Cavemen In A World Of Excess

[Michael Hardner]

No....my answer stands as is. "Tryanny by the majority" is a well known concept in the U.S., and I apologize for assuming this understanding by other nationals.

There's some kind of fuzziness though at the end of the argument. How does banning drug consumption by individuals not amount to tyranny of the majority, whereas limiting the size of the Big Gulp does ?

I don't see these things as binary but the 'tyranny of the majority' comment does seem to binarize it.

[bush_cheney2004]

There's some kind of fuzziness though at the end of the argument. How does banning drug consumption by individuals not amount to tyranny of the majority, whereas limiting the size of the Big Gulp does ?

Drug trafficking and possession by individuals is banned, but is otherwise regulated. Drug use is not illegal depending on the circumstances. Big Gulps are not scheduled substances.

I don't see these things as binary but the 'tyranny of the majority' comment does seem to binarize it.

Good...then all is well. Not binary, just as I maintained. I'm going to enjoy a Big Gulp to celebrate.

[Michael Hardner]

Drug trafficking and possession by individuals is banned,

How is this not tyranny again ? I'm sure we've had this discussion before but I don't remember how you resolved that.

[bush_cheney2004]

How is this not tyranny again ? I'm sure we've had this discussion before but I don't remember how you resolved that.

Because drugs are available through regulated and legal channels. Do you wanna have your own nuclear weapons too ?

[carepov]

Sugar is not a "sin" and should not be subject to a sin tax. Humans need calories to live. They do not need tobacco. Furthermore, the byproducts of tobacco smoking are directly physically harmful to other individuals. Not so with the consumption of sugar. The two are not analogous and your attempt to equate them is fundamentally flawed. What should we do? Don't eat more food than your body needs. Duh.

Anyway, if what you are worried about is healthcare costs, you should realize that every person that dies relatively quickly of heart disease is likely one less person that costs society millions as they get treated for cancer or another long-term illness over the span of many years or decades. Those kinds of cold-hearted calculations I'm sure appeal to someone who wants government to dictate everything from above, relegating individuals to mindless automatons, doing only what the government tells them to do, eating only what the government tells them to eat, thinking only what the government tells them to think. After all, it's for their own good.

Bonam I, 95% agree with you. However, Mighty AC is correct that obesity is a problem, one example is the treatment of diabetes and all the complications around it.

Before discussing a tax on sugar - isn't sugar production heavily subsidized? If so, why don't we eliminated the subsidies?

Maybe our society has become too accepting of fat people?

[Michael Hardner]

Because drugs are available through regulated and legal channels. Do you wanna have your own nuclear weapons too ?

Really ? Can you tell me where I can get some crack ?

I can get nuclear weapons too ? Cool..

[bush_cheney2004]

Really ? Can you tell me where I can get some crack ?

Sure...in Canada, try the Honourable Mayor of Toronto.

[Moonlight Graham]

Sugar is not a "sin" and should not be subject to a sin tax. Humans need calories to live. They do not need tobacco. Furthermore, the byproducts of tobacco smoking are directly physically harmful to other individuals. Not so with the consumption of sugar. The two are not analogous and your attempt to equate them is fundamentally flawed. What should we do? Don't eat more food than your body needs. Duh.

I'm not going to disagree with what you said. However. healthy eating is much more than regulating the amount of calories you put into your body, it's also about the kinds of calories we eat. Average adult needs about 2000-2500 calories to maintain weight. There's a big difference in health if a person gets their 2500 calories from white breads, processed sugars, fried foods etc. vs organic fruits and veggies and whole grains, and all the great natural vitamins and minerals etc. that come with them. No matter how much one exercises, it will not change what is ingested in the body.

Here's some of the benefits of eating really healthy foods:

- increased energy

- improved immune system

- improved mood (lower depression and anxiety)

- healthier looking skin, hair, nails etc. (& slower aging at the cellular level)

- decreased risk of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, cancer, Alzheimer's etc.

- in short, every cell in your body will be better nourished and virtually every function within your body will improve.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Mighty AC]

Anyway, if what you are worried about is healthcare costs, you should realize that every person that dies relatively quickly of heart disease is likely one less person that costs society millions as they get treated for cancer or another long-term illness over the span of many years or decades. Those kinds of cold-hearted calculations I'm sure appeal to someone who wants government to dictate everything from above, relegating individuals to mindless automatons, doing only what the government tells them to do, eating only what the government tells them to eat, thinking only what the government tells them to think. After all, it's for their own good.

