Large and In Charge

New at Reason: Ron Bailey breaks out his tape measure and calculates how wide around America's "obesity epidemic" really is.

Comments

[fredH]

Jim Antley:

Right on about those RV geeks. I've driven all over this country (47 of the 50 states) on rural roads, and I've come to thoroughly despise the bastards.

[PLC]

FredH - so, about 10% of South Carolina is tree farms? How is this bad? Those trees become carbon sinks as they grow, they clean the air, they provide paper products, and they give plenty of habitat for wildlife. The point is, that's 10% of SC covered with trees.

I'm always amazed by people I've met in Seattle who think there is no wilderness left, when there are literally millions of acres of pristine wilderness within a two hour drive of their home.

[Jim Antley]

Another state heard from.

Fred, I've lived many years in South Carolina, and a lot of it was in the years I flew small aircraft.

There are plenty of tree farms, but not "most of the land". That is a big stretch. The SC dept. of Agriculture could tell you best, but the number would be less than 10% (I'd put money on this). SC has some beautiful land, and I hope it stays that way - keeping the yankees up north would help out immensely on this score.

About the only thing bad about the tree farms is that some small ones (specially Christmas tree farms) are land that used to be good for forced landing areas - hard to land in the Christmas trees without doing substantial damage to the plane ;-}

[Jim Antley]

Wow, freaky - I wrote that 10% in the post before I saw the post after Fred's first one!

Good to see another sandlapper on the site, Fred.

[PLC]

Joe - you're mostly accurate in your fishy example. As fish stocks get depleted, they are replaced by farmed fish (your error is in thinking farmed fish will be more expensive than "free-range" fish). This does nothing to maintain the health of the ocean. I'm sure you know that this is a "tragedy of the commons" situation, and that the only means of rectifiying this situation is to privatize the fishing grounds (like we do with wood products - if everyone was just allowed to cut down any tree they wanted, no one would have an incentive to plant trees in the first place, or wait for them to grow to maturity).

[Jim]

Joe,

The problem with the ecological resourse in question is that no one owns it. Tragedy of the commons, as they say. Those large forests that Fred H obervers are owned by tree farmers are still large forests that convert CO2 into O2 and provide homes for wildlife, even if they will be cyclically cut down. Point is, no one is ever going to completely clear cut privately owned forests because that would cut their own throats for future income.

If there are fish stocks (or areas of the ocean) that poor people live off of and have been using for centuries as a means of survival, the solution here is to grant them the legal ownership of that which they've had unofficial ownership of all along, and then they can charge the big fishing companies to use their fishing rights if they want to. Of course, for migratory ocean species this might be trickier to apply, but some type of market based solution should be investigated because experience has shown it works.

Also, I'm a little reluctant to give big government the credit for the wealth of the aged. Surely it has helped, but to my experience there's still poor old people out there, and they are the ones who are surviving soley on their SS income and usually have to live in susidized housing or with family. There are several people like that in my family. On the other hand, there are people who have their pensions, savings bonds, stocks, CD's and other forms of time enhanced interest compounded wealth that came from working good jobs (or what used to be good jobs, anyway) and socking away money for their retirement. Being cheap also helps. My grandparents and parents fit this description and none of them have had 'high falutin' career type jobs. It looks to me that the wealth of seniors was caused by good old fashioned thrift and hard work, coupled with the unmatched economic opportunities available in America. This would have happened regardless of social security or Medicare.

[PLC]

On obesity as a status symbol.... firstly, a group of scientists did some cross-cultural work on beauty a few years ago, including going to islands and tribes without access to TV or movies, and found that the ideal hip to waist ratio for a female was uniform worldwide. Also, the same faces were picked as the most attractive by everyone, regardless of culture. They even used female silloettes and found that the same basic shape is considered most attractive in all cultures.

