|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 20 2013 08:35 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:31 coverpunch wrote:On June 20 2013 08:22 Souma wrote:On June 20 2013 08:10 coverpunch wrote:On June 20 2013 07:11 Souma wrote:
In the end, price and convenience plays a huge part in why obesity rates are so high and getting worse among the youth. In Japan, when you're eating out, portion sizes are incredibly smaller and more expensive to boot, so it is actually worth taking the time to go to the grocery store and cook, and kids don't have the luxury of eating crap as often. It is obviously possible to curb this problem if most people just decided to not consume so many calories a day, and in accordance with that, settle for a fruit or two instead of a burger, but who are we kidding? Humans are rational beings, and will always weigh the costs/opportunity costs, but in the case of obesity, with the physical costs initially hidden, junk food becomes that much more enticing of a choice. This is why I think it would be great if we could establish a junk food tax and use the revenue to subsidize fruits/vegetables and to make them more accessible, but that's not gonna happen any time soon so long as obesity is seen as only a product of choice and not a product of both choice and environment. You have obviously not lived in Japan. I do, and it is not hard to find cheap food (i.e. curry, ramen, McDonald's). All produce is more expensive in Japan than it is in the US, and cooking is still a chore. But portion sizes are smaller and people in general eat much less than Americans do. I think this has far more to do with portion control and discipline. What you eat is important but overstated. I've known people on "diets" who eat four low-calorie granola bars for breakfast. If you're going to eat that much, you might as well just eat normally. I obviously did live in Japan. While fruit and some vegetables are more expensive, so is fast food, and even more so if you also wager in portion sizes. A large pizza in Japan is equivalent to the size of a medium one in America and costs multiple times more. KFC is like three times the price. McDonalds is like 1.5x the price or more depending on the product (five bucks gets you five nuggets in Japan yet it gets you 20 in America). A McFlurry is half the size and twice as expensive. On the other hand, I can go grocery shopping and buy rice, vegetables, etc. for much much cheaper. You can go out to eat gyudon or something at Yoshinoya or Matsuya, which is decently priced with a decent portion size, but compared to what you can get for that money in America, and considering even that is healthier than the junk food in America, it's obvious why it's much easier to get fatter in America than in Japan. I don't know if you lived in Japan while the currency was very strong or what, but McDonald's has a 100-yen menu that is exactly the same as the dollar menu in the US. Tack on tax and tip to the total cost in the US (Japan has 5% tax and no tip), and even restaurants are fairly equivalent. My point is that cost is not the sole or even primary reason why Japanese people eat less than Americans. Japan has been a rich country for a long time now and Japan has its share of cheap junk food, but for a variety of reasons, most people just don't eat that much. This is an issue of personal responsibility, not an economic problem of access. If it were just a matter of personal responsibility, what then caused everyone to spontaneously start being less responsible in recent decades? I mean if you're framing it as personal responsibility, then I guess that means there can't be a cause, and it's just a massive coincidence, like if the Sun just suddenly disappeared because every particle in it teleported to another part of space through quantum tunneling.
Actually, the government has been begging people to eat better ever since the end of World War II. This is why you have a whole history of blaming fairly specific things for increases in malnutrition. We've blamed fat, salt, butter, sugar, MSG, calories, junk food, etc.
This has become a problem in the last couple decades as obesity-related problems have cropped up, such as hypertension and diabetes, and these have put enormous pressure on the health system (uh, no pun intended).
EDIT: I'm trying to say it's the consequences, not the causes, that have turned this into a big problem.
|
On June 20 2013 08:42 Souma wrote:
My bigger point all along was that this is both an issue of personal responsibility and an economic problem. It's just, it's a lot simpler to solve the economic problem than the problem of personal responsibility for this specific issue.
I would agree with this in that like I'm saying in the post above, the government has been trying to get people to voluntarily improve their habits for decades and things are worse than ever.
