> 30. Get a discount from the federal government for being healthy. Fat people should pay more taxes because they cost society more. This means some approved weigh in and testing centers
Am I the only one finding this insulting, disgusting and backwards? People can be overweight for a multitude of reasons, some of which are:
* Genetics
* Medication
* Health conditions
* Smoking
* Enviromental reasons
* Lack of sleep
* Age
* Pregnancy
* An inactive lifestyle coupled with high consumtion of lipids
You want the government to spend less money in fat people? Make the government first invest money to avoid having an epidemic of overweight people.
Some people have reasons other than stuffing their faces for being fat. It'd be impolite of me to say what I think of this person for implying there aren't.
Medication resonates with me strongly. A lot of anti-psychotics increase appetite massively and are known to cause weight gain. I remember I was larger than I'd ever been and I'd got to that point very quickly.
A "fat tax" could very well hit some of the most vulnerable citizens. People with severe, long-term psychotic illnesses who are prescribed neuroleptics long-term and are unable to work comes to mind.
Perhaps making healthy foods more accessible than unhealthy foods is a better place to start. In the UK, for example, I could buy much more processed food stocked full with sugar than I can fresh vegetables for the same price.
I can see something like this making a little sense in a country with 100% free health cared paid by taxes. If you have a disease you've caused yourself (by smoking, taking drugs, eating badly) why should everyone else have to help you through their taxes? That's not my opinion though, I don't think that's how it should work but I guess that's how he's looking at it.
Well, smokers already pay more (e.g, 80% of the price of a pack in France is taxes, and many other countries have similar rates). Sugar taxes are also appearing in some countries.
Most fat people don't have reasons other than stuffing their faces for being fat. As evidence for this, consider the fact that obesity is skyrocketing while most of the things on your list are not changing.
I don't disagree, but I feel you're implying that obese individuals have complete "self-aware" autonomy over their decision making.
I can pick an obese individual out of a crowd and go "That guy is fat because he eats too much. Dude... have some self control, stop eating so much, buy healthy food, do some exercise, learn to cook for yourself."
Focusing on an individual, all these things may be true, and one may seek to place all the blame on that individual. However, take a step back and look at the cohort of obese people. When entire swathes of society are suffering from these problems, I don't think you can point your finger and blame every obese person for "stuffing their faces."
What collective forces are acting on the majority of the population that results in them eating poorly, not exercising, putting on weight year after year, etc?
The more and more I've read about psychology, self-awareness, political science, etc, and observed how the media and business interests clearly influence behavior, the less and less I feel it's a viable position to attribute individual blame to "fat people" "poor people" "homeless people" for what are society wide issues.
Society is an abstraction for the aggregated product of individual actions. It's an abstraction layer above the level of individual choice, much as thermodynamics is an abstraction layer above mechanics.
Now lets suppose we do want to work on the societal abstraction level. The problem is that the proportion of people making a certain individual choice has gone up. One solution is a pigouvian tax to disincentivize this choice.
I agree you can't blame every single obese person for eating too much. You can only blame the vast majority of them - a small fraction really do have thyroid issues (and could potentially be excused from said tax).
1) people want line item veto from taxes? Where can individuals opt out of paying for wars they don't agree with?
2) taxing obese people would (beyond all the moral and ethical questions that arise) disproportionately affect people that already screwed by the status quo, people of lower income that cannot afford to eat better.
Obesity is a symptom, in the same way that homelessness is a symptom of a failed policy towards mental disorders. Just as some people treat depression and PTSD though alcoholism, some people consume unhealthy food that is cheap and keeps them going. The same reason that demographic also disproportionately smokes, it's a cheap chemical hit that keeps them awake while working two jobs.
...people of lower income that cannot afford to eat better.
People of lower income can't afford to spend less money on food?
...keeps them awake while working two jobs.
Please familiarize yourself with even the basic statistics on poverty in the west before discussing this topic further (hint: google the fraction of poor people who work).
You can achieve this tax without hurting those who don't overeat and under exercise, the same way we tax smokers and drinkers without hurting those who don't do either; tax it at the source, the food itself. Set up a tax system on junk food, etc. or something similar.
