune them out.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I really do get sick of McDonalds ads telling me how much fun and how many friends id have if I would just go buy a Big Mac
Do those ads cause you to eat at McD's? Or, do you tune the ads out and make other choices? I choose to tune them out.
I certainly do tune them out, its the little kiddies i worry about
I certainly do tune them out, its the little kiddies i worry about
If McD ads are one of the biggest threats to little kiddies, they have nothing to worry about life.
Besides, what do you want to do, ban McD ads?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
If McD ads are one of the biggest threats to little kiddies, they have nothing to worry about life.
Besides, what do you want to do, ban McD ads?
Well I wouldnt say its the biggest threat to kids at all and i agree with your sentiments towards banning things, but a little more accountability on the side of the producers of these products would be nice (not just McDs either that was just an example).
Just make them honest ads, explaining just what consuming that food can do to people.
You wouldn't want to mislead, would you Sven? Not the Christian thing to do! Not now that we are demanding honesty even from Wall Street!
Of course this aspect was overlooked by sven!
Just make them honest ads, explaining just what consuming that food can do to people.
You mean have the McD ads tell people that if they eat two Big Macs and a large order of fries everyday that they will likely...get fat?
ETA: I suppose we could also require car ads in America to each explicitly warn would-be customers that over 40,000 people die in those damned machines every year.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
In America, anything is possible, Sven. Look around at what The Land of the Free has accomplished recently...in the name of some kind of freedom.
In America, anything is possible, Sven. Look around at what The Land of the Free has accomplished recently...in the name of some kind of freedom.
Indeed. People making stupid choices is a downside of the freedom to choose.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I go onto an American medical site sometimes to chat with the folks, and basically, Americans largely scorn any explanation besides personal responsibility to account for lifestyle-related illnesses. I tried arguing with them, saying Americans are the fattest people in the world, and people have noticed that when they leave the US to live in Europe (or Canada!), they lose weight, and vice versa. I pointed out that if something is a widespread phenomenon, there must be cultural forces at work that are larger than the individual. But they continue to say, everybody has the freedom to put the fork down, and besides, it's immoral to interfere with the free market (I think some of these people read too much Ayn Rand at a vulnerable age).
I pointed out that if something is a widespread phenomenon, there must be cultural forces at work that are larger than the individual.
There probably are a variety of "cultural forces" which influence people's behavior, but those cultural forces do not strip people of their ability to make individual choices. If I want to sit on my couch at night or if I want to go for a walk, the choice is up to me.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
If one leaves it up to yakking individuals to rule whether it is individuals who rule, what answer do you expect to get? There is not much truth in advertising, but there is even less in Internet forum opinionizing.
Opinionizing or moralizing md?
Sure as hell isn't based on social science, eh?
Sineed brings explanation and comparison, thankfully.
Is this a confession?
Besides, what do you want to do, ban McD ads?
I'd start there, but my ultimate goal would be to bulldoze McDo sites and plant them over with potato patches or fruit trees.
Besides, what do you want to do, ban McD ads?
I'd start there, but my ultimate goal would be to bulldoze McDo sites and plant them over with potato patches or fruit trees.
I guess that is where we have a fundamental difference: I don't like McD's but I'm not going to impose my preference on those who do.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
But what about all those dying people?
But what about all those dying people?
What about all of the lives destroyed and lost due to the availability of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
But that's regulated. To minors at least.
But that's regulated. To minors at least.
So, all of the lives lost and destroyed by alcohol, drugs, and tobacco is acceptable...simply because they are "regulated"? What's that supposed to mean?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
The Mickey D's is usually associated.
The Mickey D's is usually associated.
Now you're just talking in riddles.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Why isn't food regulated like the vices you're noting?
eta: or regulated to the same degree.
Why isn't food regulated like the vices you're noting?
eta: or regulated to the same degree.
Perhaps you're missing my point: Alcohol and tobacco are heavily regulated and drugs are so regulated that they are illegal. Yet, despite those regulations, they kill people by the millions. Thus the "success" of regulation.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
But your article also says millions are also dying of McPukes. Where's the outrage?
But your article also says millions are also dying of McPukes. Where's the outrage?
The article is not saying that millions are dying because of McDonalds. Poor food choices generally along with poor alcohol use choices, poor tobacco choices, poor exercise choices, and so forth are causing a million unnecessary deaths annually.
As someone who tends to be libertarian, I don't think we should be regulating any of those things (certainly not banning them or making them illegal). Do you?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
When a libertarian "comes clean", Sven, the debate has to end, because a rational, scientific approach will never break through the firewall of self-importance of your standard libertarian, whose worldview has all the sweep of a hermit.
