Friday 14 March 2008

Become Obese--Your Government Needs You

Obesity: A Pseudo-Epidemic and Its False Cure


It's official. We have a new epidemic. It's called obesity. The threat is dire. The consequences unspeakable.

Athenian politicians and governments love apocalyptic epidemics. They allow them to take on the patina of being “Great Redeemers”. They are saving us from ourselves.

Recently, the NZ Government introduced an “anti-obesity” bill into Parliament. Yes, the government is going to ban fatness. The Public Health Bill claims to provide new ways for the Cabinet or the Director General of Health to act against the suspected causes of obesity. First it was tobacco. We didn't say anything because, well, tobacco is dirty. Then it was alcohol. That hurt a bit more, but, what can you do? We still did not say anything. The government knows best—and let's not forget all those super educated health professionals (aka highly paid bureaucrat—consultants.) We placidly and supinely let the government restrict, ban, control, and propagandize. We let politicians tell us what to think.

Now it is food. It's too late to do anything now. We have already let them in. The doors are wide open now, and they cannot be shut.

What will happen? Well, we will have taxes on obesity-causing food. We will have restrictions on advertising food and drink that cause fatness. We will have endless sermons and lectures and pontifications from politicians, governments, bureaucrats, and other go-gooders. The fast-food industry as we know it will be black-balled. Subsidies will be given to “Tofu Take Out” joints.

Why? It is a simple question. Why is the government engaging in this new evangelical campaign—apart from its own moral self-righteousness? Money. Western governments are concerned about all the collateral diseases that accompany obesity, for which the taxpayer will have to fund treatment. Billions will have to be found for treatment of heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, and other diseases that result from obesity.

Enter the fly-in-the-ointment. A recent authoritative, scholarly paper produced in Holland, published in the journal PloS Medicine (“Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure”) has demonstrated that obese people cost the health system less in the long run. We could also add heavy drinkers and smokers to this list.

Why is this? Obese people live shorter lives. Healthy, gym addicted, diet conscious people live longer, but tend to die from longer term degenerative diseases. It turns out that total lifetime health spending is greatest for healthy people. In other words, if the government is successful in making us more healthy in its attempt to reduce the socialised medicine spend, the more the costs of socialised medicine will rise. The government has been, and increasingly will, waste millions of your dollars trying to make you healthy. If it is successful, it will end up spending even more than it otherwise would have.

Ban fit people. Tax gyms. Subsidize fatty foods. Run tobacco education classes in schools to teach children the pleasures of the delightful weed. Become obese. Your government needs you, fat. The taxpayer needs you. Love those rolls. Let's have beautyflab competitions. I can just see the new TV reality shows now.

So, the economics don't stack up. Public health care costs are ballooning because we are living longer and more illnesses and diseases are treatable with increasingly sophisticated procedures. It turns out that trying to make us less obese by controlling what people eat will only make the problem worse.

Athens is stupid. Stupid in the extreme. But some will object. Should not Christians be concerned when people are in poor health? Surely the command, “Thou shalt not kill” requires us to do all we can to assist others to be healthy? Yes and yes. Surely, then, Christians should support socialised medicine and regard the anti-obesity campaign as laudable and do all they can to support it. No and no and no.

There is just a tiny, small matter of responsibility—personal and familial responsibility. Bluntly put, if you eat the wrong food and become obese you will likely die prematurely. Those are the consequences of your decision. If you feed your children garbage, they too are likely to have all sorts of severe health problems. You are responsible. You are accountable. If you want your children to die early, feed them rubbish. You will be allowed to face the consequences of your stupidity and folly. That is the truth. That is the authentic Christian position. The loving thing to do is to work within the rubric of personal accountability and responsibility because people are better off for it.

I can just hear the “tut tutting” Athenian liberals as they take another sip of pinot gris. “There are many who don't know how to take responsibility for themselves. They are victims. They are oppressed. We have to take responsibility for them.”

This is none other than the twenty first century version of the “white man's burden.” It was arrogant paternalism that led western nations into the reckless colonial era. The consequences are still with us today. But taking over control of countries and territories was justified as having a duty to “help them.”

A similar arrogant paternalism of western liberals has lead to a host of institutionalised evils, socialised medicine amongst them. The consequence is that it has encouraged virtually entire generations not to take responsibility for themselves and their dependants. It's always someone else's fault. Parents are now whining about food companies advertising on TV—wanting the government to “do something about it.” That will help solve our children's eating problems.

Try turning the TV off if its that much of a problem. Take responsibility. Take ownership. Be a real parent for a change. Try putting a decent meal on the table and if the kids won't eat it, take it away and tell them the next meal will be in five hours time. Lock the fridge in the meantime.

For too long successive generations have recited daily the modern Athenian liturgy:

High Priest of Athens: “We will fix it. Don't you worry. Just vote for us.”

People: “Right-oh. You fix it then. How much will you fix, by the way?”

High Priest: “Cradle to the grave, mate. Don't you worry. Cradle to the grave.”

