5 ms·

There's a significant distinction between polluting the environment, which harms other people directly and making unhealthy decisions in one's own life, which h

by Zak 10y ago

There's a significant distinction between polluting the environment, which harms other people directly and making unhealthy decisions in one's own life, which has only indirect effects on others.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 10y ago
There's the scale of economics. If only few people buy healthy food, supermarkets have no incentive to offer it at all. Even if they offer healthy food, the price is higher because they can't buy in bulk or else they waste much of it.
- lend000 10y ago
  > If only few people buy healthy food, supermarkets have no incentive to offer it at all. Then how come most grocery stores have healthy food? If it truly was a minority group that wanted to eat healthy food, what right do they have to force the majority to buy what they want to make it more economical? Although the premise is flawed, because the real reason 'healthy food' is expensive is because the foods considered healthy inherently cannot use many methods that increase yield like pesticides. And then some go so far as to claim GMO's are unhealthy/cannot be organic, further driving up the prices of foods that get to wear the healthy food labels. Increasing demand for healthy food would make it more expensive, certainly in the short term.
  - jordanb 10y ago
    > Then how come most grocery stores have healthy food? All over America there are many areas known as "food deserts" because stores do not stock fresh foods and produce. In those areas the only food readily available is shelf-stable, highly processed, very high caloric density junk food. Now think about being on a Pacific island where leaving your food desert is not just a matter of a long drive or bus ride down the road to a different community.
    - slaveofallah93 10y ago
      There's not strong evidence that food deserts lead to an increase in obesity.
kwhitefoot 10y ago
A fat slob overflowing the seat next to me on an aeroplane has a direct effect on me and I would be perfectly happy for measures to be taken to mitigate it.
- lend000 10y ago
  Or we could get rid of anti-discrimination laws and allow airlines to charge based on weight/have assigned seating types. But I imagine that wouldn't go over very well with the people who want to ban junk food.
  - Zak 10y ago
    Most airlines in the US have an official policy allowing them to require passengers who cannot sit in a single seat with the armrests lowered and seatbelt fastened to pay for an additional seat. They usually try to employ alternatives, but on full flights, people do get bumped if they don't fit in one seat.
  - concinds 10y ago
    I'd be fine with both. Where's the conflict?
    - lend000 10y ago
      Huge difference. One allows free association, whereas the other involves using government force to take away freedom.
      - concinds 10y ago
        Those are arbitrary "principles" that only make sense in the context of a given arbitrary political ideology. I want to live in a country where it's easy to be lean, so that as many people as possible are lean, because there are no downsides to being lean, and infinite upsides. Paying in relation to what you use seems fair. Sending small packages costs less than big heavy packages. What's a few bucks' difference anyway?
  - deleted 10y ago
vosper 10y ago
In countries that provide publicly-funded healthcare you are arguably directly effecting other people's lives by the cost of the medical treatments you'll end up needing if you are obese - these treatments will be funded out of the taxpayer's pocket, when that money could be going to better schooling, infrastructure, or some other use.
- Zak 10y ago
  This is also true with privately-funded health care based on insurance with shared risk pools that don't take behavioral risk factors in to account. It's the very definition of a moral hazard. But if you accept that argument, where is the line? What personal decisions, if any shouldn't be subject to regulation?
  - vosper 10y ago
    True, but I was arguing that poor personal health choices are not only an indirect negative effect on other people, which is what you said. And I neglected obvious direct negative effects it can have on people close to you, such as children who now have to care for a parent who loses their leg due to diabetes, or who don't get to experience play because of a parent who's so obese and unfit that they can barely walk around without wheezing. Edit: I can't give you a list of personal decisions that I think should be subject to regulation, because it's not as simple as that, and there's a debate to be had for each one, and that will depend on circumstances and ideology. But I do think that in this case it's reasonable, since the cost of treating diabetes patients is crippling a small, poor country.
- forrestthewoods 10y ago
  By that definition there is literally nothing the government can't, and arguably shouldn't, regulate. That won't end badly I'm sure!
  - khedoros1 10y ago
    That seems like the logical conclusion. Where's the dividing line between what the government should and shouldn't regulate, if they judge it to be in the best interests of the people (and the government's will being theoretically derived from the collective will of the governed)?