You are not describing the human condition, only the statistics that allow you to retreat to your smug, superior little world with some kind of satisfaction. To paraphrase the old Christian explanation for the difference that you seek to explain between yourself and the hoi polloi: There but for the grace of my own superior intellect go I.
When a libertarian "comes clean", Sven, the debate has to end, because a rational, scientific approach will never break through the firewall of self-importance of your standard libertarian
That is a wonderul example of "a rational, scientiific apprproach" to discussing this issue, Victor.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
For drugs, alcohol and tobacco there are programs of education and a general understanding that these will have negative impacts on your life, which came about through the concious effort of people who realized the dangers of persistant use of these substances. I am of the opinion that the same considerations should be made for 'junk food' and I do believe it has come a long way in recent years.
Freedom of choice will always be available but somewhere the protection of truthful and unbiased information must be upheld, and it is certainly not going to come from the producers..
Poor lifestlye choices, especially around food are more complex than simply telling people to put the fork down, though clearly personal choice does enter into it.
Products like HFCS and other refined carbohydrates can create addictive behaviours in some folks, especially in children. Put that together with the food scientists who are working on maximizing the pleasure centres hit by each bite of Big Mac or Whopper and the advertising aimed at children and you have something I consider insideous.
Healthy, fresh food is often more expensive than it's cheaper, nutritionally bankrupt alternatives. During the recent (and ongoing) slide in the economy, McD's was actually doing better than when times were more prosperous. I would attribute this to it's cost as well as the psychological comfort it gives to some people.
It comes down to education around healthy eating (of which there is almost none in the public schools) and making physical activity either necessary or affordable. Of course this is where people chime in that walking is free. My reply is that in terms of finding time, walking is sometimes less free than you might think, given the costs of child care, etc.
People are making poor choices for myriad of factors, not merely a lack of will-power. Of course, if someone was very fit, it might be comforting to believe that other people merely lacked will power and therefore were inferior. Clearly, trends are showing an increasing level of inactivity, poor eating habits, and morbid obesity, I find it difficult to surmise that this is all merely due to a collective decline in will power, that is about as believable as the claim that somehow there has been a rapid evolution in the last 100 years to predispose folks to obesity.
edit to say that Dbrids hit the nail on the head...
LOL!
But more seriously, I was having a conversation last evening with a family member, who has a bit of the libertarian streak within, but only in so far as it pertains to his choices and freedoms.
It seems to me, that libertarianism appeals in the majority to white men.
It seems to me, that libertarianism appeals in the majority to white men.
And, just to complete that thought:
"Therefore, libertarianism is closely associated with racism and sexism."
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
We all gotta go to that lonesome valley someday. Pick your poison, and don't whine when it bites.
It seems to me, that libertarianism appeals in the majority to white men.
I've noticed that too; it's like a cultural trait.
As part of these courses I'm taking, I've read some articles on the prevention of diabetes. In a nutshell, diet and exercise are the most effective means of preventing type II diabetes; however, the study participants found it extremely hard to comply with the measures prescribed to them even with intensive follow up (counselling sessions, etc). What I'd like to see are "sin taxes" on unhealthy foods, and more support for lifestyle changes.
As has been said before, part of the problem is that the US is a car-centric culture, their cities, towns, structured around driving from place to place, while most European cities had substantial infrastructure in place centuries before cars, so people have to walk a lot to get to places. The best way to lose weight, I have found, is to make healthier choices part of your day, so you don't even think about it or have to exercise any will power. So I don't own a car, and by necessity have to walk a lot - I lost weight after I got rid of the car.
I know not everybody can be car-less, but if people's lives were structured such that they walked more when doing their shopping, and when they arrived at the grocery store, the crappy food isn't front and centre, cheap and easy, people won't require so much will power.
People do have to make an effort, especially when you get over 40. But there has to be more societal support.
And, just to complete that thought:
"Therefore, libertarianism is closely associated with racism and sexism."
Wow, are you admiting this? As you stated that, not me.
I know not everybody can be car-less, but if people's lives were structured such that they walked more when doing their shopping, and when they arrived at the grocery store, the crappy food isn't front and centre, cheap and easy, people won't require so much will power.
I know that as a cash strapped student i would greatly appreciate healthy food being cheaper than the garbage, when you start getting low on funds you have choice but to start eating junk.
Your points about autocentric North America are extremely relevant, driving through new communties built at automobile scale makes you wonder if anyone is thinking about life past twenty years from now.
And, just to complete that thought:
"Therefore, libertarianism is closely associated with racism and sexism."
Wow, are you admiting this? As you stated that, not me.