The millions of westerners who develop diabetes at younger and younger ages, do to mass consumption of refined sugars, tax the system for decades. We all seem to accept that tobacco adds to our healthcare costs, hence a revenue generating tax is beneficial. Kind of like a user fee. Well diet related health complications are our most expensive healthcare problem and severely diminish our quality of life. Education has been ineffective so far...so what do you suggest?

I say in addition to education we add a glycemic index rating to food labels and tax high glycemic foods. Education, regulation and taxation. The tax revenues can be used to help offset the education and healthcare costs.

[Guest]

I say in addition to education we add a glycemic index rating to food labels and tax high glycemic foods. Education, regulation and taxation. The tax revenues can be used to help offset the education and healthcare costs.

I agree. I also think pictures similar to those on cigarette packets should appear on pop cans, chip bags and fast food cartons.

[cybercoma]

Sure...in Canada, try the Honourable Mayor of Toronto.

That would be His Worship, the Mayor of Toronto. Honourable is the style of address for Lieutenant Governors, Senators, members of the Privy Council (typically cabinet ministers), the sitting Speaker of the House, members of provincial executive councils, and a few others.

[Shady]

Stay the hell outta my kitchen the way you want some to stay out of your bedroom!

#GettingSickOfLiberalFascism

[Argus]

The comparison to drugs is apt in that society has decided it's not good for you, or society, for you to consume certain types of narcotics. One can also say it's not good for you, or society, to consume certain types of liquids and foods. But that's really only a part of the problem. It's the sedentary lifestyl which is the real issue. The types of jobs most of us have has changed radically in the last century. We used to all have physically active jobs which kept us moving around virtually all day. There was no television, no internet, and no video games. In the space of a century we've gone from constantly active, to needing to get on an exercicle or something for at least 30 minutes of actual movemnt in a day. And most of us don't even do that.

Evolution takes many thousands of years to begin to adapt a body to new types of living conditions. For example, our bones used to be much stronger so we could survive the constant work, the violent life, the need to lift and carry heavy objects. WE were much stronger. As we developed tools and farming, that need for strength receded, and our bodies have grown weaker.

But evolution doesn't work in a century. We are still fully adapted to an active lifestyle which very few of us still posess. We aren't out farming and fishing and logging and hunting every day. We sit in front of keyboards, and then come home and sit in front of televisions or video games or more keyboards. No doubt our fingers will become longer, in time, and the muscles of our hands and wrists will be changed to accomodate our constant keyboarding -- assumign the keyboard remains a constant long enough, which it probably won't.

In any event, we are simply not adapted to the lives we now lead. Watching what we consume will help, but not as much as some seem to think.

[Bonam]

But evolution doesn't work in a century. We are still fully adapted to an active lifestyle which very few of us still posess. We aren't out farming and fishing and logging and hunting every day. We sit in front of keyboards, and then come home and sit in front of televisions or video games or more keyboards. No doubt our fingers will become longer, in time, and the muscles of our hands and wrists will be changed to accomodate our constant keyboarding -- assumign the keyboard remains a constant long enough, which it probably won't.

Doubtful. Evolution only selects for traits that are beneficial to survival and reproduction. Human hands are sufficiently well adapted for using keyboards (that is, keyboards are sufficiently well designed for use by human hands) that use of a keyboard does not harm a human's ability to survive and reproduce. Later in life, extensive keyboard use may lead to bone/tissue damage reducing hand function, but that is in almost all cases after the age at which reproduction would already have occurred, thus having no evolutionary consequence. This is of course why human bodies are so ill-designed to ward off any of the illnesses and weaknesses that come with old age: because there is no evolutionary advantage to doing so, since reproduction has already occurred long ago.

The above example is regarding keyboards, but the larger point is that all of the technologies we surround ourselves with, even if they result in poorer health that eventually results in problems in old age, are not actually relevant for evolution, since those problems occur primarily after the age of reproduction. The characteristics that ARE selected for are those that result in people having, on average, more children.

In any event, we are simply not adapted to the lives we now lead. Watching what we consume will help, but not as much as some seem to think.

Of course we are adapted for the lives we lead. We designed the lives we lead to be as pleasant as possible for ourselves, and we survive in percentages higher than ever before in history to reach reproductive age and successfully reproduce, and our offspring have the highest chances of survival in history, as well. That many people in society grow fat due to current lifestyles does not negate this point. In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, there is nothing wrong with many people being obese, as no negative correlation has been observed (as far as I know) between obesity and fertility rates. And, if there was any negative correlation, the traits that lead people to be obese given current lifestyles would be selected against.

For example, our bones used to be much stronger so we could survive the constant work, the violent life, the need to lift and carry heavy objects. WE were much stronger. As we developed tools and farming, that need for strength receded, and our bodies have grown weaker.