|
On June 20 2013 08:44 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 07:55 Souma wrote:On June 20 2013 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 07:36 Souma wrote:On June 20 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:52 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:10 Klondikebar wrote:On June 20 2013 05:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
That ignores the economic history. Their situation exists because the communities decided to favor the unhealthy over the healthy. Umm...and you're just completely rewriting economic history. Poor communities never decided to be unhealthy. They've always had to squeeze as many calories per dollar into their food as they can. As it became easier and easier to squeeze calories out of a dollar (i.e. fast food) yes they started eating too many calories BUT that doesn't change the fact that grocery stores aren't the answer. Time is still very valuable and groceries aren't practical. I'm not sure whether you're deliberately skipping my posts or just missing them but I list many reasons why grocery stores don't work other than the price tab. The obesity / unhealthy food issue is a recent thing. Every issue you listed existed prior to concerns over obesity. Walking to a grocery store was always a pain. Cooking food always took time. The introduction of fast food meant that people could make the bad choice to trade health and money for convenience. And they did so in droves. Ghettoization was not some community choice where people were previously doing well but decided to live in a food desert: it is the result of intentional and unintentional polices that disfavor people who make bad choices like being poor or black. I'm not seeing the distinction. It's not a choice but a product of many choices? On June 20 2013 07:11 Souma wrote:
The problem with obesity and fast food is becoming much more of an obvious concern among poor youth. They have no income (only meager allowances, if even that), do not cook, and often do not have the means to get groceries, whether financially or physically. These kids are generally juggling around a few/several dollars a week, and tend to gravitate towards a cheeseburger a day as opposed to an apple because it's much more filling and satisfying.
In many areas, we have created an environment for our kids to rely on fast food. When they see that it is much more convenient and cheap (opportunity costs must be weighed in) to eat fast food (and generally more filling), of course they'll tend to lean towards fast food as opposed to groceries. You can say that parents should do a better job of forcing their kids to eat healthy, but low-income parents generally aren't afforded as much time and resources to keep tabs on their children. You can cook healthier dinners for them at home, but what they eat while they're out of the house and you're at work is mostly out of your hands.
One of the major problems with obesity is that it is similar to smoking cigarettes, in that the effects culminate slowly so that there is less awareness of the consequences. This is why trying to raise awareness amongst the youth about health and obesity is difficult, because they don't experience the consequences instantly and shrug them off. Though, eventually, the effects will be plainly visible, and by that time you're just the fat kid and your parents are labelled as horrible educators.
In the end, price and convenience plays a huge part in why obesity rates are so high and getting worse among the youth. In Japan, when you're eating out, portion sizes are incredibly smaller and more expensive to boot, so it is actually worth taking the time to go to the grocery store and cook, and kids don't have the luxury of eating crap as often. It is obviously possible to curb this problem if most people just decided to not consume so many calories a day, and in accordance with that, settle for a fruit or two instead of a burger, but who are we kidding? Humans are rational beings, and will always weigh the costs/opportunity costs, but in the case of obesity, with the physical costs initially hidden, junk food becomes that much more enticing of a choice. This is why I think it would be great if we could establish a junk food tax and use the revenue to subsidize fruits/vegetables and to make them more accessible, but that's not gonna happen any time soon so long as obesity is seen as only a product of choice and not a product of both choice and environment. The environment in this case is a product of choices. Fast food is convenient and abundant because people in the past chose to eat there a lot and business owners responded by offering more. Fast food is convenient because it's fast food. It's abundant because yes, people chose to eat there a lot, but why they chose to eat there a lot is because of their environment. In other words, their choice is a product of their environment (what choice isn't...?) Yes the environment plays a role, but that environment is largely a product of choices as well. I wager that the environment came before the choice, unless you want to prove to me that there were choices before existence. By environment I think we're discussing man-made environment. I certainly am. But I'm probably arguing this point too hard. I agree that environment plays a factor in the choices people make. My point is that, ultimately, we can't remove the choice aspect. On June 20 2013 08:15 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:52 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:10 Klondikebar wrote:On June 20 2013 05:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 05:51 aksfjh wrote:On June 20 2013 05:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
You lost me in the last paragraph. Are you saying their decisions are poor ones or good ones? They make poor choices naturally because of their situation, but if they sit down and draw the good choices to their natural conclusions, they see that their situation doesn't change much (nominally better, but not really better). That ignores the economic history. Their situation exists because the communities decided to favor the unhealthy over the healthy. Umm...and you're just completely rewriting economic history. Poor communities never decided to be unhealthy. They've always had to squeeze as many calories per dollar into their food as they can. As it became easier and easier to squeeze calories out of a dollar (i.e. fast food) yes they started eating too many calories BUT that doesn't change the fact that grocery stores aren't the answer. Time is still very valuable and groceries aren't practical. I'm not sure whether you're deliberately skipping my posts or just missing them but I list many reasons why grocery stores don't work other than the price tab. The obesity / unhealthy food issue is a recent thing. Every issue you listed existed prior to concerns over obesity. Walking to a grocery store was always a pain. Cooking food always took time. The introduction of fast food meant that people could make the bad choice to trade health and money for convenience. And they did so in droves. Ghettoization was not some community choice where people were previously doing well but decided to live in a food desert: it is the result of intentional and unintentional polices that disfavor people who make bad choices like being poor or black. I'm not seeing the distinction. It's not a choice but a product of many choices? On June 20 2013 07:11 Souma wrote:
The problem with obesity and fast food is becoming much more of an obvious concern among poor youth. They have no income (only meager allowances, if even that), do not cook, and often do not have the means to get groceries, whether financially or physically. These kids are generally juggling around a few/several dollars a week, and tend to gravitate towards a cheeseburger a day as opposed to an apple because it's much more filling and satisfying.
