>>> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>> The fact that the incidence of obesity rose so much, shortly
>>>> after the beginning of the suppression of those diseases,
>>>> is most certainly an indicator.
>>> I'll bet that people in countries that suppress childhood diseases
>>> are much more likely to get in automobile accidents as well.
>> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
>> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
>> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
>> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
>> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
>> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
>> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
>> >>Why not?
>> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
>> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
>> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
>> >your job, not anybody else's.
>> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
>> increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
>> the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
>> increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
>> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
>> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.
>What? Why?
>This is a radical idea, I know, but how about we give kids flu
>vaccines and use birth control?
Then you'd have fewer young workers to support
a growing number of elderly/retired. And population
would still rise. How about we shorten lifespans a bit?
Do we need to rock & spit for 15 years?
>I guarantee that no matter how politically difficult it would be to
>persuade people to use birth control, it will be harder to talk them
>into letting their kids die unnecessarily after giving birth to them.
>Especially when there is no link between communicable diseases like
>the flu and obesity.
>> >>> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> >>> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>> >>> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play
>> >>> >> a critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
>> >>> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>> >>> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
>> >>> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
>> >>> Childhood obesity has both immediate & long-term effects on
>> >>> health & well-being.
>> >>> Immediate health effects:
>> >>> * Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardio-
>> >>> vascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood
>> >>> pressure. In a population-based sample of 5 to 17-year-olds,
>> >>> 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardio-
>> >>> vascular disease.
>> >>> * Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a
>> >>> condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk
>> >>> for development of diabetes.
>> >>> * Children & adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for
>> >>> bone & joint problems, sleep apnea, & social & psychological
>> >>> problems such as stigmatization & poor self-esteem.
>> >>> Long-term health effects:
>> >>> * Children & adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as
>> >>> adults & are therefore more at risk for adult health problems
>> >>> such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types
>> >>> of cancer, & osteoarthritis. One study showed that children
>> >>> who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be
>> >>> obese as adults.
>> >>> * Overweight & obesity are associated with increased risk for
>> >>> many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon,
>> >>> endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder,
>> >>> thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple
>> >>> myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
>> >>You didn't answer my question: You'd rather have dead skinny
>> >>children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
>> >>surplus population?
>> >What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
>> To answer your question directly, it will certainly have more people.
>> Beyond that, nothing is certain. I agree that more people multiply
>> the existing challenges, and is likely unsustainable. OTOH only one
>> billion people all trying to live a "western" lifestyle is likely
>> equally unsustainable. Contary to the implication of your question,
>> the issue isn't just the number of people.
>Correct. But a large population makes everything harder. Simpler
>lifestyles would then be easier:
>Living close to sources of food and work.
>Bicycling and public transport.
>Sustainable power production.
>Recycle *everything.
>More walking and cotton clothing, but keep the internet and debit
>cards.
Nobody needs to wait to change their lifestyle. The benefits of the
things you suggest can be had right now. OTOH it's isn't possible for
everybody to live close to food and work. Many foods grow better in
specific locations. Many jobs are better suited in other locations.
There will always be a need for specialization and to trade for goods
and services made available elsewhere.
> > >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> > >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
> > >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play
> > >> >> a critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
> > >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
> > >> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
> > >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
> > >> Childhood obesity has both immediate & long-term effects on
> > >> health & well-being.
> > >> Immediate health effects:
> > >> * Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardio-
> > >> vascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood
> > >> pressure. In a population-based sample of 5 to 17-year-olds,
> > >> 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardio-
> > >> vascular disease.
> > >> * Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a
> > >> condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk
> > >> for development of diabetes.
> > >> * Children & adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for
> > >> bone & joint problems, sleep apnea, & social & psychological
> > >> problems such as stigmatization & poor self-esteem.
> > >> Long-term health effects:
> > >> * Children & adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as
> > >> adults & are therefore more at risk for adult health problems
> > >> such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types
> > >> of cancer, & osteoarthritis. One study showed that children
> > >> who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be
> > >> obese as adults.
> > >> * Overweight & obesity are associated with increased risk for
> > >> many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon,
> > >> endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder,
> > >> thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple
> > >> myeloma and Hodgkin's lymphoma.
> > >You didn't answer my question: You'd rather have dead skinny
> > >children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
> > >surplus population?
> > What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
> It won't reach nine billion.