Only it never can be sustained. It never works. It only creates bigger and larger problems on a nation wide scale. And they are here now.

The so-called national obesity epidemic is an outward physical manifestation of a widespread spiritual malaise of self-indulgence, irresponsibility, and a hand-to-mouth gratification. It is a vivid picture of the best that Athens can do. Generations have been taught to believe that others are going to run around them and their children, making things right for them. Cradle to the grave. Omni-competent, infinitely resourced governments will do the trick. We will love you. We will care for you. Just vote for us.

But Jerusalem says, that way may seem right to you, but its end is death. Stop it—now—for your own sake, and the sake of your children. You—yes, you—own the problem. Take ownership. Fix it. Be a real parent, for a change, not just a playactor. If you and your children are going to survive there are some things that are going to have to happen on your watch—and one of them is that you and your children are going to have to eat decent food—that is, if you want them to survive.

Who loves more? Jerusalem or Athens?



4 comments:

Unknown said...

Heh, amusing post. Interesting comparison between the 'white man's burden' and social paternalism - I had not considered that before.

Do you support mandatory seatbelt-wearing laws? Why not reason that people should have sense enough to restrain themselves and their children? What about residential building codes? Shouldn't we have the freedom to build to our requirements, but the sense to do it - or to have it done - safely? If we lack that sense, what grounds do you provide for legitimising government action? What about health and safety requirements, for instance in the food industry? Why (or why not) are these acceptable forms of paternalism?

It seems to me that we have to introduce factors other that the mere assertion of paternalism before being able to wisely decide some of these cases.

I am thankful to live in a country in which we collectively take responsibility for the medicinal care of the worst-off among us. There is a strong body ethic in Christianity which is, I think, rightly put to expression in some aspects of social care and the taxation that funds it. This demonstrates not so much a reach for power by governing functionaries, but the deep inculteration of the Christian impulse to love your neighbour - 2000 years of preaching.

Of course, it is not a flawless system. There is waste and abuse and bad decisions - and the reach for power by those seeking self-aggrandizement. All things are yet tainted, partially broken and incomplete.

Of course, we must always also speak as you have done, and continue to exhort members of the body to responsible use of their own gifts and functions - for their own and others' sake.

Anonymous said...

Aaron
Thanks for your comments and thought provoking questions. As we discuss these issues, I think we need to be self-conscious of the sociological context which has progressively promulgated the philosophy of Statism, (that is, the State as the omnicompetent overlord) and which has progressively institutionalised the same for over 350 years into virtually every area of human endeavour. If Luther complained that the only part of the human anatomy over which the Pope had not sought control was the rear-end, how much more could the same complaint be justly made of the modern State.
If we ignore the influence of the prevailing and dominant consensus we will struggle to imagine how we could possibly exist without State ordered seat belts, building codes, minimum wages, statist medicine, statist education and so forth. Since these things do some good and are not all bad, and since not having them may be tantamount to beggar-thy-neighbour chaos, the Christian finds himself forced to accept Statism, and be left with a minor sub-argument about how much Statism we ought to have: that is, maybe seat belts, but not building codes.
On the other hand, there are some extant examples of control and regulation where the interests and rights of people are protected without Statist controls. Consider the market driven requirements of self-disclosure and participant feedback on traders currently operating in the most deregulated markets we have ever seen--which work effectively to protect people from the rapacious ravages implicit in "caveat emptor"--or "buyer beware." I refer of course to the conventions on TradeMe and E-Bay which help establish the credibility of the seller.
The Living God requires the one creature made in His image to act responsibly and accountably. Human society is therefore bound to adopt the same responsibility/accountability model in its organisation and government. At all times persons (both natural and legal) are to be held accountable for their actions. If they traduce the God-given rights of others they are to be liable to civil courts where the one's damaged can seek redress, restitution, and re-instatement to a position equivalent to that enjoyed before the damage.
So, no, I don't believe the State should require mandatory seat belts. I do, however, believe that everyone should be liable for all damage to a neighbour's life, limb, or property in civil courts. This principle of love and equity--being held accountable for the damage I do to my neighbour--results is a far more comprehensive and exacting standard than that which currently operates under Statism in our day.
As we see on every hand, Statism sets itself forth as the institution competent to make people responsible and righteous. So it seeks to work to prevent damage occuring. The implications are that I can do anything until the State tells me not to. I can be as irresponsible as I like until a law or regulation is passed.
But the State fails miserably as a redeemer, and so it has to heap rules upon laws, regulations upon statutes, all of which have to me administered by a Shelob-like bureaucracy which ends up sucking the very life blood of the community.
With respect to the poor and needy amongst us, the duties and responsibilities we have toward them are clearly laid out in Scripture, as indeed are the responsibilities and duties the Lord lays upon the same poor and needy. Both the rich and the poor are to take up their responsibilities. While society cannot make rich or poor responsible, it must hold them accountable if they act irresponsibly. The whole matter of the biblical constitution of the Christian Commonwealth is a weighty subject and cannot be dealt with properly in this brief forum. I hope to post extensively upon it in the days to come.
However, with respect to the poor and their care it seems to me that a dividing principle between the constitutions of Athens and Jerusalem rests here: whether provision for the poor is a matter of rights and justice, or a matter of love and charity (grace). Athens argues the former; Jerusalem the latter. But we will take up these matters more fully in the future, as the Lord allows.