No. Of course not. But what is the point of your comment about libertarians being mostly "white men"?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Theoretically, I think this is a great idea but the problem is: Who decides what's unhealthy? The Canada Food Guide looks like it was designed by the Dairy Board.
Agreed. Making and keeping a commitment to walk to work, shop, whatever, is so much easier than imposing a gym schedule.
http://rabble.ca/babble/culture/libertarianism-classist-cultural-crutch-...
I know that as a cash strapped student i would greatly appreciate healthy food being cheaper than the garbage, when you start getting low on funds you have choice but to start eating junk.
There are some healthy foods that are really quite inexpensive, the trouble is that they are not the most flavourful and eating them becomes boring. Bulk oats, tuna, legumes, etc.
I'd love to see healthy foods like fresh local produce subsidized in some way though I can only imagine the cries of market tampering.
I was once a cash-strapped student (there was this one time while I was waiting for the student loan cheque to come, when I was going through all my cupboards looking for anything to feed the family) and I didn't resort to eating junk. Cooking at home is far cheaper than any fast food place.
I should have the freedom not to have a McDo (or ten) where I live. I pay my taxes, dammit!
I was once a cash-strapped student (there was this one time while I was waiting for the student loan cheque to come, when I was going through all my cupboards looking for anything to feed the family) and I didn't resort to eating junk. Cooking at home is far cheaper than any fast food place.
I agree that home cooking is always cheaper than fast food, the junk i was referring to in this case was the cheap grocery store junk. For example nice fruits and vegetables are expensive! same with meats and poulty.
But KD and ketchup is still a solid meal don't get me wrong
Especially if you perf it up by cutting up hot dog weiners into it!
Like mine with tuna and sweet red pepper and chilie sauce. ;)
I quit eating fish (after watching a David Suzuki program on the damage humans are doing to oceans through overfishing) then meat (it seemed the logical next step) while I was a student. Chick peas and lentils are pretty cheap compared to animal matter.
I invented a dish where I'd put tofu skins, soy sauce, miso and a few vegetables in my ramen noodle soup. That's student cheap, yet relatively nutritious. I'd also go to the "delete bin" and pick through the half-price semi-rotten vegetables at Superstore. Since it was Superstore, the quality was only marginally worse than the stuff they sold for full price
I quit eating fish (after watching a David Suzuki program on the damage humans are doing to oceans through overfishing) then meat (it seemed the logical next step) while I was a student. Chick peas and lentils are pretty cheap compared to animal matter.
I invented a dish where I'd put tofu skins, soy sauce, miso and a few vegetables in my ramen noodle soup. That's student cheap, yet relatively nutritious. I'd also go to the "delete bin" and pick through the half-price semi-rotten vegetables at Superstore. Since it was Superstore, the quality was only marginally worse than the stuff they sold for full price
Gosh, al-Qa'bong, how was it even possible for you to do that?!? I mean, to hear some people assess the matter, it is damned near physically impossible (without the intervention of God Herself -- or the government, of course) for someone of meager means to eat healthy...and thus avoid becoming fat.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Well, al!
Are you, too, a libertarian?
Or just a guy who thinks about our common fate, watches Suzuki, and opts to act out of moral suasion out of concern for the collective? (That was very badly put, but dammit it can't be that only the libertarian has will power, eh? Say it ain't so!) Please.
Gosh, al-Qa'bong, how was it even possible for you to do that?!? I mean, to hear some people assess the matter, it is damned near physically impossible (without the intervention of God Herself -- or the government, of course) for someone of meager means to eat healthy...and thus avoid becoming fat.
Well, clearly if poor people worked harder they could earn more money and then eat more healthfully. I think I'm beginning to see your side of things Sven!
ps..what exactly is fat by your standards? The BMI is shit for anyone who actually has any muscle mass...so where is the BF% cut off? Above 10 for men, abover 16 for women? I would like to know who amongst my friends I can begin to castigate for being fat and therefore lazy.
Well, clearly if poor people worked harder they could earn more money and then eat more healthfully. I think I'm beginning to see your side of things Sven!
Did I say that? No. I said that if a person has meager means, it doesn't necessarily mean that a person has to eat a terrible diet composed largely of McDonads and processesed food.
ps..what exactly is fat by your standards? The BMI is shit for anyone who actually has any muscle mass...so where is the BF% cut off? Above 10 for men, abover 16 for women? I would like to know who amongst my friends I can begin to castigate for being fat and therefore lazy.
If the BMI is "shit" -- then what measure would you use? Besides, if Americans are healthy, then Europeans must be malnurished.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Well, clearly if poor people worked harder they could earn more money and then eat more healthfully. I think I'm beginning to see your side of things Sven!
