You say sin, I say disease
antipope.org
antipope.org
And the rest is autopilot. They watch some subset of the new movies, new TV programs, websites they stumble across. They eat whatever's more or less served near them and eaten by people they associate with. They pick the political party that matches their friends and relatives, or no party, or maybe they pick up a book that has an emotional impact on them and swear loyalty to that. Maybe.
I hate this idea, because it seems to subtly advocate for totalitarianism, which I've been against my whole life. But then there's nagging voice that says, "well, just ban all the food that's unhealthy, and people will eat better..." - but we know where that road leads.
sigh
It's strange being someone who strives to be self reliant, studies and analyzes to make ethics from scratch, constantly examines and re-examines everything... I think there exists less people like this than I originally thought. No, less than that. Okay, divide that number by 10 again.
Less than that, even? Maybe.
Scary thoughts. I'm going to go eat some oatmeal now.
When you can point to an ought that logically follows from an is, that'll be the most important day in anyone's lives. In the meantime, I'm philosophically opposed to stamping any sort of judgement on the way people lead their lives. There's no reason to condemn anyone for not desiring to learn or to think critically; whatever axiomatic value you try to use as a measuring stick will twist and turn and fail on close inspection: it'll be a subjective measure.
Humans are animals, and going about our business in a frictionless manner is a natural thing to do. Some people detect friction where others see no problem, and from them we see improvement in the sciences and in thought—improvement in the sense that we seem to know more—and those are the people we on HN generally praise.
Lest I come off as a total weirdo, I am for "progress" and "knowledge" and "health" and all that jazz, but I try to keep my pragmatic life as separate from my philosophical life as possible. It's safer that way.
There is a train heading for you, therefore you ought to get off the tracks.
(EDIT: And yes, I do recognize Hume's fork when I see it. I'm just glad I'm not sitting at a circular table with him, fighting over who gets to use it.)
Hume's a tricky bastard, and with enough Nietzsche to back him up, depressingly formidable.
So I arbitrarily give value to certain things in pursuit of a pleasant system of beliefs and a nice-feeling way of going about life.
Modern Europe?
I'm surprised people are unaware of this. My apologies for not citing it in my comment, I thought everyone was aware of this, and so I found the original implication that banning foods leads to totalitarianism absurd.
Presumably you can still gorge yourself on bacon and whole milk and sugary cakes, pies, and cookies; then drink alcohol until you die.
As a libertarian, I'm amused since more statist folks usually accuse us of confusing regulation with totalitarian control.
I'm surprised you think "banning all the unhealthy foods" means nothing more than a NYC-style transfat ban. (Hint: GMO bans have nothing to do with nutrition.)
I'm pretty sure that everyone else was aware of the difference.
I suppose that it is true that if the US was able to pass laws like a Totalitarian State (arbitrary laws with no support from anyone [including commercial interests]), than yes, it is Totalitarian, but that would have nothing to do with the food ban itself.
So, since that interpretation seemed to not be relevant, I assumed that if you were to actually look at a future where the US had banned foods, it would have had to gone through the standard process. You'd have the usual fake grass-roots movements, coupled with some legitimate ones, coupled with the standard conflicting commercial interests which would push for exceptions and loopholes, which over time gathered support and eventually would stop being a liability for a politician to support.
At which point, you would either have it accepted by the majority, like transfats bans in applicable locations, or it would be felt to be overly restrictive and be rebelled against, like prohibition in the 1920's (existence of spectrums are of course acknowledged). None of these situations make the resulting state totalitarian (unless you want to claim that the US was totalitarian under prohibition). Creepy that people are being manipulated? Sure, but that's doesn't make a state totalitarian.
So I looked at countries that had implemented _some_ amount of food bans (the 'real' reasons are irrelevant, politicians claim health, so if anything, is more representative of what we can expect to happen), to get an idea as to which way it would go in this case. It seemed like a reasonable way to answer the question 'Where does this road lead to?'
My apologies if there was some other, more obvious interpretation, but that was how I read the sentence. I also apologize for not expanding in full my point earlier, since it seems to have been misintrerpeted.
