Tuesday, July 30, 2002

Killer teeth?
----------
The Cato Institute
by Doug Bandow
"The American judicial system abounds with scare stories and
strike suits. Leave it to the trial lawyers to blame almost every
human ailment on someone with a deep pocket. The latest cause
celebre is tooth fillings." (06/28/02)

http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-28-02.html
Study finds that globalization cures poverty

"While acknowledging the number of poor people in the world remains
"disturbingly high," the study says that in 1950 about 55% of the world's
population lived on less than US$1 a day (in constant, inflation-adjusted
dollars). By 1992, only 24% of the world's population had to make do with
that tiny amount."

"The proportion of the world's population living in absolute poverty is
lower now than it has ever been," the report says."

"In many respects, the findings will prove controversial, at least to those
outside the circle of professional economists, contradicting as they do
certain deeply held beliefs about the negative consequences of
globalization," wrote Romano Prodi, the European Commission President."

----------
National Post
Globalization is responsible for dramatically reducing the number
of abjectly poor people around the world, a new study finds. "On
average economic growth is good for the poor, and trade is good
for growth," says London's Centre for Economic Policy Research.
(07/10/02)
http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=7D0DFAD8-D129-40D8-A94C-D5D2FD9E0CC2

Friday, July 26, 2002

This is a good article, rather sad, about the recent incident in Russia
where a plane full of russian schoolchildren crashed into a cargo transport. The error
lay in the pilot and the air traffic controllers decision, this article
relays the story. Sadly, the computerized automated system in the plane
told the pilot of the passenger plane to climb, repeatedly, while the
overworked stressed air traffic controller told the pilot to dive. The
pilot, unfortunately, listened to the human air traffic controller and not
the cold impersonal computer voice bellowing in the cockpit. - Matus

To Err Is Human

from - http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/14/weekinreview/14JOHN.html
I think this article speaks for itself - Mike

Ailing Man Sues Fast-Food Firms

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58652,00.html

Tuesday, July 16, 2002

All, I have mentioned a few times previously the general attitude that the
elitist academic left has perveyed regarding the US. The post-modernist
movement embodies a rejection of western ideals, including crazy things like
science, freedom, and rule of law. As I mentioned in a previous article on
Cambodia, a prominent journal on foreign affairs chastised the US for
pushing its ideologies on cultures that were communist. What right, the
author argued, did America have to push its flawed system, which contained
such things as racism, on communist nations. Obviously lost on the author
is the degree of the problems. As Winston Churchill said, democratic
capitalism is the worst government out there, except for all the rest. The
liberal academic elites in the Vietnam era were making these same arguments
while millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians were being slaughtered or
starved to death. Along with the rise in post modernism is the rise in
relativism, that is, that no one system is objectively better than any
other, that morality is a relative concept. Ethicians would shudder at such
proclamations, pointing out that people in western industrialized worlds
live much more comfortable, healthier, and longer lives than people who are
not influenced as much by western culture. The western ideals of freedom,
democracy, laws that apply equally to everyone, and equal rights are thought
to be merely a relative concept and no more or less valid than systems which
oppress and starve their people, force their women to remain ignorant, and
frequently abandon all civil rights. Such is the current state of Africa,
the post-modernist movement has made it politically incorrect to actively
participate in another culture, no matter how brutal and oppressive that
culture is. This is a wonderful article that focuses on the effect in
Zimbabwe, where millions face starvation while the government shuts down
farms because their inhabitants are white descendants of colonialists. -

Matus

The Post-colonialism Famine
By Robert W. Tracinski

From - http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0602/tracinski062102.asp

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | "Today, more than a million people in
Zimbabwe are starving, and up to three million face the imminent prospect
of starvation. This has not yet excited much attention in the West.
Zimbabwe, after all, is far away from the centers of American interest; all
of our top reporters are in Kandahar and Karachi...."
(All, these are the responses that I recieved from the caloric restriction
mailing list on the article I posted and my introductory comments. Some
interesting points were made, but most of the argument was with one poster,
Anna, who believes whole heartely that capitalism is the evil of the world.
It starts with my introduction to the article and then the comments follow.
An interesting read. - Matus)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

<< Companies are not inherintly evil and sacrificing the nations health to
overfeed the populace just to make meglomaniacal ceo's richer. They are
subscribing to simple supply and demand economics, >>

Right. And Osama Bin Laden is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Anna

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Right. And Osama Bin Laden is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize."