Unknown said...

John,

Thanks for your reply - I'd like to make three points in response.

Firstly, TradeMe's participants can only enjoy disclosure and review because TradeMe sets up the mechanisms for to support those actions. The TradeMe environment therefore doesn't picture a State-less environment; rather, TradeMe functions as a benevolent State, cleverly finding ways to align self-interest with social benefit, thereby furthering the common weal. It may be worth considering that the role of a wise ruler in every sphere is somewhat analogous.

Secondly, I note Deuteronomy 22:8 - "When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof." Recognition of responsibility may lie first in reading prescriptive laws, though a full education is found in the practice of love and of a fully human life under God. To some extent, the legal system should express the standards of that love and full humanity. We ought not to militate against law-reading as an education in responsibility.

I also note that we would need an extensive legal system, and continual litigation to achieve the "far more comprehensive and exacting standard" that you desire. I'm not sure I want to live in a society dominated by that method of finding reponsibility. Though the insurers and lawyers would no doubt gather joyfully.

Thirdly, in the matter of rights: we must articulate and press a Christian view of these rather than dismissing them as an irredeemable Statist invention. We are made in the image of God. We therefore certainly have rights - those of God's agents, who face the creation in its care, oversight and development, and those who, in reflecting the Trinity, face each other in the call to mutual love and honour. These are an irreducible part of what God meant 'human' to mean.

But these rights also involve facing back to God, in accountability and responsibility - and let's not forget, succor. This too is irreducibly human. God appoints us to represent himself, God calls us to account for it, and the standard he sets is willingness to die for the redemption of the beloved.

So we have on the one hand the tremendous privileges of holding council with God, discussing what things should come to pass, and even executing our own judgement on matters. All these are recorded in Scripture and reflect the privileges of sonship, of familiarity. On the other hand, we have the responsibility of character - of, as it were, upholding family honour. It is this, more than any other of our rights, which so thoroughly disabuses us of hubris and hauteur, of self-centered pride and privilege. We cannot claim our rights under God without claiming likeness with God. And the likeness interprets our rights thoroughly and exhaustively. Which likeness is most profoundly expressed in Jesus, dying on a Roman cross.

That is why, in contrast to the rights of Athenians (if I may use your metaphor), our rights are not independant and self-directed, but dependant and directed. In Jerusalem there is likeness and character; in Athens, only legality. That is why secular philosophy can only parody rights. It wants to enshrine the privilege of personhood, but simultaneously deny its interpretation in character - God's character.

Therefore, Athens must deduce 'personhood' from certain biological functions, which it then deems privileged - such as the capacities for self-awareness and autonomy. But since we are forced to observe thatbeings other than we have these biological functions, they too become people with rights - a position getting increasing airtime and political sway. Even worse, since all our rights are granted by legal power and privilege rather than a loving and self-giving character, in exercising them we become become less authentically human. We adopt the image of our supposed constitution.

A Christain account of rights is therefore capable of engaging with society head on, right at the heart of its political constitution, and with particular persons, right at the heart of their self-identity. And so it must be part of our gospel announcement. Jesus is King; therefore put away your false constitution. Repent and find yourself anew in likeness to God.

I won't try and draw specific policy conclusions from this, execpt to note my intuitions that a simple public-private divide won't hold up on further examination, and that a simple dichotomy between justice/rights and love/charity doesn't adequantely explicate a Christian view of moral accountability.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Aaron
I can see that we are going to get into lots of interesting and helpful discussions when Contra Celsum has a crack at laying out the constitution of the Kingdom some time later this year. It is a big topic but I hope that we can together do it some justice.
Meanwhile I have filed your post so we can discuss it more fully then. But, just some passing thoughts:
1. It is accepted that TradeMe is a governmental structure, insofar that it has rules and regulations which participants must follow. But participation is voluntary. However, the State differs from other governmental structures, in that it uses the sanction of force, even to the final, ultimate-in-this-life degree of execution--and is entitled to do so, by the authority of God Himself.
2. Agree that to achieve the "more comprehensive and exacting standard" requires a much more extensive legal system than that currently in operation today. But we will endeavour to demonstrate that the Scriptures mandate and require such a system.
3. Agree that we must articulate a Christian (that is, Scriptural) foundation for rights. God alone is the right-granter, and the right denier. Many so-called modern demand rights are explicitly and completely denied by God--for example, a right to my neighbour's property.
4. The public/private divide is useful if we define our terms carefully. If we define "public" to mean (in the context of this discussion) the civil and criminal magistracy--that is,the State--and "private" to be all non-State voluntary persons (natural,legal and metaphorical), then I think the divide can be a useful device. If, however, it is being used in a libertarian sense, it is indeed simplistic and not that helpful.
JT