Did I say that? No. I said that if a person has meager means, it doesn't necessarily mean that a person has to eat a terrible diet composed largely of McDonads and processesed food.
ps..what exactly is fat by your standards? The BMI is shit for anyone who actually has any muscle mass...so where is the BF% cut off? Above 10 for men, abover 16 for women? I would like to know who amongst my friends I can begin to castigate for being fat and therefore lazy.
If the BMI is "shit" -- then what measure would you use? Besides, if Americans are healthy, then Europeans must be malnurished.
Well, I would use bf% which is in my response. The BMI is not accurate for people who life heavy things (and if you read my post you'd see that I said that it was shit for certain people, it does work for many)...but I feel I'm repeating myself here. Nowhere did I mention that I believe the majority of Americans or Canadians are healthy. Clearly obesity is becoming a major health concern. I take my health extremely seriously and am concerned about upcoming suffering headed our way due to obesity as well as the increased mortality rates and health care costs. I just try not to get self righteous about it all as it doesn't seem to help do much but make me look like an ass.
Certainly, the sum of the solution must end up with people changing their behaviour. I just feel that maybe understanding the context that creates this behaviour might better help ameliorate it. Merely using judgemental attitudes and condescension to change behaviour doesn't work.
Of course you didn't say poor people should work harder, but you did say that fat people should eat more healthfully and exercise more. The manner in which you said it reminded me of the snide and contemptuous tone used by the wealthy to dismiss the concerns of the poor.
I'll admit that some of my posts have been snarky, cps. But, geez, it's hard not to be when many people assert that the problem of obesity has less to do with personal responsibility than with a plethora of external factors "making people fat". Someone posted above that even going for a walk is not a practical option if a person has kids and no child care. I mean, com'on.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I'm with you on some of this, Sven. I don't really blame McDonalds, I blame the "billions and billions served." I don't see how they cannot know the damage they are doing to themselves, and to the rest of us, by patronizing places like McDo, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Well, I suppose so, but I'd say "feeling guilty," which has a more private connotation, rather than "moral suasion," which invites comparisons with everbody else. Once someone says "I made a moral choice," his or her audience says, "Oh yeah? Fine, go ahead. Be all moral and better than the rest of us. For that I'm going to eat a bucket of chicken out of spite."
I understand, or think I understand where you're coming from. I agree that for a large number of people, personal choice is more responsible than other external pressures. However, one of the things I have noticed is that having a choice is not the ultimate arbiter of healthy living...understanding that one has a choice. That understanding comes through education, awareness, and societal/cultural supports.
The person above who posted the bit about walking and child care was me...lol. I stand by it though. For an obese person, or anyone for that matter, a low intensity walk would need to be well over an hour to see any real benefits. I know there is the 'every little bit counts' option as well, but let's be real. 20-30 mins of walking isn't going to do a whole hell of a lot. Of course a parent with children and no childcare can choose to go for a walk, but only if s/he sees it as a viable option, especially after a full work day, meal prep for kids, etc. Time might just not be handy for someone in that situation. Simply looking in on their life and tallying hours in the day and pointing out that they have 'plenty of time' to exercise smacks of the sort of patriarchal attitudes that ignore lived experience.
Now don't get me wrong, I devote a good chunk of my time to exercise and healthy eating; it's actually a hobby of mine. There's also a part of me, deep down inside that I dislike, that cringes when I see an obese person making a poor food choice. Most times, this breeds some contempt and feelings of superiority that I really find repugnant in myself. I just don't see how giving air to that judgement will work to alter behaviour.
I also think that, unfortunately, the issue of obesity and health has become so intertwined with body image and self esteem that it's impossible to treat obesity the same way we might treat other behaviour that puts health at risk. You can tell a smoker that they are killing themselves, or someone to use a condom without damaging their self-perception and self-esteem, it's different when you tell someone they're fat.
I'm with you on some of this, Sven. I don't really blame McDonalds, I blame the "billions and billions served." I don't see how they cannot know the damage they are doing to themselves, and to the rest of us, by patronizing places like McDo, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Sure, for adults. But the upcoming wave of adults have their eating habits set in childhood, and I'm not sure we've equipped the youth to make proper health choices. When I was young all I knew about McD's was that it tasted good to me. Tastes good=let's eat more. This was exacerbated my my parents only going there sporadically (in an effort to preserve my health assumingly) and my then view of it as a "treat". When I began to enter into my teen years, armed with time and a moderate disposable income yet still largely ignorant about healthy eating I began to treat myself as often as I wanted. Some folks never break out of this, as behaviours have become ingrained.