I am sorry, I am not following how that is a logical correlation. I
seriously doubt the ~3,000 people who died in the WTC attacks would find
your parallel of their tragic deaths to people choosing to eat unhealthy
very humorous.

Matus

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<< I am not following how that is a logical correlation. I seriously doubt
the ~3,000 people who died in the WTC attacks would find your parallel of
their tragic deaths to people choosing to eat unhealthy very humorous. >>

It's been estimated that the typical adult is exposed to 3,500 commercial
ads a day. Most people subsist on shitty food, buy shitty products, and are
quelled into thinking that they, too, can have a thrilling and glamorous
life. Communities are falling apart, housing is disgraceful, and overall
health and fitness is dismal. You can debate me about Osama and the WTC off
list if you like. Don't BS me, though.

Anna

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[to matus] I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment with which you wrote
this post. I just don't think anyone should be advertising anything at
children especially unhealthy practices. Adults are supposed to be
responsible for themselves. If they become obese it's their fault. A child
is a different story.

Scott

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*SNIP*

> I would prefer to see companies create alternative products which are both
> good tasting and have a high nutritional content, which science and market
> competition will eventually lead to. I am curious what other members of
the
> lists feeling on this subject are.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matus

Feeling that your analysis is mostly accurate that money spent on food is
not necessarily linked to calorie consumption. Some members eat enough
veggies for a family of six and my cursory examination
is that the most expensive foods are those containing isolated or a high
percent of omega-3 PUFAs and, then, quality protein.

High protein and balanced PUFAs is not the cheapest way to feed yourself.

Further, the article has nothing to do with CR or ON. Not that that is your
fault. And if it is not obvious (sadly to many dim bulbs it is not) the
money spent on advertising has more to do with _branding_ than nutritional
content. This is why Coke and Pepsi can charge a premium over store-brand
cola. It is why Coke and Diet Coke cost the same despite differing calorie
content.

People also pay a premium for service at restaurants - not just the food.
If they gave you water and hot dirt straight from the oven instead of soda
and pasta, it may not appreciably affect the cost of the meal (raw cost of
those foods only). Demand fine wine and salmon, then their is more money to
be made selling both service and food.

Note:

"The food industry contends that more research is needed before action is
taken on regulating advertising and sales; that physical
inactivity and not specific foods should be the target for change; that
parents must teach their children to act responsibly; that
vending and soft-drink machines in schools provide freedom of choice; and
that no food or company should be demonized."

"We agree on one count -- that more research on children's diets and their
health would be helpful, but the research must be
conducted in a rigorous and unbiased fashion by independent scientists."

They agree on one count. Presumably disagreeing that "parents must teach
their children to act responsibly"?! Disagreeing with vending machines that
"provide freedom of choice"?! It is only
natural that they would oppose freedom AND responsibility.

The food industry is an easy target for those who prefer roasting scapegoats
than promoting individual responsibility.

- Joe C.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[To anna]

"It's been estimated that the typical adult is exposed to 3,500 commercial
ads a day."

I am still not understanding why you find this abhorrent. Considering the
forced collectivized farms that despotic dictatorship communist nations
typically resort to, Id prefer the barrage of ads to the 1/3 cup rice per
day and threat of execution that many communist / socialist nations
presented as an alternative (or outright starvation and murder, take note
that despotic communist governments are responsible for nearly 170 million
murders *this century*). If you find commercials aesthetically displeasing,
good for you, change the channel. But others may not, its a subjective and
qualitative
value call, and no one persons opinion is more or less valid than other
others, since by definition there is nothing objective to base it on.

"Most people subsist on shitty food, buy shitty products, and are quelled
into thinking that they, too, can have a thrilling and glamorous life."

And they live far far better lives than the populace did as a median average
100 years ago, 500 years ago, or 1,000 years ago. As you go back in time,
the harder you have to work just to stay alive increases. Even as early as
1900 some 80% of the population farmed, and only farmed. There was no art,
culture, poetry, or music to pass the time, as there was no such thing as
free time except for the top 1% of the population. Today less than 2% of
the population farms. We may subsist on shitty food, buy shitty products,
and are convinced by commercials to buy stuff we do not need, but by every
account the medial average person on earth today lives better than at any
time in history. We still have the longest average life expectancy despite
these 'horrific' conditions we allegedly live in.