by Zak 10y ago

There's a significant distinction between polluting the environment, which harms other people directly and making unhealthy decisions in one's own life, which has only indirect effects on others.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 10y ago

There's the scale of economics. If only few people buy healthy food, supermarkets have no incentive to offer it at all. Even if they offer healthy food, the price is higher because they can't buy in bulk or else they waste much of it.

lend000 10y ago
> If only few people buy healthy food, supermarkets have no incentive to offer it at all. Then how come most grocery stores have healthy food? If it truly was a minority group that wanted to eat healthy food, what right do they have to force the majority to buy what they want to make it more economical? Although the premise is flawed, because the real reason 'healthy food' is expensive is because the foods considered healthy inherently cannot use many methods that increase yield like pesticides. And then some go so far as to claim GMO's are unhealthy/cannot be organic, further driving up the prices of foods that get to wear the healthy food labels. Increasing demand for healthy food would make it more expensive, certainly in the short term.
- jordanb 10y ago
  > Then how come most grocery stores have healthy food? All over America there are many areas known as "food deserts" because stores do not stock fresh foods and produce. In those areas the only food readily available is shelf-stable, highly processed, very high caloric density junk food. Now think about being on a Pacific island where leaving your food desert is not just a matter of a long drive or bus ride down the road to a different community.
  - slaveofallah93 10y ago
    There's not strong evidence that food deserts lead to an increase in obesity.

kwhitefoot 10y ago

A fat slob overflowing the seat next to me on an aeroplane has a direct effect on me and I would be perfectly happy for measures to be taken to mitigate it.

lend000 10y ago
Or we could get rid of anti-discrimination laws and allow airlines to charge based on weight/have assigned seating types. But I imagine that wouldn't go over very well with the people who want to ban junk food.
- Zak 10y ago
  Most airlines in the US have an official policy allowing them to require passengers who cannot sit in a single seat with the armrests lowered and seatbelt fastened to pay for an additional seat. They usually try to employ alternatives, but on full flights, people do get bumped if they don't fit in one seat.
- concinds 10y ago
  I'd be fine with both. Where's the conflict?
  - lend000 10y ago
    Huge difference. One allows free association, whereas the other involves using government force to take away freedom.
    - concinds 10y ago
      Those are arbitrary "principles" that only make sense in the context of a given arbitrary political ideology. I want to live in a country where it's easy to be lean, so that as many people as possible are lean, because there are no downsides to being lean, and infinite upsides. Paying in relation to what you use seems fair. Sending small packages costs less than big heavy packages. What's a few bucks' difference anyway?
- deleted 10y ago

vosper 10y ago

In countries that provide publicly-funded healthcare you are arguably directly effecting other people's lives by the cost of the medical treatments you'll end up needing if you are obese - these treatments will be funded out of the taxpayer's pocket, when that money could be going to better schooling, infrastructure, or some other use.

Zak 10y ago
This is also true with privately-funded health care based on insurance with shared risk pools that don't take behavioral risk factors in to account. It's the very definition of a moral hazard. But if you accept that argument, where is the line? What personal decisions, if any shouldn't be subject to regulation?
- vosper 10y ago
  True, but I was arguing that poor personal health choices are not only an indirect negative effect on other people, which is what you said. And I neglected obvious direct negative effects it can have on people close to you, such as children who now have to care for a parent who loses their leg due to diabetes, or who don't get to experience play because of a parent who's so obese and unfit that they can barely walk around without wheezing. Edit: I can't give you a list of personal decisions that I think should be subject to regulation, because it's not as simple as that, and there's a debate to be had for each one, and that will depend on circumstances and ideology. But I do think that in this case it's reasonable, since the cost of treating diabetes patients is crippling a small, poor country.
forrestthewoods 10y ago
By that definition there is literally nothing the government can't, and arguably shouldn't, regulate. That won't end badly I'm sure!
- khedoros1 10y ago
  That seems like the logical conclusion. Where's the dividing line between what the government should and shouldn't regulate, if they judge it to be in the best interests of the people (and the government's will being theoretically derived from the collective will of the governed)?