My best friend my freshman year in college was from Samoa and I asked him about the fat is beautiful thing. He said it is mostly a myth. It is a status symbol to be "unthin", but is certainly not considered beautiful to be fat, let alone obese.

Basically, the vast majority of people all around the world find the same, healthy physique to be attractive. It is probably 90% biological and only 10% cultural.

Also, Veblin was a buffoon who vastly oversimplied human motivation. He was sort of like Freud, who looked at his own messed up mind and decided that everyone had the same problems as he....

[JDM]

viking,

I'm surprised that more hasn't been made of the new BMI charts the government uses. It seems to me that there may be a lot to be said by libertarian minded writers about the governemnt redifining the problem (creating the new bogus obesity rating system) in order to get its fingers into more pies. What exactly is the timing between the new charts and the emergence of the new crisis over the last few years?

[holger viking]

jdm:

some useful links about health, the BMI - including changes in the constant (704.5 vs 700 claimed to be insignificant). and general stuff including why atkins is bullshit. and about fitness.
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/health/commhlth/bodyimg/weight.htm
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/pubs/statobes.htm
http://www.drmirkin.com/fitness/1049.html
http://www.drmirkin.com/fitness/8688.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/blockers.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/slim/99.html

[Jim]

Very interesting point, PLC. I've also read a little bit about some of the wierd things that cultures around the world have found sexy, like the small foot fetish of 19th century Japanese and the African tribes whose women put larger and larger disks into incisions in their lips to make them excessively long. In all cases scientists believed that there was some feature that was determined to be attractive in general (small feet in women being a sign of youth, or women with large, full lips being a sign of sexual maturity and/or womanliness) but cultural obsession with a particular feature led to excesses. In our case, thinness is a sign of youth. Most anorexic models, in my opinion, are trying to artificially maintain the physique of a newly post pubescent girl, probably 14 or 15 years old. In times past of course this was a perfectly acceptable age for a young woman to be married off (usually to an older man). We as a culture may have taken this characteristic to an extreme (as others have throughout history) but that doesn't change the fact that younger women are generally considered more attractive than older ones and that young women are usually thinner than older ones. Basic biology at work here.

I put forth the idea in a previous post, tonque in cheek, that the anti-fat warrors should be the ones embracing the 'herion chic' anorexia standard of beauty as a means to encourage people to slim down. Haven't seen any evidence of this happening though.

[Jim Antley]

That is really interesting, PLC, and I think you're right. I always wondered how those other supposed cultures that think big is beautiful can be that way. (Also, in reverse, for the anorexic Calvin Klein models for that matter). How can you be attracted to a woman that doesn't have evenly remotely similar curves to what your body feels is "hot"?

Notice, you don't see too many Samoan legy supermodels, even in the Samoan editions of Cosmo and Shape magazines at the Samoan supermarket check-out.

Which makes me wonder how you can seriously be gay? I've thought about it a lot and believe it has to be mostly genetics, too.

[trainwreck]

The idea of privatizing fisheries is a cute, ideology-driven notion that doesn't work in the real world.

Fish move around, migrations can take them thousands of miles over years' time.

What good is it if you own a stock of fish and someone builds a dam on a river that blocks their migration? Your fish might wander in to international waters or even foriegn waters (many "american" salmon are caught in Canada) and get caught. Are you going to grant these "owners" of wild animals the "ownership" over their entire habitat as well and the ability to negotiate treaties with foriegn governments? I've got a river to sell you if you think that's a good idea...

Native indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest retained 50% ownership of fisheries through treaties, but being unable to stop the destruction of habitat, most of those fisheries were greatly diminished. Sometimes one needs to recognize that privatization isn't the answer to everything, and that government regulation has it's place.

[JDM]

trainwreck,

It's worked pretty well in Iceland and New Zealand.

