It's amazing the US started a trade war over 74,000 deaths from Fentanyl when heart disease causes 10x more deaths.
Some data (not exactly the same I found last time, but seems to still be accurate as I recalled it):
>About 82% of people who die of coronary heart disease are 65 or older[0]
See also the CDC's list of deaths by cause by age group:
For 65 years and over, Diseases of heart is ranked 1st (531,583 deaths in 2019). For 45–64 years, it is 1st in 1980 and second in 2019 (111,975). For 25–44 years it is 4th (13,994) and 15–24 years it is 5th (1,223 and 872 total deaths for 1980 and 2019 respectively).[1]
I'm also pretty sure many (most?) drug overdoses manifest as cardiac arrest and are probably included in "Diseases of the heart:"
>Drug overdose is a leading cause of cardiac arrest and is currently the second leading cause of overall injury-related fatality in the United States.[2]
[0] https://memorialhermann.org/services/specialties/heart-and-v...
[1] https://usafacts.org/articles/are-fentanyl-overdose-deaths-r...
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/overdose-deaths-a...
For one we could stop subsidizing suspect products (e.g. HFCS) and create other incentives.
And we also know there's a ton more that could be done to lessen how common heart disease is
Yes lifespans were extremely short on average in Medieval Europe which faced constant famine and disease from peasants living in such close conditions with animals.
But medieval europe isn't the whole world. Hunter-gather lifespans varied greatly depending on environment but the modal lifespan is usually around 70 years old. Modern archeological evidence shows us that people living past 100 was far from uncommon even 1,000 years ago:
We care about CVD because of mortality, and if mortality rate is terrible then it's a moot point.
> people living past 100 was far from uncommon
"uncommon" is not a number. The most we can infer from the data is that life was exceedingly harsh and short on average. Even if we believe it was 70 years old, that's still worse.
In fact, this is an age old debate in anthropology. A major discussion was sparked by a talk called "The Original Affluent Society" during a now-famous symposium which highlighted then-recent evidence that non-industrial societies generally had much more leisure time and less stress. We also know that they had much more stable food sources than agricultural counterparts and much less diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_the_Hunter
The debate has of course evolved since then and I won't recount the 50 years of research and debate that's happened but modern anthropologists are pretty much in agreement that the "nasty, brutish, and short" narrative is completely baseless.
Vehicle deaths are also avoidable.
certain political figures and their supporters just need a story to tell, it doesn't have to be particularly accurate or even coherent for their purposes
I think Ozempic doesn't have crazy side effects other than the face? Could be wrong
Edit: Regarding the topic at hand, I either don't drink or binge drink so I'm no saint same with driving fast.
This argument applies similarly to the fentanyl crisis, since people could simply have the self control to not take fentanyl recreationally. Do you have a similar belief that the government shouldn't be trying to stop the mass import of fentanyl and other harmful drugs?
If the government manages to stop fentanyl imports, people will simply either manufacture fentanyl locally or opt for other drugs. I agree that it's not a matter of self-control— a fentanyl addict can't simply will its way out of it— but there is a reason they chose to consume fentanyl in the first place, and despite knowing its effects, willingly chose to "escape reality".
There is no example of a country that has reduced obesity through public policy, food policy (even in the EU with strong GMO regulations), or messaging.
From a government level a different approach is necessary. So far GLP-1 inhibitors are the only things that have worked at scale. Let's see if that holds up.
https://data.worldobesity.org/region/european-union-uk-1/#da...
[1] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-soci...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221265701...
If these don’t have adverse effects then it is not bad. What “bad” we are left with is character-moralizing.
We could go further. “It is bad to fix your obesity by removing yourself from bad food.” Because this does not involve self-control either. If you isolate yourself from grocery stores and only have access to certain foods you can lose weight without self-control.
if it's working for people great, I'm on the boat that does not like it when obesity is supported eg. in victoria secret but I'll just sound like an ahole to say that
edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.
I'm not religious so it's not from that perspective I'm also not white
Last thing I'll add, why not too, I mean humans don't have wings yet we engineered airplanes to surpass birds, is that wrong?
I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
Being predisposed to obesity and yet overcoming it by working 300% harder than average (compared to someone who exercises at all) on your diet and fitness is another way to lie.
But this is self-control so then it is irrationally different I guess.
> I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.
Random existential observations but okay.
I don't think it's only about self control. but it would probably be easier if the industry wasn't pushing junk food and sugary food on Americans. Look, other countries don't have this problem. Does it mean that self control vanishes within US borders?
I also think regarding fentanyl it's a legit drug in hospitals so there will be a source
I think smoking cigarettes went way down in the US and other parts of the world. Sure, people still use them but the overall downward trend is good and that is because something was done about it.
Fentanyl takes people young. And it's new. Those characteristics make it a serious concern.
I remember reading that elimination of heart disease would increase life expectancy by some 5,5 years. Not nothing, but it indicates that most people die of heart disease at a relatively old age, when something else would kill them quite soon.
OTOH if a Fentanyl victim loses 40 or 50 years of potential life, that is a major loss for society as a whole. Kids may not be born etc.
It can be even without that if you are looking at quality-adjusted life years and not just raw life years.
Feels like the main reasons you institute tariffs, historically, is to 1- control the production/flow of goods and 2- to raise money for other endeavors. As tariffs are a much more difficult form of taxation for a payer to track (they're not getting a bill the way they do on income/real estate taxes, it's being hidden in the cost of the good) they're also a great way to obfuscate "raising taxes" if you're running on a platform of, say "I'm going to institute the largest tax break in American history".
[0] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-discuss-tariffs-canadi...
Oh no, it's very easy. When I sell my product, I will be including the exact amount the buyer is paying above what is normal due to tariffs. The tariffs are very well expressed on the purchase price of the parts that go into the product, so it's very easy for me to add up the tariffs and tell the buyer how much more trump is demanding they pay for the product.
In fact the tariffs will help fund the farm bills.
It turns out there are a lot of concerns beyond than the number of bodies.