I would say that for some obese people, the idea of eating healthy and losing weight all on their own seems an insurmountable task no matter how often you may point out that it is possible. To put it in context, take the average, non-obese person and see how they react to the prospect of dropping their bodyfat to below 8% if they're not naturally lean and without any support or education on how to do so. Clearly it's possible, but it may seem as insurmountable a prospect as the obese person going from 30% to 15%.
Sure, it's about putting the fork down and getting some exercise, but there is way more at play than that is all I'm saying.
It isn't about "being equipped," it's about thinking and having some resolve. I mentioned the change in my diet that I made as a student. I was about 30 at the time. According to your theory, my decision was Herculean in its flouting of three decades of programming and habit (My mom cried when I didn't eat the turkey she made at Christmas supper that year - is that the kind of societal and cultural support you mentioned?).
Stop making excuses or blaming others. If you want to do something and think it's valuable and important that it be done, then take responsibility for yourself and do it...just quit whining about it.
Ahh...the argument that if I can do it, then it must be easy for everyone. This always turns into a pissing match, especially over the internet.
I do think it is difficult to overcome years of bad habits and socially supported/encouraged poor choices. Especially for someone without the same resources you had. As a 30 year old who was still in school, clearly you had access to education and resources others don't. And the fact that your mother cried when you refused to eat turkey is also evidence of the pressure that some people feel when it comes to preparing and consuming food. Ask yourself why your mom cried when you refused something she had spent hours of her time preparing? Even if you made the right choice for you in that situation, her reaction does speak volumes to the emotions, pressures etc tied up in food. Kudos to you for making a lifestyle change.
I will assume that the last statement wasn't directed at me personally, as I'm not whining about anything, I'm a ripped, mean, disciplined machine. ;-)
Well, fish ARE on the way out, al. And I know a couple of people who would eat the last one in the oceans. With relish (or lemon).
For my culinary education I had a public library card. They practically give them away. As I said upthread, my financial resources were my student loans.
You win Sven.
The fish lose.
It would seem Libertarian is the best fit for Homo sapiens in the declining years of the species.
You win Sven.
I haven't won anything, George.
All I'm saying is that a very signiicant portion of deaths (and of healthcare expenditures) each year are due to poor choices. And, if people abuse drugs, alcohol, food, or tobacco -- or refuse to do any meaningful amounts of exercise, there's probably not a lot that can be done to change that.
______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
1,000,000 deaths a year Sven? That's SFA.
Just wait until you see the toll rung up by the species Homo sapiens, led by the hubristic crowd you represent.
Bump.
Why the bump? I'd say George pretty much finished this thread off at post 5:
What buoyant confidence! What dread power!
Why the bump? I'd say George pretty much finished this thread off at post 5:
What buoyant confidence! What dread power!
Viewing the world with God-like certainty is not the sole purview of libertarians.
Gah. A thread about how people's poor choices are really everyone's fault but their own and I missed it?
Can we have another?
Gah. A thread about how people's poor choices are really everyone's fault but their own and I missed it?
Can we have another?
Actually, it's just a segment of the posters who think individuals' poor choices are "society's fault".
You can't have an economy that treats people like cattle and expect them to be healthy or happy. The system has to have heart and soul. People are more than just one-dimensional beings driven by self-interest and greed. People are capable of so much more and probably will not be healthy or happy until all of the range of human nature and needs are accounted for. Capitalism accounts for too little of what we really are. As far as capitalists are concerned, people are ruled by the seven deadly sins, and it's a warped view of humanity.
You can't have an economy that treats people like cattle and expect them to be healthy or happy.
You mean like people were treated as unique individuals under one-party Soviet or Maoist rule?
Oh, wait a second...they were treated exactly like "herds of cattle".
Christ, do people not have any individual responsibility...for anything??? Is everything always "society's fault"???
You can't have an economy that treats people like cattle and expect them to be healthy or happy.
You mean like people were treated as unique individuals under one-party Soviet or Maoist rule?
Oh, wait a second...they were treated exactly like "herds of cattle".
Christ, do people not have any individual responsibility...for anything??? Is everything always "society's fault"???
The Sovs never promised people things they couldnt deliver. What Marxists around the world did see as deliverables to hundreds of millions of desperately poor people were: health care, education, and roofs over their heads. And the rightwing counter to those efforts was to bomb schools and hospitals and terrorize whole populations with dirty war and vicious trade sanctions when the people resisted.
What communists did not promise billions of human beings was a terrible cold war era lie that everyone could all live in mini-mansions at inflated market prices, two and three gas guzzlers in the driveway, and lavish lifestyles of wanton consumption at the expense of the rest of the world and the environment. One billion chronically hungry people today. 25 years ago, it was 500 million. Capitalism is a colossal failure.
