The "Lathum disagrees with Romagoth on fatty foods" Thread

[Autumn]

Certainly a ballpark can be a place where we eat outside of our normal diet and enjoy a treat. However I see two things happening:

1) People eat more and more "outside" of their diet, by which I mean we eat much less at home than we used to, and nearly any place you go is now keen to sell us food while we're out of our house. So what would have once been a once a month treat of eating something out at the ballpark becomes one in a series of experiences that for most people happens in some form or another more than once a week. They go to the ballpark, and the movies, and the coffee shop, and out for dinner.

2) There's a ridiculous arms race in the world of "treats". Ballpark food has never been good for you, sure, and neither has fast food or carnival food. But there is a race by these food providers to create ever more outrageous foods for us. It's no longer just a big hotdog, it's the 20 inch dog. It's no longer just a candy apple, it's deep fried butter. It's no longer just a chicken sandwich, it's a Double Down or whatever.

So while we're all sort of conditioned to think we should be able to treat ourselves when we're out, we have to account for the fact that "out" happens more and more often, and that the calories involved are tremendously higher than they used to be. It's not the ballpark's "fault" but the fact that we are being offered less and less healthy fare is a fact. If we had splurged 40 years ago we would have had 500 calories, and now a splurge is 4000 calories.

I also think that people greatly, greatly underestimate the impact of biology on weight gain. We like to think that those of use who are not doing too bad have good willpower, but when it comes to weight willpower has more to do with genes and hormones than our mind. People have different levels of neurotransmitters and hormones that make them more or less hungry, easier or harder to satisfy their hunger. People have higher or lower set weight points, higher or lower number of fat cells. The portion of control we have over our weight is much lower than I think most people estimate.

And the fact is that our society's growing size has more to do with societal functions--the food available and the type of work and lifestyle available to most today--than it has to do with some change in people's willpower. People are fatter today because it now requires work to not be fat, whereas for our grandparents it was work not to starve. That's not any one person's doing, it's the consequence of history. And so it seems silly to me to be casting all the blame on fat people, when with a tweak of our body chemistry we could be them, or by a tweak of history they could be our emaciated grandparent.

All that said, while I personally would not feel good about making my money off of making it easier for people to be obese, I don't think any of those are people are personally responsible for other people's obesity. Or rather I don't think they should be obligated to do anything differently. But as a society we probably need to recognize that unless we do something, collectively, obesity isn't going to get any better. Telling people to have more willpower doesn't change human nature, human biology, or send us back to 1950.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Isn't "Society" is just a tipping point of some number of individuals? How do you blame "society" without blaming the individuals in it? (Kind of like other boogeymen, "big business" or "government"). This is why Occupy Wall Street failed. You can't change anything just attacking ideas and vague concepts, you have to reach individuals. If enough individuals really want to be healthy, there will be thousands of companies that will make organic, healthier food available (that's already happening). If enough individuals don't care and only want to eat shit, the shit peddlers will do well. If you want to change the food situation in the U.S, including government policy, I'd think you need to convince enough individual consumers (including successfully vilifying the individuals acting contrary to your goals) , and also enough individuals in power that change makes sense in terms of whatever they value (i.e., it makes sense from a financial perspective, or it makes sense to get in office, whatever)

And this I think is our error. That we simply think of society as a collection of individuals. Society is far more than just a sum of people (you'd think we'd learn that better from phrases like "there is no I in team", etc) - our culture, our values aren't just what a certain number of people want to pick at that particular moment. This is what I mean by an overly individualistic viewpoint. We seem to believe that we emerge from our mothers' wombs in a state of tabula rasa, when in reality our societal circumstances and the cultural norms and values surrounding us (in which ever culture we are raised in) determine the parameters we generally work within.

In a Post-Enlightenment world we believe that all our views have been obtained through reason and rationally thinking things through, when more likely they have set within certain boundaries erected (*snicker*) by our societies - a "that's just the way it is" mentality. Hence we have vast majorities opposed to certain things (agg subsidies for one), but they still exist. Why? Because the system has been set up in that manner. Real change becomes blocked because we are told to change it through "individual action" when in reality the structure (and/or structural underpinnings) behind our society has to change.

And, of course, focusing on individuals takes away our focus from what is wrong with our society as a whole. It takes away from focusing on what is standing in the path to change, even if a vast majority of people want a certain change (I mean why is it that everyone thinks their government is hopeless crooked if THEY vote for them?). If we only think as individuals and don't realize that everything that we do or own ties us to a vast network of other people in an indissoluble bond, then we attack symptoms rather than real problems. And I think that's a vast failure in our mindset.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And this I think is our error. That we simply think of society as a collection of individuals. Society is far more than just a sum of people (you'd think we'd learn that better from phrases like "there is no I in team", etc) - our culture, our values aren't just what a certain number of people want to pick at that particular moment. This is what I mean by an overly individualistic viewpoint. We seem to believe that we emerge from our mothers' wombs in a state of tabula rasa, when in reality our societal circumstances and the cultural norms and values surrounding us (in which ever culture we are raised in) determine the parameters we generally work within.

In a Post-Enlightenment world we believe that all our views have been obtained through reason and rationally thinking things through, when more likely they have set within certain boundaries erected (*snicker*) by our societies - a "that's just the way it is" mentality. Hence we have vast majorities opposed to certain things (agg subsidies for one), but they still exist. Why? Because the system has been set up in that manner. Real change becomes blocked because we are told to change it through "individual action" when in reality the structure (and/or structural underpinnings) behind our society has to change.

And, of course, focusing on individuals takes away our focus from what is wrong with our society as a whole. It takes away from focusing on what is standing in the path to change, even if a vast majority of people want a certain change (I mean why is it that everyone thinks their government is hopeless crooked if THEY vote for them?). If we only think as individuals and don't realize that everything that we do or own ties us to a vast network of other people in an indissoluble bond, then we attack symptoms rather than real problems. And I think that's a vast failure in our mindset.

I get the spirit of what you're saying, but, how exactly do you change society if you ignore the individuals? What's your "societal" plan for a better U.S. food landscape that just blows right past stuff targeted towards individuals like education, information, transparency? I agree that individuals are connected to each other and "society" in ways that aren't always obvious, but you still need to change those individuals to change those connections. I'm not saying, "just tell people they need more willpower" and "look down at and laugh at fatty". I just see this "society" stuff and I think, well, that's great if you don't actually want to change anything and you want to keep it theoretical. But just from something as simple as facebook, and this message board, I've been inspired and educated about eating better, and I've changed my own habits, in part because of those messages, from other individuals. If enough individuals change, you have societal changes. But I don't see how society changes without individual changes. That's the building block.

[ISiddiqui]

I am not ignoring the individuals, I am trying to get above the idea that "all change comes from enough individuals deciding it". A greater convincing that we are more than simply individuals, but participants in a common society which is more than simply the sum of its parts is the key. The way this is done, however, may be a long and hard slog and will likely have to be the result of slow and steady change in cultural mentality (this is where my inner Burkean comes out). The idea that what I do affects everyone else is something that I believe is being slowly teased out (a lot of the health care debate focused on the costs we impose on others by our health choices).

In that regard, I don't necessarily think the "Occupy" movement was a failure as it did highlight some incredibly troubling trends in our current society (I don't think most of them thought they'd be storming the barricades anyways).

And look at Autumn's last post - it isn't enough just to change your individual actions and hope others do the same and you'll get to 50%. You have to promote a communal societal change in values and ideals. True, this will come from individuals, but it won't be individuals simply acting different until they get the proper values - but rather slowly but surely changing the way we think through things (after all, the Enlightenment didn't change medieval values by simply getting enough individuals to change their minds until 50% was hit).

I don't necessarily want to cite fiction, but I think the Foundation Series is interesting in its notions that we can predict the future for humanity by observing and teasing out what general groups of people do (individuals don't really matter per se unless you are a magical mutant). The idea being that in a group in the vast stream of history, humanity can be very predictable, because on some level society is more than just individuals advocating for certain things. I think the insights there are more true than not.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I am not ignoring the individuals, I am trying to get above the idea that "all change comes from enough individuals deciding it". A greater convincing that we are more than simply individuals, but participants in a common society which is more than simply the sum of its parts is the key. The way this is done, however, may be a long and hard slog and will likely have to be the result of slow and steady change in cultural mentality (this is where my inner Burkean comes out). The idea that what I do affects everyone else is something that I believe is being slowly teased out (a lot of the health care debate focused on the costs we impose on others by our health choices).

In that regard, I don't necessarily think the "Occupy" movement was a failure as it did highlight some incredibly troubling trends in our current society (I don't think most of them thought they'd be storming the barricades anyways).

And look at Autumn's last post - it isn't enough just to change your individual actions and hope others do the same and you'll get to 50%. You have to promote a communal societal change in values and ideals. True, this will come from individuals, but it won't be individuals simply acting different until they get the proper values - but rather slowly but surely changing the way we think through things (after all, the Enlightenment didn't change medieval values by simply getting enough individuals to change their minds until 50% was hit).

I don't necessarily want to cite fiction, but I think the Foundation Series is interesting in its notions that we can predict the future for humanity by observing and teasing out what general groups of people do (individuals don't really matter per se unless you are a magical mutant). The idea being that in a group in the vast stream of history, humanity can be very predictable, because on some level society is more than just individuals advocating for certain things. I think the insights there are more true than not.

The fallacy is, my friend, is that we will not be judged as a collective or society or community or nation, but as individuals. Certainly the strength of an individual can be partially influenced by its environment but in the end, it is our personal responsibility to accept or to reject.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The fallacy is, my friend, is that we will not be judged as a collective or society or community or nation, but as individuals. Certainly the strength of an individual can be partially influenced by its environment but in the end, it is our personal responsibility to accept or to reject.

And as I've pointed out, I think the prime fallacy of our age is to believe as solely individuals separated out from society or community. The Enlightenment has gone too far and swung well beyond what the original theorists wanted. It is well past time for the pendulum to swing back - an acknowledgment that we are individuals inextricably linked with our society and culture, which forms a great portion of who we are, and that our actions have mass impacts on others in our society, even if we just believe it only impacts us. Not that we are cogs in a machine, but that we are actors in a grand drama (without everyone else, we just can't do anything - but everyone together performs a magnificent play).

Also we drastically underestimate how much our environment (& our evolutionary impulses) influences us as 'individuals'. Though scientific research is trying to tell us that (re: Autumn's post about biology & weight gain). And economic research informs us that our actions in toto have wide ranged impacts on the society at large.