You don't tax the fat people, you tax the unhealthy food. As far as I've noticed, this is another very US-centric problem: portions are much larger and the food is much more carb-heavy in the US (compared to other developed countries). There's a strong cultural aspect to that.
I mostly agree with your point[1] but you should be aware that seroquel and abilify (the 5th and 6th most prescribed medications in the US) both lost increased appetite and weight gain as side effects.
The US also has a lot of "off label" prescribing of other anti psychotic meds. This includes risperidone - which again promotes weight gain. The rate of prescribing mental health meds has increased dramatically since the 1990s.
The mechanism of weight gain for some mental health meds is not just "increased appetite, eats more" either. Part of it is the sedating effect so people need less calories, and there might be some changes to gut flora.
If one's calorie needs go down, one can reduce consumption, correct? Similarly, "increased appetite" is simply a desire to eat more - additionally, it's a signal that your mind can correctly dismiss once you know it's phony. Another choice is to do what people in 1989 did - not consume those pills.
I'm aware you don't like me. I make no effort to signal loyalty to the American "blue tribe" (c.f. Scott Alexander [1]). Further, I am willing to discuss inconvenient facts/questions and I oppose the fashionable anti-intellectualism that's pushing into the tech world. This angers people.
By all means suggest what strategy would work to not eat when I get that signal. Note that a strategy of "not eating" doesn't work. I tried it. When I get hungry, no matter how hard I try, pretty soon I'll eat something, unless I'm already in the middle of doing something which makes that impractical. My mind right now can decide it'll eat less or delay eating, in the future, but the mind later will disagree. I have on many occasions walked out the door telling myself to turn around and not drive to the 7-11 and not get a Coke, and maybe half the time I do so.
I don't think you really appreciate what it's like to be fat and hungry and how that affects the ability to make good long term eating habits. Blaming somebody for being fat when they eat when hungry seems to make as much sense to me as blaming a fat cat for eating all the food their owner gives them. Imagine living life following the rule that whenever you have to pee, you've got to wait 3 hours before peeing. It's something like that. If you want to recommend a successful strategy I recommend recommending one where you avoid the signal altogether. Suggesting that people try to directly ignore their primitive biological urges is simply ridiculous, that's like thinking you can hire somebody with poor conscientiousness but make up for it by telling them, "Be more conscientious!"
From what I've understood, the reason the low carb diet seems to work is it reduces the intensity of the hunger signal.
This is purely anecdotal and YMMV but I used to be ravenous by dinner time inspite of eating breakfast and a large lunch. Completely eliminating sugar from my diet helped a lot. Drinking green tea and other NON SUGARY liquids throughout the day also helps.
* Note that a strategy of "not eating" doesn't work. I tried it. When I get hungry...I'll eat something...*
By definition, "I'll eat" is not the same strategy as "not eating".
I don't think you really appreciate what it's like to be fat and hungry...
I assure you I do - I was a very fat teenager, and suffered a lot of hunger to cut down. Earlier this year I cut from 245 (the result of a dirty bulk) to 195 (cruiserweight, rockin a 6 pack).
If you want strategies to mitigate the unpleasant feelings of hunger, I suggest liquids (often thirst feels like hunger) and flavorful low calorie foods. Pani puri (no sev!!!) is one of my goto's - flavorful, but it's just water. I've also taught myself to enjoy the feeling of hunger - when I feel it, I tell myself that it's the feeling of weight loss.
If you want to view yourself as having no more agency than a cat or a separate person in order to deflect blame for your own choices, I can't stop you.
> If you want to view yourself as having no more agency than a cat or a separate person in order to deflect blame for your own choices, I can't stop you.
Agency is not separate from biology; Social pressure is also not agency.
I think you have delusions of free will despite it being philosophically and biologically nonsensical because to do otherwise would contradict other aspects of your ideology.
Am I the only one finding this insulting, disgusting and backwards? People can be overweight for a multitude of reasons, some of which are:
You want the government to spend less money in fat people? Make the government first invest money to avoid having an epidemic of overweight people.Some people have reasons other than stuffing their faces for being fat. It'd be impolite of me to say what I think of this person for implying there aren't.