> My prediction. We'll stop growing that much using traditional birth
> control methods: war, famine, pestilence, and plague. Oh, and some new
> ones: flood, drought, mass extinctions, and heat.
The track record of such predictions has been remarkably poor.
You should have learned your lesson from the failures of "The Population Bomb" and the Club of Rome.
But there is a distinct tendency among intellectuals to engage in this kind of doom-and-gloom mental masturbation. It hasn't stopped since Spengler a century ago.
And prophets of doom usually got that way out of disgust with the way things are.
> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
> >>Why not?
> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
> >your job, not anybody else's.
> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
> increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
> the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
> increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.
There's another phenomenon in recent decades: The huge increase in obesity among pet dogs and pet cats. Yet they don't have our genes, and they don't catch most of our infectious diseases. (They fall victim to different infectious diseases.)
The fact that human children are getting fat at the same time as their pets are getting fat, suggests there's an environmental link at work.
Especially since I've never seen any fat feral cats.
> >> >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >> >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
> >> >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
> >> >> >> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
> >> >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
> >> >> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
> >> >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
> >> >> You'd rather reach an equilibrium any kind of way after your
> >> >> lifetime than reach an equilibrium in a more planned &
> >> >> controlled way beginning during your lifetime?
> >> >If I had investment income, I'd rather invest in R&D to
> >> >solve future problems.
> >But letting people die of curable diseases is mainstream?
> It doesn't destroy the environment; it preserves it!
> >> Better do something quick...water tables are falling.
> >> How will you democratize the Muslim countries?
> >> If you don't get that done, you'll have to continue
> >> wasting resources on counterterrorism, indefinitely.
> >Why should that be a concern of yours?
> I want to have consistently successful diplomacy, instead of
> the usual breakdowns.
You also want dead children and elderly.
> In order to do that, we need a
> foundation of general interest that everyone can buy into.
So, you propose murdering children by withholding medicine? That's
novel.
> The principle of reciprocity, or Golden Rule, is that foundation.
I doubt that you will find many sane people interested in enacting
your form of Do unt others..."
> But if we promote that, while making deals with dictators to
> get their oil, as in Saudi & Nigeria, who's gonna believe it?
> OTOH, if we say the principle must also apply across
> generations, so we need to stop immunization, then it
> would be more believable. Besides that, YOU said the problems
> were a concern of YOURS.
And mass murder is not the solution. That is your solution.
> >after all, some of the
> >terrorist suicide bombers in the past have been children. One less
> >mouth to feed now, and potentially dozens or more less to feed in your
> >future utopia, and that's not counting those killed in any terrorist
> >attack.
>> >> >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> >> >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>> >> >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
>> >> >> >> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
>> >> >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>> >> >> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
>> >> >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
>> >> >> You'd rather reach an equilibrium any kind of way after your
>> >> >> lifetime than reach an equilibrium in a more planned &
>> >> >> controlled way beginning during your lifetime?
>> >> >If I had investment income, I'd rather invest in R&D to
>> >> >solve future problems.
>> >But letting people die of curable diseases is mainstream?
>> It doesn't destroy the environment; it preserves it!
>> >> Better do something quick...water tables are falling.
>> >> How will you democratize the Muslim countries?
>> >> If you don't get that done, you'll have to continue
>> >> wasting resources on counterterrorism, indefinitely.
>> >Why should that be a concern of yours?
>> I want to have consistently successful diplomacy, instead of
>> the usual breakdowns.
>You also want dead children and elderly.
>> In order to do that, we need a
>> foundation of general interest that everyone can buy into.
>So, you propose murdering children by withholding medicine? That's
>novel.
>> The principle of reciprocity, or Golden Rule, is that foundation.
>I doubt that you will find many sane people interested in enacting
>your form of Do unt others..."
>> But if we promote that, while making deals with dictators to
>> get their oil, as in Saudi & Nigeria, who's gonna believe it?
>> OTOH, if we say the principle must also apply across
>> generations, so we need to stop immunization, then it
>> would be more believable. Besides that, YOU said the problems
>> were a concern of YOURS.
>And mass murder is not the solution. That is your solution.
>> >after all, some of the
>> >terrorist suicide bombers in the past have been children. One less
>> >mouth to feed now, and potentially dozens or more less to feed in your
>> >future utopia, and that's not counting those killed in any terrorist
>> >attack.
>> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
>> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
>> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
>> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
>> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
>> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
>> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
>> >>Why not?
>> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
>> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
>> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
>> >your job, not anybody else's.
>> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
>> increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
>> the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
>> increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
>> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
>> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.
>There's another phenomenon in recent decades: The huge increase in >obesity among pet dogs & cats. Yet they don't have our genes, and >they don't catch most of our infectious diseases. (They fall victim to >different infectious diseases.)
>The fact that human children are getting fat at the same time as their >pets are getting fat, suggests there's an environmental link at work.
>Especially since I've never seen any fat feral cats.
>> > >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> > >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>> > >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play
>> > >> >> a critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
>> > >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>> > >> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
>> > >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
>> > >> Childhood obesity has both immediate & long-term effects on
>> > >> health & well-being.
>> > >> Immediate health effects:
>> > >> * Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardio-
>> > >> vascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood
>> > >> pressure. In a population-based sample of 5 to 17-year-olds,
>> > >> 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardio-
>> > >> vascular disease.
>> > >> * Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a
>> > >> condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk
>> > >> for development of diabetes.
>> > >> * Children & adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for
>> > >> bone & joint problems, sleep apnea, & social & psychological
>> > >> problems such as stigmatization & poor self-esteem.
>> > >> Long-term health effects:
>> > >> * Children & adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as
>> > >> adults & are therefore more at risk for adult health problems
>> > >> such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types
>> > >> of cancer, & osteoarthritis. One study showed that children
>> > >> who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be
>> > >> obese as adults.
>> > >> * Overweight & obesity are associated with increased risk for
>> > >> many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon,
>> > >> endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder,
>> > >> thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple
>> > >> myeloma and Hodgkin's lymphoma.
>> > >You didn't answer my question: You'd rather have dead skinny
>> > >children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
>> > >surplus population?
>> > What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
>> It won't reach nine billion.
>> My prediction. We'll stop growing that much using traditional birth
>> control methods: war, famine, pestilence, and plague. Oh, and some new
>> ones: flood, drought, mass extinctions, and heat.
>The track record of such predictions has been remarkably poor.
>You should have learned your lesson from the failures of "The Population >Bomb" and the Club of Rome.
>But there is a distinct tendency among intellectuals to engage in this >kind of doom-and-gloom mental masturbation. It hasn't stopped since >Spengler a century ago.
>And prophets of doom usually got that way out of disgust with the way >things are.
You have a point. I have agreed with you about it before. But you
sound way too similar to that guy who fell off a skyscraper. As he
passed each floor, he was heard to say "no problem so far". One of
the reasons we're around to laugh at earlier doom-and-gloom
predictions is because some people recognized them as legitimate
warnings, instead of assuming they were irrelevant ramblings of
cynical naysayers.
> >> >> >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >> >> >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
> >> >> >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
> >> >> >> >> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
> >> >> >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
> >> >> >> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
> >> >> >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
> >> >> >> You'd rather reach an equilibrium any kind of way after your
> >> >> >> lifetime than reach an equilibrium in a more planned &
> >> >> >> controlled way beginning during your lifetime?
> >> >> >If I had investment income, I'd rather invest in R&D to
> >> >> >solve future problems.
> >> >But letting people die of curable diseases is mainstream?
> >> It doesn't destroy the environment; it preserves it!
> >> >> Better do something quick...water tables are falling.
> >> >> How will you democratize the Muslim countries?
> >> >> If you don't get that done, you'll have to continue
> >> >> wasting resources on counterterrorism, indefinitely.
> >> >Why should that be a concern of yours?
> >> I want to have consistently successful diplomacy, instead of
> >> the usual breakdowns.
> >You also want dead children and elderly.
> >> In order to do that, we need a
> >> foundation of general interest that everyone can buy into.
> >So, you propose murdering children by withholding medicine? That's
> >novel.
> >> The principle of reciprocity, or Golden Rule, is that foundation.
> >I doubt that you will find many sane people interested in enacting
> >your form of Do unt others..."
> >> But if we promote that, while making deals with dictators to
> >> get their oil, as in Saudi & Nigeria, who's gonna believe it?
> >> OTOH, if we say the principle must also apply across
> >> generations, so we need to stop immunization, then it
> >> would be more believable. Besides that, YOU said the problems
> >> were a concern of YOURS.
> >And mass murder is not the solution. That is your solution.
> >> >after all, some of the
> >> >terrorist suicide bombers in the past have been children. One less
> >> >mouth to feed now, and potentially dozens or more less to feed in your
> >> >future utopia, and that's not counting those killed in any terrorist
> >> >attack.
