One million (Preventable) deaths per year. Part 3.

Submitted by RevolutionPlease on February 7, 2010 - 5:25pm.

Part 1

500_Apples wrote:

Sven,

I think the individualism you promote would have been very sensible in the 18th century, when the state of philosophical knowledge was as it was. The simple fact is that a lot of these individualist theories have been comprehensively discredited by reasoned arguments and detailed research. They simply don't hold. I don't buy into the environmental determinism of a few on this thread but they very much have a point and they're closer to reality than you are. I'll address some of your points.

Sven wrote:

In reality, many problems require a combination of systemic solutions and personal initiative. If a society has poor roads and a virtually non-existent transportation infrastructure, even Herculean personal efforts will not result in a competitive economy. If laws don't prohibit hiring and firing for discriminatory reasons, both society and the individuals effected by those discriminatory actions will suffer.

This for example is a completely false dichotomy. The example that immediately comes to mind is the 1960s USian civil rights act, which a lot of charlatan libertarians like to argue forced a behavioral system on innocent business owners by government fiat. It was nothing like that... it was the business owners forcing their backwards way of mind onto African Americans for hundreds of years. The nominal change that there was was not brought in "by government", but actually by the collective individual actions of millions of people who were actively fighting the system and bringing tremendous pressure on the Johnson administration.

Sven wrote:

You're failing in school? Huh. It must be that the school's fault. The fact that you spend hours every day playing video games instead of cracking open your books couldn't possibly be the cause of your failure. Instead, the school needs more money - that is "the solution"!!

Blaming video games is a nice populist theory but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There simply are better schools, better learning environments and better teachers and these make a tremendous difference. There's an excellent article in this month's The Atlantic which investigates 20 years of data that Teach for America has collected on the rrecent graduates it sends to inner city schools. They try and select for better teachers, and now they find that 44% of their teachers succeed in raising their students test scores by over 1.5 grade levels. If teachers didn't matter as you imply then that wouldn't be the case.

In all schools, there's a distribution of the amount of time kids spend on video games, as there is between schools as well. It's not the games. It's everything. Teachers, schools, home environment, etc.

************

If anything, going after simple explanations like "video games" is not jut false, it's lazy. You're being frightened away from the underlying complexity of reality, because you don't want to think that hard and you might not like the answers.

I just had to start a Part 3 because that was a brilliant piece of writing 500_Apples. Thanks.

Submitted by Catchfire on February 7, 2010 - 5:41pm.

I agree, it's a good post by 500_Apples.

Also good were Fotheringay-Phipps's two excellent contributions, one at the end of each prior threads:

Quote:

Undoubtedly poor choices are at the root of many health problems. But good choices should not be made more difficult. When I was a child in the sixties, our school was within walking distance of our house. At seven in the morning our street would be filled with men swinging their lunch-pails, walking to work at the foundry. We all got our half-hour of walking without needing to exercise any will-power. Contrast that with now. Many children live in suburbs where bussing to school is the only practical solution. And nobody would be fool enough to buy a house near their workplace, even if modern zoning permitted it: security of employment doesn't extend much beyond the end of the week. And the vogue for mechanization means no-one gets their exercise at work. I knew several letter-carriers as a teen and even worked briefly as a relief mailman one Christmas. These guys were built like greyhounds. They could roll in to sort their mail in the grip of a crushing hangover and by noon, the combination of fast walking and fresh air would have put the roses back in their cheeks. And now what do I see? American mail carriers zipping about on Segways. This absence of built-in activity in our lives can lead to comic results. I have one friend who rises at five in the morning, and drives twelve miles to spend half an hour in the gym.

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:

Quote:

We seem to have a confusion here. If Uncle Abe weighs 340 lbs, then he has a problem and he needs to do something about it. He needs to take charge of his life and, yes, make better choices.
If on the other hand we have a million preventable deaths caused by obesity, we all have a problem: I presume that's why the issue was raised here. If it were a million private problems, there would be little point in discussing it. So the question then becomes, what can we all do to alleviate this problem that affects us all? And making vague exhortations to buck up and show some will power just doesn't work. Shouting, "Manitoba! Drop and give me twenty! Come on, Wisconsin, get those knees up!" might work off some hostility to the fatties, but it's a ruinous substitute for public policy.