Capitalism is a colossal failure.
Living under Maoist China, the very pinnacle of collectivist thinking, was indisputably worse.
I'll take capitalism any day.
So you're basically agreeing with Sven that communism/socialism also treated individuals like cattle? Or are you just trying to segue into another canned speech about the two old line parties in this northern bananastan?
Capitalism is a colossal failure.
Living under Maoist China, the very pinnacle of collectivist thinking, was indisputably worse.
I'll take capitalism any day.
Fourth world country in 1949, and Chinese longevity was doubled in Mao's time. China's mortality statistics were better than the thirdworld capitalist average by 1976.
And US hawks lost all faith in Madame Chiang Kai-shek when they realized she was pocketing the money shovelled to WACL whackos and moonies in Korea. Capitalists have dealt with the devil in the past to further their tyrannical agendas, from Adolf Hitler and Franco to Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. If they are rabid anticommunists, then they are useful to the corporatocracy.
So you're basically agreeing with Sven that communism/socialism also treated individuals like cattle? Or are you just trying to segue into another canned speech about the two old line parties in this northern bananastan?
A large majority of East Germans prefer Soviet communism to capitalism according to opinion polls today and similar results in the former communist countries. Seque that.
About a dozen years ago, The Onion published a great spoof story headlined, "Hostess May Have Marketed Unhealthy "Twinkies" to Minors".
Since that time, many people, who otherwise appear serious and intelligent, now believe that not only children but adults (!) are positively incapable of governing the type and quantity of food they shovel into their gaping maws and that if a person weighs two or three hundred bills, well it's "society's fault," not the fault of the person holding the fork and doing the shoveling.
Ditto for exercise (or, more precisely, not exercising).
If someone spends several hours per day planted in front of a television, that also is "society's fault," not the person whose arse is firmly attached to the couch. It is inconceivable to many that such a person should be expected to muster the enormous amount of will power necessary to shut the tube off for, oh, maybe, 30 minutes and go for a walk.
I think if corporate stooges in government were really concerned about human health, then they would do something about industrial pollution and hazardous work place environments. If they were to look at the weird birth defects in animals and fish around the Great Lakes region, alarm bells should go off in their corrupt little minds. But they refuse to even imagine that their friends in industry and banking who finance their political campaigns and personal wealth on the QT might be doing bad things to the ecosystem all living things depend on. Our corrupt stooges are not just thundering nitwits by wild chance. There is a method to their madness.
I think if corporate stooges in government were really concerned about human health, then they would do something about industrial pollution and hazardous work place environments. If they were to look at the weird birth defects in animals and fish around the Great Lakes region, alarm bells should go off in their corrupt little minds. But they refuse to even imagine that their friends in industry and banking who finance their political campaigns and personal wealth on the QT might be doing bad things to the ecosystem all living things depend on. Our corrupt stooges are not just thundering nitwits by wild chance. There is a method to their madness.
It's "corporate stooges" which cause people to unwillingly eat too much and not exercise?!?
I think if corporate stooges in government were really concerned about human health, then they would do something about industrial pollution and hazardous work place environments. If they were to look at the weird birth defects in animals and fish around the Great Lakes region, alarm bells should go off in their corrupt little minds. But they refuse to even imagine that their friends in industry and banking who finance their political campaigns and personal wealth on the QT might be doing bad things to the ecosystem all living things depend on. Our corrupt stooges are not just thundering nitwits by wild chance. There is a method to their madness.
It's "corporate stooges" which cause people to unwillingly eat too much and not exercise?!?
And I didn't realize that twinkies and obesity are the root causes of all cancers and heart disease, all respiratory ailments. And what about those Great Lakes fish with two heads, double fins, and birds born with organs outside of their bodies? Is all that from eating too many twinkies and Cornish pasties, too? What about young men having breast reduction surgery, and the abnormally high rates of cancer, MS, Mongoloid births, and respiratory diseases in North America? Why have US and Canadian feds refused to release data for industrial pollution over the years? How many nuclear power plants in corporate America will be enough, and why should Canada build them in our backyards to supply power to an economy that wastes so much and conserves so little?
And I didn't realize that twinkies and obesity are the root causes of all cancers and heart disease, all respiratory ailments.
Did I claim that obesity is "the" root cause of all disease? I must have missed that. I am merely saying that poor lifestyle choices (little or no exercise, poor diets, overeating, smoking, drinking too much, etc.) are significant factors which adversely impact American health (and health statistics). There are, of course, other factors which influence health (environment, healthcare, etc.). But a huge percentage of health problems are undeniably caused by poor choices.