In many areas, we have created an environment for our kids to rely on fast food. When they see that it is much more convenient and cheap (opportunity costs must be weighed in) to eat fast food (and generally more filling), of course they'll tend to lean towards fast food as opposed to groceries. You can say that parents should do a better job of forcing their kids to eat healthy, but low-income parents generally aren't afforded as much time and resources to keep tabs on their children. You can cook healthier dinners for them at home, but what they eat while they're out of the house and you're at work is mostly out of your hands.
One of the major problems with obesity is that it is similar to smoking cigarettes, in that the effects culminate slowly so that there is less awareness of the consequences. This is why trying to raise awareness amongst the youth about health and obesity is difficult, because they don't experience the consequences instantly and shrug them off. Though, eventually, the effects will be plainly visible, and by that time you're just the fat kid and your parents are labelled as horrible educators.
In the end, price and convenience plays a huge part in why obesity rates are so high and getting worse among the youth. In Japan, when you're eating out, portion sizes are incredibly smaller and more expensive to boot, so it is actually worth taking the time to go to the grocery store and cook, and kids don't have the luxury of eating crap as often. It is obviously possible to curb this problem if most people just decided to not consume so many calories a day, and in accordance with that, settle for a fruit or two instead of a burger, but who are we kidding? Humans are rational beings, and will always weigh the costs/opportunity costs, but in the case of obesity, with the physical costs initially hidden, junk food becomes that much more enticing of a choice. This is why I think it would be great if we could establish a junk food tax and use the revenue to subsidize fruits/vegetables and to make them more accessible, but that's not gonna happen any time soon so long as obesity is seen as only a product of choice and not a product of both choice and environment. The environment in this case is a product of choices. Fast food is convenient and abundant because people in the past chose to eat there a lot and business owners responded by offering more. So? I don't see why we should ignore all problems where choice is a factor. Making sure that people do something as simple as taking their medicine according to directions can be a problem even though that's a choice too, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate things like supervised medication where they have been found to work because you deserve to die of AIDS if you make poor choices. I'm not suggesting that we ignore any problem were choice is a factor. We can remove the aspects that encourage people to make bad choices. That's the idea.
You can certainly try.
|
On June 20 2013 09:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:44 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 07:55 Souma wrote:On June 20 2013 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 07:36 Souma wrote:On June 20 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:52 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:10 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Umm...and you're just completely rewriting economic history. Poor communities never decided to be unhealthy. They've always had to squeeze as many calories per dollar into their food as they can. As it became easier and easier to squeeze calories out of a dollar (i.e. fast food) yes they started eating too many calories BUT that doesn't change the fact that grocery stores aren't the answer. Time is still very valuable and groceries aren't practical. I'm not sure whether you're deliberately skipping my posts or just missing them but I list many reasons why grocery stores don't work other than the price tab. The obesity / unhealthy food issue is a recent thing. Every issue you listed existed prior to concerns over obesity. Walking to a grocery store was always a pain. Cooking food always took time. The introduction of fast food meant that people could make the bad choice to trade health and money for convenience. And they did so in droves. Ghettoization was not some community choice where people were previously doing well but decided to live in a food desert: it is the result of intentional and unintentional polices that disfavor people who make bad choices like being poor or black. I'm not seeing the distinction. It's not a choice but a product of many choices? On June 20 2013 07:11 Souma wrote:
The problem with obesity and fast food is becoming much more of an obvious concern among poor youth. They have no income (only meager allowances, if even that), do not cook, and often do not have the means to get groceries, whether financially or physically. These kids are generally juggling around a few/several dollars a week, and tend to gravitate towards a cheeseburger a day as opposed to an apple because it's much more filling and satisfying.
