Yes. The question as to when is the best time to start investing in your health is the same answer to the question when is the best time to start investing your money - yesterday.

[INB4 QP argues to hoard cash until bitcoin goes to $100 a coin but you shouldn't do that with diet and exercise and therefore I'm WRONG]

Nah thats toothsayer and he would advice to go massively short at 100$ .

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...finds-n1276650

thoughts?...Just heard this referenced on Real Time tonight and said wtf huh

how else would tons of people gaining weight at the exact same time in life be explained?

this seems wrong

We disagree a fair bit on this issue but being greatly exercised by things that dont harm us personally is good politcs. People who dont give a **** unless they're directlly affected are extremely selfish.

Trolley is one of the 'good guys' in this regard. The staggering irony of his post criticising caring about others is a joyous triumph of his trolling methodology

The point is that the healthy people and the aged people are toa large extent the same people.

I dont much mind what your hypothetical assumes providing you're constistent when the hypthetical boot is on the other foot. If in your hypothetical world the obese are the 'the problem' which leads to some course of action being right iyo then would you support the equivilent course of action in a hypothetical world where it's the thin people who are 'the problem' because they live longer.

Lifestyle generally changes dramatically as you get older.

Many hang on to their youthful activities as best they can but even though your metabolism may be the same that doesn't mean you can still, for example, play 5 hours of tennis and then do the same the next day. Not like when you're young. Recovery times etc get much worse.

Did this make sense to you in any way?

Like i argue against exercise or promote bitcoin or anything close to either of those positions.

What an odd thing to say showing you could not think of a sensible 'joke' criticism that would resonate.

I do struggle to believe that but other than metabolism slowly activity level diminishing and change in diet could explain what you are asking.


I am one who believed that my metabolism slowed as I could not gain weight for the life of me when younger. I was on a 5000 calorie supervised diet from age 16 to about 23 and could not gain a pound. It was a ridiculous amount of food that required me to be scheduled eating all day long.

And as no results came I was told over and over 'until my metabolism slowed I would not gain weight'. By later 20's things did change for me.

But what also changed was the insane activity level I had as a kid and young adult. Rugby, soccer, cycling to school and back each day as taking the bus precluding being able to play sport. Playing outside when home.

I think for most of us there is arguably a big enough change in activity level around the same ages, to explain the common weight gain.

And more to that point is if you look at todays youth, who tend to not be active, you can see they all have the weight at early ages we used to attribute only to later life and a changed metabolism. There youthful metabolism is not saving them.

I understand your point. But, BUT, and if I could type in bigger font i would, BUT, I was positing a hypothetical future in which more obese and more elderly people with serious comorbidities are now living much longer while having this vulnerability and thus society IN THAT HYPOTHETICAL, being forced to shut down more and require OTHERS to medicate more to protect them.


When addressing MY hypothetical it is pointless to counter 'today those people do not live long'.

if i posit for the future a discussion or 'what life would look like if cars could fly' then replying to it with 'cars today don't fly' is not the appropriate reply.

Sure but your values, logic, analysis, political approach etc should be consistent with other hypothetical situations shouldn't it?

What I'm getting it (as the end point in this debate) at is an underlying view that chosing to be fat and possibly die younger is inherently worse than choosing to be thin and possibly live longer. Any cost/sacrifices by others for the later is considered far more acceptable than for the former.

Then you can apply your approach across all hypotheticals.

Here, I'll step you through the joke, but you're going to have to read my post if you want to expect to understand it.

Claim: The best time to start investing in your health is the same as the best time to start investing in your financial future - yesterday. Since you can't start yesterday, today is the next best time to start.

QP: "This financial investment of [insert whichever one you want] you should wait to invest in, but with exercise you shouldn't wait to start doing it so you're WRONG that it's the same answer as in financial investing."


In other words, making an argument of a point that has nothing to do with anything - you know, like atypical obesity anorexia.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - atypical obesity anorexia is the bomb.

No.

If i want it to, sure. If you want to propose another hypothetical fine, But when you reply to mine in a way that does not address what i said that is troubling.


In my next hypothetical I want to discuss the impact of global warming and sea level rising and the impact on shoreline. Chez wants to reply that today the sea has not risen so my scenarios of land loss are not accurate but he is discussing it based on today and i am discussing it based on a hypothetical tomorrow.

whilst i don't dispute that in a total review of what we might loosely call 'benefits' versus 'costs' (i say that cautiously as we are talking about death) that an analysis might show OVERALL more "benefits" to the fit via obese dying younger it does not change the core of my thesis which is dealing only with this one point.