And that's what we're really talking about here. No-one doubts that each individual has some responsibility for their health. But when words like "epidemic" are used about obesity, we are talking about public health. If you download public-policy decisions to the individual, the results are predictable. The Land of Good Choices and Home of Personal Responsibility has, with the exception of a few Micronesian islands, the fattest population on earth. And it's not getting better. Appeals to will-power don't work. Because they're not an individualist contrast to collectivist solutions. They're just a remarkably feeble and discredited form of public policy. (See: Just Say No, Not Before Marriage,etc.) We need a public strategy to make us leaner, and bellowing, "You are all worthless sinners! Repent! Repent!" satisfies a certain strain of purse-lipped American Puritanism, but does nothing constructive.

Great stuff!

Submitted by RevolutionPlease on February 7, 2010 - 5:57pm.

Thanks Catchfire, matters when you read them, eh?

Submitted by Snert on February 8, 2010 - 10:32am.

So in the end, the big problem with people taking a little responsibility for their health is that, well, they just don't. So we need to step in now.

Sounds like we're talking about "harm reduction", which is another way of saying "let's allow individuals to hold themselves hostage".

Submitted by Fidel on February 8, 2010 - 10:41am.

It's all about creating as many poor choices for the poor as possible in the rightwing nanny state.

Submitted by Lard Tunderin Jeezus on February 8, 2010 - 10:41am.

Do you actually think there's some meaning somewhere in your spew, Snert?

Submitted by Snert on February 8, 2010 - 11:07am.

I figure we might as well be clear about what we're really talking about.

We need to save individuals from harming themselves, apparently. If we allow them to save themselves, so to speak, too many will choose not to, so we either have to stand back and watch them eat a cheeseburger that we just told them was no good for them, or we have to intervene.

And ironically, the strongest call to intervene will come from those rugged individuals who've managed, against all odds, to make their own choices. How many here self-identify as "fooled by McDonald's commercials" Anyone? Anyone at all? How many would say that they eat too much McDonalds and cannot do anything about it? Anyone? Hands up, everyone who is unable to resist McDonald's and needs help. Anyone?

Submitted by Fidel on February 8, 2010 - 11:37am.

You Are What You Grow NY Times 2007

Quote:

A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight? [...]

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.

That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

So in the U.S., obesity comes down to a farm bill for subsidizing agribusiness farm production of: soybeans, corn, and wheat - three major ingredients of or staples from which empty calorie ingredients of junk food are derived. Overproduction of the raw ingredients for industrial food and not real food is the problem. Skinny people can afford not to buy groceries at WalMart. And I'm see a lot more Canadians buying industrial food at Walmart these days. In the USA, it's Stalinist policies for propping up rich farmers who grow cash crops used for industrial production of junk food. And they dump a lot of that cheap food in Canada as well as other countries. Food is a trade weapon for the Yanks.

Submitted by Catchfire on February 8, 2010 - 11:43am.

Snert wrote:

I figure we might as well be clear about what we're really talking about.

What nonsense. There are three articulate, nuanced and clear statements about this issue that lead off the thread, and none of them can be squashed into the Fox-News-like effigy you've constructed for yourself. Very seldomly, Snert, you can write intelligently, but these sophist games with which you amuse yourself are juvenile.

F-P's statement, from which you should take lessons if you want to continue your so-far failed project of "wit," clearly says that individual responsibility is never relinquished or absolved. Rather, when we start speaking in terms of 'epidemics,' there is a social element which clearly affects us all. These social pressures, like the normalization of fast food and junk food, draconian work schedules, subsidized industrial food, urban architechture inundated with junk food, make healthy choices more difficult. How is this even in question? Why do we allow this? Because we like the challenge?

These pathetic bootstrap and vote-with-your-dollar arguments are evicerated by socialist first principles. Especially when delivered not with critical weight and eloquence, but with sarcastic aphorism and adolescent gotcha-ism.

Submitted by Snert on February 8, 2010 - 12:04pm.

Quote:

He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person's wealth

Seems like religion's not a bad predictor either. The table below is from a Purdue study of obesity across religions. Either non-Christians (Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu) are really wealthy, or there's more to it than $$$.