In many areas, we have created an environment for our kids to rely on fast food. When they see that it is much more convenient and cheap (opportunity costs must be weighed in) to eat fast food (and generally more filling), of course they'll tend to lean towards fast food as opposed to groceries. You can say that parents should do a better job of forcing their kids to eat healthy, but low-income parents generally aren't afforded as much time and resources to keep tabs on their children. You can cook healthier dinners for them at home, but what they eat while they're out of the house and you're at work is mostly out of your hands.
One of the major problems with obesity is that it is similar to smoking cigarettes, in that the effects culminate slowly so that there is less awareness of the consequences. This is why trying to raise awareness amongst the youth about health and obesity is difficult, because they don't experience the consequences instantly and shrug them off. Though, eventually, the effects will be plainly visible, and by that time you're just the fat kid and your parents are labelled as horrible educators.
In the end, price and convenience plays a huge part in why obesity rates are so high and getting worse among the youth. In Japan, when you're eating out, portion sizes are incredibly smaller and more expensive to boot, so it is actually worth taking the time to go to the grocery store and cook, and kids don't have the luxury of eating crap as often. It is obviously possible to curb this problem if most people just decided to not consume so many calories a day, and in accordance with that, settle for a fruit or two instead of a burger, but who are we kidding? Humans are rational beings, and will always weigh the costs/opportunity costs, but in the case of obesity, with the physical costs initially hidden, junk food becomes that much more enticing of a choice. This is why I think it would be great if we could establish a junk food tax and use the revenue to subsidize fruits/vegetables and to make them more accessible, but that's not gonna happen any time soon so long as obesity is seen as only a product of choice and not a product of both choice and environment. The environment in this case is a product of choices. Fast food is convenient and abundant because people in the past chose to eat there a lot and business owners responded by offering more. Fast food is convenient because it's fast food. It's abundant because yes, people chose to eat there a lot, but why they chose to eat there a lot is because of their environment. In other words, their choice is a product of their environment (what choice isn't...?) Yes the environment plays a role, but that environment is largely a product of choices as well. I wager that the environment came before the choice, unless you want to prove to me that there were choices before existence. By environment I think we're discussing man-made environment. I certainly am. But I'm probably arguing this point too hard. I agree that environment plays a factor in the choices people make. My point is that, ultimately, we can't remove the choice aspect. On June 20 2013 08:15 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:52 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:10 Klondikebar wrote:On June 20 2013 05:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 05:51 aksfjh wrote:
[quote]
They make poor choices naturally because of their situation, but if they sit down and draw the good choices to their natural conclusions, they see that their situation doesn't change much (nominally better, but not really better). That ignores the economic history. Their situation exists because the communities decided to favor the unhealthy over the healthy. Umm...and you're just completely rewriting economic history. Poor communities never decided to be unhealthy. They've always had to squeeze as many calories per dollar into their food as they can. As it became easier and easier to squeeze calories out of a dollar (i.e. fast food) yes they started eating too many calories BUT that doesn't change the fact that grocery stores aren't the answer. Time is still very valuable and groceries aren't practical. I'm not sure whether you're deliberately skipping my posts or just missing them but I list many reasons why grocery stores don't work other than the price tab. The obesity / unhealthy food issue is a recent thing. Every issue you listed existed prior to concerns over obesity. Walking to a grocery store was always a pain. Cooking food always took time. The introduction of fast food meant that people could make the bad choice to trade health and money for convenience. And they did so in droves. Ghettoization was not some community choice where people were previously doing well but decided to live in a food desert: it is the result of intentional and unintentional polices that disfavor people who make bad choices like being poor or black. I'm not seeing the distinction. It's not a choice but a product of many choices? On June 20 2013 07:11 Souma wrote:
The problem with obesity and fast food is becoming much more of an obvious concern among poor youth. They have no income (only meager allowances, if even that), do not cook, and often do not have the means to get groceries, whether financially or physically. These kids are generally juggling around a few/several dollars a week, and tend to gravitate towards a cheeseburger a day as opposed to an apple because it's much more filling and satisfying.
In many areas, we have created an environment for our kids to rely on fast food. When they see that it is much more convenient and cheap (opportunity costs must be weighed in) to eat fast food (and generally more filling), of course they'll tend to lean towards fast food as opposed to groceries. You can say that parents should do a better job of forcing their kids to eat healthy, but low-income parents generally aren't afforded as much time and resources to keep tabs on their children. You can cook healthier dinners for them at home, but what they eat while they're out of the house and you're at work is mostly out of your hands.