- assume in the future society is 80% obese and overweight and due to medical science being so good at offsetting and managing comorbidities they are living to 80+
- assume also the 20% who are fit are living even longer (90)

- assume a new virus hits that rips thru people with comorbidities causing mass death if allowed to spread


I posit under the above hypothetical which is IMO the society we are heading towards, that we will in fact have more and more viruses taking a massive toll on that obese and aged population and the response to that will be, amongst others to demand all of society vaccinate to protect them regardless of whether the fit benefit from the vaccine or not in a way they value.


Why? Because we, as a society do not like to see mass death. It will threaten the hospital systems. And they will be key voters not happy with a gov't who does not protect them.


I suggest that is a tough situation to increasingly put the healthy to, if indeed they would not value the benefits of the vaccine and not take it otherwise.


Now over to your scenario, you could argue 'suck it fit folk and shut up as you have gained far more in society than this cost, as we die earlier and that means....' That does not address per se what I am saying is a concern but it is a reasonable counter in saying 'in society there are trade offs...' which i do agree with. I just think this one, is one society will need to have a frank discussion about in the future.

Sure. Anything that causes a big problem for society will lead to calls for cooperative solutions where we all make sacrifices. Big fan personally including for far lessor problems than imminent death. Others will object to any sacrifice and for many it will depend.

If we're guessing the future I think commormiduties will become increasingly irrelevant and the biggest problems will resul5 from the triumphs of humanity in overcoming aging and mortality in general

Sure and as a Canadian I am a big supporter of the Social Contract we have in society amongst citizens who live cooperatively within a space and under the comfort and security provided to us.

So I have less of a case to argue here than a libertarian type who does not believe in a social contract at all or an absolute minimum one, if necessary.

That said, I think of all the Social Contract type asks for a society to impose on its citizens the most controversial will always be one where you ask one group who choose a path :

- 'to do X to avoid Y'
- to then have to submit to 'Y' because another group said "I don't value 'X' in the way you do and am not interested in taking the precautions and I understand and accept that makes me more susceptible to 'Y'.


You chez are the perfect example of one aspect here. You totally accept there are certain costs for your lifestyle choices (indulgence in hedonistic consumption) which you think are well worth the exchange and you accept there is a basket of 'Y" outcomes you may suffer due to your choices.

I, 100% agree with you being able to make that calculation and choice. YOLO. Live your best life.

However where I see the controversy is when some of those 'Y' outcomes then materialize, others who have lived their entire lives in a way to avoid 'Y' will now increasingly be demanded to do 'Y' to protect individuals like your from your prior choices.

So these people get all the disadvantages of being forced to do 'Y' without getting the benefits you enjoyed which necessitate you do 'Y'.

Considering the above i realize it is just another extension of the Trolly question David Slansky loves to engage in.


In this hypothetical imagine obesity levels reach the future levels predicted.
Imagine mass death via a new virus amongst those with comorbidities only
Imagine a vaccine with 100% efficacy in stopping spread

Imagine the threat to others who are fit, is greater from the vaccine (for this hypothetical) than the virus

But imagine on balance getting everyone to take the vaccine will save exponentially more lives in society over all.


However you have demanded of the healthy group, they accept some (risk) death (albeit very small numbers), when they would not otherwise but this is for a greater good, or 'on balance' equation.


Is that a fair thing to do within a social contract?


(the above is not perfectly analogous with covid and is not meant to be but is meant to high light the type of societal ask no one should be surprised by in the future based on this path we are on)

Well, we can choose between a society where people take on some burdens for the public health of others, or we can have a society that is completely and utterly worthless and should be sent spinning down the drain of history and forgotten about.

Medical ethics generally means that the vaccine wouldn't even be approved for this use as there has to be a benefit to the individual.

Beyond that we barely demand people take vaccines even when they benefit. It's a tough thing to demand

Beyond that I agree with T_D but the cooperation cannot be demanded and I doubt it needs to be.