[joe]

I've read a lot about privatizing fisheries, and it's a fascinating idea. Now stop ducking the issue

The replacement of resources is an economic function, and does not take into account that the ecosystems don't operate the same way. You made this same mistake in singing the environmental praises of tree farms, Jim. Once all the natural, biotically diverse forest is cut down, we can replace our timber needs with monoculture tree farms. However, those neat, uniform, controlled, manmade ecosystems have significantly different features and functions than a natural woodland, and don't necessarily take into account the habitat needs of wildlife. This is why there is substantially less biological activity, and substantially less biodiversity, in agricultural land vs less altered habitat. In time, a cleared and planted tree farm can come to take on the characteristics of what was there before (assuming there is a decent amount of unaltered open space near it that can recolonize with native species). However, as you mention, tree farmers cut and replant and generally maintain their investment, making sure that the biological activity of the land doesn't develop.

[PLC]

Joe - certainly a tree farm is a poor substitute for a native forest in terms of beauty and diversity and habitat. However, it is better for clean air, pretty good for animals and scenary, and a better alternative than getting our wood from native forests.

Since wood farms are vastly more productive than natural forests, we need less and less land to get more and more wood each year. Add in the market from recycled materials, and the power of genetic enhancements (some engineered poplars grow to full maturity in only 3 years), and mankind can meet our wood product needs with a miniscule footprint.

[The Mountain Goat]

The commentator's suggestion, that we discriminate against fat people is great, until we attempt to implement it. If 3/5 or 2/3 of the population are obese, some of those widebodies are likely to belong to groups that we can't discriminate against. So will we only be able to discriminate against fat white guys? Or will minorities have to keep thin to keep their jobs?

[Jim]

Good points, Joe. I agree that there is some value to unmodified wilderness. Even that can have a market value, to tourists, campers, hunters and scientists or even private individuals who just want some space. However I still would maintain that even though a tree farm lacks the biodiversity of a natural forest, doesn't mean it is a disfunctional ecological system. It still recycles CO2 and provides some habitat to other species. I would have to think this is especially true of tree farms for the simple fact that the crop must mature for many years before it can be harvested, thus providing much more stable accomodations for animal and plant species than a wheat field that gets harvested two or three times a year.

[Anonymous]

I'm willing to bet that the characteristics that define an attractive woman are much less culture dependant that the characteristics that define an attractive male. Status is defined a bit differently in different areas and male attractiveness is typically tied to power/wealth whereas a woman's attractiveness is related to her fertility.

[joe]

Jim,

The monocultural, maintained character of a tree farm provides significantly different, and significantly lower, habitat value. Also, I brought up the cutting concept not to suggest that there is constant disruption of wildlife, but as one particularly harsh way that the agriculatural land is kept from converting into something with much more environmental benefit.

PLC,

No question that good managment techniques are better than bad management techniques in reducing footprint. But the point is, within that footprint, the maintenance of economic value is different from, and sometimes diametrically opposed to, the maintenance of ecological value. In some cases, the two may line up closely, but there is no sense at all in blithely assuming that the two always go together.

If you want a really sustainable wood source, try bamboo. Grows like a weed, requires little or no chemical attention, makes nice, springy hardwood floors. No Frankenstein required. (Not a neocon crack, please don't call me a Nazi)

[PLC]

Anon - that depends upon whether you're referring to physical attractiveness or attractiveness as a potential mate. Women are physically attracted to "healthy" looking partners with good genes, just like men. Women, however, have to also consider the likelihood of the male to stick around and provide for the baby.

For instance, it has been shown that when women have an affair or a fling, they almost always choose their partner based purely on physical attraction. Women don't have affairs with a Bill Gates, they marry him. Also, women as much more likely to concieve if they have sex with a physcially attractive partner, rather than a potential long-term mate.