One of the major problems with obesity is that it is similar to smoking cigarettes, in that the effects culminate slowly so that there is less awareness of the consequences. This is why trying to raise awareness amongst the youth about health and obesity is difficult, because they don't experience the consequences instantly and shrug them off. Though, eventually, the effects will be plainly visible, and by that time you're just the fat kid and your parents are labelled as horrible educators.
In the end, price and convenience plays a huge part in why obesity rates are so high and getting worse among the youth. In Japan, when you're eating out, portion sizes are incredibly smaller and more expensive to boot, so it is actually worth taking the time to go to the grocery store and cook, and kids don't have the luxury of eating crap as often. It is obviously possible to curb this problem if most people just decided to not consume so many calories a day, and in accordance with that, settle for a fruit or two instead of a burger, but who are we kidding? Humans are rational beings, and will always weigh the costs/opportunity costs, but in the case of obesity, with the physical costs initially hidden, junk food becomes that much more enticing of a choice. This is why I think it would be great if we could establish a junk food tax and use the revenue to subsidize fruits/vegetables and to make them more accessible, but that's not gonna happen any time soon so long as obesity is seen as only a product of choice and not a product of both choice and environment. The environment in this case is a product of choices. Fast food is convenient and abundant because people in the past chose to eat there a lot and business owners responded by offering more. So? I don't see why we should ignore all problems where choice is a factor. Making sure that people do something as simple as taking their medicine according to directions can be a problem even though that's a choice too, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate things like supervised medication where they have been found to work because you deserve to die of AIDS if you make poor choices. I'm not suggesting that we ignore any problem were choice is a factor. We can remove the aspects that encourage people to make bad choices. That's the idea. You can certainly try.
We have a moral obligation to try, especially when combating these bad choices happens to have a strong correlation with combating poverty, which is a horrible state of affairs in itself.
|
On June 20 2013 08:52 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:42 Souma wrote:
My bigger point all along was that this is both an issue of personal responsibility and an economic problem. It's just, it's a lot simpler to solve the economic problem than the problem of personal responsibility for this specific issue. I would agree with this in that like I'm saying in the post above, the government has been trying to get people to voluntarily improve their habits for decades and things are worse than ever.
Actions are louder than words, policy is ultimately what matters.
I don't really understand all the blame on personal responsibility either. Growing up as a kid in a fairly well off family, both my parents were slightly obese and my mother had diabetes, despite how "healthy" our diet was. Mom cooked almost every evening, like June Cleaver. I think you could get rid of fast food altogether and it still wouldn't solve the problems with nutrition in the US.
|
On June 20 2013 09:12 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 09:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 08:44 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 08:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 07:55 Souma wrote:On June 20 2013 07:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 07:36 Souma wrote:On June 20 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:52 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The obesity / unhealthy food issue is a recent thing. Every issue you listed existed prior to concerns over obesity. Walking to a grocery store was always a pain. Cooking food always took time. The introduction of fast food meant that people could make the bad choice to trade health and money for convenience. And they did so in droves. Ghettoization was not some community choice where people were previously doing well but decided to live in a food desert: it is the result of intentional and unintentional polices that disfavor people who make bad choices like being poor or black. I'm not seeing the distinction. It's not a choice but a product of many choices? On June 20 2013 07:11 Souma wrote:
The problem with obesity and fast food is becoming much more of an obvious concern among poor youth. They have no income (only meager allowances, if even that), do not cook, and often do not have the means to get groceries, whether financially or physically. These kids are generally juggling around a few/several dollars a week, and tend to gravitate towards a cheeseburger a day as opposed to an apple because it's much more filling and satisfying.
In many areas, we have created an environment for our kids to rely on fast food. When they see that it is much more convenient and cheap (opportunity costs must be weighed in) to eat fast food (and generally more filling), of course they'll tend to lean towards fast food as opposed to groceries. You can say that parents should do a better job of forcing their kids to eat healthy, but low-income parents generally aren't afforded as much time and resources to keep tabs on their children. You can cook healthier dinners for them at home, but what they eat while they're out of the house and you're at work is mostly out of your hands.
One of the major problems with obesity is that it is similar to smoking cigarettes, in that the effects culminate slowly so that there is less awareness of the consequences. This is why trying to raise awareness amongst the youth about health and obesity is difficult, because they don't experience the consequences instantly and shrug them off. Though, eventually, the effects will be plainly visible, and by that time you're just the fat kid and your parents are labelled as horrible educators.
