Because everything has an associated risk profile. Being fat has risk.
Being thin has risk. Being American has risk. Being ALIVE has risk. So
too does skydiving or smoking or speeding in a car or not replacing the
batteries in your smoke detector.. all have risk profiles and stats
attached.
So lets look at stats.. its statistically better for you to
be overweight than being underweight or of average weight for one
thing.. fat people live longer than thin... again, statistics. See sources for this below.
All
those impoverished and often starving folks in places like Haiti, the Philippines
and Bangladesh... yeah, they would give anything to be fat...
considering they often watch members of their family die of starvation.
Did
you know that as of today the average life expectancy of the 27 poorest
countries in the world ranges from 46 to 60 yrs old? Want to know what
is is in the US and Canada? approx 80 years.... that's a 20-34 year
difference... and guess what the average obesity rate in these 27
countries is? It hovers around 7%. Here are my sources ----->
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.688?lang=en
and
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2228rank.html
and
http://www.webmd.com/diet/20090625/study-overweight-people-live-longer
and
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20090518/obese-heart-patients-may-live-longer
So someone please explain to me again why fat isn't healthier than "average" BMI ... because pretty much every scientific study and stat done on this topic says absolutely otherwise.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Meaning and Ethics in Life and Procreation (Spoiler: I don't agree with breeding humans)
Thought of the morning:
Meaning is a made-up conceptual framework that draws from confusion, fear, and sensory feeling. Life has no "meaning," in the same way blue has no inherent blueness.
Humans try to associate purpose in an attempt to justify our existence. There is no point or meaning to homo-sapien consciousness anymore than there is meaning to termite consciousness (which some may argue is very well established and unfairly downplayed on the back burner of higher-primate agendas.) To single out the higher primate identity and prerogative is speciesist and deductive.
That being said, our inherent randomness in the vastness of the cosmos is arguably what makes the human experience unique and worth continually living for some.... SOME.
For others (often those without a popular voice in philosophy, physics, etc) life can resemble a hellish, painful, and vastly unpleasant pursuit into the spirals of nightmare and insanity. Anyone who says differently is coming from a place of privilege and/or speciesist constructs.
It's this ever-present possibility of extreme suffering that prevents me (ethically) from reproducing or from encouraging the growth and expansion of future (potential) sentient beings.
For those in the world already viable, alive, and able to feel pain I propose either:
- Our consistent communal dedication to their non-suffering (fuck business, monetary gain, globalization, capitalism, retirement, etc, etc... any parents sole purpose in life should be to provide 100% of their being, love, support, time, etc, to the offspring they made, until the day they die.
- The choice of comfortable and painless ethical euthanasia as a right at all times in our life
- Or choice of ones own legal, cherished, painless, and non-stigmatized suicide (this should be something we also respect at ANY AGE, something we celebrate and throw a party for, etc) To go against any of our offspring's wishes to die; specifically the parents own wishes to benefit, worry or whatever else, and not always put the child's interest first is simply neglectful and crazy selfish.
Meaning and theory come from places of privilege, and I believe looking after those most vulnerable (children, non-human animals, disabled, etc.. those who lack the chance to evaluate meaning) is our essential duty, especially those supporting the ethical continuation of life via childbirth.
I came to my own ethical conclusion not to procreate at around age 12-13, and my philosophy has been relatively consistent ever since. I see breeding (as sentient intelligent beings) as intolerably selfish and cruel; yet it's difficult or impossible to lay blame on others as many of us are simply the products of other irrational emotional creatures, brought up similarly unable to reason outside themselves and think outside their genitals. This choice I have to not have children is arguably just as privileged, if not anthropocentric; as many women's bodies on the planet are owned or used by men.
Ideally, the best case scenario I can think of (for everyone's sake) is instantaneous universal implosion; until then I choose to continue my life simply because of my love of others, a vicious catch 22, nearly 7 billion strong.
Meaning is a made-up conceptual framework that draws from confusion, fear, and sensory feeling. Life has no "meaning," in the same way blue has no inherent blueness.
Humans try to associate purpose in an attempt to justify our existence. There is no point or meaning to homo-sapien consciousness anymore than there is meaning to termite consciousness (which some may argue is very well established and unfairly downplayed on the back burner of higher-primate agendas.) To single out the higher primate identity and prerogative is speciesist and deductive.
That being said, our inherent randomness in the vastness of the cosmos is arguably what makes the human experience unique and worth continually living for some.... SOME.
For others (often those without a popular voice in philosophy, physics, etc) life can resemble a hellish, painful, and vastly unpleasant pursuit into the spirals of nightmare and insanity. Anyone who says differently is coming from a place of privilege and/or speciesist constructs.
It's this ever-present possibility of extreme suffering that prevents me (ethically) from reproducing or from encouraging the growth and expansion of future (potential) sentient beings.
For those in the world already viable, alive, and able to feel pain I propose either:
- Our consistent communal dedication to their non-suffering (fuck business, monetary gain, globalization, capitalism, retirement, etc, etc... any parents sole purpose in life should be to provide 100% of their being, love, support, time, etc, to the offspring they made, until the day they die.
- The choice of comfortable and painless ethical euthanasia as a right at all times in our life
- Or choice of ones own legal, cherished, painless, and non-stigmatized suicide (this should be something we also respect at ANY AGE, something we celebrate and throw a party for, etc) To go against any of our offspring's wishes to die; specifically the parents own wishes to benefit, worry or whatever else, and not always put the child's interest first is simply neglectful and crazy selfish.
Meaning and theory come from places of privilege, and I believe looking after those most vulnerable (children, non-human animals, disabled, etc.. those who lack the chance to evaluate meaning) is our essential duty, especially those supporting the ethical continuation of life via childbirth.
I came to my own ethical conclusion not to procreate at around age 12-13, and my philosophy has been relatively consistent ever since. I see breeding (as sentient intelligent beings) as intolerably selfish and cruel; yet it's difficult or impossible to lay blame on others as many of us are simply the products of other irrational emotional creatures, brought up similarly unable to reason outside themselves and think outside their genitals. This choice I have to not have children is arguably just as privileged, if not anthropocentric; as many women's bodies on the planet are owned or used by men.
Ideally, the best case scenario I can think of (for everyone's sake) is instantaneous universal implosion; until then I choose to continue my life simply because of my love of others, a vicious catch 22, nearly 7 billion strong.
Friday, July 3, 2015
Judgement of Bodies....
"Healthy" is relative. The 250 million kids throughout southeast Asia/Phillipines who have or will go blind from vitamin A deficiency over the next few years would beg and plead for American fast food every day just so they have a better chance at appreciating sight. Folks prove my point beautifully when they voice opinions of who's in better shape or who's going to live longer based on looks alone.. Unless you're a doctor, this discussion of "who's healthy vs unhealthy" is irrelevant, and based on opinion more than hard data. This is why I choose to avoid opinion and use only stats and peer reviewed literature in my research.
Health is so, so very relative.
Stop judging bodies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)