"Communities are falling apart, housing is disgraceful, and overall health
and fitness is dismal."

My community is just fine. My housing is pretty good, I have electricity,
centralized heat, hot running water, and sanitation systems. Something that
less than 1% of the population had 50 years ago, and virtually none of the
population had 100 years ago. Try taking a look at what people *do have*
for once and compare that with what they *did have* 100 or 500 years ago.
Our typical kitchen conveniences such as dish-washing machines, toasters,
blenders, and food processors would have required an army of poor slave
laborers only for the rich 200 years ago. Now almost all of the post
industrialized west has these conveniences, and most of the industrialized
nations. Even in the poorest of the poor nations, caloric intake has
increased by 30% since 1960, and this is primarily because we can make food
cheaper now than ever before. Its very difficult for corrupt despotic
leaders to keep dirt cheap food out of the hands of its starving populace,
and the cheaper it gets the harder it is too keep out of their hands. If
over all health and fitness is so dismal, why do we have the longest average
life expectancies than ever before in all of human history?

"You can debate me about Osama and the WTC off list if you like. Don't BS
me, though."

I do not see what there is to debate. As a practitioner or follower of CR,
you must certainly be concerned with and very much value how long you live.
In that respect, I think you should take note that now more than ever we as
a medial average have the longest life expectancy of humans that have ever
existed.

Regards,

Matus

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many of these subjects have already been touched on in past postings but as
long as we're talking about saving the world I agree with some points you
make.

Yes, why don't food companies make better tasting, health foods? Probably
because nobody is asking them to per se. And those who are wouldn't pay the
price. The abundance of fat free albeit not very healthy foods are in
response to a general desire to eat healthy but the public has demonstrated
weak understanding of even the most basic cause and effect connection
between caloric consumption and weight gain.

For any who are interested, get out your calculator and figure out what it
would cost to make one of Sherm's Mega Muffins. Then compare that to the
cost of say a dozen Krispy Kremes. Good food cost more than junk food...
that's why it's called junk food... look at what they push as you walk in
the supermarket.. high profit margin baked goods.. a few pennies of flour
and sugar...

It pretty much comes down to demand, which is somewhat influenced by
awareness or education. I bristle at the concept that dietary guidelines
intentionally undershoot out of fear that nobody would follow honest
advice... Aging baby boomers if they're even thinking about it are patiently
waiting for the big drug companies to come to the rescue with a youth
pill... but in a pretty expensive failure they recently gave up testing a
drug to stimulate growth hormone for sale as precisely that. Who wouldn't
mind a little more GH?

Selling soda and junk in high schools is somewhat defended by the revenues'
use in supporting sport and activity programs. I believe books are still in
the general budget. However state budgets are tight and getting tighter. The
kids are already in a school, why not educate them?

I believe there could be huge demand for CRON foods for use by the main
stream for short term weight loss.. the big dollar diet industry doesn't
really benefit from curing people... when they make much more money,
catching them on the yo-yo.

JR

PS: sorry if I'm a little cynical... it's my nature

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

> If
> over all health and fitness is so dismal, why do we have the longest
average
> life expectancies than ever before in all of human history?

Perhaps because, even though we "break" as often as ever, Doctors have
gotten really good at "fixing" us? It seems to me that we could live even
longer (not to mention save billions) by focusing on "routine maintanance"
(i.e., preventative medicine) rather than eating ourselves into oblivion and
waiting for the good doc to bail us out with another quadruple bipass. While
I don't really buy into the argument that our standard of living has
declined to some dismal level, overeating is definitely holding society back
from where it could be.

And the food industry is definitely contributing to the problem by failing
to market more satiating, nutritive foods. Since I've been on CRON, I've
noticed that when I have the occasional "standard American diet" snack or
meal, that crap does literally nothing to fill me up. It's almost as if the
body is saying, "OK, I don't even know what that stuff *is*, but you're
gonna' hafta' put a lot more in me before I can derive any real nutrition
out of it." Walking down the snack aisle of a local supermarket, I couldn't
find a single item that didn't contain one or more the following: enriched
wheat flour, sugar, and partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening. Not
even Snack Wells or "Healthy" Choice! So, unless you go to a specialty
store, there are *zero* choices.

So, yah, we can hang on for dear life longer than we used to be able to, and
not all of us live in houses that's falling apart, but the current situation
hardly seems satisfactory to me!