> >> >>> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >> >>> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
> >> >>> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play
> >> >>> >> a critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
> >> >>> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
> >> >>> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
> >> >>> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
> >> >>> Childhood obesity has both immediate & long-term effects on
> >> >>> health & well-being.
> >> >>> Immediate health effects:
> >> >>> * Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardio-
> >> >>> vascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood
> >> >>> pressure. In a population-based sample of 5 to 17-year-olds,
> >> >>> 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardio-
> >> >>> vascular disease.
> >> >>> * Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a
> >> >>> condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk
> >> >>> for development of diabetes.
> >> >>> * Children & adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for
> >> >>> bone & joint problems, sleep apnea, & social & psychological
> >> >>> problems such as stigmatization & poor self-esteem.
> >> >>> Long-term health effects:
> >> >>> * Children & adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as
> >> >>> adults & are therefore more at risk for adult health problems
> >> >>> such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types
> >> >>> of cancer, & osteoarthritis. One study showed that children
> >> >>> who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be
> >> >>> obese as adults.
> >> >>> * Overweight & obesity are associated with increased risk for
> >> >>> many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon,
> >> >>> endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder,
> >> >>> thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple
> >> >>> myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
> >> >>You didn't answer my question: You'd rather have dead skinny
> >> >>children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
> >> >>surplus population?
> >> >What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
> >> To answer your question directly, it will certainly have more people.
> >> Beyond that, nothing is certain. I agree that more people multiply
> >> the existing challenges, and is likely unsustainable. OTOH only one
> >> billion people all trying to live a "western" lifestyle is likely
> >> equally unsustainable. Contary to the implication of your question,
> >> the issue isn't just the number of people.
> >Correct. But a large population makes everything harder. Simpler
> >lifestyles would then be easier:
> >Living close to sources of food and work.
> >Bicycling and public transport.
> >Sustainable power production.
> >Recycle *everything.
> >More walking and cotton clothing, but keep the internet and debit
> >cards.
> Nobody needs to wait to change their lifestyle. The benefits of the
> things you suggest can be had right now.
Yes.
> OTOH it's isn't possible for
> everybody to live close to food and work.
Sadly, true.
> Many foods grow better in
> specific locations. Many jobs are better suited in other locations.
> There will always be a need for specialization and to trade for goods
> and services made available elsewhere.
Yes. But as fuel prices rise, perhaps some goods made locally will be
more attractive, and growing locally as well, for similar reasons.
Whether these effects will simply be statistically measurable or
dramatic, I don't know.
I know that I have more stuff in the house than I want, but I don't
live alone (which is good, but it means I am more ...cluttered).
In any event, there is a certain frantic nature to our society, and a
desperate make/buy/toss way of looking at things. I don't want to cast
a millstone around the neck of society, but aren't there any brakes on
this thing?
> >> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> >> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
> >> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> >> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> >> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
> >> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
> >> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
> >> >>Why not?
> >> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
> >> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
> >> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
> >> >your job, not anybody else's.
> >> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
> >> increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
> >> the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
> >> increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
> >> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
> >> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.
> >What? Why?
> >This is a radical idea, I know, but how about we give kids flu
> >vaccines and use birth control?
> Then you'd have fewer young workers to support
> a growing number of elderly/retired.
We could always offer less money to the retired, or offer it starting
at a later date. Really, this is simple enough. A hundred years ago we
offered essentially nothing as a society for the elderly.
Wouldn't saving kids *increase the young to old ratio, or at least
not make it worse? Seems like not treating the diseases of the elderly
would achieve what you want, unless you are motivated primarily to
kill kids. Hate 'em worse than grandma, huh?
> And population
> would still rise.
Why? Assuming we can persuade, trick, bribe, or bully people into
using sufficient birth control, it seems like a one child policy would
lead to a gradual decline. the hard part is getting most people to
accept any of these policies, and I'm tellin' ya, it would be a harder
row to plow trying to convince everyone to let the kids die.
> How about we shorten lifespans a bit?
Why? If we lengthen lifespans, then we have folks who can work a few
more years, when they are at their most productive (except for rugby
players, perhaps).
> Do we need to rock & spit for 15 years?
I'm looking forward to retirement so I can teach martial arts more. I
suppose if you can't think of anything to do besides rock and spit,
you could always do yourself in - *I wouldn't stop you.
> >I guarantee that no matter how politically difficult it would be to
> >persuade people to use birth control, it will be harder to talk them
> >into letting their kids die unnecessarily after giving birth to them.
> >Especially when there is no link between communicable diseases like
> >the flu and obesity.
> > >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> > >>>> >anywhere in the article.
> > >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> > >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> > >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
> > >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
> > >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
> > >>Why not?
> > >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
> > >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
> > >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
> > >your job, not anybody else's.
> > * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
> > increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
> > the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
> > increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
> > We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
> > We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.
> There's another phenomenon in recent decades: The huge increase in
> obesity among pet dogs and pet cats. Yet they don't have our genes, and
> they don't catch most of our infectious diseases. (They fall victim to
> different infectious diseases.)
> The fact that human children are getting fat at the same time as their
> pets are getting fat, suggests there's an environmental link at work.
> Especially since I've never seen any fat feral cats.
> -- Steven L.
Moreover, we understand to some degree the social, psychological, and
physiological processes at work.
> > > >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> > > >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
> > > >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play
> > > >> >> a critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
> > > >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
> > > >> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
> > > >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
> > > >> Childhood obesity has both immediate & long-term effects on
> > > >> health & well-being.
> > > >> Immediate health effects:
> > > >> * Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardio-
> > > >> vascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood
> > > >> pressure. In a population-based sample of 5 to 17-year-olds,
> > > >> 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardio-
> > > >> vascular disease.
> > > >> * Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a
> > > >> condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk
> > > >> for development of diabetes.
> > > >> * Children & adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for
> > > >> bone & joint problems, sleep apnea, & social & psychological
> > > >> problems such as stigmatization & poor self-esteem.
> > > >> Long-term health effects:
> > > >> * Children & adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as
> > > >> adults & are therefore more at risk for adult health problems
> > > >> such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types
> > > >> of cancer, & osteoarthritis. One study showed that children
> > > >> who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be
> > > >> obese as adults.
> > > >> * Overweight & obesity are associated with increased risk for
> > > >> many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon,
> > > >> endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder,
> > > >> thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple
> > > >> myeloma and Hodgkin's lymphoma.
> > > >You didn't answer my question: You'd rather have dead skinny
> > > >children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
> > > >surplus population?
> > > What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
> > It won't reach nine billion.
> > My prediction. We'll stop growing that much using traditional birth
> > control methods: war, famine, pestilence, and plague. Oh, and some new
> > ones: flood, drought, mass extinctions, and heat.
> The track record of such predictions has been remarkably poor.
> You should have learned your lesson from the failures of "The Population
> Bomb" and the Club of Rome.
> But there is a distinct tendency among intellectuals to engage in this
> kind of doom-and-gloom mental masturbation. It hasn't stopped since
> Spengler a century ago.
> And prophets of doom usually got that way out of disgust with the way
> things are.
> -- Steven L.
I acknowledge the predisposition of some folks to delight in
predicting gloom. I never cared for that myself.
Surely you understand that pointing to some boys who have cried
"Wolf!" a number of times is no proof against real disaster occurring?
>> > >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
>> > >>>> >anywhere in the article.
>> > >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
>> > >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
>> > >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
>> > >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
>> > >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
>> > >>Why not?
>> > >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
>> > >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
>> > >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
>> > >your job, not anybody else's.
>> > * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
>> > increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
>> > the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
>> > increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
>> > We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
>> > We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.
>> There's another phenomenon in recent decades: The huge increase in
>> obesity among pet dogs and pet cats. Yet they don't have our genes, and
>> they don't catch most of our infectious diseases. (They fall victim to
>> different infectious diseases.)
>> The fact that human children are getting fat at the same time as their
>> pets are getting fat, suggests there's an environmental link at work.
>> Especially since I've never seen any fat feral cats.
>Moreover, we understand to some degree the social, psychological, and
>physiological processes at work.
>> >> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
>> >> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
>> >> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
>> >> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
>> >> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
>> >> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
>> >> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
>> >> >>Why not?
>> >> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
>> >> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
>> >> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
>> >> >your job, not anybody else's.
>> >> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
>> >> increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
>> >> the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
>> >> increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
>> >> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
>> >> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.
>> >What? Why?
>> >This is a radical idea, I know, but how about we give kids flu
>> >vaccines and use birth control?
>> Then you'd have fewer young workers to support
>> a growing number of elderly/retired.
>We could offer less money to the retired, or offer it starting
>at a later date. This is simple enough. 100 years ago we
>offered essentially nothing as a society for the elderly.
>Wouldn't saving kids *increase the young to old ratio, or at least
>not make it worse? Seems like not treating the diseases of the elderly
>would achieve what you want, unless you are motivated primarily to
>kill kids. Hate 'em worse than grandma, huh?
The function of natural enemies is to limit genetic errors.
When you suppress the enemies, errors proliferate,
as in obesity, autism, bipolar, ADHD, etc.
>> And population
>> would still rise.
>Why? Assuming we can persuade, trick, bribe, or bully people into
>using sufficient birth control, it seems like a one child policy would
>lead to a gradual decline. the hard part is getting most people to
>accept any of these policies, and I'm tellin' ya, it would be a harder
>row to plow trying to convince everyone to let the kids die.
It's only a small percentage that would perish.
We got along fine with that thru most of history.
>> How about we shorten lifespans a bit?
>Why? If we lengthen lifespans, then we have folks who can work a few
>more years, when they are at their most productive (except for rugby
>players, perhaps).
People in their 80s & 90s aren't at their most productive.
>> Do we need to rock & spit for 15 years?
>I'm looking forward to retirement so I can teach martial arts more. I
>suppose if you can't think of anything to do besides rock and spit,
>you could always do yourself in - *I wouldn't stop you.
If you can get around fine, you probably wouldn't just rock & spit.
If you can't, you probably wouldn't be teaching martial arts.
>> >I guarantee that no matter how politically difficult it would be to
>> >persuade people to use birth control, it will be harder to talk them
>> >into letting their kids die unnecessarily after giving birth to them.
>> >Especially when there is no link between communicable diseases >> >like the flu and obesity.
>> >> >> >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> >> >> >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>> >> >> >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
>> >> >> >> >> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
>> >> >> >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>> >> >> >> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
>> >> >> >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
>> >> >> >> You'd rather reach an equilibrium any kind of way after your
>> >> >> >> lifetime than reach an equilibrium in a more planned &
>> >> >> >> controlled way beginning during your lifetime?
>> >> >> >If I had investment income, I'd rather invest in R&D to
>> >> >> >solve future problems.
>> >> >But letting people die of curable diseases is mainstream?
>> >> It doesn't destroy the environment; it preserves it!
>> >> >> Better do something quick...water tables are falling.
>> >> >> How will you democratize the Muslim countries?
>> >> >> If you don't get that done, you'll have to continue
>> >> >> wasting resources on counterterrorism, indefinitely.
>> >> >Why should that be a concern of yours?
>> >> I want to have consistently successful diplomacy, instead of
>> >> the usual breakdowns.
>> >You also want dead children and elderly.
>> >> In order to do that, we need a
>> >> foundation of general interest that everyone can buy into.
>> >So, you propose murdering children by withholding medicine? That's
>> >novel.
>> >> The principle of reciprocity, or Golden Rule, is that foundation.
>> >I doubt that you will find many sane people interested in enacting
>> >your form of Do unt others..."
>> >> But if we promote that, while making deals with dictators to
>> >> get their oil, as in Saudi & Nigeria, who's gonna believe it?
>> >> OTOH, if we say the principle must also apply across
>> >> generations, so we need to stop immunization, then it
>> >> would be more believable. Besides that, YOU said the problems
>> >> were a concern of YOURS.
>> >And mass murder is not the solution. That is your solution.
>> >> >after all, some of the
>> >> >terrorist suicide bombers in the past have been children. One less
>> >> >mouth to feed now, and potentially dozens or more less to feed in your
>> >> >future utopia, and that's not counting those killed in any terrorist
>> >> >attack.
>> >Well, I guess that bit shut you up.
>> You didn't answer my question.
>Neither did you, actually.
Why are you dumping debt & overcrowding on future population?
Let 'em eat cake? Where's your fracking & nuclear gonna take us?
How will your R&D give us a solution to democratizing the Muslim
states?
> >> >> >> >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >> >> >> >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
> >> >> >> >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
> >> >> >> >> >> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
> >> >> >> >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
> >> >> >> >> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
> >> >> >> >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
> >> >> >> >> You'd rather reach an equilibrium any kind of way after your
> >> >> >> >> lifetime than reach an equilibrium in a more planned &
> >> >> >> >> controlled way beginning during your lifetime?