Most people may not read Emerson, Fromm, Aquinas, Stace, Russel etc but they sure do learn from life experiences on ethics, think about the implications of things and act on those things. Many, many people strive to be self reliant, as well. Once a group like HN starts saying, "God, if only other people were as smart as us", we're reaching a danger zone where we should always take a very close look before self adulating.
A world awash with kilojoules means any life forms around human civilization will be a little more plump.
Charlie Stross does give a hat tip to the overwhelming desire by some sectors to see obesity categorised as a disease / epidemic: "many large corporations would love to see the obesity epidemic pinned on something other than their own sub-standard food products".
However he pulls a quote from Nikhil Dhurandhar at the Pennington Biomedical Research Centre to talk about AD-36 as a potential significant factor in obesity. I just wonder as the largest nutrition research centre in the world, with 600 researchers, whether there is ever any institutionalised bias towards concluding / promoting the idea that obesity is a disease / epidemic?
Obviously baseless speculation on my part, but a quick Google finds such Pennington-run conferences as 'Childhood Obesity and Public Health', which is sponsored by...Coca Cola? http://www.pbrc.edu/childhood_obesity_conference/default.htm
I fail to see how accepting this kind of sponsorship money is healthy for independent research in this area.
What's wrong with a plain old fact?
Are you overweight? Then you're overweight. Are you downright fat? Then you're fat. Religious dogma aside (as I don't care about it), I'm going to say you're not committing a sin or evil act by being heavy. Barring the adenovirus hypothesis panning out or your having a known glandular issue, I'm going to guess that you don't have a disease. You just have a fact.
Are you overweight enough to affect your health? Are you unappealing to the men or women you want to date? Do you just dislike having the weight? Then you have complaints.
Do whatever complaints you have bother you more than you enjoy the aspects of your lifestyle and diet that lead you to being overweight? Then you have a problem.
Problems can addressed, researched, and analyzed. Problems can even be solved, or at least ameliorated. Mind, it's hard to guilt, intimidate, or infantilize people by noting that they might have a problem - assuming you literally mean "problem" and not as a euphemism for disease or sin...
I have known people who've struggled with mood and focus. Knowing if it's caused by a disease (depression), circumstance (losing a loved one), or intentional behavior (playing video games when they should've been sleeping), helps determine what sort of treatment is likely to be effective. Medicating a person for a character flaw is just as dangerous as castigating them for a disease.
From my point of view, searching for a malicious virus that somehow makes us obese or some other obscure reason is just overcomplicating the issue.
When eating at our canteen at work I can peek into people's plates and the reflection of their choice of food on their size is fairly obvious in most cases.
Edit: just heard the sound of munching, which reminded me of an anectode: a colleague of mine quit smoking a couple of months ago. Now it looks like every time he feels like smoking a cig, he's eating a cookie instead. He also recently complained that after having a stable weight for years, he suddenly gained 5 kilos. Hmm, either he got stung by that virus, or too many cookies - pick your choice ...
If you think the drive is inconsequential and easy to ignore then try and hold your breath until you pass out. Just breath less, right? These drives have ways of talking us into doing what they want--they are very persuasive.
And I have learnt a few things on the way - for example, that slight hunger is not a sign that you should rush to the fridge. That a 24 or 36 hours fast will not kill you, but is rather good for you. That if I want to lower my weight, eliminating all refined carbs and added sugars is simple and effective.
Yes, if you want to lose weight you may need to put in some effort. There is little way around it, short of liposuction may be. You may have learn to control the "drive to eat" just like you control many other drives. Ideally, of course, one should make proper eating his way of life.
Talking about breath, by the way - yes, if I concentrate on my breath, I can consciously make it more deep and breathe less often. It is somewhat similar to what I would do to my meals - eat a bit more, but less often, with no snacks in between 3 meals per day, with suprisingly positive results.
