5 ms·

Boy, the next few decades are going to be...interesting...with how bent the current U.S. government seems to be on inverting the relationships that have coalesc

Boy, the next few decades are going to be...interesting...with how bent the current U.S. government seems to be on inverting the relationships that have coalesced over the last seventy or eighty years. Especially over small potatoes like this. Diplomatic disruption is not a recipe for peace.

weiming 8y ago
I'm wondering how much "the State" should intervene in matters like this. Some families may choose to breast-feed, some won't. Should this decision be government organization-mandated? If the administration's decision is based on "the government should stay out of your family's life," then I may see logic here.
- tedd4u 8y ago
  I think this line of questioning applies to public health issues like cigarettes, sugar, obesity, communicable diseases & vaccinations, etc.
  - weiming 8y ago
    Great question as to where to draw the line. Maybe "don't endanger the health of others" is a useful rule of thumb. I don't mind/care if people smoke in their own homes, but don't want them smoking near my children in a park. To show another extreme, the recent California bill making it not a felony to give HIV to others, or to donate blood if you're HIV-positive is where it seems like the government is being too hands-off.
    - jjeaff 8y ago
      I care if people smoke in their own homes if I am going to have to help subsidize their health care cost.
      - will4274 8y ago
        Smokers have lower health care costs because they die younger, avoiding some of the very expensive end of life treatments that are typical of heart failure and cancer patients.
        jjeaff 8y ago
        Very interesting. But I wonder if that takes into account the time value of money. If you saved that health care money up front, it could balloon to a lot more in the years leading up to what would have been an earlier death of the smoker. And that also assumes we won't get better at treating and prolonging life for things like lung cancer.
- baseballdork 8y ago
  The state should absolutely prevent misleading labeling of formula. We know breast feeding is healthier, why should we allow advertising muddy the waters? The state isn't forcing anyone to breast feed, that's between a mother, her child, and hopefully a pediatrician.
- awinder 8y ago
  The resolution was built to curb misleading and inaccurate advertising and to state that breast milk is superior to formula. These are all scientific facts, no one was going to mandate families behave certain ways. As for them wanting to stay out of families lives, woosh, if this was the issue they drew the line on, that would be quite something. More likely it was lobbying dollars from the 70 billion dollar industry.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  Just to note: this resolution does not appear to include any government organization mandates. Its affect is much more indirect than that. If it said "all member nations shall criminalize the use of formula", it would definitely be a good idea to swat it down. But the reasoning behind swatting down "breastfeeding is a good idea" requires a bit more explanation.
- fencepost 8y ago
  The topic of breastfeeding versus formula has been a huge one for decades particularly in developing nations. Look up "nestlé advertising formula Africa" for huge amounts of information. One problem is that if mothers use formula instead of breastfeeding early on then their milk dries up. At that point they are stuck with formula, but if for economic reasons they are unable to get adequate supplies of formula then they may resort to over-watering, which then leads to malnutrition. Cleanliness of water supplies used for mixing of formula may also be a problem in many areas. Edit: after seeing some of the other discussion of what's apparently become a bullying culture around breastfeeding I can see that as a valid concern. However most of that discussion appears to be centered around the US, Canada, Europe, etc where formula availability should be pretty good and relatively affordable. A lot of the places where this is relevant are in much poorer nations where "slightly expensive" formula by US standards is prohibitively expensive by local standards. Would folks in the US feel that formula was a good alternative if it cost as much as your rent/mortgage? How about if you got a free supply to start out, just long enough for the mother to mostly stop lactating?
  - dnautics 8y ago
    The very fact that there are legitimate deltas in concern between the rich and poor countries suggest that this should not be handled at the level of the UN.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Sure, I'll grant that possibility. But whether one agrees with the position or not, based on the article, this wasn't conducted as a merits-of-the-positions discussion among equals. Which I personally think is the way countries should interact the majority of the time.
awinder 8y ago
I’ve been mentally engrossed with this theory since reading about it a few months ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_th... The good news is, this too shall pass. But yeah the bad news is we clearly seem to be entering an era of destruction.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  I've been formulating similar thoughts. Thanks for the pointer! Some of the mentioned books bear looking into.
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  I hope we're not 'entering' this era, but exiting. It feels like we've been 'in' the destruction phase since 2001. Terrorism, Recession, Trump is icing on the cake, and it just feels like the rise of fascism in America is the end-game, hopefully it doesn't lead to world war 3 (with us as the axis powers). I'm curious when you think we'll enter the next turning? I'm anxious to be there now, but I don't think it'll happen till we get more FDR style leaders in washington, and root out corruption. I think if we can move automation through faster (end more jobs quicker), and force government to find a solution to exponential unemployment then we have a chance. Then we can enter the next phase of capitalism (a more regulated, but still free-market system, that allows people to exist without being tied to a job, because people aren't needed to work for the most part, machines do most menial tasks, and some people can go on and fill the few vacancies that robots cannot yet fill. Nick Hanauer has some good talks on the subject of late-stage capitalism, and his views as a 1% who's trying to change things from the other side of the line.
  - awinder 8y ago
    Mid-stage? :-D. It’s hard to feel like this stage is ending but I totally discounted war on terror as a good starting marker. Definitely agreed on some of the next steps we have to take and eager to see them come. It just seems like we are still a long way from any coalescing on a way forward, but yeah to your point there’s great people talking about it more and more. Maybe this will happen sooner but I still feel like it’s a decade or so out, 2028 would fall into the 22 year cycle. To the FDR style leadership angle, tough times seem to produce these great leaders. So here’s to hoping for the brink, so that we can be lead away from it, I guess.