> >> >> >> >If I had investment income, I'd rather invest in R&D to
> >> >> >> >solve future problems.
> >> >> >But letting people die of curable diseases is mainstream?
> >> >> It doesn't destroy the environment; it preserves it!
> >> >> >> Better do something quick...water tables are falling.
> >> >> >> How will you democratize the Muslim countries?
> >> >> >> If you don't get that done, you'll have to continue
> >> >> >> wasting resources on counterterrorism, indefinitely.
> >> >> >Why should that be a concern of yours?
> >> >> I want to have consistently successful diplomacy, instead of
> >> >> the usual breakdowns.
> >> >You also want dead children and elderly.
> >> >> In order to do that, we need a
> >> >> foundation of general interest that everyone can buy into.
> >> >So, you propose murdering children by withholding medicine? That's
> >> >novel.
> >> >> The principle of reciprocity, or Golden Rule, is that foundation.
> >> >I doubt that you will find many sane people interested in enacting
> >> >your form of Do unt others..."
> >> >> But if we promote that, while making deals with dictators to
> >> >> get their oil, as in Saudi & Nigeria, who's gonna believe it?
> >> >> OTOH, if we say the principle must also apply across
> >> >> generations, so we need to stop immunization, then it
> >> >> would be more believable. Besides that, YOU said the problems
> >> >> were a concern of YOURS.
> >> >And mass murder is not the solution. That is your solution.
> >> >> >after all, some of the
> >> >> >terrorist suicide bombers in the past have been children. One less
> >> >> >mouth to feed now, and potentially dozens or more less to feed in your
> >> >> >future utopia, and that's not counting those killed in any terrorist
> >> >> >attack.
> >> >Well, I guess that bit shut you up.
> >> You didn't answer my question.
> >Neither did you, actually.
> Why are you dumping debt & overcrowding on future population?
> Let 'em eat cake?
"Debt" is an illusion. Overcroding can be eliviated by expansion of
cities of towns, which, if done properly would not be a problem.
> Where's your fracking & nuclear gonna take us?
Fossil and nuclear energy are not the only options. But developing
them would be too much like work, and your lazy fat ass would rather
kust let children and elderly die of curable diseases.
> How will your R&D give us a solution to democratizing the Muslim
> states?
Who the hell says they need democratizing? The only reason you want
that is because, in your warped little world, you think people would
willingly vote for laws that would allow the eithholding of
vaccinations that cure or prevent common diseases. That is pure
stupidity on your part.
> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
> >>Why not?
> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
> >your job, not anybody else's.
> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
> increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
> the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
> increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.
I wouldn't worry about that. If many more parents decide not to
vaccinate their children, we'll lose our herd immunity and you'll get
your wish.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
>> >> >>> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> >> >>> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>> >> >>> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play
>> >> >>> >> a critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
>> >> >>> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>> >> >>> >So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
>> >> >>> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
>> >> >>> Childhood obesity has both immediate & long-term effects on
>> >> >>> health & well-being.
>> >> >>> Immediate health effects:
>> >> >>> * Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardio-
>> >> >>> vascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood
>> >> >>> pressure. In a population-based sample of 5 to 17-year-olds,
>> >> >>> 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardio-
>> >> >>> vascular disease.
>> >> >>> * Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a
>> >> >>> condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk
>> >> >>> for development of diabetes.
>> >> >>> * Children & adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for
>> >> >>> bone & joint problems, sleep apnea, & social & psychological
>> >> >>> problems such as stigmatization & poor self-esteem.
>> >> >>> Long-term health effects:
>> >> >>> * Children & adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as
>> >> >>> adults & are therefore more at risk for adult health problems
>> >> >>> such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types
>> >> >>> of cancer, & osteoarthritis. One study showed that children
>> >> >>> who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be
>> >> >>> obese as adults.
>> >> >>> * Overweight & obesity are associated with increased risk for
>> >> >>> many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon,
>> >> >>> endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder,
>> >> >>> thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple
>> >> >>> myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
>> >> >>You didn't answer my question: You'd rather have dead skinny
>> >> >>children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
>> >> >>surplus population?
>> >> >What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
>> >> To answer your question directly, it will certainly have more people.
>> >> Beyond that, nothing is certain. I agree that more people multiply
>> >> the existing challenges, and is likely unsustainable. OTOH only one
>> >> billion people all trying to live a "western" lifestyle is likely
>> >> equally unsustainable. Contary to the implication of your question,
>> >> the issue isn't just the number of people.