[PLC]

Joe - bamboo floors are no good if you own dogs. They get scratched too easily. Very pretty, however, and you can put in-floor heating under them without worrying about warping.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

See my comments on weight loss here: http://www.samizdata.net/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3593

I'm about 6'2" and 212, down from a recent high of 220, which was obtained through various mishaps and factors. I was around 195 about a year or more ago. I've got several fat pockets that I need to get rid of, and I'm not going to climb Rainier tomorrow, but, things like BMI don't take into consideration other factors.

From the climbing gym, a guy who was about 6'1" and 280, two fireplug-type guys, and a short girl with a bit of baby fat all have kicked my ass. The fireplugs had well-defined muscles and the BMI would probably have called them overweight. The guy who weighed 280 had fat pockets like me, but he also had lots of muscle.

When hiking, I frequently outpace younger, thinner members of the "general population," only getting passed occasionally and on trails which "real" hikers visit.

A better indication of fitness is things like body fat % and other exotic things I'm not that familiar with like VO2 Max.

[fredH]

And if you want to see how fast bamboo grows, visit the Edison Museum in Ft. Meyers, FL. They have a stand of bamboo there that they mark every day. You can see how many inches it has grown since the previous days. Amazing.

[Russ]

This is all crap. "Health" is just being used as a euphemism for "my own personal taste". Isn't all of this going to be moot with genetic engineering?

[Jim]

Hey Russ,

Lots of hot button social issues will be moot with future technology. Drunk driving will probably become a thing of the past once self navigating cars are developed. People will look back at the current penalties and moral posturing surrounding the crime the same way we look at hanging horse thieves in the 1800's. Of course, the government has a proven track record of impeding technological progress so it may take a lot longer before that day arrives.

[John]

We may have our own "control group" here in the state of Utah.......

70% of Utah's residents, the ones who are members of the LDS (Mormon) church, are not supposed to smoke or drink alcohol. So sugar & fats are one of the few vices they have left. And between Funeral Potatoes & Green Jello, people around here get a lot of fat & sugar.

But people in Utah tend to have an above-average life expectancy. Maybe it's because (despite our horrible diet) Utah is the state with the greatest percentage of people who participate in outdoor recreational activities. Ironically enough, one of the most popular activities around here is hunting; or going out & looking for more cholesterol to eat.

[John again]

My wife has lost 30 pounds on the Atkins diet. (I have lost 10, thanks to my total lack of willpower.)

So we should tax the hell out of pasta, bread & fruit.

But Cool Whip (very few carbs, believe it or not) and Prime Rib should be tax-free.

[PLC]

John - actually, Utah has the HIGHEST life expectancy in the nation; most likely, in the world. This is, obviously, due to the healthy Mormon lifestyle.

The UN publishes a book on development indicators, one of which is average caloric consumption by nation and by state. I don't recall where Utah fell, exactly, but I remember that it was not near the top - pretty much the upper midwest and the southeast held all the top spots.

I've visited every state in the union, and nowhere will you see so many healthy looking people as in Utah. Conversely, you'll be hard pressed to find so many fatso types as you'll see lining up outside any corner Dairy Queen in Wisconsin or the UP in Michigan.

[joe]

Bottom line: obesity is not nearly as big a health problem in America as hunger/poverty.

[Anonymous]

bottom line 2: hungry poor people in America are often obese & that's a big problem.

[Anonymous]

Bottom Line 3: They're going to get help whether they like it or not.

[Perry]

Way late on the reply regarding space that we've left a footprint on, but here goes..

Sure, there's millions of square miles of uninhabited land out there.. And do you know why you nor anyone else lives there? Theres no roads, sewer, electric, water, internet access, restaurants, grocery stores, etc etc etc for you to actually live the kind of life that we live.

The next house on the marginal demand curve to be built is going to be within a few hundred feet of another one (max), and taking that into account, there really isn't this unlimited amount of land to house population that people like to pretend..

[John]

>>John - actually, Utah has the HIGHEST life expectancy in the nation; most likely, in the world. This is, obviously, due to the healthy Mormon lifestyle.