Overcoming the urges and impulses would require a certain amount of effort and self-control, but don't other positive changes in life do? To become stronger would involve regular and fairly intensive exercise. To get that better job may require extra studying and less going out. To save for that vacation may require restricting your spending. My approach would be the same in general: set a reasonable goal, formulate the plan, follow the plan. If something is not working, try to find the reason and adjust your goals or plans.
Just like in times past, people tend to eat as much as they can, and do as little physical work as they can, in the extreme. It's just that we're all so incredibly wealthy now compared to our ancestors that this is no longer a reasonable strategy for maintaining a healthy weight.
Kitavans are not particularly active. They have an activity level comparable to a moderately active Swede, the population to which Dr. Lindeberg draws frequent comparisons.
They have abundant food, and shortage is practically unknown.
Their good health is probably not related to genetics, since genetically similar groups in the same region are exquisitely sensitive to the ravages of industrial food. Furthermore, the only Kitavan who moved away from the island to live a modern life is also the only fat Kitavan.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/kitavans-wisdo...
I did a fast of 40hours once, I thought I was going to pass out. I grew weak, struggled to stay upright through dizziness and seriously felt very ill. I've often gone a day without food (not always by choice) but I'm not planning on fasting any longer than that again.
The longest I ever did was 72 hours, and I only did this once, but without any noticeable negative effects. I noticed also that the most discomfort was psychological - when the time to eat comes and goes, and I did not have anything, I felt more of a psychological need to eat, rather than physical. Also, the 2nd and 3rd day were way easier once I got a bit used to the fact that I'm not eating when I'm supposed to.
Either there is a malicious virus contributing in some way to obesity, or there is not. Let the scientific evidence speak for itself. If that makes the issue more complicated than we'd like, then so be it.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Adenovirus_se...
I know it's Wikipedia, but the information there suggests that there is a strong relationship [not necessarily causal] between carriers fo the virus and obesity. But, one can still be obese without it and one can be a carrier and not be obese so I don't think this obviates the obese carrier from responsibility even if a direct causal relationship is established.
However I may also never touch a cigarette in my life and still get cancer. I may exercise and eat reasonably well and still be overweight. Some people can smoke 20 a day all their lives and live to a healthy old age; some can eat like pigs and have a size 10 figure.
My gut feeling (pardon the pun) is that obesity is mostly caused by the junk that goes into modern food, combined with a more sedentary lifestyle; but that's not to say there aren't a whole lot of other factors - genetics, environment, viral etc - that play a role.
Organisms tend to be highly complex and there is a myriad of variables that come into play. I feel it is very unlikely that you can identify one sole cause for something as general as obesity.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que...
And HIV is unusually concentrated in Africa. And cholera is endemic in south Asia (thus leading to suspicions that UN troops from Nepal are the source of the cholera outbreak in Haiti). It's not unheard of for infectious agents to be geographically localized.
In that case the worst thing you can possibly do is to blame it on anything other than personal failings.
They can train themselves to have more. There was a fine article on that very subject on HN some months ago. I believe it said that one key to self-control was not to attempt to fight the urge, but rather to avoid it.
The kid who tried to stare down the cookie broke down and ate it. The kid who hid under the table resisted (and got something better, later).
The nice thing about that is that learning to develop more willpower helps you everywhere.
Becauee technology is good, and getting better fast, the things optimised for -- taste and cheapness will improve, even if it detracts from other qualities that're perhaps desirable but not optimised for. Therefore over time, food is likely to have a higher tendency to get people overweight.
PG has written an essay on this: http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html
As it turns out, there isn't necessarily a correlation between pets' bodyweights and owners' bodyweigts. At least, cats' bodyweight isn't (although I seem to remember reading about another study that even showed a negative correlation): http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...
If those without the virus can't become obese through sloth and gluttony he has a point, otherwise he seems hell-bent on tying those with "traditionalist religious views" [I think he means Christian but doesn't want to appear to be just be reacting against his local culture] to the problem of obesity for no reason other than that they consider sloth and gluttony wrong.
Do atheists, humanists, neo-wiccans, animists, etc., consider sloth and gluttony to be virtuous? I know corpulence has often been considered positive but that is not the same as sloth or gluttony.