>> >Correct. But a large population makes everything harder. Simpler
>> >lifestyles would then be easier:
>> >Living close to sources of food and work.
>> >Bicycling and public transport.
>> >Sustainable power production.
>> >Recycle *everything.
>> >More walking and cotton clothing, but keep the internet and debit
>> >cards.
>> Nobody needs to wait to change their lifestyle. The benefits of the
>> things you suggest can be had right now.
>Yes.
>> OTOH it's isn't possible for
>> everybody to live close to food and work.
>Sadly, true.
>> Many foods grow better in
>> specific locations. Many jobs are better suited in other locations.
>> There will always be a need for specialization and to trade for goods
>> and services made available elsewhere.
>Yes. But as fuel prices rise, perhaps some goods made locally will be
>more attractive, and growing locally as well, for similar reasons.
>Whether these effects will simply be statistically measurable or
>dramatic, I don't know.
It's not just about choosing between global vs local. It's about
doing without altogether. Whether these things are essential depends
on your definition.
You mention above keeping the Internet. Is that essential? If so,
how many places can roll their own routers? Is any kind of global
communication essential? If so, can civilization revert to passing
handwritten messages on paper? Shall it rediscover the joys of
learning about what happened across the sea months later? I hope not.
>I know that I have more stuff in the house than I want, but I don't
>live alone (which is good, but it means I am more ...cluttered).
>In any event, there is a certain frantic nature to our society, and a
>desperate make/buy/toss way of looking at things. I don't want to cast
>a millstone around the neck of society, but aren't there any brakes on
>this thing?
Your complaint is a consequence of an inherent conflict between
familiar comforts and exciting changes. I have no doubt some cast
cynical looks at the first wheel :)
>> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
>> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
>> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
>> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
>> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
>> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
>> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
>> >>Why not?
>> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
>> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
>> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
>> >your job, not anybody else's.
>> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
>> increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
>> the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
>> increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
>> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
>> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.
>I wouldn't worry about that. If many more parents decide not to
>vaccinate their children, we'll lose our herd immunity and you'll get
>your wish.
And if they don't, you'll get your wish, that the consequences
of what we're doing will fall on future populations!
In article <f10a8c36-887a-453a-90c4-00628d99d...@r2g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>, Kermit wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:27 pm, Robert Grumbine <b...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>> In article <976deadd-3634-42e5-b67a-9f2913900...@b14g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, Kermit wrote:
>> > On Apr 10, 7:32 am, dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> [trim]
>> >> >You didn't answer my question: You'd rather have dead skinny
>> >> >children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
>> >> >surplus population?
>> >> What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
>> > It won't reach nine billion.
>> It's already 7, so 9 is not a reach.
> I won't be astonished if we succeed in this, true. But every step of
> the way will put more demands on resources. Food production is already
> down, water is pushed to the limit and will be harder to control
> because of the effects of global warming.
> My money says that the death rate will overcome the birth rate within
> 20 years, and it won't be pleasant.
Not a bet I'd take.
For scaling purposes, we added about 4 billion people in the last
50 years. So 25 years to 9 billion. (Give or take a lot, obviously)
Agriculture already uses a huge fraction of available fresh water.
And fishing already consumes a huge fraction of primary productivity.
(Both in the 30-40% range iirc). Fantasists look at those percentages
and think that this means we could easily (i.e., without magic techno-
fixes) triple human population. In a sense, it does. But that sense
is that everything that doesn't feed humans has to die. Also that
the irrigation network has to become globe-girdling, so that shortages
in one area can be met by surpluses in a different one. Anyone for
massive planetary governmental action?
-- Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
> >> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> >> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
> >> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> >> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> >> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
> >> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
> >> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
> >> >>Why not?
> >> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
> >> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
> >> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
> >> >your job, not anybody else's.
> >> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
> >> increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
> >> the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
> >> increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
> >> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
> >> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.
> >There's another phenomenon in recent decades: The huge increase in
> >obesity among pet dogs & cats. Yet they don't have our genes, and
> >they don't catch most of our infectious diseases. (They fall victim to
> >different infectious diseases.)
> >The fact that human children are getting fat at the same time as their
> >pets are getting fat, suggests there's an environmental link at work.
> >Especially since I've never seen any fat feral cats.
As I pointed out, they're not the same infections that humans get, so they're not the same vaccines.
Human children aren't vaccinated against distemper.