[holger viking]

and john, please read the reason articles, go to quackwatch and other sties. that atkins is bullshit.

[bomb bomb]

I lost some weight last year (a little over 20 pounds in two months) and I ate a lot of carbs, (when I say carbs, I am thinking grains). I also ate meat, vegetables, fruit and even some yummy hot fudge sundaes. I attribute my weight loss to a variety of foods, lots of water, portion control and I excercised nearly every day. Mostly cardio with some resistance training thrown in.

Americans have to stop this fad diet bullshit. It ain't hard. Move more. Eat less. It's that easy.

[Jim Antley]

Perry, I don't see where you are making sense on your last post.

"Theres [sic] no roads, sewer, electric, water, internet access, restaurants, grocery stores, etc etc etc for you to actually live the kind of life that we live."

Right. First, we don't ALL need that. There are things called septic systems and wells and Sam's Warehouses (for those who drive 50 mi to the store and get $400 groceries at a time.) We're not all city yuppies, Perry, or suburbanites.

Second, as soon as the new subdivision nearby gets built (due to it's proximity to the utilities you mention), then there are new prime locations next to it.

So, I just don't see your point. I do agree that we have enough people in America, but we are way far from being out of land to build (residential, commercial, or industrial). I want it to stay that way.

[PLC]

Perry - it ain't lack of sewers, roads, etc. that drives congestion. It's economic opportunity and individual choices. There's tons of good land with all the services you could need available in Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, etc. People choose not to live there for a variety of reasons.

In the very near future all phones and internet will be WIFI over satellite; you can have a septic system and a well; plenty of roads already exist; exotic food can delivered via UPS from internet purchase; staple food can be "stocked up" from the Costco once a month; and electricity will be generated locally via fuel-cells.

If I were to invest in land right now, it would be in areas similar to Jackson Hole. Lots of people want to live in these mountain or beach towns, but few have the means currently. Within two decades, technology will advance to the point where it will be within most info workers means to live in such areas. There are dozens or hundreds of similar towns which are set to experience a population boom.

[JDM]

viking,

The criticisms of the Atkins diet that I've seen(including the one that appeared on Reason, if I remember correctly) always revolve around the fact that you gain or lose weight depending simply on the number of calories you eat versus the calories you burn. This is true.

The argument for the Atkins diet, however, is that if you eat more fats and proteins as opposed to carbs, you feel more full and therefore don't eat as many calories, which I haven't seen refuted. Do you have a link? There seems to be a lot of people who have been successful on the Atkins diet.

[Brian]

bomb bomb--

Conceptually, it's easy, but in practice it's hard for most people because they lack the ability (or inclination) for discipline and real effort...hence the market for Atkins, Slimfast, TrimSpa, and all the other "easy" methods...

...but you are absolutely, completely, 100% right. Move more, eat less.

(15 lbs in the past 3.5 months...and I haven't even given up beer.)

[Brian]

Perhaps I shouldn't lump Atkins in with the others, since it does require a discipline about what you eat. I'm not a fan because it doesn't makes sense to me biochemically (for reasons I won't get into here)...but if it works for some folks, more power to 'em.

[PLC]

I have the perfect diet - drink from a polluted stream every day of your life from age 3 until age 10. Develop intestinal problems which prevent you from properly digesting many foods. Eat everything you can and never gain any weight! It's worked for me....

[Jim Antley]

To follow up PLC's (does that stand for Programmable Logic Controller, BTW?) post, I can help out all of you atkins boys and sum up my new diet scheme in one word:

Tapeworms

You feel full, but the worm does half of the eating, and in general is very happy. It is also FDA, PETA, and SCC approved.

Hey, all in a day's work - no charge this time.

[JDM]

Here's a plan which has thus far worked for me:

Eat lots of food. Play lots of basketball. Blow out your patellar tendon. Your weight will remain stable as the muscle you lose from not exercising is gradually replaced pound for pound with the fat you gain from not exercising. I'm not yet sure what happens after you run out of muscle, or when your knee heals enough to take up some other less ballistic type of exercise like jogging, though the experience pretty much puts the lie to the BMI index...

