From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 16:41:54 MST
--- Gary Miller <garymiller@starband.net> wrote:
> >> It sounds like such a great idea, any reasons
> anyone can present why
> I shouldn't think it one?
>
> People already addicted to food would be encouraged
> to increase
> consumption further. Thus exacerbating the food
> shortage which exists
> in many parts of the world.
As has been pointed out in countless places, including
repeatedly on this list before, famine is a
distribution problem, not a food shortage. We have so
much spare food available that people are talking
about using some of it to replace petroleum fuels.
> Burning more calories also does nothing to encourage
> cardiovascular
> health. The heart is a muscle and like any other
> muscle it stays in
> tone by the training effect achieved by exercise.
> Too much cholesterol
> or homocysteine in your system and you still may
> have plugged arteries.
> You may look skinny but still die of a heart attack
> or stroke.
True to some extent, though if I understand the
chemistry right, that which plugs up your arteries
would slowly diffuse to make up for that which is
consumed by this device, thus making this not as much
of a problem. It won't make a couch potato into an
athlete, of course, but it's not supposed to.
> I guess what I'm saying is the benefits of good diet
> and exercise still
> has many health benefits that outweigh just having a
> high metabolism.
Then argue them. For instance, you might be concerned
about people not getting the vitamins in green
vegetables. Counter: if one need not be worried about
the calories, one could eat several hamburgers - each
with its own complement of lettuce (and other
vegetables) - until one had enough. (Granted, the
volume of calorie processing for this approach would
take either a rather refined device, an impractically
large device, or a lot of smaller devices, but it
could be done. Personally, I'd take the "lot of
smaller devices" route if I were to do it.) Even junk
food usually has at least trace amounts of good
nutrients.
The exercise bit is a more solid objection than the
diet bit, but if people get enough exercise to survive
(and, honestly, even most obese people *do* move
around somewhat in a given day), then their lives can
be lengthened until practical replacements for that
come along. Plus, if people need less energy to move
around, then they are likely to move around a bit
more, thus getting more exercise than they would while
loaded down. (Consider: if you could run around the
block without breaking a sweat, vs. if you could
barely drag yourself around the block, winding up
panting and wheezing and generally very
uncomfortable...well, in which situation would *you*
more likely choose to go for a walk?)
> If people could stay skinny without eating right or
> exercising the net
> effect might be more people dieing prematurely!
Highly doubtful. Nonzero probability, of course, but
I would suspect it is far more likely that many more
lives (or, at least, person-years) would be saved than
would be lost if this were deployed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 05 2003 - 16:47:01 MST