Catchfire: are you a regular McDonald's customer? Do you fall for the clown, every time? Or are you, in fact, one of those bootstrappers who made it out alive, thanks to your will, and now you feel you have to go back for the others?

Submitted by Catchfire on February 8, 2010 - 12:17pm.

Snert: thanks for addressing my post. Let me indulge you: I never, ever go to McDonald's. Let me also volunteer some information you are apparently not interested in: I am university educated. I am economically comfortable. My parents taught me the importance of a healthy diet and did not let me own a video game console. I live in a neighbourhood where healthy food is easily accessible and I have the economic wherewithal to afford it. I work a job that affords me enough free time to cook what I like. I exist in a social realm where exercise and a healthy diet are more-or-less encouraged and allowed for. Yet despite all this, avery couple of months I have an A&W hamburger and deeply regret it afterwards. Why, with all these things in my favour, do I still do such stupid and ultimately unrewarding things?

I won't ask you to consider those who do not enjoy the privileges I do.

Submitted by Fidel on February 8, 2010 - 12:32pm.

Snert wrote:

Catchfire: are you a regular McDonald's customer? Do you fall for the clown, every time?

Uh! Somone's frustrated because they've realized what a dumb argument they've been making all along.

Submitted by Lard Tunderin Jeezus on February 8, 2010 - 12:25pm.

Can we close this thread now, please? Despite its well-intentioned original function as a 'best of' its predecessors, it was bound to be infested by trolls in the end.

And that end arrived with Snert.

Submitted by Snert on February 8, 2010 - 12:31pm.

Quote:

Are you? Do you buy 'cheap'-er groceries/industrial food at Walmart to save a buck?

I eat at McDonalds occasionally, when I'm in the mood. For groceries, I'm doing a lot more shopping in Chinatown lately. It's more of a hike, but the savings add up.

Quote:

And that end arrived with Snert.

Whatever. Here's a crazy idea for you: pretend it's already closed! On the TAT, don't click, no matter how intensely, irrestistably curious you are about my latest "trolling". Use the same willpower that keeps you out of the Golden Arches to simply NOT visit this thread. Think you can?

Submitted by Fidel on February 8, 2010 - 12:35pm.

Hey Snert, you should let Sven post something from the other side of the argument now. Because you're done.

Submitted by Snert on February 8, 2010 - 12:37pm.

You've edited post #12 three different times now Fidel. When do you suppose YOU will be done? Anyway, request denied.

Submitted by Catchfire on February 8, 2010 - 12:39pm.

What a waste of time.

Submitted by Fidel on February 8, 2010 - 12:39pm.

Groan

Submitted by Fidel on February 8, 2010 - 12:43pm.

Catchfire wrote:

What a waste of time.

I was hoping for something better from Snert. It's disappointing.

Submitted by Snert on February 8, 2010 - 12:49pm.

All you're really hoping for is for me to say "Oh, you're all correct! It really is society's fault!" Anything else will be regarded as trolling, n'est ce pas?

Submitted by Sven on February 8, 2010 - 12:51pm.

Fidel wrote:

Hey Snert, you should let Sven post something from the other side of the argument now.

I haven't had much time to get back to Babble since last week. But, I do have some thoughts regarding excellent posts by George Victor (post #64 in the "other" thread) and Fotheringay-Phipps (post #91, also in the "other" thread). Will return to them soon.

Submitted by Fidel on February 8, 2010 - 12:51pm.

Snert, we've all had bad threads. We're sure you'll do better in the next one. Give it your all next time. Use the force.

Submitted by Lard Tunderin Jeezus on February 8, 2010 - 1:04pm.

Fidel wrote:

Hey Snert, you should let Sven post something from the other side of the argument now. Because you're done.

Sure, let's all invite our personal favorite troll to post. I think canuquetoo probably has a huge turd he's been holding just for me....

Submitted by Fidel on February 8, 2010 - 1:17pm.

Sven wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Hey Snert, you should let Sven post something from the other side of the argument now.