[RS]

Not really recommending it, but you can sure shred pounds with crystal meth, coke, H or lots of yellow and blue pills. Just stay away from pot.

[Anonymous]

OK, gotta go. Time to grab me a Big Mac. (No, scratch that.) Make that a Whopper with French Fries and a Strawberry Malt.

See ya after lunch.

[WLC]

Meanwhile, the obese will howl that the "real" problem is firearms, smoking, drugs, etc. I call it the Do-it-to-Julia--tear-her-face-off defense. We're in this together.

[Tom]

The one question I never see any of the health Nazis answer is, What are we going to do with all these extra people who are living longer, healthier lives?

Time was when wars and viral/bacteriological disease kept the human population in check, by carrying off young males of breeding age and the weaker of the species (the old, the young, the female). Now, real "hard-dick" wars a la World Wars I and II are a major no-no among civilized peoples, and medicine likes to think it has corralled most of the bad bugs. Therefore, what checks are left on exponential human population growth because not enough of us are dying? Don't say decreasing the birth rate, for if that happens, who will pay the taxes to support the seniors?

When many of us were involved agriculture or manual labor, work itself was damn dangerous, carrying off untold numbers each year. Now that too many of us work in little cubicles or even from the safety of our bedrooms, work itself largely has no hazard. The sick side of me can't help but chuckle at all those bond traders on 9/11. Bet they never thought that would be their mode of exit. Kudos, however, to the firefighters, who face that shit every day, and keep on doing it every day.

So it has been left to eating, smoking and drinking to kill enough of us off each year so that we don't linger around, clogging up the system. Imagine a world where everyone exercizes and stays fit, no one smokes or drinks, and everyone lives a "productive life" to age 100 or past. WOuld the retirement age be pushed outward, allowing these folks to keep working until, say, 85? IF they couldn't keep working, would current Social Security and Medicare be able to keep functioning when retirees are living 30 or 40 or more years past their qualification age? What will the repercussions be among younger generations whose taxes have to fund grandpa's, great-grandpa's, and great-great-grandpa's sunset years? IF older folk keep working, would any job opportunities lower down the ladder ever open up, seeing how an aging but spry population of boomers at the top is blocking the career ladder? Or do we move our "seniors" into different career fields after they reach a certain age, say, teaching or being Wal-Mart greeters? How many Wal-Marts do we want?

And people who live longer also will drive and consume more. How will the environmentalists feels about hordes of greybeards in RVs getting 6 miles to the gallon as they motor between San Diego and Orlando?

There is a time to die. For the good of the species, many of us need to do it every year.

[PLC]

Tom - your ideas are about 20 years behind the times. There is no risk of overpopulation. If people live longer, healthier lives, they will be more productive over the course of their lives. Most old people have plenty of wealth to support themselves unto death. The health costs mostly accrue in the last few months. There is plenty of space in this world - if you don't think so, you need to get out more. People have left an insignificant footprint upon the earth. The next time you're in a plane, look out the window.

[joe]

Tom,

If the average worker works 25 more years (to age 85-90) instead of retiring, the additional wealth created will generate plenty of jobs for younger workers.

PLC,

"Overpopulation" and the size of the human footprint are not about the physical occupation of too much space. They're about the consumption and wasting of resources. The ruined coral beds around Florida don't have anyone living there, yet humanity has certainly left a footprint.

Population bomb theory is, as you say, decades out of date. Sustainable development can support a larger population than we have now, at higher levels of wealth, with a higher environmental quality of life, while protecting ecological values.

[twistedmerkin]

I don't see why Banzhaf thinks the government can't order us to exercise. They can just change the slogan from "work makes you free" to "work makes you healthy."