As you point out, human bodies still have all the genetic and cellular information to exhibit the bone and muscular strength and endurance that they always have. And, the ability to reach maximum potential has been made far easier through the use of science to determine the optimal ways to develop muscle and bone with minimal time and effort. Additionally, intense training regimes allow humans today to reach levels of physical performance unparallelled in past history, hence the constant breaking of records in various athletic events. This all benefits the average individual as well, who can reach peak physical health and performance with only a few hours per week of effort, and without incurring massive bone and joint damage along the way, as would have our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

What's the overall point of all this? Humankind is perfectly well adapted to western lifestyle in an evolutionary sense. And, any individuals who desire to maintain physical health and fitness are able to do so with less effort than ever.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... And, the ability to reach maximum potential has been made far easier through the use of science to determine the optimal ways to develop muscle and bone with minimal time and effort. Additionally, intense training regimes allow humans today to reach levels of physical performance unparallelled in past history, hence the constant breaking of records in various athletic events.

Yes...the same people here who would curb or limit "human glycemic excess" are the very same ones who would have said a sub-four minute mile was impossible to achieve.

[cybercoma]

Doubtful. Evolution only selects for traits that are beneficial to survival and reproduction.

That's not exactly true. Sometimes there are co-characteristics passed on during evolution that are not necessary or beneficial to survival and reproduction. These occur in tandem with other traits that are necessary.

[carepov]

Of. In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, there is nothing wrong with many people being obese, as no negative correlation has been observed (as far as I know) between obesity and fertility rates.

There does seem to be a correlation:

http://www.news-medical.net/health/Obesity-and-Infertility.aspx

http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/news/20071211/obesity-linked-to-infertility-in-women

[Argus]

Doubtful. Evolution only selects for traits that are beneficial to survival and reproduction.

I don't think that's entirely true. I don't think evololution is smart enough to know what is beneficial to survical and reproduction. Evolution, for example, has weakened our bodies. Our bones are not as strong or heavy as they once were. We cannot perform the tasks we once did regularly, regardless of exercise. Nature allowed our bones to weaken not because it was beneficial to survival or reproduction but because the tasks we performed, once we invented tools, no longer required that level of stress and strain on our bodies.

In any event, one could sa that keyboarding skills are beneficial to the earning of money, which in turn is beneficial to reproduction, and people are reproducing much later in life than they once did. But I doubt we'll be using keyboards in a hundred years. More likely there'll be a neural interface which allows computers to become an extension of our minds.

The above example is regarding keyboards, but the larger point is that all of the technologies we surround ourselves with, even if they result in poorer health that eventually results in problems in old age, are not actually relevant for evolution,

And yet they will have an influence on evolution nonetheless. Young people are moving around much less now, and spending more time on computers, tv, games, etc, eating a lot more junk, and having to process it, inhaling all manner of artificial chemicals (we exist in a chemical stew, largely of our own making) and that is going to gradually begin to have an influence as their childrens childrens children ... have children.

Of course we are adapted for the lives we lead. We designed the lives we lead to be as pleasant as possible for ourselves, and we survive in percentages higher than ever before in history to reach reproductive age and successfully reproduce, and our offspring have the highest chances of survival in history, as well.

I wonder how many people are really finding their lives pleasant and satisfying as opposed to their ancestors. People seem fraught with emotional issues, find their work lives unsatisfying and their home lives miserable enough that they constantly break up with partners. They also bear far far fewer children. That we survive longer and have lower infant mortality rate isn't a result of being well-adapted but increases in knowledge about germ theory and other medical advances. In fact, if 'successful reproduction' is the aim of evolution then the last two generations are major failures, for they are reproducing at lower and lower rates. In much of the West, including Canada, they're not even reproducing at a replacement rate.

That many people in society grow fat due to current lifestyles does not negate this point. In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, there is nothing wrong with many people being obese, as no negative correlation has been observed (as far as I know) between obesity and fertility rates.

Has anyone actually studied that? People are getting obese at lower ages now. We have many obese children who grow into obese teenagers and then obese adults. Obese people are the first choice of mates for very, very, very few people.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Argus

[carepov]

Oh the drama. Students learn about sound nutrition and healthy living every year (in Ontario at least) from Kindergarten to grade 9, and have done so for a long time. However, diet related health issues have been steadily increasing not declining. Though activity levels have fallen some, the main culprit is diet. Over the last 30 years average calorie consumption in the US has surged from 3200 Cal to 3900 Cal. Though we have also generally replaced leaves with seeds in our diet, (grains instead of veggies), sugar consumption has skyrocketed.

