NationStates Jolt Archive

At least in the US.
http://www.expressnewsline.com/worldnews.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=1571
Life expectancy has increased over the past few generations, but by the time our children grow up, they may start to decline. Why? The obesity epidemic. By 2050, two to five years will be shaved off our lives. That's equal to the effect on all cancers combined. And that may spread elsewhere, as the obesity epidemic hits other countries. For the first time in human history, as many people are overnourished as they are undernourished.

At least in the US.
http://www.expressnewsline.com/worldnews.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=1571
Life expectancy has increased over the past few generations, but by the time our children grow up, they may start to decline. Why? The obesity epidemic. By 2050, two to five years will be shaved off our lives. That's equal to the effect on all cancers combined. And that may spread elsewhere, as the obesity epidemic hits other countries. For the first time in human history, as many people are overnourished as they are undernourished.
Which means there's definitely enough food for everyone in the world but damn greedy pigs are stuffing their faces instead of paying zakat.

Of course there's enough food in the world. The problem is where the food is, and people who interpret the maxim "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat forever" as meaning

"lets not give people fish. Ever. We'll teach em to fish. Waddya mean thewre aren't any fish in their country? **** you, I'm teaching them to fish"

The same story is published by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4357325.stm)
It does point out, however, that as the US population is more health conscious than in the past, this will probably offset the possible trend.

The same story is published by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4357325.stm)
It does point out, however, that as the US population is more health conscious than in the past, this will probably offset the possible trend.
That must be the stupidest thing the BBC has ever said. The health concious American is powerless when it comes to food. I am, and I'm not exactly slim, myself. Every other chubby person I know (being most everyone) has tried liposuctions, diets, on and on and on. Nothing works but gastric bypass surgery, but that has so many potential complications that it is reserved for the morbidly obese (like me :)).

This was the serious stuff I meant to post last time. ;)

The main problem is the quality of the food that we eat in the west (I'm english). Most of what we buy in supermarkets is laced with addictive e-numbers, chemicals and basically anything but the stuff that is supposed to be in food. I understand that Kraft Cheese in America can't legally be called cheese because it's so full of fabricated rubbish.

If, as a whole, industrialised western nations started having stricter controls on the quality of additives allowed in food, the numbers of overweight people would begin to decrease. Another thing that would help would be increase fuel taxes for those who do not require private transport for their job, and then only if that job is a public service.

crazy fat americans will just pay more to develop higher tech ways to compensate for lard induced disease.

hopefully there'll be some spin off and the rest of us will get technology to regenerate organs or something

This was the serious stuff I meant to post last time. ;)

The main problem is the quality of the food that we eat in the west (I'm english). Most of what we buy in supermarkets is laced with addictive e-numbers, chemicals and basically anything but the stuff that is supposed to be in food. I understand that Kraft Cheese in America can't legally be called cheese because it's so full of fabricated rubbish.

If, as a whole, industrialised western nations started having stricter controls on the quality of additives allowed in food, the numbers of overweight people would begin to decrease. Another thing that would help would be increase fuel taxes for those who do not require private transport for their job, and then only if that job is a public service.
I kenw it. Socialists would hijack this thread to argue that only the government can solve this problem.
Personally, I think it can reach equilibrium naturally, but only through a bottom-up solution. Then again, some experimentation will be needed. The Atkins and South Beach Diets died out, while some French diet is coming to the foreground. I personally think that eating less and exercising more should be fine.
Of course, I can't blame you. The English are thin, and England is a socialist nation. Not only was it never really that chubby of a nation, but you live in the world's great nanny state.

That must be the stupidest thing the BBC has ever said. The health concious American is powerless when it comes to food. I am, and I'm not exactly slim, myself. Every other chubby person I know (being most everyone) has tried liposuctions, diets, on and on and on. Nothing works but gastric bypass surgery, but that has so many potential complications that it is reserved for the morbidly obese (like me :)).

I fail to see why the American is powerless when it comes to food. If all that is eaten is pre-prepared TV dinners etc. Then yes, this could be a factor. But nothing, as far as I know of, prevents Americans from learning to cook and preparing healthy food.
There is a standard set of advice which goes something like this:
Eat fresh food, less of it, and drink more water, less soda. Cut out the sugar.
I know it is easy to say and hard to do. Refined sugar is one of the most addictive substances that we know of, cutting it out of the diet causes stress, irritation, loss of concentration etc. For a while. Then you start to feel better than you ever did before.

I don't know if the problem is the type of food eaten or the lifestyle that forces people to eat that type of food. Preparing a good healthy meal takes time. Microwaving a TV dinner does not. The BBC is not mad for saying that health awareness could impact on the predictions. It could. The question is how much does the average american want to do something about it.
(I am using americans here as they were the subject of the study, no bias intended.)

I kenw it. Socialists would hijack this thread to argue that only the government can solve this problem.
Personally, I think it can reach equilibrium naturally, but only through a bottom-up solution. Then again, some experimentation will be needed. The Atkins and South Beach Diets died out, while some French diet is coming to the foreground. I personally think that eating less and exercising more should be fine.
Of course, I can't blame you. The English are thin, and England is a socialist nation. Not only was it never really that chubby of a nation, but you live in the world's great nanny state.

The UK is the fattest nation in Europe. Quite how that makes us "thin" I'm not sure...

And yes, government action is needed. Clearly the general population in both the UK and the US can't look after themselves.

I fail to see why the American is powerless when it comes to food. If all that is eaten is pre-prepared TV dinners etc. Then yes, this could be a factor. But nothing, as far as I know of, prevents Americans from learning to cook and preparing healthy food.
There is a standard set of advice which goes something like this:
Eat fresh food, less of it, and drink more water, less soda. Cut out the sugar.
I know it is easy to say and hard to do. Refined sugar is one of the most addictive substances that we know of, cutting it out of the diet causes stress, irritation, loss of concentration etc. For a while. Then you start to feel better than you ever did before.

I don't know if the problem is the type of food eaten or the lifestyle that forces people to eat that type of food. Preparing a good healthy meal takes time. Microwaving a TV dinner does not. The BBC is not mad for saying that health awareness could impact on the predictions. It could. The question is how much does the average american want to do something about it.
(I am using americans here as they were the subject of the study, no bias intended.)
Given the choice between being fat and keeping our lifestyles, and being thin while altering them, the former would be chosen. It can be stressful, requires time in our cars, but there is a icertain pleasure in it. We are always on the movhe, meeting new people, trying new things. In fact, the average American spends only seven years in the same house at any given time. It keeps us very wealthy, and makes vacations seem more pleasant, too.
Quality need not be an issue. Americans will no longer have to cook their own food, soon. Instead, a robust resturant industry is forming, and not just fast food. As I say for anything, and I find it true, the market will work it out.

The UK is the fattest nation in Europe. Quite how that makes us "thin" I'm not sure...

And yes, government action is needed. Clearly the general population in both the UK and the US can't look after themselves.
Then let them die. Let me die if I have to. I'd rather die free than submit to government despotism in the name of health.

Canada is pretty phat too. I mean fat.

Then let them die. Let me die if I have to. I'd rather die free than submit to government despotism in the name of health.

That just makes you a reactionary fool too blinded by an overwhelming desire to have so-called "total freedom" to see that a lot of people need to be handwalked through life for the simple reason that they can't look after themselves.

For the record, it's the government's fault, they made the mess through poor educational policies and half baked laws. It seems about time they got around to fixing their screw-ups once in a while.

That just makes you a reactionary fool too blinded by an overwhelming desire to have so-called "total freedom" to see that a lot of people need to be handwalked through life for the simple reason that they can't look after themselves.

You, my friend, are dangerous. That type of neo-Rousseau thinking has led to fascism, communism, and ultimatly, the stiffling of the individual. People like you are like women that always need a man: they are so weak, they can't become independent. In fact, if it were up to you, the UK would still be in the quasi-communist state of the 1970s.

At least in the US.
http://www.expressnewsline.com/worldnews.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=1571
Life expectancy has increased over the past few generations, but by the time our children grow up, they may start to decline. Why? The obesity epidemic. By 2050, two to five years will be shaved off our lives. That's equal to the effect on all cancers combined. And that may spread elsewhere, as the obesity epidemic hits other countries. For the first time in human history, as many people are overnourished as they are undernourished.

If the afterlife existed, Darwin would be pointing down at the fatties and laughing.

</maddox>

Given the choice between being fat and keeping our lifestyles, and being thin while altering them, the former would be chosen.
Even if you knew that by not altering it you would be reducing your expected lifespan?
It can be stressful, requires time in our cars, but there is a certain pleasure in it. We are always on the move, meeting new people, trying new things. In fact, the average American spends only seven years in the same house at any given time. It keeps us very wealthy, and makes vacations seem more pleasant, too.
I am sure this is true for the middle classes and up. (I am not so sure for the poor Americans that this applies, but I guess that they are not particularly fat) The fact that something is pleasurable and makes you feel goods does not necessarily mean that it is something that you would want to do. It has to depend upon the price that is paid for the pleasure. Otherwise we would all be crack addicts. The question here, is whether knowing that the price is higher than it had been thought to be, will this cause a change somewhere in this behaviour. Or is the price still acceptable? The BBC journalist obviously felt that the price change would change the behaviour of some people at least.
Quality need not be an issue. Americans will no longer have to cook their own food, soon. Instead, a robust resturant industry is forming, and not just fast food. As I say for anything, and I find it true, the market will work it out.
Quality is not the problem, healthiness is the problem. Eating out is wonderful, we do it whenever possible (Small child and no nearby grandparents restriction). However eating out is not the same as eating well. Restaurants use higher levels of cream and dairy products, a little more salt, they provide richer, more flavoured food. This, although it is high quality and tastes wonderful, is just not as healthy as home cooking.



And yes, government action is needed. Clearly the general population in both the UK and the US can't look after themselves.

But they can be trusted to vote? Or are you suggesting that we need to move to a totalitarian dictatorship so that we can be slim and miserable?

You, my friend, are dangerous. That type of neo-Rousseau thinking has led to fascism, communism, and ultimatly, the stiffling of the individual. People like you are like women that always need a man: they are so weak, they can't become independent. In fact, if it were up to you, the UK would still be in the quasi-communist state of the 1970s.

So then you are saying that people aren't stupid? You're saying that everybody is great at looking after themselves, knows how to take care of their health? You're telling me that if a scientificaly balanced diet was determined and given to everybody then that would be a bad thing?

I'm not saying let the government tell you what music to listen to, what books to read, what comedy to alugh at. I'm not saying the government knows everything. I am saying that the government knows more than many people, and has access to more resources, economic scientific and personnel, than any individual.

But they can be trusted to vote? Or are you suggesting that we need to move to a totalitarian dictatorship so that we can be slim and miserable?

No they can't be trusted to vote. The vote should not be given on the basis of age, but on the basis of intelligence and education.

So then you are saying that people aren't stupid? You're saying that everybody is great at looking after themselves, knows how to take care of their health? You're telling me that if a scientificaly balanced diet was determined and given to everybody then that would be a bad thing?

I'm not saying let the government tell you what music to listen to, what books to read, what comedy to alugh at. I'm not saying the government knows everything. I am saying that the government knows more than many people, and has access to more resources, economic scientific and personnel, than any individual.

The government consists of individuals, so your premise that it knows more than any individual is farsical.

If you want to put control in the hands of those that know more then institute either:
1. A theocracy, as the priests always claim to know more.
2. Scientific Oligarchy. The scientists know more after all.

Chose. Church or University to rule us all. Have a nice life.

Me, I prefer to be ruled by those that I have some say in chosing. Democracy is bad, but it is better than anything you are proposing.

The government consists of individuals, so your premise that it knows more than any individual is farsical.

The government as a group does, because it is made up of the best individuals. And I'm not just talking about the elected parts, but the Civil Service as well.

If you want to put control in the hands of those that know more then institute either:
1. A theocracy, as the priests always claim to know more.
2. Scientific Oligarchy. The scientists know more after all.

Chose. Church or University to rule us all. Have a nice life.

Me, I prefer to be ruled by those that I have some say in chosing. Democracy is bad, but it is better than anything you are proposing.

You may very well be an intelligent and rational individual. But mst people out there are not. They are stupid. They vote for the dude with the best PR team, the man who buys the same beer as him or wears the same fashion labels. Modern politics isn't about policies, it's the biggest popularity contest. And I choose the Universities to rule me. At least scientists have to find evidence for the stuff they claim is true.

Im not fat but boy are my arteries filled with yellow hmmmmm cusatard!

At least in the US.
http://www.expressnewsline.com/worldnews.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=1571
Life expectancy has increased over the past few generations, but by the time our children grow up, they may start to decline. Why? The obesity epidemic. By 2050, two to five years will be shaved off our lives. That's equal to the effect on all cancers combined. And that may spread elsewhere, as the obesity epidemic hits other countries. For the first time in human history, as many people are overnourished as they are undernourished.
So I give it another 10 years before Cuba surpasses us in life expectancy, then we can all sit around and laugh and laugh and bomb Cuba for showing us up

I am sure this is true for the middle classes and up. (I am not so sure for the poor Americans that this applies, but I guess that they are not particularly fat) The fact that something is pleasurable and makes you feel goods does not necessarily mean that it is something that you would want to do. It has to depend upon the price that is paid for the pleasure. Otherwise we would all be crack addicts. The question here, is whether knowing that the price is higher than it had been thought to be, will this cause a change somewhere in this behaviour. Or is the price still acceptable? The BBC journalist obviously felt that the price change would change the behaviour of some people at least.

Actually, the funny thing in this country is that poor people are generally fatter than other income levels. My personal guess is a lack of desire to maintain a healthy weight when other issues weigh in (no pun intended). However, I am not poor, so I don't know.
Quality is not the problem, healthiness is the problem. Eating out is wonderful, we do it whenever possible (Small child and no nearby grandparents restriction). However eating out is not the same as eating well. Restaurants use higher levels of cream and dairy products, a little more salt, they provide richer, more flavoured food. This, although it is high quality and tastes wonderful, is just not as healthy as home cooking.

Still, if a consumer wants it, he/she can go and find a resturant of decent portion sizes (as portion sizes seem to be a problem in this country). Being healthy just isn't enough these days.

The government as a group does, because it is made up of the best individuals. And I'm not just talking about the elected parts, but the Civil Service as well.



You may very well be an intelligent and rational individual. But mst people out there are not. They are stupid. They vote for the dude with the best PR team, the man who buys the same beer as him or wears the same fashion labels. Modern politics isn't about policies, it's the biggest popularity contest. And I choose the Universities to rule me. At least scientists have to find evidence for the stuff they claim is true.
The two lines in bold contradict one another. If the government is based on popularity, not ability; then, by your definition, they are not the best individuals. The same goes for the civil service: they are appointed according to criteria set by the politicians. On your premise, if they comprised the 'best individuals', it would be coincidence on an implausible scale.

In the underlined line, I would feel more confidence in your knowledge of what science is if you used the word, 'produce' in place of 'find'. (Alternatively, I would feel more confidence in the type of scientists you wish to have ruling us.)

So then you are saying that people aren't stupid? You're saying that everybody is great at looking after themselves, knows how to take care of their health? You're telling me that if a scientificaly balanced diet was determined and given to everybody then that would be a bad thing?

I'm not saying that every human knows what to do. But quite a few do. And maybe they can succeed in ways that the government can't. Or perhaps they can't succeed because government restrictions forbid them to. Besides, any time regulations pop up, a human can never reach his potential, and not just economically. Creativity suffers. An extreme example (but one, nevertheless) is the Soviet Union. They regulated culture, and now, we are seeing a flowering of creativity from the region, as it was surpressed for so long.

In the underlined line, I would feel more confidence in your knowledge of what science is if you used the word, 'produce' in place of 'find'. (Alternatively, I would feel more confidence in the type of scientists you wish to have ruling us.)

What's the difference? Call me simple, but I don't get what you are getting at. if they don't find the evidence, how are they meant to produce it?

I'm not saying that every human knows what to do. But quite a few do. And maybe they can succeed in ways that the government can't. Or perhaps they can't succeed because government restrictions forbid them to. Besides, any time regulations pop up, a human can never reach his potential, and not just economically. Creativity suffers. An extreme example (but one, nevertheless) is the Soviet Union. They regulated culture, and now, we are seeing a flowering of creativity from the region, as it was surpressed for so long.

And which country was the first to put people in space? Which nation was responsible for defeating the Germans in WW2? (not the USA, by the way)

And which country was the first to put people in space? Which nation was responsible for defeating the Germans in WW2? (not the USA, by the way)
WWII is a bit of a mute point, as every country on the planet adopted toltalitarian policies. But yes, they did get people in space, namely by channeling all of their resources into one project.
The same can be said for elsewhere, though in a less extreme case. Germany was always a world leader in innovation: the Protestant Reformation, beautiful cities, great artists + composers, and of course, scientists. That started to change around WWI. After that, all innovation has been regionalized. It seems like the only achievement I can remember about Germany is "99 Luftballoons".
How did this happen? Its Nazi government, followed by the socialists and communists, may explain it.

At least in the US.
http://www.expressnewsline.com/worldnews.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=1571
Life expectancy has increased over the past few generations, but by the time our children grow up, they may start to decline. Why? The obesity epidemic. By 2050, two to five years will be shaved off our lives. That's equal to the effect on all cancers combined. And that may spread elsewhere, as the obesity epidemic hits other countries. For the first time in human history, as many people are overnourished as they are undernourished.


This is natures way of weeding out "bad" genetics. Now having the "fat" gene was good in days gone by. Because the body could store food during good times for use during lean times. Now we in the westren world always have food. So it isn't a advantage to have this gene. So nature in it's wisdom has a built in mechanism to change humanity to the better genetic makeup.

This is natures way of weeding out "bad" genetics. Now having the "fat" gene was good in days gone by. Because the body could store food during good times for use during lean times. Now we in the westren world always have food. So it isn't a advantage to have this gene. So nature in it's wisdom has a built in mechanism to change humanity to the better genetic makeup.

But it wont work, because modern medicine will continue to improve, aloowing people who would die under the conditions for which natural selection works to continue to live. Humanity changes faster than nature can keep up.

And which country was the first to put people in space? Which nation was responsible for defeating the Germans in WW2? (not the USA, by the way)


Fist nation in space was the Soviet Union. The nation responsible for winning WWII was the USA. If it wasn't for the Anglo-American forces supplying the Soviets with material and money. Then opening a front in Africa to take pressure off the Soviets. Then don't forget the bombing by the Anglo-American forces of Germany to slow down production. But the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse during the Barbarossa offensive. The Americans also kept pressure on Japan so they wouldn't invade the Soviet Union. Read up on history. Soviet Union did give a tremendous effort. But she could not have done it all alone.

This is natures way of weeding out "bad" genetics. Now having the "fat" gene was good in days gone by. Because the body could store food during good times for use during lean times. Now we in the westren world always have food. So it isn't a advantage to have this gene. So nature in it's wisdom has a built in mechanism to change humanity to the better genetic makeup.

It's irrelevant if they don't die before reproduction. Now, if their reproduction was severely limited because non-fat people would think them too ugly to mate with, then evolution in this sense could occur.

But it wont work, because modern medicine will continue to improve, aloowing people who would die under the conditions for which natural selection works to continue to live. Humanity changes faster than nature can keep up.


Yes you are right in some cases. People first have to seek medical advice/help so they can be helped. Alot of people don't do anything until it's to late.

It's irrelevant if they don't die before reproduction. Now, if their reproduction was severely limited because non-fat people would think them too ugly to mate with, then evolution in this sense could occur.


This is the same effect. This is also natural selection.

Fist nation in space was the Soviet Union. The nation responsible for winning WWII was the USA. If it wasn't for the Anglo-American forces supplying the Soviets with material and money. Then opening a front in Africa to take pressure off the Soviets. Then don't forget the bombing by the Anglo-American forces of Germany to slow down production.at's. But the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse during the Barbarossa offensive. The Americans also kept pressure on Japan so they wouldn't invade the Soviet Union. Read up on history. Soviet Union did give a tremendous effort. But she could not have done it all alone.

No nation was responsible for winning the war. Nations were, however.

This is the same effect. This is also natural selection.

I know. My point is, what you basically said was that fat peoples' shortened lifespans would allow natural selection to occur. That's not true because they still live much more than long enough to reproduce.

Fist nation in space was the Soviet Union. The nation responsible for winning WWII was the USA. If it wasn't for the Anglo-American forces supplying the Soviets with material and money. Then opening a front in Africa to take pressure off the Soviets. Then don't forget the bombing by the Anglo-American forces of Germany to slow down production.at's. But the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse during the Barbarossa offensive. The Americans also kept pressure on Japan so they wouldn't invade the Soviet Union. Read up on history. Soviet Union did give a tremendous effort. But she could not have done it all alone.

History is it? Lets see...

First if we assume that the non-aggresion pact between the Russians and the Germans had not been broken by the Nazis in 1941, and if we also assume that there had never been any intention of breaking that pact, then they would have retained the manpower to repel the allied invasion on D-Day.
ANd that assumes that the Nazis would not simply have taken all the equipment and production that was actually used for operation Barbarossa and used it against Britain and the Allied forces in Africa. this also solves the issue of Japan, since the Russians and japanese would have been essentially allies.

However, even if it hadn't solved the problem of Russo-Japanese hostility, then Russia could have dealt with any invasion of their land from the Japanese by virtue of the massive amount of worthless territory the Japanese would have had to go through.

Finally, if the Nazis had invaded and the US had not helped with their resources, the weather would have destroyed Operation Barbarossa in the end. The German army was woefully underequipped for the realities of Russian winter.

The UK is the fattest nation in Europe. Quite how that makes us "thin" I'm not sure...

And yes, government action is needed. Clearly the general population in both the UK and the US can't look after themselves.

I live in the UK, and I'm not fat. I'm in the dead centre of the 'recommended weight for your height' scale thingy that those scientist blokes came up with. Yes, that is the technical name for it.

Did the government make me like this?

No. I did it, by myself.

If I can do it, and, let's face it, I'm a moron, then anybody can do it. It's just that people don't want to do it. No willpower. And when people don't want to do something, they can only be forced to do something. And when the government starts forcing people to eat certain things, that's when we need to brutally slaughter every politician and anybody who supports them and start from scratch. If I want to get fat, I will get fat. But I don't want to, so I don't. The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't eat. And I'd like to see them try.

History is it? Lets see...

First if we assume that the non-aggresion pact between the Russians and the Germans had not been broken by the Nazis in 1941, and if we also assume that there had never been any intention of breaking that pact, then they would have retained the manpower to repel the allied invasion on D-Day.
ANd that assumes that the Nazis would not simply have taken all the equipment and production that was actually used for operation Barbarossa and used it against Britain and the Allied forces in Africa. this also solves the issue of Japan, since the Russians and japanese would have been essentially allies.

However, even if it hadn't solved the problem of Russo-Japanese hostility, then Russia could have dealt with any invasion of their land from the Japanese by virtue of the massive amount of worthless territory the Japanese would have had to go through.

Finally, if the Nazis had invaded and the US had not helped with their resources, the weather would have destroyed Operation Barbarossa in the end. The German army was woefully underequipped for the realities of Russian winter.


You are assuming alot and making broad inaccurate generalizations about the war. Best kept to another thread I think. Now back to lifespans....

I live in the UK, and I'm not fat. I'm in the dead centre of the 'recommended weight for your height' scale thingy that those scientist blokes came up with. Yes, that is the technical name for it.

Did the government make me like this?

No. I did it, by myself.

If I can do it, and, let's face it, I'm a moron, then anybody can do it. It's just that people don't want to do it. No willpower. And when people don't want to do something, they can only be forced to do something. And when the government starts forcing people to eat certain things, that's when we need to brutally slaughter every politician and anybody who supports them and start from scratch. If I want to get fat, I will get fat. But I don't want to, so I don't. The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't eat. And I'd like to see them try.

But when you're so fat that you can't breathe, the NHS has to provide you with oxygen tanks. When you have to have a coronary bypass because your lifestyle has clogged your blood vessels, the NHS foots the bill. Through the taxpayer, admittedly, but nonetheless the NHS has a budget, and when people who can't look after themselves drain the resources of an institution designed to care for those with real illnesses, it is time for the government to step in and do something.

And when the government starts forcing people to eat certain things, that's when we need to brutally slaughter every politician and anybody who supports them

Wow, valuable addition

What's the difference? Call me simple, but I don't get what you are getting at. if they don't find the evidence, how are they meant to produce it?
Making claims about stuff and finding evidence to support those claims is what politicians and lawyers do. Scientists are supposed to make claims about stuff based on observations, and then produce those observations as evidence to support the claims. It's a question of order: claims first, then evidence - not science; evidence first, then claims - science.

(I was being picky.)

The government as a group does, because it is made up of the best individuals. And I'm not just talking about the elected parts, but the Civil Service as well.

You may very well be an intelligent and rational individual. But mst people out there are not. They are stupid. They vote for the dude with the best PR team, the man who buys the same beer as him or wears the same fashion labels. Modern politics isn't about policies, it's the biggest popularity contest. And I choose the Universities to rule me. At least scientists have to find evidence for the stuff they claim is true.

First paragraph/block
The best individuals do not go into the civil service. The rewards are too low. They do not go into higher education, the rewards are too low. They go into business. If you want to be ruled by the best individuals, in the sense of the sharpest minds, those that plan most effectively etc. Then you are looking for a system of corporate republics. Move to Japan.

Second paragraph/block
I may be intelligent, others would have to judge that. I am, however, regardless of my intelligence or lack thereof, no more rational than anyone else. Rationality is purely expository and instrumental. It is not an ability of any relevance here as we are discussing the preference for one life style over another. (Fat, fast and fun or thin, long and regulated; these appear to be the choices.)
Being an academic, and having worked in Universities for some time. I can assure you that you do not want to be ruled by a council made up of senior university staff of any kind. Reactionary is defined by the existence of these people.

Making claims about stuff and finding evidence to support those claims is what politicians and lawyers do. Scientists are supposed to make claims about stuff based on observations, and then produce those observations as evidence to support the claims. It's a question of order: claims first, then evidence - not science; evidence first, then claims - science.

(I was being picky.)
I know it is a sidetrack but I am going to pick you up on this one. The theoretical procedure of science is as you describe, however the theoretical procedure is exactly that, theoretical. In practice science starts from a position of belief, from this the scientist develops an explanatory theory. They then check this theory empirically, sometimes throwing out data that disagrees with their theory on the most spurious of excuses. Science in practice goes Claim (unproven) - evidence (selected) - claim (law) - Further claim (unproven) etc.

Please excuse me if my cynicism is showing :rolleyes:

I know it is a sidetrack but I am going to pick you up on this one. The theoretical procedure of science is as you describe, however the theoretical procedure is exactly that, theoretical. In practice science starts from a position of belief, from this the scientist develops an explanatory theory. They then check this theory empirically, sometimes throwing out data that disagrees with their theory on the most spurious of excuses. Science in practice goes Claim (unproven) - evidence (selected) - claim (law) - Further claim (unproven) etc.

Please excuse me if my cynicism is showing :rolleyes:
Science is indeed imperfect. I was responding in kind to a post lauding an idealised view of science over politics.

I saw a previous post you made to Wilhemia in similar vein, and perhaps there is a touch of cynicism to be seen. You remind me a little of atheists who became atheist because their experience of religious people's behaviour fell short of the standards they expected. (That's not meant as any sort of insult btw.)

I think the reason I stick with science is much the same as the reason I stick with democracy (and indeed do not reject religion per se). I don't, I hope, have an idealised view of either, but they contain at their heart a self-correcting principle. Democratic rulers need, at some level and at some point, to take into account the wishes of the people they represent. Hence I see Democracy as better than the alternatives. In the same way, scientists, although they may be conservative, prejudiced, corrupt and all the rest, are subject to the principle that their results must be replicable and conceptually disprovable. If evidence against established theories keeps coming to light, the theory will fall. So, over time and assuming some freedoms, unsustainable positions are overturned; and the general trend is towards better understanding of the world. It may not be a particularly clean process, but I think it works at a pragmatic level.

But when you're so fat that you can't breathe, the NHS has to provide you with oxygen tanks. When you have to have a coronary bypass because your lifestyle has clogged your blood vessels, the NHS foots the bill. Through the taxpayer, admittedly, but nonetheless the NHS has a budget, and when people who can't look after themselves drain the resources of an institution designed to care for those with real illnesses, it is time for the government to step in and do something.

Well maybe we should privatise healthcare rather than have the government make all our decisions for us? To be honest, the NHS doesn't exactly have a wonderful track record of recent years anyway.

Wow, valuable addition

Wow, valuable addition. Try to learn when people are being serious, and when people aren't being serious.