[Perry]

Every time i'm in a plane and look down, all I see are lots and roads and lights. I'd admit that there's a lot of space out there, but a lot of the space that is readily inhabitable has been, to some degree or another.

[PLC]

Joe - you don't need any fancy-smancy sustainable development. All you need is technology. The planet is vast, as are the planet's resources. As we consume too much of one resource, it becomes more expensive, and other resources are developed to replace it. This is simple economics.

[Tom]

PLC,

OVerpopulation has never been one of my concerns. I travel a lot,and by plane, and understand what little "footprint" humanity has left on the earth. I personally don't give a flying fuck if the earth runs out of oil or snail darters or old growth forests in 50 years; I won't be here.

And where do you get the data that "most old people have plenty of wealth to support themselves unto death"? I've yet to meet a senior who turns down a discount on the grounds of, "No thanks, I've got more than enough money."

[PLC]

Perry - have you ever flown cross-country? All I see is vast, empty space. That's because about 90% of the country is vast, empty space. I live near Seattle, a densely populated area. I tool a hot air balloon flight over the suburbs and what I saw was at least 2/3 of the land was trees and ponds and empty meadows. If you drive 30 minutes from my home you can stand on top of a mountain and look over hundreds of miles of wilderness. I don't know what planes you've been riding - were they circling downtown LA?

[PLC]

Tom - I don't have time today (I should be working right now), but if you look up wealth data by population group, you'll see that most of the wealth in this country is held by older Americans (as makes sense).

My parents are rich and they are also incredibly cheap. Maybe one has something to do with the other.

The fact that seniors (or anyone else) doesn't turn down a discount, doesn't mean they are not rich. Jeez, I'm rich and I still never buy anything at retail prices - and I never lived through a depression or a world war.

[Lefty]

The main incentive to stay fit is to meet chicks. Social incentives will do just fine, thank you, to take care of ourselves.

[Brad S]

Lefty - but what's interesting is that, in some cultures, obesity is seen as very desirable. It is a social signal that one grew up in a family that was wealthy enough to both put plenty of food on the table and avoid strenuous manual labor. Taken in that context, the "obesity" epidemic in America could be spun as a good thing. After all, which is worse - America's obesity problem, or (INSERT THIRD WORLD NATION HERE)'s hunger problem?

[joe]

PLC,

Once again, we agree. In the past century, elders have gone from being the age group with the highest incidence of poverty, to the lowest. Social Security and Medicare have been wonderful success stories. Thank you, big government.

"As we consume too much of one resource, it becomes more expensive, and other resources are developed to replace it. This is simple economics."

The problem with this theory is that economics describes human activity, not ecological function. We probably will be able to replace the resources for the economic uses to which we put them, but that does not mean that nature will come up with a replacement for the ecological function which those resources perform. If fish populations collapse because of the destruction of habitat, we create replacement habitat (fish farms.) This meets our needs, but does not do anything for the biological function of the oceans - or for that segment of humanity that doesn't have the wealth to afford the more expensive replacement, and depends on the old, depleted fish stocks.

[holger viking]

often obesity is determined by that BMI calculation. it doesn't take muscle or basic build into consideration. my brother, a jock, routinely scores high on that while i'm a couch jockey and score low. his body fat is lower than mine however. imho reducing the healthy/unhealthy discussion to a simple number is dumb. it's like, oh, i dont know, telling someone to look up a label instead of discussing it (sorry about that from yesterday) - E."hv"A.

[fredH]

PLC:

A lot of what looks like unused forest land from an airplane isn't. In the southeast where I live, most of it is tree farms. The paper industry alone uses over two million acres just in SC.

[Jim Antley]

Jim, if you check it out carefully (i.e. on an anti-immigration web site, such as NumbersUSA or whatever) you will see that population growth in the country is due solely to immigration (legal, but mostly from illegal).