-Dan

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<< My community is just fine. >>

I'll bet it is. I asked you to contact me off-list. If you do not understand
the relationship between global capitalism and global poverty, you have your
eyes wide shut. The arguments that you are making are very upsetting and
out-of-touch.

Anna

[of course anna responds to NONE of the points of the argument, and instead
resorts to a pure emotional appeal attempting to make it looks as though I
am some well off millionaire. - Matus]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

Anna wrote:

> It's been estimated that the typical adult is exposed to 3,500
commercial ads
> a day. Most people subsist on shitty food, buy shitty products, and
are
> quelled into thinking that they, too, can have a thrilling and
glamorous
> life.

Anna,

More power to you. Just take a walk in a shopping mall anywhere in
America. The majority of people have mutated into obese creatures
whose forms never existed on this planet, and it IS directly
attributable to rampant commercialism and intentional government
misinformation (e.g. the food pyramid)arising from collusion between
the USDA and big agro companies. It is not at all un-American to
question this phenomenon and to point out that it arises from free-
marketeering run amock. I'm definitely in favor of laissez-faire
capitalism - but it requires an honest government and honest
oversight.

In the US, states like Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa have small
populations but large political representation because they each have
two senators (and excessive representation in the Electoral College).
No US Presidential candidate will tell you not to eat corn or soy.
There's no way they could get elected. The food pyramid arises
directly from the type of political representation that we have in
the USA - and the resulting failure of government oversight and
misinformation from the government has given us what we see in
shopping malls.

Ray

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi all!

whenever i see something abouit this topic, i have a picture of a carpenter
with a saw that saws on the forward push and also on the backwards pull:
forwards and backwards!

Sell us all the food in huger and huger portions then sell us the Ways to
reduce our overweight.
then have the Drug/doctor people make lots of $$$ with all of the alments
due to our overweight!
then have the undertakers make also lots of $$$!!!

freestone

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm afraid, in the end, the undertaker's bottom line won't be affected too
much no matter what we do.

Scott

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless he charges for the weight capacity of the casket....

JR

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John R

"Many of these subjects have already been touched on in past postings but as
long as we're talking about saving the world I agree with some points you
make.

Aging baby boomers if they're even thinking about it are patiently
waiting for the big drug companies to come to the rescue with a youth
pill... but in a pretty expensive failure they recently gave up testing a
drug to stimulate growth hormone for sale as precisely that. Who wouldn't
mind a little more GH?"


----------------

John, I agree with your comments pretty much in their entirety. Id only
like to add that I think it quite fanciful and delusional to think that the
entire population will ever all *want* and *choose* to eat a fit, healthy
diet. The only way to reasonably enforce such an attitude in the populace
is to *force* them all to eat a particular diet. Such a massive state of
paternalistic and statist government would be far more terrible than the
obesity caused as a consequence of the freedom of choice. I would rather
live in a world where people can freely choose to eat unhealthily than one
in which they are all forced to eat healthy.

That being said, the only way we will see a world of fit, healthy (and
happy) people is through scientific innovations like a CR pill combined with
capitalistic competition of such pills or treatment. Scientific innovations
that will allow people to have it both ways, satiate their desire to eat
more while still staying thin and healthy.

Matus

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dan M

> If
> over all health and fitness is so dismal, why do we have the longest
average
> life expectancies than ever before in all of human history?

"Perhaps because, even though we "break" as often as ever, Doctors have
gotten really good at "fixing" us? It seems to me that we could live even
longer (not to mention save billions) by focusing on "routine maintanance"
(i.e., preventative medicine) rather than eating ourselves into oblivion and
waiting for the good doc to bail us out with another quadruple bipass. While
I don't really buy into the argument that our standard of living has
declined to some dismal level, overeating is definitely holding society back
from where it could be."

I completely agree with you, as I just said in a previous post to John, It
would be nice if everyone chose to eat a healthy diet (of their own free
will) but I can not in good conscience support any notion of forcibly
coercing people into eating healthy. It seems that pointing to the cost of
an obese society is more a negative reflection on the fact that the public
has to shoulder the cost of others who choose to eat unhealthy than the
converse of the ability of people to make that choice. The consequences of
diet should be adequately reflected in insurance premiums. As far as the
standard of living, if you get the chance try to catch PBS 'Frontier House'
where a few families moved to Montana and had to make do with 1850's
technology. They spent their time laboring away, and come winter (the end
of the show) they still would have all frozen / starved to death if they
stayed. Imagine a similar show set in 1650, or 1150, or 150...Talk about
'survivor'.