Since, preventable diet related issues are the number one cost to the healthcare system, something has to be done. At one time smoking related costs occupied the top spot but education, regulation and taxation has effectively minimized the impacts of tobacco. I propose that a similar approach should be applied to our diets.

Education alone has not been effective thus far, so how would you change it? What else would you propose?

First, the data is not so clear in Canada:

http://www.sugar.ca/english/healthprofessionals/carboIssue16.cfm

I am not sugesting that the Candian Sugar Institute should be completely trusted as a source, however they do seem to make some good points that should be considered.

Second, Denmark's experience with the fat does not bode well for your argument:

In October 2011, Denmark introduced a fat tax on butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and processed food if the item contains more than 2.3% saturated fat.^[25] However, in November 2012, the Danish Tax Ministry announced it would abolish the fat tax,^[26] stating that it failed to change Danes' eating habits, it had encouraged cross border trading, put Danish jobs at risk and had been a bureaucratic nightmare for producers and outlets.^[26][27] The proposed sugar tax plans were also scrapped.^[28]

Mette Gjerskov, the Danish minister of food, agriculture and fisheries, stated that "the fat tax is one of the most criticized we had in a long time. Now we have to try to improve public health by other means.” Although the tax resulted in an additional $216 million in revenue, it also led to numerous complaints from Danish retailers that their customers were taking their business to other countries, such as Sweden and Germany, to take advantage of their lower prices.^[28][29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax

That said, I agree with the Mexican tax on soft drinks.

Another suggestion is to ban all food advertising aimed at children.

[Mighty AC]

I don't think that's entirely true. I don't think evololution is smart enough to know what is beneficial to survical and reproduction.

You're right. Evolution is simply the resulting change in a population over time. Sometimes people confuse the term evolution with natural selection, which is just one mechanism of change. We humans have largely insulated ourselves from natural selection. Natural selection simply states that organisms that live long enough to reproduce and do so more frequently will preserve and pass on their DNA, while the genetic code of organisms that do not successfully reproduce will die out.

What people tend to forget is that we are not completely ruled by our genetic code. DNA, is just the blueprint or the mould for proteins in our bodies. This is referred to as our Genotype. The proteins that are actually produced by our genetic blueprints are built with the nutrients we consume. These proteins are dependent on the quality of our diets. Poor diets can lead to problems in transcribing proteins. Phenotype, is the term given to the traits actually expressed.

Just like building a perfectly designed building with flawed materials can lead to problems; poor diets can create problems even with solid genetics.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

That said, I agree with the Mexican tax on soft drinks.

Another suggestion is to ban all food advertising aimed at children.

Why do you disagree with a tax on sat fat but support a tax on soft drinks?

[carepov]

Why do you disagree with a tax on sat fat but support a tax on soft drinks?

1. A tax on soft drinks is more practical (easy to implement, less arbitrary)

2. Soft drinks have no health benefits and are therefore more comparable to alcohol and tobacco

3. Even Denmark could not make their fat tax work - it's a loosing battle

[Mighty AC]

How is taxing one single sugar laden product less arbitrary or more practical?

I am certainly for measures that will reduce sugar consumption, but your position seems to be a contradiction. What if an Ontario based soft drink tax simply drove shoppers across the US and Quebec borders to buy sugary drinks? Would you then, all of sudden, be opposed to it?

[carepov]

How is taxing one single sugar laden product less arbitrary or more practical?

It is more practical because it is simple and has a chance of sucess (Mexico) while a fat tax did not work in Denmark. There is a consensus that soft drinks are bad for health.

There is probably already a category for "soft drinks" there would be no need to create arbitrary distinctions between high-fat/low-fat and high-sugar/low-sugar products.

I am certainly for measures that will reduce sugar consumption, but your position seems to be a contradiction. What if an Ontario based soft drink tax simply drove shoppers across the US and Quebec borders to buy sugary drinks? Would you then, all of sudden, be opposed to it?

No, I wouldn't care if there was cross-border shopping. The goal is to reduce consumption - I think that the tax would work.

When faced with a large problem, I like the idea or "starting small" and chipping away at the problem. Perhaps the tax on soft drinks would be just the beginning. Grandiose "solutions" are very rare.

[Mighty AC]

Mexico does happen to be either the fattest country in the world...or possibly the second fattest behind the US. They also happen to consume prodigious quantities of sodas. On the surface the tax, if coupled with education and proper product labelling, seems like a good idea to reduce a dangerous level of sugar consumption. However, clean fluid sources in Mexico are hard to find and sodas could at least be counted on to be germ free.

Canada doesn't have widespread problems with drinking water so it would be a much better fit here.