The fact that the two- or three-household job is now an economic necessity means that nobody is at home getting good meals ready. We eat, or bolt, in solitude, seeking out the fastest meals between the day job and the evening job. Heart attacks, stroke, and obesity are the price of our devotion to work. I remember reading a few years back of a study that showed people eat more when they are tired but need to keep going. Small wonder Americans, famously given to long hours at work, are getting fatter.
It's all well and good to wag a finger at sinners, but virtue gets harder every day simply because of the way the Almighty Market is constructing our society. You can exhort people to live a healthy life and get the righteous thrill of being Jeremiah in a jogging suit. Or you can actually help them by trying to build a healthier society.
And I didn't realize that twinkies and obesity are the root causes of all cancers and heart disease, all respiratory ailments.
Did I claim that obesity is "the" root cause of all disease? ... But a huge percentage of health problems are undeniably caused by poor choices.
Obesity is sometimes genetic apparently. And I think Fotheringay-Phipps is right. Very many people's lives are dictated to them by financial circumstances and those which are really beyond their control for the most part. People on low incomes often can not buy healthy food. Many don't have the time to even cook proper meals working two and three low wage jobs to make ends meet. Here in Canada I see people eating mcfood in their cars on lunch hour or even half hours. In China people work long hours in factories. Food and housing are sometimes provided on the job site. People like Jamie Oliver in England are doing good work with teaching children to choose real food as opposed to processed fast food high in fat and low in nutrition. It's all about choices, and people need to have more of the right choices available to them.
I think if corporate stooges in government were really concerned about human health, then they would do something about industrial pollution and hazardous work place environments. If they were to look at the weird birth defects in animals and fish around the Great Lakes region, alarm bells should go off in their corrupt little minds. But they refuse to even imagine that their friends in industry and banking who finance their political campaigns and personal wealth on the QT might be doing bad things to the ecosystem all living things depend on. Our corrupt stooges are not just thundering nitwits by wild chance. There is a method to their madness.
It's "corporate stooges" which cause people to unwillingly eat too much and not exercise?!?
Deal with the point or shut the fuck up, Sven.
The fact that the two- or three-household job is now an economic necessity means that nobody is at home getting good meals ready. We eat, or bolt, in solitude, seeking out the fastest meals between the day job and the evening job. Heart attacks, stroke, and obesity are the price of our devotion to work. I remember reading a few years back of a study that showed people eat more when they are tired but need to keep going. Small wonder Americans, famously given to long hours at work, are getting fatter.
It's all well and good to wag a finger at sinners, but virtue gets harder every day simply because of the way the Almighty Market is constructing our society. You can exhort people to live a healthy life and get the righteous thrill of being Jeremiah in a jogging suit. Or you can actually help them by trying to build a healthier society.
Thanks for this. I'd just add that thanks to the walmartization of society, those long hours spent at work are, more and more often, unpaid overtime.
Many don't have the time to...
[SNIP]
It's all about choices...
According to a comprehensive StatCan analysis, a typical Canadian watches 20-25 hours of television each week.
How many 30-minute walks could people get in a week by just turning off the boob tube?
I am merely saying that poor lifestyle choices (little or no exercise, poor diets, overeating, smoking, drinking too much, etc.) are significant factors which adversely impact American health (and health statistics).
Yes, indeed. And you've merely said that same thing exactly twenty different times here, as if repetition would somehow lend it weight.
That's the twenty somewhat-on-topic posts (though they never address the arguments presented), as opposed to the other dozen or so posts of snide remarks and sniveling.
Yes, indeed. And you've merely said that same thing exactly twenty different times here, as if repetition would somehow lend it weight.
That's the twenty somewhat-on-topic posts (though they never address the arguments presented), as opposed to the other dozen or so posts of snide remarks and sniveling.
So, can we count you in the It's-Society's-Fault camp?
Holy mental masturbation. Sven, you're clearly here to bait. I go to the cottage to catch fish.
I come here to look for answers not maintain the status quo.
But it's all good in your world, so enjoy my friend. Exhalt, keep abhorring those on dial-up you progressive libertarian.
[goes for a timeout]
Put me on the libertarian side(from the egoist tradition)
This question of obesity misses the point, the problem is that people have long lost their intimate connection to food production, banning mcds is not even in the ball park of what needs to be done.
People need to discover a sense of self suffinciency again, and that is something beyond a state or some centralized system telling you what is healthy. In general modern society is sick, thats probably the root of it all.
Nice post Mike, I can get that. At least you're advancing dialogue.
segue into thread drift. Thought I'd open a Danny Williams 2 thread with the trackback and everything for Sven since he didn't seem able to do so himself but then I said nah, he's a libertarian.