weiming 8y ago

I'm wondering how much "the State" should intervene in matters like this. Some families may choose to breast-feed, some won't. Should this decision be government organization-mandated? If the administration's decision is based on "the government should stay out of your family's life," then I may see logic here.

tedd4u 8y ago
I think this line of questioning applies to public health issues like cigarettes, sugar, obesity, communicable diseases & vaccinations, etc.
- weiming 8y ago
  Great question as to where to draw the line. Maybe "don't endanger the health of others" is a useful rule of thumb. I don't mind/care if people smoke in their own homes, but don't want them smoking near my children in a park. To show another extreme, the recent California bill making it not a felony to give HIV to others, or to donate blood if you're HIV-positive is where it seems like the government is being too hands-off.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    I care if people smoke in their own homes if I am going to have to help subsidize their health care cost.
    - will4274 8y ago
      Smokers have lower health care costs because they die younger, avoiding some of the very expensive end of life treatments that are typical of heart failure and cancer patients.
      - jjeaff 8y ago
        Very interesting. But I wonder if that takes into account the time value of money. If you saved that health care money up front, it could balloon to a lot more in the years leading up to what would have been an earlier death of the smoker. And that also assumes we won't get better at treating and prolonging life for things like lung cancer.
baseballdork 8y ago
The state should absolutely prevent misleading labeling of formula. We know breast feeding is healthier, why should we allow advertising muddy the waters? The state isn't forcing anyone to breast feed, that's between a mother, her child, and hopefully a pediatrician.
awinder 8y ago
The resolution was built to curb misleading and inaccurate advertising and to state that breast milk is superior to formula. These are all scientific facts, no one was going to mandate families behave certain ways. As for them wanting to stay out of families lives, woosh, if this was the issue they drew the line on, that would be quite something. More likely it was lobbying dollars from the 70 billion dollar industry.
sanderjd 8y ago
Just to note: this resolution does not appear to include any government organization mandates. Its affect is much more indirect than that. If it said "all member nations shall criminalize the use of formula", it would definitely be a good idea to swat it down. But the reasoning behind swatting down "breastfeeding is a good idea" requires a bit more explanation.
fencepost 8y ago
The topic of breastfeeding versus formula has been a huge one for decades particularly in developing nations. Look up "nestlé advertising formula Africa" for huge amounts of information. One problem is that if mothers use formula instead of breastfeeding early on then their milk dries up. At that point they are stuck with formula, but if for economic reasons they are unable to get adequate supplies of formula then they may resort to over-watering, which then leads to malnutrition. Cleanliness of water supplies used for mixing of formula may also be a problem in many areas. Edit: after seeing some of the other discussion of what's apparently become a bullying culture around breastfeeding I can see that as a valid concern. However most of that discussion appears to be centered around the US, Canada, Europe, etc where formula availability should be pretty good and relatively affordable. A lot of the places where this is relevant are in much poorer nations where "slightly expensive" formula by US standards is prohibitively expensive by local standards. Would folks in the US feel that formula was a good alternative if it cost as much as your rent/mortgage? How about if you got a free supply to start out, just long enough for the mother to mostly stop lactating?
- dnautics 8y ago
  The very fact that there are legitimate deltas in concern between the rich and poor countries suggest that this should not be handled at the level of the UN.
wool_gather 8y ago
Sure, I'll grant that possibility. But whether one agrees with the position or not, based on the article, this wasn't conducted as a merits-of-the-positions discussion among equals. Which I personally think is the way countries should interact the majority of the time.

awinder 8y ago

I’ve been mentally engrossed with this theory since reading about it a few months ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_th... The good news is, this too shall pass. But yeah the bad news is we clearly seem to be entering an era of destruction.

wool_gather 8y ago
I've been formulating similar thoughts. Thanks for the pointer! Some of the mentioned books bear looking into.
gremlinsinc 8y ago
I hope we're not 'entering' this era, but exiting. It feels like we've been 'in' the destruction phase since 2001. Terrorism, Recession, Trump is icing on the cake, and it just feels like the rise of fascism in America is the end-game, hopefully it doesn't lead to world war 3 (with us as the axis powers). I'm curious when you think we'll enter the next turning? I'm anxious to be there now, but I don't think it'll happen till we get more FDR style leaders in washington, and root out corruption. I think if we can move automation through faster (end more jobs quicker), and force government to find a solution to exponential unemployment then we have a chance. Then we can enter the next phase of capitalism (a more regulated, but still free-market system, that allows people to exist without being tied to a job, because people aren't needed to work for the most part, machines do most menial tasks, and some people can go on and fill the few vacancies that robots cannot yet fill. Nick Hanauer has some good talks on the subject of late-stage capitalism, and his views as a 1% who's trying to change things from the other side of the line.
- awinder 8y ago
  Mid-stage? :-D. It’s hard to feel like this stage is ending but I totally discounted war on terror as a good starting marker. Definitely agreed on some of the next steps we have to take and eager to see them come. It just seems like we are still a long way from any coalescing on a way forward, but yeah to your point there’s great people talking about it more and more. Maybe this will happen sooner but I still feel like it’s a decade or so out, 2028 would fall into the 22 year cycle. To the FDR style leadership angle, tough times seem to produce these great leaders. So here’s to hoping for the brink, so that we can be lead away from it, I guess.