In the end, price and convenience plays a huge part in why obesity rates are so high and getting worse among the youth. In Japan, when you're eating out, portion sizes are incredibly smaller and more expensive to boot, so it is actually worth taking the time to go to the grocery store and cook, and kids don't have the luxury of eating crap as often. It is obviously possible to curb this problem if most people just decided to not consume so many calories a day, and in accordance with that, settle for a fruit or two instead of a burger, but who are we kidding? Humans are rational beings, and will always weigh the costs/opportunity costs, but in the case of obesity, with the physical costs initially hidden, junk food becomes that much more enticing of a choice. This is why I think it would be great if we could establish a junk food tax and use the revenue to subsidize fruits/vegetables and to make them more accessible, but that's not gonna happen any time soon so long as obesity is seen as only a product of choice and not a product of both choice and environment. The environment in this case is a product of choices. Fast food is convenient and abundant because people in the past chose to eat there a lot and business owners responded by offering more. Fast food is convenient because it's fast food. It's abundant because yes, people chose to eat there a lot, but why they chose to eat there a lot is because of their environment. In other words, their choice is a product of their environment (what choice isn't...?) Yes the environment plays a role, but that environment is largely a product of choices as well. I wager that the environment came before the choice, unless you want to prove to me that there were choices before existence. By environment I think we're discussing man-made environment. I certainly am. But I'm probably arguing this point too hard. I agree that environment plays a factor in the choices people make. My point is that, ultimately, we can't remove the choice aspect. On June 20 2013 08:15 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:52 HunterX11 wrote:On June 20 2013 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 20 2013 06:10 Klondikebar wrote:On June 20 2013 05:54 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
That ignores the economic history. Their situation exists because the communities decided to favor the unhealthy over the healthy. Umm...and you're just completely rewriting economic history. Poor communities never decided to be unhealthy. They've always had to squeeze as many calories per dollar into their food as they can. As it became easier and easier to squeeze calories out of a dollar (i.e. fast food) yes they started eating too many calories BUT that doesn't change the fact that grocery stores aren't the answer. Time is still very valuable and groceries aren't practical. I'm not sure whether you're deliberately skipping my posts or just missing them but I list many reasons why grocery stores don't work other than the price tab. The obesity / unhealthy food issue is a recent thing. Every issue you listed existed prior to concerns over obesity. Walking to a grocery store was always a pain. Cooking food always took time. The introduction of fast food meant that people could make the bad choice to trade health and money for convenience. And they did so in droves. Ghettoization was not some community choice where people were previously doing well but decided to live in a food desert: it is the result of intentional and unintentional polices that disfavor people who make bad choices like being poor or black. I'm not seeing the distinction. It's not a choice but a product of many choices? On June 20 2013 07:11 Souma wrote:
The problem with obesity and fast food is becoming much more of an obvious concern among poor youth. They have no income (only meager allowances, if even that), do not cook, and often do not have the means to get groceries, whether financially or physically. These kids are generally juggling around a few/several dollars a week, and tend to gravitate towards a cheeseburger a day as opposed to an apple because it's much more filling and satisfying.
In many areas, we have created an environment for our kids to rely on fast food. When they see that it is much more convenient and cheap (opportunity costs must be weighed in) to eat fast food (and generally more filling), of course they'll tend to lean towards fast food as opposed to groceries. You can say that parents should do a better job of forcing their kids to eat healthy, but low-income parents generally aren't afforded as much time and resources to keep tabs on their children. You can cook healthier dinners for them at home, but what they eat while they're out of the house and you're at work is mostly out of your hands.
One of the major problems with obesity is that it is similar to smoking cigarettes, in that the effects culminate slowly so that there is less awareness of the consequences. This is why trying to raise awareness amongst the youth about health and obesity is difficult, because they don't experience the consequences instantly and shrug them off. Though, eventually, the effects will be plainly visible, and by that time you're just the fat kid and your parents are labelled as horrible educators.