Yeah, people are living longer - even big fat-asses driving their RV's across the country (they freakin speed up when there's a passing lane, then slow back down again when it's back to 2 lanes, the old farts). However, folks are not having nearly as many kids as they did 40 years back and more. So, without immigration, US population would stay steady.

I also would like to see the vast amounts of open land in America stay that way, but I don't think you're right about ecological vs. economic solutions. Example, salmon fish farming takes the load off of the wild salmon, so they can replenish.

Back to the point: There are a hell of a lot of fat people around - this is one of the few "trends" that the media is not making up. It's good to see that an actual dude with common sense spoke at the conference. Yes, it can't be an epidemic (wouldn't we be staying away from fat people in that case, so's not to catch it?). I'm also glad he doesn't recommend suing as the answer. This will not last long, as the lawyers are already getting behind on their house, BMW, and yacht payments from the big odios (sp?) tobacco deal.

Oh, Lefty, I agree with you, but why stay in shape when all the chicks are fat anyway? What's the point? Unless there are still a few left-wing hippie chicks around. Where do you meet them now that that Jerry died? (not trying cut on the Dead, as I'm a big fan.

[fredH]

Brad S.

You're right about obesity being a status symbol in food-scarce cultures. Likewise, being thin has become a status symbol in ours. I've often heard of people being described as "aristocratically lean." This is because anyone can be fat in our culture, whereas being lean indicates that you have the spare time to spend in the gym torturing your body into shape. These things are always related to class and status. Thorstein Veblin was on to this a century ago.

[bomb bomb]

mmmmmm Strawberry malt...

Ever try frozen custard? Pretty damn tasty.

[holger viking]

9 kcal/g in fat
4 kcal/g in carbohydrate
4 kcal/g in protein

40% carbohydrate. 35% protein. 25% fat. good balanced diet. eat less, move more. atkins works, per all of those links in reason because of reduced caloric intake. it's also shit bad fer yer liver and it's not sustainable. eat less, move more.

then, eat less and move more.

fad diets are fad diets. this one should go the way of the dildo. That's Dodo. like the idiots who think that dieting is anything other than "eat less. move more."

http://www.quackwatch.org

[Jim]

PLC, don't leave out the LP of Michigan (That's lower pennisula, not Libertarian Party) in your fat assessment - we've got boatloads of fatties down here under the bridge. I'm not sure why because Michigan has a pretty good climate for outdoor activity (except in the winter) - could be that most of it is based around vehicles (boat in the summer and snowmobile in the winter)? Also ironic - I haven't noticed a preponderance of obese people working desk jockey jobs like myself - usually it's people working factory jobs or at Walmart where you're forced to stand and move all day long.

I've also devised a 'structural' excercise plan of the type Joe would approve of - live in a two story residence. I can't even count the number of times in a day I have to run back upstairs to get baby diapers or my wallet or my wife's purse or some other forgotten item. I curse myself every time for buying a two story house and then congratulate myself for thinking ahead because it's the only exercise I get these days.

[Hero]

Niccceee pagee

[Sahar Christopher]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.penis-enlargement-medication.net/
DATE: 12/10/2003 01:04:05
Unusual ideas can make enemies.

[Butler Ron]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.QUALITY-PENIS-ENLARGEMENT-PILLS.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 01:47:13
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.

[Lee Little Wing]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.PENIS-PILLS-SECRETS.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 01:47:13
Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes.

[Sarantitis Joshua]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://penis-enlargement-technique.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 05:46:52
A little foolishness, enough to enjoy life and a little wisdom to avoid the errors, that will do

[Gaige Karina]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://weight-loss.weight-loss-central.org
DATE: 01/08/2004 10:14:06
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.

[Nordeng Amy]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 211.89.253.100
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 10:07:54
Those whose paths are not the same do not consult one another.

[Friedman Joseph]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 12:09:48
We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane.

[Fasano Luke]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 207.203.156.105
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 12:11:49
He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither.