Jump to content


Is obesity a benefit/result of a developing economy?


16 replies to this topic

#1 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 27 October 2008 - 16:08

Quote

Statistics show a definite increase in the amount of obese people in our population. Especially in America.
A whopping 30 percent of Americans over the age of 20 are classified as obese, up from about 14 percent in the early 1970s.

This has resulted in an increased amount of obesity-related medical costs.
Millions of pounds are spent by obese people annually on unused gym memberships.

Fast food restaurants, sugar-filled drinks and mass produced products have all played a part in increasing the average persons weight.

The expansion of chains such as McDonalds, coca-cola or Wal-mart (ASDA) will help fatten the pockets of its investors as well as the waistline of it's consumers.

So is obesity and the economy related? Is a better economy increasing the percentage of the obese people in the population? Or are obese people increasing the wealth of the economy?

Edited by Dauth, 29 October 2008 - 10:44.


#2 NanSolo

    Amateur

  • Member
  • 100 posts

Posted 29 October 2008 - 19:56

Rather than the result of a rich economy per se I would base the rise of obesity on the materialistic nature of the economy and the culture surrounding it.
I see the "Supersize Me" phenomenon as evidence of this: it's not particularly expensive to buy all this fattening food, indeed obesity tends to be prevalent among the poorest strate of society, it is the notion that more/bigger is better.
Ironically I think we're seeing this same notion with healthfoods: vitamin supplements, 'superfruits' that have twice/thrice/hundred times more vitamins/fibre/'friendly' bacteria...your body only needs x amount of vitamin C for example, once you reach that particular intake you can't improve your health by eating even more: it simply creates a surplus in your body of that vitamin/nutrient that comes straight back out the other end.

Edited by NanSolo, 29 October 2008 - 19:57.


Posted Image
Posted Image

#3 logical2u

    Professional

  • Member
  • 382 posts
  • Projects: A figment of my imagination

Posted 29 October 2008 - 22:15

Obesity is the result of the free market. People like sweet things. Artificially sweet stuff is cheap to make, a million times sweeter, but also a lot more dangerous (High Fructose Corn Syrup anyone?). Ergo, selling cheap sweet things for high prices is one of the goals of capitalism.

Compare and contrast to communism or feudalism - potatoes and bread. (Specifically, stereotypical Russia and Ireland).

Fat people may eat more, buy more clothes, etc, but this is just an artificial inflation. Much as their waistlines are artificially inflated. There are better ways to stimulate an economy then getting people to eat more.
Keep Going On Till Dawn
How Many Times Must Another Line Be Drawn
We Could Be Down And Gone
But We Hold On

#4 Warbz

    IRC is just a multiplayer notepad.

  • Project Team
  • 4646 posts

Posted 29 October 2008 - 22:46

I just noticed a typo in the title, it's meant to be is obesity a benefit to... not of. xD
my bad.

Posted Image

#5 Dr. Strangelove

    Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else

  • Member Test
  • 2197 posts
  • Projects: Where parallels meet.

Posted 29 October 2008 - 23:00

A developed economy gives people the choice to be obese, but it does not necessarily make them fat.
Posted Image
Posted Image19681107

#6 Alias

    Member Title Goes Here

  • Member
  • 11705 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 01:37

Greed causes obesity. Capitalism causes greed. Thus we conclude that capitalism induces obesity, can we not?

Posted Image

#7 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 09:46

Capitalism does not cause greed. Greed is a human condition. Capitalism required greed to function, greed does not require capitalism.

Thus you cannot infer that capitalism causes obesity. Our feudal Lord were all bloated monstrosities, they certainly didn't live in a capitalistic society.

#8 CodeCat

    It's a trap!

  • Gold Member
  • 6111 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 11:59

Then at least you can conclude that there is a connection between capitalism and obesity, as capitalism promotes greed because it requires it.
CodeCat

Posted Image
Posted Image

Go dtiomsaítear do chód gan earráidí, is go gcríochnaítear do chláir go réidh. -Old Irish proverb

#9 Ion Cannon!

    Mountain Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • 5812 posts
  • Projects: European Conflict - Particle FX & Coder

Posted 30 October 2008 - 15:33

If anything obesity is detrimental to the economy. Lots of NHS money (For the example of England) is spent on obesity related diseases and conditions.

I do not think obesity is the result of a developing economy. A developing economy just means they have the option to overeat. With the mass produced, materialistic culture and the " I WANT IT NOW, I MUST HAVE IT NOW " culture and the inherent laziness of alot of people. Obesity will result.
Posted Image

Posted Image

#10 The Wandering Jew

    Veteran

  • Member
  • 464 posts
  • Projects: No current project, just to ask inane questions :p

Posted 31 October 2008 - 01:01

Obesity could be a sign that a country has a healthy production (to supply the needs and luxury of its people).

But it is false to concur that obesity helps the economy.

In addition, the Dinka tribe in Africa regard obesity as beauty. So most of the women there are obese.(But I do not think that their obesity contribute to African economy).



View PostDauth, on 30 Oct 2008, 17:46, said:

Capitalism does not cause greed. Greed is a human condition. Capitalism required greed to function, greed does not require capitalism.

Thus you cannot infer that capitalism causes obesity. Our feudal Lord were all bloated monstrosities, they certainly didn't live in a capitalistic society.


Nor living in a communistic one.

And not all feudal lords were obese. But it is safe to say that they lived in feudal splendor.

Edited by The Wandering Jew, 31 October 2008 - 01:03.

Posted Image
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."

#11 Dr. Strangelove

    Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else

  • Member Test
  • 2197 posts
  • Projects: Where parallels meet.

Posted 03 November 2008 - 09:02

View PostThe Wandering Jew, on 31 Oct 2008, 2:01, said:

View PostDauth, on 30 Oct 2008, 17:46, said:

Capitalism does not cause greed. Greed is a human condition. Capitalism required greed to function, greed does not require capitalism.

Thus you cannot infer that capitalism causes obesity. Our feudal Lord were all bloated monstrosities, they certainly didn't live in a capitalistic society.


Nor living in a communistic one.

And not all feudal lords were obese. But it is safe to say that they lived in feudal splendor.


Any society where wealth is being forcefully redistributed is a socialistic one.
Posted Image
Posted Image19681107

#12 Sharpnessism

    Custom title!

  • Member Test
  • 2871 posts

Posted 03 November 2008 - 21:07

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 3 Nov 2008, 4:02, said:

View PostThe Wandering Jew, on 31 Oct 2008, 2:01, said:

View PostDauth, on 30 Oct 2008, 17:46, said:

Capitalism does not cause greed. Greed is a human condition. Capitalism required greed to function, greed does not require capitalism.

Thus you cannot infer that capitalism causes obesity. Our feudal Lord were all bloated monstrosities, they certainly didn't live in a capitalistic society.


Nor living in a communistic one.

And not all feudal lords were obese. But it is safe to say that they lived in feudal splendor.


Any society where wealth is being forcefully redistributed is a socialistic one.


Taxes redistribute wealth, rich are taxed more heavily than the poor. A portion of the money will be spent on social programs or programs aimed to help the lower class. By your definition, almost all modern societies are socialistic.

Edited by Sharpnessism, 03 November 2008 - 21:08.

Posted Image

#13 Dr. Strangelove

    Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else

  • Member Test
  • 2197 posts
  • Projects: Where parallels meet.

Posted 04 November 2008 - 00:12

View PostSharpnessism, on 3 Nov 2008, 22:07, said:

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 3 Nov 2008, 4:02, said:

View PostThe Wandering Jew, on 31 Oct 2008, 2:01, said:

View PostDauth, on 30 Oct 2008, 17:46, said:

Capitalism does not cause greed. Greed is a human condition. Capitalism required greed to function, greed does not require capitalism.

Thus you cannot infer that capitalism causes obesity. Our feudal Lord were all bloated monstrosities, they certainly didn't live in a capitalistic society.


Nor living in a communistic one.

And not all feudal lords were obese. But it is safe to say that they lived in feudal splendor.


Any society where wealth is being forcefully redistributed is a socialistic one.


Taxes redistribute wealth, rich are taxed more heavily than the poor. A portion of the money will be spent on social programs or programs aimed to help the lower class. By your definition, almost all modern societies are socialistic.


They are.
Posted Image
Posted Image19681107

#14 BeefJeRKy

    Formerly known as Scopejim

  • Gold Member
  • 5114 posts
  • Projects: Life

Posted 04 November 2008 - 02:07

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 3 Nov 2008, 19:12, said:

View PostSharpnessism, on 3 Nov 2008, 22:07, said:

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 3 Nov 2008, 4:02, said:

View PostThe Wandering Jew, on 31 Oct 2008, 2:01, said:

View PostDauth, on 30 Oct 2008, 17:46, said:

Capitalism does not cause greed. Greed is a human condition. Capitalism required greed to function, greed does not require capitalism.

Thus you cannot infer that capitalism causes obesity. Our feudal Lord were all bloated monstrosities, they certainly didn't live in a capitalistic society.


Nor living in a communistic one.

And not all feudal lords were obese. But it is safe to say that they lived in feudal splendor.


Any society where wealth is being forcefully redistributed is a socialistic one.


Taxes redistribute wealth, rich are taxed more heavily than the poor. A portion of the money will be spent on social programs or programs aimed to help the lower class. By your definition, almost all modern societies are socialistic.


They are.


Actually, there has never existed a purely socialistic nor a purely capitalistic country in history (the nearest to the former is perhaps Cuba but even then there was some private ownership). Both economic systems on their own have their own flaws and most modern economies are a hybrid of the two systems varying from strong liberalism as seen in the States currently to the Social Democracies that exist in Scandinavian countries.

Anyway, back on topic, I believe this depends on how far a developing country is along the "development" scale. As long as country "X" has food security, there will tend to be some more obesity. However, this leads to an increased demand for food which will strain the available resources for other sectors of the economy such as industries. Furthermore, as others have mentioned, more obesity leads to a more costly healthcare program since there will be more and more cases of heart attack and the like. To reduce this obesity, the government will have to create an awareness campaign which will also cost money. Simply put, obesity is a burden on any economy especially the developing nations that are on the verge of being considered developed countries.
Posted Image

#15 Cryptkeeper

    secret experment 142-2

  • Member
  • 4199 posts
  • Projects: shockwave,rise of the reds

Posted 06 November 2008 - 19:02

obesity in my thoughts is a byproduct of ever increasing rationalized macdonalized(efficient, quantity, prodictable, controled) society basically we do things increasingly with less physical labor in less time bringing cheap mass quantities of food thus not only has a caloric intake has doubled are work which normally would burn off those extra calories has lessened by a lot.

Edited by Cryptkeeper, 06 November 2008 - 19:18.


#16 The Wandering Jew

    Veteran

  • Member
  • 464 posts
  • Projects: No current project, just to ask inane questions :p

Posted 07 November 2008 - 04:56

View PostScope, on 4 Nov 2008, 10:07, said:

Actually, there has never existed a purely socialistic nor a purely capitalistic country in history (the nearest to the former is perhaps Cuba but even then there was some private ownership). Both economic systems on their own have their own flaws and most modern economies are a hybrid of the two systems varying from strong liberalism as seen in the States currently to the Social Democracies that exist in Scandinavian countries.


Does North Korea count? Uh, strike that one. It has a totalitarian regime.

View PostScope, on 4 Nov 2008, 10:07, said:

Anyway, back on topic, I believe this depends on how far a developing country is along the "development" scale. As long as country "X" has food security, there will tend to be some more obesity. However, this leads to an increased demand for food which will strain the available resources for other sectors of the economy such as industries. Furthermore, as others have mentioned, more obesity leads to a more costly healthcare program since there will be more and more cases of heart attack and the like. To reduce this obesity, the government will have to create an awareness campaign which will also cost money.


So you mean to say that a certain country has "food security", there's a large possibility that people with more money (and with more "food desire") can buy far more Snickers than others?

(/stops typing and hurries to a nearest store to buy a Snickers bar).

View PostScope, on 4 Nov 2008, 10:07, said:

...Simply put, obesity is a burden on any economy especially the developing nations that are on the verge of being considered developed countries.


If a>b, and c>b, then a=b?

No, I do not think obesity directly is a hindrance to any economy. Obesity is a product of luxury, which, luxury is basically not a main factor in an economy.

Rather, obesity is a hindrance to health of the citizens, which can lead to heart failures (or stroke), and can reduce a nation's population (provided if the death rate is high). A low population can be a serious headache to a country (low quantity of labor, anyone?)

Edited by The Wandering Jew, 07 November 2008 - 05:05.

Posted Image
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."

#17 BeefJeRKy

    Formerly known as Scopejim

  • Gold Member
  • 5114 posts
  • Projects: Life

Posted 07 November 2008 - 05:55

View PostThe Wandering Jew, on 6 Nov 2008, 23:56, said:

View PostScope, on 4 Nov 2008, 10:07, said:

...Simply put, obesity is a burden on any economy especially the developing nations that are on the verge of being considered developed countries.


If a>b, and c>b, then a=b?

No, I do not think obesity directly is a hindrance to any economy. Obesity is a product of luxury, which, luxury is basically not a main factor in an economy.

Rather, obesity is a hindrance to health of the citizens, which can lead to heart failures (or stroke), and can reduce a nation's population (provided if the death rate is high). A low population can be a serious headache to a country (low quantity of labor, anyone?)

Perhaps I worded my opinion too briefly in that statement, but what I meant is obesity tends to be a burden on a developing country in the long run yet it is at the same time a byproduct of its economic growth.
Posted Image



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users