"And the food industry is definitely contributing to the problem by failing
to market more satiating, nutritive foods."

People, unfortunately, also do not seem to demand these foods. Whether the
lack of demand is from the advertising, or the advertising is from the lack
of demand, remains to be seen. I am sure a valid case could be made each
way, but most people, even ones who eat unhealthy, are definitely aware of
the existence of healthy alternatives. The only way people will change is
if healthy low cal nutritious food is as cheap, tastes as good, and is as
easily accessible as the high fat / high calorie alternatives.

"So, yah, we can hang on for dear life longer than we used to be able to,
and
not all of us live in houses that's falling apart, but the current situation
hardly seems satisfactory to me!"

Indeed, but ask yourself what situation ever would truly seem satisfactory.
The grass is always greener on the other said, as the saying goes. In the
meantime, more and more people are living longer, healthier, and happier
lives than ever before.

Matus

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: AnnaSimone

<< My community is just fine. >>

Fine is relative, of course.

"I asked you to contact me off-list."

About Osama, I have no desire nor inclination to debate *anything* about
Osama.

"If you do not understand the relationship between global capitalism and
global poverty, you have your eyes wide shut. The arguments that you are
making are very upsetting and out-of-touch. "

If you do not understand the relationship between global capitalism,
increased standard of living globally, and overall happier healthier longer
lived people, you have your eyes wide shut, and your arguments are very
upsetting and out of touch. If you wish to discuss / debate the topic
further, please contact me privately, as this is OT.

Regards,

Matus

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------

<< LEGAL NOTICE

Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure
or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken)
in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an
addressee, please inform the sender immediately.

>>

Oh, man, you've got it all down, Matus, don't you?

Anna

[Anna felt it necessary to criticize a rather typical corporate legal
disclaimer publicly to the list. I always love intellectually stimulating
debates. (sarcasm) - Matus]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, health insurance rates that accurately reflected risk/benefit of
obesity could be a significant motivation...

(I see that you mention this in a later post).


JR

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: AnnaSimone

Mr. Matus

I'm sorry, but the global standard of living has not increased. Most people
in the world are poor, living off the crumbs of and destruction wrought by
capitalism gone amok.

You are offensive. You know nothing about the poor or their suffering.

BTW, the rise of international terrorism has a direct relationship to this
situation. You are shallow. Do not contact me on or off the list.

Anna

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[at this point, I attemtped to write a sincere message to Anna and sent it
to her, unfortunately she blocked my email address. A classic example of a
true believer who has no interest in empirically edifiying a world view a
refuses to even give audience to any contradictory ideas. Instead I posted
the article publicly to the list - Matus]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(All, please accept my apologies, I had attempted to respond to this letter
to Anna offline, but messages from my address have been blocked. Anna
continues to respond to my posts yet insists that I do not contact her, the
contents of this message are intended for her but I am unable to send the
message off line. - Matus)

Ms. Anna,

I base my world view on empirical edification, that is, I confirm it with
reality. If you define 'standard of living' and then determine adequately
what percentage of the population is at what standard of living, and it is
objectively shown that the continual perpetuating trend is that a higher
percentage of people continually live at a lower standard of living then I
would be more than happy to change my worldview. I am sorry, but the global
standard of living has increased (at least according to all evidence I have
been privy to). If you dispute this, I would be more than happy to learn
other wise. More people are better off today than ever before (even the
desolate poor liver better today than they did 1,000 years ago) The very
fact that a smaller percentage of people starve to death every day than ever
before is because free people are encouraged to interact amongst themselves
in freely chosen manners, causing capitalistic competition to led to
innovation (electricity, sanitation, running water, agriculture) and these
products vital to the increase in the standard of living have become less
expensive and more accessible to everyone in the world.

Please tell me what I have done to offend, nothing I say is meant in an
offensive manner. If you contend that I am offensive because of my
worldview, I assure you I am neither a heartless person or non-compassionate
person. I value people and lives very dearly, and anything that increases
the overall well being of the world I support. If you can enlighten me and
show me why my worldview is incorrect, I would not only welcome this, I
would enthusiastically support it, as my primary concern is for global well
being, not an ideological defense of capitalism.

I do certainly agree that most people in the world are poor, but the
percentage of 'poor' is smaller than ever, and 'poverty' as absolute wealth
is higher than ever before in all of human history. Do I feel that Is
enough? Not at all, I would like to see every person live at a standard of
living that is even 1/10 that of the post industrialized west. But there
are only three ways to accomplish this, lower the standard of living by 90%
in the post-industrialized west, kill 90% of the worlds population, or raise
the standard of living in the rest of the world.

I am sure that you came to your own heartfelt worldview through a great
quantity of deliberation and exploration, as did I. Consequently, the
worldviews we have come to support are in ideological conflict, but I
genuinely came to mind through compassion, intelligent rational observation,
and a sincere concern for the well being of others. I can feel sure in
assuming that you have done the same, yet we have come to completely
different assessments of the situation. I firmly believe that there is an
objective reality 'out there' and that neither of our beliefs hold any say
over the way reality truly works. In that light, I am sure that one of us
is wrong, the other is right, or there is some combination in the middle. I
am more than willing to learn the errs of my ways, are you?

And I agree that international terrorism has a direct relation with
global poverty, but those impoverished nations are artificially kept at low
standards of living by the threat of force from oppressive, despotic
governments. Capitalist or non-capitalist, oppressive despotic governments
are horrific and responsible for 170 million murders this century. Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. etc were all oppressive despotic governmental
figures and murdered untold millions of people.

I do not believe you know me well enough to call me shallow.

Sincerely,

Matus

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postscript

Surprisingly I never recieved a response from Anna. Other members of the
list sent encouraging messages to me, including a professor of economics in
Calirfornia who linked me to a paper he wrote on the subject suggesting why
some many people believe this (that the world is worse off than ever before)
in the face of overwhelming evidence. He also linked a paper from two
members of the World Bank dealing with the primary cause of suffereing in
the world being countries which have little to no law enforcement or
protection of property rights or encouragement for free trade. A paper
which I will write a summary on and post to the list later.

A few days later, Anna posted to the list criticzing it for not being open
enough to new members, at that a flurry of responses came back citing
specific instances from archives where Anna was offensive and arrogant to
new members. A long heartfealt post was written by another member to her
trying to understand why she is so negative and insists on supporting these
worldviews while criticing the list and everyone on it. The only response
the poster recieved was a 'Fu#k you'.

Matus


All, this is from a post I sent to the Caloric Restriction Mailing list
regarding obesity and capitalism in a free society. It starts with my
comments on the article to the list, and then the article follows.

I dont know of *any* kind of advertisement that isnt 'inherently
deceptive and exploitative' Companies survive by providing people with what
they want. If nobody wanted cars no amount of advertising would keep a car
company in business. Sadly high sugar / high fat foods actually taste very
good, and people want to eat them. Companies are not inherintly evil and
sacrificing the nations health to overfeed the populace just to make
meglomaniacal ceo's richer. They are subscribing to simple supply and
demand economics, people actually want to do things that are not healthy for
them (shocking I know) and want to eat high fat high sugar foods that taste
good. I certainly wouldnt even rank obesity as a 'serious threat' today, as
more than 30,000 children starve to death every day. In a world full of
despotic non-democratic nations who rule at the expense of the oppression of
thier people, the 'problem' of obesity in comparative wealthy and well off
west is of little concern to me at the moment. I have read of recent
studies that indicate a sedantary lifestyle is just as much at fault as high
calorie foods in americas 'obesity' problem. I also know of no 'lobby' that
does not use power and money to influence national policy (farm subsidies
anyone?) yet this article condemnes the 'food industry' for doing as much.
The libertarian in me can not stand by and support such policies with
justifications like "The nation cannot afford stalling, diversion and
policies with no teeth in the nutrition arena; the human toll is too great"
The same exact thing in context could be said of every risk increasing human
activity, mountain climbing, sports, acrobatics, parasailing, spelunking,
driving, riding motorcycles, etc. etc. In all of these there is a great
human toll, yet that is the price that the freedom to choose brings with it.
The article closes with "Otherwise, profit prevails over public health and
the nation loses." I would say it is more reasonable to say that free
choice prevails over the paternalistic nanny state.

I would prefer to see companies create alternative products which are both
good tasting and have a high nutritional content, which science and market
competition will eventually lead to. - Matus

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15232-2002Jun7.html

Fighting Obesity And the Food Lobby