In the end, price and convenience plays a huge part in why obesity rates are so high and getting worse among the youth. In Japan, when you're eating out, portion sizes are incredibly smaller and more expensive to boot, so it is actually worth taking the time to go to the grocery store and cook, and kids don't have the luxury of eating crap as often. It is obviously possible to curb this problem if most people just decided to not consume so many calories a day, and in accordance with that, settle for a fruit or two instead of a burger, but who are we kidding? Humans are rational beings, and will always weigh the costs/opportunity costs, but in the case of obesity, with the physical costs initially hidden, junk food becomes that much more enticing of a choice. This is why I think it would be great if we could establish a junk food tax and use the revenue to subsidize fruits/vegetables and to make them more accessible, but that's not gonna happen any time soon so long as obesity is seen as only a product of choice and not a product of both choice and environment. The environment in this case is a product of choices. Fast food is convenient and abundant because people in the past chose to eat there a lot and business owners responded by offering more. So? I don't see why we should ignore all problems where choice is a factor. Making sure that people do something as simple as taking their medicine according to directions can be a problem even though that's a choice too, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate things like supervised medication where they have been found to work because you deserve to die of AIDS if you make poor choices. I'm not suggesting that we ignore any problem were choice is a factor. We can remove the aspects that encourage people to make bad choices. That's the idea. You can certainly try. We have a moral obligation to try, especially when combating these bad choices happens to have a strong correlation with combating poverty, which is a horrible state of affairs in itself.
Didn't mean to sound sarcastic 
|
On June 20 2013 09:34 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 08:52 coverpunch wrote:On June 20 2013 08:42 Souma wrote:
My bigger point all along was that this is both an issue of personal responsibility and an economic problem. It's just, it's a lot simpler to solve the economic problem than the problem of personal responsibility for this specific issue. I would agree with this in that like I'm saying in the post above, the government has been trying to get people to voluntarily improve their habits for decades and things are worse than ever. Actions are louder than words, policy is ultimately what matters. I don't really understand all the blame on personal responsibility either. Growing up as a kid in a fairly well off family, both my parents were slightly obese and my mother had diabetes, despite how "healthy" our diet was. Mom cooked almost every evening, like June Cleaver. I think you could get rid of fast food altogether and it still wouldn't solve the problems with nutrition in the US.
This sort of gets at how complicated this issue is. It's personal responsibility in the sense that you're choosing what to put in your mouth. Nobody is forcing you to eat and if you want to diet, that's your choice. To be honest, I don't really care if you're skinny or fat because it doesn't affect me.
Where this clashes is that if you wrap in social policies like Obamacare, then I do start to care because we're paying into the same insurance pool but suddenly your habits may lead you to a place where you require much more medical care and my premiums might go up as a result. So because society is paying for your treatment, now society feels entitled to tell you what you can or cannot eat. That's the heart of the issue, whether we can take personal responsibility away and starting making choices for individuals.
I would parallel this to smoking. By itself, smoking is a personal decision, and again, I don't really care if you smoke or not. But when you start to wrap in the costs of cancer treatments and the dangers of second hand smoke, then society starts with discouraging smoking and then banning it altogether from the public sphere. People have the choice to smoke taken away from them.
Food is more complicated, as you point out, because you can get rid of things like fast food and it isn't self-evident that obesity would disappear. It also clashes with socioeconomic issues if you start to tax food to artificially raise the price, it puts most of the pressure on the poor.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
describing an action as choice, giving it a personal narrative etc, invokes a different kind of representation scheme that we humans have. the judgements coming out of that system are all normative demands on the person. that is perfectly fine and all, but it does not give a good descriptive picture of the situation.
a functional description involving influences, causes etc give a different sort of picture, a picture with more information. it is this information that makes the functional description valuable in ways that no amount of moralizing can replace. knowing how food advertisement influence kids behavior may not let you see kids as agents that need to be told to stop eating sugary crap, but it does tell you that cutting food advertisement can lead to less consumption of sugary crap. the exact neuro mechanisms are but details, but they are mechanisms.
basically, the influences and whatnot facts about how the U.S. food industry is problematic that food industry critics cite are, if true, always important and have to be addressed. no amount of agency talk can displace these facts. the biggest problem people cite are food advertising and food processing/production.
given the way the food industry markets and controls basically all the information people get about food, it's not very surprising that people complain about choice and control. but without changing who controls the information about food, change will have to come from food industry responding to the complainers, but we all know that those calories from fat free yogurts come from the sugar, so there's always the problem of not genuinely addressing consumer interests but merely thinking of new schemes to hook people.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
... all of this talk about junk food makes me wanna get some McDonalds -_-
|
On June 20 2013 12:59 Souma wrote:
... all of this talk about junk food makes me wanna get some McDonalds -_-
It wasn't the talk that gave you that urge, it was your surrounding environment, upbringing, and culture.
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On June 20 2013 13:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 12:59 Souma wrote:
... all of this talk about junk food makes me wanna get some McDonalds -_- It wasn't the talk that gave you that urge, it was your surrounding environment, upbringing, and culture.
Well played. 