Yes, they are all good comments. I enjoyed 500_Apples assessment of the situation. And I think Michael Pollan's NY Times piece in post #8 of this thread is a good one. Adam Drewnowsky of Washington University make a compelling argument against the farm bill flooding food markets with the raw ingredients for high calorie low nutrition industrial foods. If thirdworld countries can't compete with US agribusinesses subsidized by taxpayers and producing cheap food commodities associated with industrial food byproducts, how can low income North Americans? Drewnowsky described how 'real food' prices have increased 40% in the US between 1985 and 2000 while soda pop made with corn syrup declined 23% in price in the same time.

And just as important, why does your country subsidize farm production, and then turn around and tell developing thirdworld capitalist countries that they must not do the same in order that they become more reliant and more vulnerable to the very market rules which US agribusinesses refuse to play by themselves? Why do we have fat people in North America where food production has been Stalinized and hundreds of millions of malnourished living in countries increasingly exposed to IMF and WTO free market diktats?

Submitted by Sven on February 8, 2010 - 1:47pm.

[Snarky rejoinder edited out by Sven]

Submitted by al-Qa'bong on February 8, 2010 - 2:21pm.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Hey Snert, you should let Sven post something from the other side of the argument now. Because you're done.

Sure, let's all invite our personal favorite troll to post. I think canuquetoo probably has a huge turd he's been holding just for me....

Someone having an opinion that isn't the same as yours is not necessarily a troll. Y'know, this place would be as bland as Cream of Wheat if we didn't have people like Sven and snert around to argue with. Even though I don't agree with their politics, I often find that they're among the most interesting contributors to any given discussion.

Submitted by Lard Tunderin Jeezus on February 8, 2010 - 2:25pm.

Is someone repeating the same exact opinion with small variations over and over again without regard to the discussion at hand a troll, in your opinion?

....just askin'.

Submitted by Lard Tunderin Jeezus on February 8, 2010 - 2:31pm.

Quote:

Y'know, this place would be as bland as Cream of Wheat if we didn't have people like Sven and snert around to argue with.

You might be right, though I'm guessing you're wrong.

Thing is, we've never actually had the chance to find out...

Submitted by oldgoat on February 8, 2010 - 2:34pm.

Jebus H. McChrist...

Closing, not for length, certainly not for breadth, but perhaps for a marked absence of depth.

How about taking a break before we broach this issue again. Like 'til after I've retired.

Submitted by oldgoat on February 8, 2010 - 3:58pm.

I have been invited to reconsider, so what the hell...have at it.

How about though, if your commment pretty much just involves an ad hominem shot, even if it's a really clever one, just take a pass, ok?

Submitted by Caissa on February 8, 2010 - 4:00pm.

Enjoy your retirement, oldgoat.

Couldn't resist.

Submitted by George Victor on February 8, 2010 - 4:02pm.

Bless ya, OG.

Submitted by George Victor on February 8, 2010 - 4:04pm.

George Victor wrote:

Bless ya, OG.

whoops...who in hell is the masochist in the crowd?

Submitted by Mike Stirner on February 9, 2010 - 1:29am.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

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?

Sorry for the late reply

The simple reason i reject political options(it depends on what you mean by collective) is that politics are only as good as their prefigurations. Some cultures are more ahead of the game then others. Theres a golf of difference between those who are steeped in say meditarrianian culture and colonial american culture. There's also the whole paradigm of modernity and processed everything which makes these things possibe. If you really want to create a lasting solution you have to build from the ground up again.

See this as an example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhhfr_hIL7A&feature=related

Also I don't care much for sven, his individuaiism is of the bourgoeis variety and has no interest to me.

Submitted by Sven on November 4, 2010 - 6:23pm.

You may have heard that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has wisely voted to forbid restaurants from giving away toys with a meal if (1) the meal contains more than 600 calories, (2) more than 35% of the meal's calories come from fat, or (3) the meal is not served with fruits and vegetables.

That reminded me of one of the funniest pieces from the satirical publication The Onion
from 1998. Little could the writers from The Onion have guessed that their outlandish lampoon (of cigarette manufacturers) would morph into reality in less than a dozen years.

Good lord. What would we do without these benevolent politicians protecting us from ourselves?

As Seinfeld's Soup Nazi might say, "No toys for you!!"

One million (Preventable) deaths per year. Part 3.

Comments