Comments on: Better

By: RVTurnage

RVTurnage — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:28:41 +0000

Per, I mean exactly what I said. We have the wealth and the freedom to choose our diet, our exercise routine and otherwise pursue happiness as we see fit. There is no "responsible/irresponsible" in the equation. Whether one person perceives anothers pursuit of happiness (and the weight gain/loss associated with it) as irresponsible is irrelevant as it is a personal decision we have the benefit of making.

By: Per Kurowski

Per Kurowski — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:21:03 +0000

No, it could also be given by someone who believes the existent pollution dangers, regardless of their extent, are less than they were at some other time or in some other place
Posted by: Billy | Jun 13, 2008 3:20:57 PM

Come on, if that’s the case why does he not say so?

By: colson

colson — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:53:43 +0000

Per - it's a statement directed at all of the doomsayers who go on and on about how terrible things are when, in fact, they are generally much better than they would lead you to believe. It is not a statement of the professor's belief that these things *don't* happen, just that it's not always the feces color brown everyone else wants to paint it to be.

The reality of the situation is that the "mortgage crisis" that you trotted out earlier isn't quite as bad as you want to believe. There is still a tremendous amount of movement in the real estate sector. Yes, some people are being hurt by the crisis while the majority of us are just fine.

It's odd that you trotted out the so-called obesity crisis when there is really no evidence of there being a crisis. As someone else pointed out - the BMI is often the most trotted out number which is, ironically, a bad measurement of obesity. There is no crisis. We aren't dropping like flies here. But thanks for the concern.

The point on pollution is that if our environment were truly that polluted and unfit, we would see a plateau or heavy negating effect on life expectancy. If today's environment is worse than yesterday's, it draws the question on why we are living longer now in a more dangerous and polluted world? Life expectancy has been fairly consistent in terms of progress. Considering economic booms in medical sciences, hygiene, food preparation and industrialization, we're doing pretty darned well.

By: Billy

Billy — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:20:57 +0000

Clearly such a blasé statement can only be given by someone who does not believe there are any real pollution dangers around.

No, it could also be given by someone who believes the existent pollution dangers, regardless of their extent, are less than they were at some other time or in some other place (given the chart, I'd guess Prof. Roberts is going for the temporal comparison).

By: Per Kurowski

Per Kurowski — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:40:13 +0000

Exactly where does the professor intimate that "there are no pollution dangers..."?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Jun 13, 2008 12:04:03 PM

Read the post: By suggesting that “Anytime you hear people talking about how dangerous and polluted and horrible life is in the United States” the reasonable response is that Americans live longer. Clearly such a blasé statement can only be given by someone who does not believe there are any real pollution dangers around.