I took liberty with that runon sentence. Apologies.
Many don't have the time to...
[SNIP]
It's all about choices...
According to a comprehensive StatCan analysis, a typical Canadian watches 20-25 hours of television each week.
How many 30-minute walks could people get in a week by just turning off the boob tube?
I think some of it is due to geography and secondary issues beyond peoples control. They say a teenager in Europe is more likely to go for a vigorous walk or even hike than North American kids. I'm not sure why that is, but I think a number of factors are in play. I can remember throwing a pair of skates over my hockey stick and hiking to the outdoor rink most Saturdays when growing up. And we had so much fun that before we knew it, it was dark outside. We'd sit in the shack peeling our hockey stuff off and playing I'm so hungry word games. I was often so hungry, that I claimed to be capable of eating one end out of a skunk. I can remember disliking certain vegetables then, but by the time I arrived home I ate everything and anything my old ma put in front of me. She knew I would be eating my broccholi and cabbage and even brussel sprouts, because I'd been playing hard at the rink most of the day.
That rink isn't there anymore, and it's because of several things including weather changes. But there are no municipal alternatives for children in that neighborhood today where I grew up. There is no screaming of kids and sounds of sticks and skates on ice or pucks flying across the road anymore. The city has stop funding a number of outdoor rinks for some time now. And organized hockey in town is just too expensive for too many families. I'm seeing advertisements on TV here revealing that one in three children in Canada can't get off the sidelines, meaning their parents can't afford to enroll them in organized sports. And that's about the same rate of obesity among Canadian children.
G. Pie questioned my concern for the money supply in Canada having been fully privatized by 1991, and that it seems to G. Pie that I tend to blame everything on our debt driven monetary system. And it certainly does seem to be the case. There is more to it than just a privatized money supply. The problems are with a laissez-faire attitude renewed again in Ottawa and Queen's Parks since the 1980's. Neoliberal ideology has affected so much of our lives, and I think there should be studies done to collect national health and other vital statistics, and for the feds to produce an overall assessment of their policies of the last 30 years and make it public.
People need to discover a sense of self suffinciency again, and that is something beyond a state or some centralized system telling you what is healthy. In general modern society is sick, thats probably the root of it all.
Ok, so you're rejecting political and collectivist options. Why?
And more importantly: what's your solution, then?
Are we simply waiting for the sick society to collapse, so that übermenschen such as Sven and yourself can rule as they are destined?
May I offer my solution. LTJ?
Certainly, but after MS, if you don't mind.
People need to discover a sense of self suffinciency again, and that is something beyond a state or some centralized system telling you what is healthy. In general modern society is sick, thats probably the root of it all.
Ok, so you're rejecting political and collectivist options. Why?
And more importantly: what's your solution, then?
Are we simply waiting for the sick society to collapse, so that übermenschen such as Sven and yourself can rule as they are destined?
I think we have to kind of pretend that government will not be providing any solutions to obesity or ill health or lack of recreational facilities for youth. And that's not hard to imagine, because it's essentially true for very many citizens. Our leave-it-to-the-market ideologues are basically abandoning large sections of the country to their own devices while cost of living soars for everyone. The best revenge on our thundering nitwits is to live as well as we can, and to vote against them every four years on the one day of protest that counts for anything. Them and their failed ideology will eventually become but footnotes in the annals of Canadian history,
Certainly, but after MS, if you don't mind.
Morning sunshine?
Multiple sclerosis?
Manuscript?
Mike Stirner.
Go ahead, G. Muffin. MS seems to have disengaged for now.
Cool. Glad to see G. Muffin now has LTJ's "permission" to post in this thread...
'Course, it may be too late now since, at any moment now, a mod is going to come swooping in with an infamous "Closed for length" post...
If you can blame "society" for whatever ails you, it makes it easier to wait for society to come to your rescue, rather than having to do anything yourself or to take resposibility for your own actions.
I used to hang around with a guy who did a lot of organisational work - some of it as a volunteer- in the local health district, and was instrumental in the creation of many of the clinics we have around town today. Incidentally, this guy was an old CCF medicare warrior from the 50s, and hardly a free-enterpriser.
Out of nowhere one day he said to me, "Instead of waiting for the government to do things for them, people have to get involved and do things themselves."
Before this thread closes, and while individuals are still being blamed for allegedly freely choosing to live unhealthy lives, I thought George's pithy comment from last July was worth re-quoting and remembering:
Libertarianism is so rational, so individualistic, so disconnected from social/psychological reality, so God-like in its certainties.
*swoops in* ... CLOSED FOR LENGTH! ... *swoops back out again*