+ Show Spoiler +I got carne asada fries instead. >_> How you like me now!?
|
A cooling consensus GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections". ... The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. ![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20130330_STC334_1.png)
Link
Good read. At the very least a good argument for caution and moderation on the issue.
|
On June 21 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +A cooling consensus GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections". ... The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. LinkGood read. At the very least a good argument for caution and moderation on the issue.
No it's not. Climate change deniers always pull shenanigans like this. Focusing on a 15 year interval isn't relevant. Climate change happens over centuries. Congratulations on finding an anomaly and claiming it's a trend?
|
On June 21 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:A cooling consensus GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections". ... The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. Good read. At the very least a good argument for caution and moderation on the issue. No it's not. Climate change deniers always pull shenanigans like this. Focusing on a 15 year interval isn't relevant. Climate change happens over centuries. Congratulations on finding an anomaly and claiming it's a trend?
This is how scientific theories work. They make predictions. Then they test the predictions. If the predictions are wrong, then the theory has to be changed. I'm not sure if you're read Nate Silver's book, but if you haven't you should. It has a good discussion of climate change predictions (among many other things).
|
On June 21 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:A cooling consensus GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections". ... The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. Good read. At the very least a good argument for caution and moderation on the issue. No it's not. Climate change deniers always pull shenanigans like this. Focusing on a 15 year interval isn't relevant. Climate change happens over centuries. Congratulations on finding an anomaly and claiming it's a trend?
The issue raised here isn't whether or not CO2 increases global temperature. It's how much CO2 increases temperature. And the proposal is that if the models are wrong (and it's looking like they are) then the consensus over "how much" is wrong as well. From a public policy perspective, "how much" matters a whole lot since it will impact what sacrifices we are willing to make.
|
On June 21 2013 02:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 21 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:A cooling consensus GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections". ... The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. Good read. At the very least a good argument for caution and moderation on the issue. No it's not. Climate change deniers always pull shenanigans like this. Focusing on a 15 year interval isn't relevant. Climate change happens over centuries. Congratulations on finding an anomaly and claiming it's a trend? The issue raised here isn't whether or not CO2 increases global temperature. It's how much CO2 increases temperature. And the proposal is that if the models are wrong (and it's looking like they are) then the consensus over "how much" is wrong as well. From a public policy perspective, "how much" matters a whole lot since it will impact what sacrifices we are willing to make.
Wait 5 years and if the mean hasn't started picking up, then we can start talking about longer cycles and how they are not meaning the temperature increase will stop or even be lower than predicted. In the above case there are several potential cycles,if you look at the complete Global Land-Ocean Temperature index-curve 1880 to 2012 instead of only the selective curve from 1960 to 2012 that makes the models look worse than they are Raw data. Since longer term natural cycles are hard to identify with less than at least 500 years of reliable data, the models (they use several different models to increase the reliability!) used will be susceptible to these effects. In terms of the recent fall-off it is still too early to call it out as anything other than what has happened several times in recent decades as per the graph of the data.
Edit: Having read some of the comments, after writing this post, there are several good ones (look for those with 0 recommandations obviously!).
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has rejected a five year, half-trillion-dollar farm bill that would have cut $2 billion annually from food stamps and let states impose broad new work requirements on those who receive them.
The vote was 234-195 against the bill. Sixty-two Republicans voted no, while 24 Democrats voted in favor of the bill.
Members of both parties had signaled opposition to the food stamp cuts in the bill.
Many Republicans say the cuts are not enough; the food stamp program has doubled in cost over the last five years to almost $80 billion a year and now helps to feed 1 in 7 Americans.
Liberals oppose any reductions in food stamps, contending that the House plan could remove as many as 2 million needy recipients from the rolls.
House rejects farm bill, 62 Republicans vote no
|
On June 21 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +A cooling consensus GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections". ... The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. LinkGood read. At the very least a good argument for caution and moderation on the issue.
It's not that surprising that the warming trend should have slowed in the last few years when increases in carbon emissions slowed due to global recession. The author doesn't even mention this as a possibility, so I think it's pretty safe to say that he is not even making a good faith effort to be honest.
|
On June 21 2013 05:23 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:A cooling consensus GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections". ... The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal. Good read. At the very least a good argument for caution and moderation on the issue. It's not that surprising that the warming trend should have slowed in the last few years when increases in carbon emissions slowed due to global recession. The author doesn't even mention this as a possibility, so I think it's pretty safe to say that he is not even making a good faith effort to be honest.
Good point, but shouldn't that be accounted for in the models? Less CO2, less heat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
