Following on from my post last night… today’s issue of Nature has an interesting Science and Politics essay entitled “Big lessons for a healthy future” by David King and Sandy Thomas. Here is an excerpt:

One of the most important findings of the Foresight obesity project is that individuals have much less choice in the matter of their weight than we may often assume. Our analysis shows that the current epidemic of obesity does not arise from individual over-indulgence or laziness. Instead, human biology has become out of step with the structure of society.

We evolved to respond to hunger by eating; we are only weakly able to notice, and stop when we have had enough. This was an effective survival strategy in prehistoric times when food was scarce. Now high-energy, cheap foods abound, as do labour-saving devices, motorized transport, sedentary work and the association of eating with indulgence. These conspire to create an ‘obesogenic’ environment. The increasing prevalence of obesity is a consequence of modern life.

These points reinforce the importance of “Taking People as They Really Are“. The social contract for the 21st Century must be updated to include the new insights we have made concerning the factors (both environmental and genetic) that have an important impact on our health prospects.

Cheers,
Colin

In looking back over my posting history here on Existence is Wonderful, it is very interesting to see how my own attitudes have shifted over time. There are still some fundamental principles I adhere to: e.g., “Life is a good thing”, and “All different kinds of people are valuable”, but lately I’ve been coming to terms with some of the “affiliation uneasiness” that has been bothering me in the background throughout my public writing endeavors so far.

As of now, I’m still OK with using the term “transhumanism” to describe some of my take on technosocial development. I do believe that radical longevity is a great goal (and one that I will continue to advocate fiercely for). I find talking about robots and cyborgs, etc., to be fascinating and a lot of fun. I’m all for continuing the human process of shaping our environment (with sustainability in mind) to suit our needs and creative energies, and for enabling consensual “augmentation” and modification without regard for unexamined, parochial notions of what is “natural”.

But here’s the thing: I am massively social-libertarian when it comes to the issue of morphological freedom — one of the things that strikes me as tremendously important in any movement that wants to “push” for positive outcomes in society involving the individual’s rights to control his/her own form and function is the notion that we have to be radically tolerant of people who choose forms and functions that we ourselves would not. Which includes forms and functions that we (as in, any one of us) might even find bizarre or aesthetically displeasing.

I’m finding myself increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of being associated with people who can’t understand how power relationships work, and who think that disability activism is “extremism” despite the wealth of good, cogent disability literature out there (which has much in common with transhumanist-themed morphological freedom literature).

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean I’m getting annoyed at “transhumanists”, per se — I in fact think that many emerging mainstream attitudes are quite akin to early eugenic attitudes (e.g., the drive toward prenatal testing causing a shift away from trying to help keep all kinds of children alive once they are born), and that in the mainstream, these attitudes are probably more pernicious and powerful due to being examined less frequently and less consciously than in culturally critical and speculative movements.

I guess I’m just getting annoyed with how so much has been written on the nature of power dynamics, on the real reasons behind the need for disability activism (e.g., so that vulnerable populations are not continually depersonalized, and so that more people understand the nature of interdependence in society), and on similar stuff, but how some people still don’t seem to be able to get past the status quo. I want to help shape a future that is truly “better” than the present, as opposed to just an extreme, exaggerated version of current fashion.

I don’t know if this is even possible, given the complexity of the tasks at hand, but I do get the sense that a better future (one in which people enjoy increased liberty, tolerance, and safety from environmental and other risks) isn’t going to happen through assuming too much about what forms and functionalities are “acceptable” for the future to contain.

A mother reports on the severe side effects experienced by her previously healthy daughter after taking HPV vaccine.

I believe something like the following moral precept is a sensible one that should inform our individual and collective decision-making: “Parents, and society in general, have a moral obligation to provide our children with the opportunities necessary for living a flourishing life” (let’s call this MP).

I know, I know…many will contest the “perfectionism” explicit in this precept (what constitutes human “flourishing”?!). So let me water it down to a less contentious precept (so that this post does not go astray).

Here is the watered down (”non-perfectionist”) version of MP, what we can call MP’: “we have a moral obligation not to harm our children“.

Some behaviours obviously violate MP’. For example, when a parent abuses their child, or severely neglects them (e.g. starvation). Such behaviour is criminal and can result in the parent losing custody of their child. But other kinds of neglect are less subtle, and the harms less immediate (though still severe).

This story in today’s Guardian is a wake up call for all parents and society in general. We are losing the battle against childhood obesity and this has devastating consequences for our children and society. Here are a few excerpts from the story:

The government has quietly abandoned its target to halt childhood obesity by 2010, setting instead the goal of reducing it by 2020 - a decade further on.
The move comes in the response today of the public health minister, Dawn Primarolo, to the Foresight report, a two-year trawl through the evidence by scientists which concluded that the problem was huge, could cost the UK £45bn a year and could take 30 years to turn round.

While it was acknowledged the government target was ambitious when it was set in 2004, many critics say that to take the pressure off by allowing the childhood obesity goal to slip by 10 years is unwise.

….It is neither entirely the fault of the individual nor of society, Foresight says. There is no magic bullet solution, and no wonder diet drug will do the trick. Foresight draws many parallels with climate change, saying that changes in many different areas of society are necessary, from the design of towns and transport systems to encouraging healthier food production and consumption. If current obesity levels continue, about 60% of men, 50% of women and 25% of children in the UK will be obese by 2050.

As the story notes, that there are no easy solutions to the problem. But hopefully greater awareness of how severe the problem of childhood obesity is will inspire greater reflection, and action, on this dire situation. A virtuous parent is one that will be proactive in promoting the health opportunities of their children (and setting a good example by living a healthy lifestyle themselves).

Going back to my previous post on “Is Healthcare Special? Part 2“, whatever one thinks about the priority society should place on healthcare services, if anything is deserving of the title “special” it is the health prospects of our children. And parents and society are failing our children- those we are entrusted to love and care for. So the moral and political discourse needs to get more serious about tackling the epidemic of childhood obesity.

Cheers,
Colin

P.S.- some info on the epidemic of childhood obesity in Canada is available here.