I like having sprawling conversations that start at one point, and end up somewhere completely different. I don't necessarily mean rambling discussions (although I do tend to ramble at times), rather the conversations that link what might seemingly be relatively unrelated topics together with some kind of rationale. I think with the right people, it is a lot of fun and, it can lead to a both debate, and getting to know each other better.
A friend was looking to spark a bit of a discussion in one of our Whatsapp groups today, as he is on holiday and seemingly bored, so dropped this clip from a comedian on Twitter. Comedians tend to be far more relevant than politicians, and generally more political these days. Perhaps that was always the case, but politicians have moved away from "policies" and are instead more interested in celebrity. It is a sad state of affairs when we are voting for personalities to make policy decisions for us.
As I have mentioned before, I see overfeeding children as a form of child abuse that is going to impact on them for the rest of their lives, as they struggle with all the negatives associated with being overweight, or having an unhealthy relationship with food. It is essentially conditioning children for failure, but when they become adults, the "it is the way I was raised" excuse no longer cuts it, even though their entire body has been conditioned to be overweight. Changing behavioral habits learned in childhood, is very hard.
And this is where we fork a little, because when I mentioned this, it moved into one of my favorite areas of discussion, financial economics, combined with behavioral economics. A friend said:
If I'm not completely mistaken, being overweight nowadays correlates more with less wealth, which usually means tougher jobs, less flexibility in life, less capacity to make healthier choices (cooking yourself etc.) for oneself and one's kids...
Just to poke a bit, I did add that less wealth also correlated (loosely) with lower IQ. But, that was not the point. The point was about the wealth inequalities and how the economy and distribution of wealth impacts on our personal outcomes. A lot of people aren't interested in economics, because it is boring, but it is one of the key things that influences the conditions we face in the world - No matter where in the world you are born. As we have globalized, it has become even more influential over us, as previously disconnected regions are now tied intimately together through international money flows.
The economy itself is currently designed to create that inequality endlessly, because it is designed to generate wealth, not health. If the business incentives to create wealth were aligned with generating societal wellbeing in some way, wealth inequality would lessen enormously.
We all are driven by incentive and the business incentive is to find the most efficient ways to generate wealth for shareholders. This "efficiency" is guided by legislation, but there are a lot of ways to make money at a cost to the wellbeing of society. And when the cost of what I will call here, "bad behavior" is low, and the gains for bad behavior are high, it will be performed. And often, the costs are transferred to a third party, namely "society" as a whole. This means that the majority are each paying a little bit for a few to get incredibly wealthy.
If the model changed to one where the most lucrative ways to generate wealth were through business activities that supported health and wellbeing in society, the natural order of things would see better distribution happen, because there would be incentive to do so. Any company or conglomerate that got too large, would be socially scaled back as it starts to reduce wellbeing.
Not going to happen in my life time.
However, what we all need to consider, is how incentive drives human behavior. The incentive isn't always money, it could be, adoration, attention, or something like the sense of feeling appreciated, but there is always some kind of reciprocity involved.
I do this and I get this.
Corporations don't care about the other incentives, even though some people within the companies may. The only incentive a company actually has is to make money, so this is what they will align themselves to do. They will cut corners if they can get away with it because it reduces costs. They will layoff people if it will improve their profit ratios. They will pollute if the chance of being caught or the cost to being caught is low enough to make it worthwhile. They will calculate the potential cost of settlements against the cost of fixing a problem in their product that is killing people.
It is all just a profit-cost analysis.
If profits are likely to be made, it is worth the cost. And as the business grows, expands and matures, it will look to increasingly cut the costs, by changing the materials used, changing the employees used, changing the taxes they pay, or changing the laws if they can influence it.
We probably all know these things, but similarly to there not being marches against the obesity epidemic, the things that would help the situation, are largely inconvenient. Companies sell us convenience of some kind, whether it be a product that saves us time like dishwasher, or a product that we feel increases our value in the eyes of others, like an expensive handbag or shoes. Time saving isn't just something that gets us time back because we don't have to do something, it is also in what helps us speed up how fast we can get from point A to B. A car is faster than a horse to travel between towns, but when people are looking to be popular, what tool do they use?
And, the desire for popularity is one of the behaviors that gets encouraged and mined by industries, even though they are having a negative impact on many of the people they are facilitating. A drug dealer is just feeding the demand, yet we blame them for the outcomes of the drug addict and prosecute them. Yet, the social media dealers take no responsibility for the many addictions they facilitate.
They are called "users" for a reason.
Because they become reliant, and when we are reliant on an external influence to provide what we need, we are slaves.
The term "addict" is not a new word, it is from the 1500s at least. The etymology is to devote or give up oneself to a habit or occupation. And now we have to think about what we are actually devoting ourselves to, because it is moving away from being devoted to the tribe or community, and into the realm of only the self. We are giving ourselves, to ourselves and we are facilitated in doing so, because this behavior is one of the most efficient ways for a corporation to generate wealth. It doesn't matter that it is also one of the most efficient ways to kill society.
What are we marching for?
What should we stand for?
Fat and Skinny - What about healthy?
End of ramble.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