Well that's the irony, and I love me some irony. Qp and tien are guaranteed ideal male life forms, true specimens of higher order.
The thing about this place is there's just too much mental illness to unpack with tien a lock to be more mentally stable than qp. But tien telling every drug addict, smoker, alcoholic, hoarder, etc, that it's easy to stop is up there with farce level human comprehension. Then we get qp coming and adding to that with his algorithmic deluge preaching about how whatever people this week are being held on a pedestal are the exretential threat of the day. And then comes the text rolls. His joke is his ability to malign whatever group deserves it at the time.

I guarantee these two lack empathy traits. Enough so to really text some real jokes

Sure and I don't disagree.

The question is, are there any bounds to this and if so where? And can and should they be discussed within the framework of a social contract.

The movie Wall-e satirized the ongoing obesity issue and human's default to utilizing technology to just make life easier rather than dealing with issues in a way that is proving extremely prescient.

As someone who walks or cycles most night I see first hand the explosion of Personal Mobility devices being used by people to travel the pathways and areas prior that would have seen people otherwise walking or cycling. These personal mobility devises are soon getting to a point where they will crowd out those seeking exercise.



Some of those devices are truly needed by individuals who have health issues and where exercise might stress their body or prevent them getting out, but the vast majority are people wanting to simply avoid the exercise component of being out and about and for many of those people that little bit of walking might be all they got prior.

So I do not think it is an unfair question to ask, if a growing segment of society opts into behaviour deliberately where we know the outcome is poorer and poorer health, then how much can you ask of the people who diligently are taking the steps to provide for better and better health, to then put themselves at risk, to protect those who won't take those steps on behalf of themselves.

This 'you have to protect me and take on risk, because I won't protect myself' dynamic, I think will only get exasperated in society as we move forward.




If you think I am wrong, is the view just 'shut up and take what we tell you to take to protect others as that is what society means and demands?'

We have seen with covid the potential for a Virus (maybe covid variant) that could be deadly to people with comorbidities and harmless to segments of people who do not have those issues (young healthy people). Current covid variants were low risk but a 'no risk' variant to those groups is possible.

Also it is possible the risk of the variant virus is very low to those groups, where the risk of the vaccine is slightly higher. Especially when you factor in everyone who gets the vaccine is exposed to whatever risk it entails 100% of the time, whereas a person is only exposed to the risk of the virus if they get the virus. They may never get it.

And again, if the 'at risk' population in a Country is substantial (my hypothetical where obesity has continued to skyrocket along with managed comorbidities) could see millions upon millions die, if the virus cannot be controlled, then I think society would still demand the population 'not at risk' take it to stem the transmission.

Society would speak of the reduction of the absolute numbers of people who died and the improvement with everyone taking the vaccine while not looking at how many died specifically in the group, who were not at threat.


Again this is a form of the ethical dilemma in the trolly question IMO.

- if you can reduce the death toll by millions in an at risk pool by forcing other people who are not at risk to take medications where a much relatively smaller number of them will die, is society ok forcing that tradeoff, in what would be called a 'greater good' type calculation?

and all my points apply to covid.

You can always create hypotheticals so extreme where everythign breaks down and anyhting is justified. You can any answer you want with this method but it's a mistake to think it informs the ethics when it hasn't broken down. There's a phase shift in the same way that the liquid properties of colder water dont apply once it turns to ice.

Sure.

but this hypothetical is not that extreme or absurd.

It is fact that obesity rates are soaring and we see no cessation of that trend line in sight.
it is fact that societies ability thru a host of medications and surgeries are able to keep these people alive much longer managing a growing list of comorbidities.


Thus it is fact that we in absolute numbers we will continue to have this growing body of 'at risk' individuals to any virus such as covid that is particularly efficient in killing off those with comorbidities.


So the only thing preventing us not addressing this issue again is the hope or belief that no such viruses will present.

So we are at the mercy of something we have no control over as one or may present and then we are then forced with this question again.


And the future may see viruses far less lethal than covid take far more lives regardless because we have this growing group of individuals living with an ever increasing number of managed comorbidities who need to be protected from exposures to a growing number of viruses. Basically we could be creating within society a population that has the vulnerability profile similar but in different ways to what the indigenous had when Europeans first touched down in the new world. One where we must create somewhat of a bubble around the vulnerable as they are so vulnerable to any new virus getting thru.

In not extreme circumstances then my points apply

If you mean that some will disagree then sure. If you mean there will be a backlash against any section of society deemed the problem (real or imagined) then I dont doubt it for a moment.