Over-eating due to government intervention

The message from the US government is eat less, and eat more fresh fruit and vegetables. This is of course not new information. It's like a parent telling their children not to laze around, but who bought the TV, and placed no restrictions on its use. The problem as I see it is that democratic governments are as flawed as their totalitarian cousins. They might not extinguish your 'political existence' but that is only because they can 'enslave' your economic existence. So long as you, as an individual, don't meddle with their political longevity, they are pretty happy. When you do, then you go to goal, like Pauline Hanson in Australia, or you, as a lone individual, get assassinated. John F. Kennedy was perhaps an example of that; its hard to say since I have no compelling evidence.

In common with totalitarian regimes is that they are superficial or concrete-bound. So when a government states after years of research what we already knew - that we are eating too much - it is really missing the point. The problem is that we are eating too much because of them. The reason is more important. We are over-eating for psychological reasons. We are not dealing with the causes because evading, compartmentalising and rationalising are 'coping mechanisms' used to evade that which we do not have a strategy to otherwise resolve. When humans cannot come up with a conceptual solution to a conceptual problem - which is the intrusive government - it goes looking for a concrete solution, whether it be 'physical' anxiety such as compulsive disorders like over-eating, or 'mental anxieties' or evasions like psychosis.

The reality is that the way in which we are governed is so important that it goes to the crux of our relationship between ourselves and others (ethics) and our productivity (i.e. efficacy), our self-worth (i.e. self esteem), and our expectations (i.e. Absolute or logical standards vs moral relativism).

The government will keep advising that you curb your eating. That is like telling you to be happy, to avoid psychologically illness, and to be happy. It does not help at all. In fact, it does more worse than good. It gives people hope of a 'government solution' when they are part of the problem. Want to know more about the nature of government. If you are looking for empirical evidence of that as a research, you are falling prey to one of the greatest myths, that induction is the only basis for scientific investigation. It is the basis of society's moral scepticism.

Disclaimer: This blog could be good for your health.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Best conceived adventure survival guide

The focus for most of these blog articles is internal health. This post will focus upon physical well-being in your external environment. It was inspired by this story of a 72yo man who was trapped in a flood. Humans have poorly developed critical thinking skills. There are several reasons for that:

1. Regulated living - we live in regulated or managed living spaces

2. Safety net - we have people telling us what to do, how to do it, procedures to follow, and even when we fail, there is someone to restore us to health or safety when we fail.

There are however those instances when we take it upon ourselves to engage in some adventure where we place ourselves beyond the safety, protection and responsibility of our fellow human beings. If we do not consider the risks, or take preventative steps, we can place our lives in danger, as well as the lives of those called upon to recover our bodies, or return us to safety. There are a great many adventurers in NZ, many of them tourists, who need to be recovered by rescue agencies. Here is an example of an adventurer who has had an interesting experience. It is interesting for a number of reasons:

1. He engaged in an adventure activity by himself. That is a high risk activity even if he is well-prepared. I know you can anticipate slippery surfaces, loose rocks, and take steps to avoid them, but consider that during a multi-day trek, you will make a million steps, and you will have roughly 1 second to determine the appropriateness of each step. You will be tired, you will be unfocused (by the last thousands of steps), even if you recognise that seemingly greater danger of a slippery slope. It is not worth it. I have done it myself - gone kayaking by myself. But you do need to actively plan your trip, and diligently anticipate every risk. Its hard to do when you have not been where you intend to go. How can you know ALL the conditions?

2. He took protective measures. The guy was well-prepared for his trip. He took a GPS device, he had a satellite phone, spare food and an emergency beacon. He abandoned the GPS when he was being flooded out of his tent. He could not get satellite phone reception in the storm and his emergency beacon was broken. Fortunately, he was able to fix the beacon. The moral of this tale is that even contingency plans can fail in a certain context.

3. He did not fathom how conditions could change. According to his story, the creek rose 1 metre in a few minutes. This creek gully was experiencing a flash flood which he did not anticipate. Humans have been living on the earth just 3 million years. Your active life experience is just 100 years at best. This is a very short period. We have yet to see the worst events of this planet. The terrain which you cross actually holds evidence of its risks, i.e. The huge boulders moved by rivers in flood, or glaciers in different times. The Earth has not changed; its just that we fail to appreciate that the Earth embodies change beyond our short perspective. There are often high or 'stranded' sediment deposits above normal river channels. These can suggest ancient alluvial beds stranded as the creek incised into the valley, or they might be your best indicator of what can happen when the river/creek is in flood. Acknowledging these plausible risks entails knowing something about the processes that shape the Earth, as well as some knowledge of rock and fluid mechanics, i.e. Applied physics, and this will help you develop a perspective that will preserve your life under all possible conditions.

4. He most probably did not have a plan. There are different types of plans.

a. A procedural plan allows you to get what you want.

b. A contingency plan allows you to keep what you have - that is your life.

The best laid plans are those which are based on the best possible information, which identify, assess, qualify and quantify all plausible risks. It does not mean that they are perfect. You might not want to plan for a 1-in-200 year flood condition, but you might want to be aware about the probability of a certain flood occurring. The safety precautions or contingency plan might entail very little consideration, and even the remedial measures might be simple, if they were only considered. They might not entail carrying more provisions into the bush. They might simply entail acting in a different way.

People tend to be sceptical about the need for plans. I have always been a planner. Even if not acted upon, they are useful for developing awareness of issues and perspective. People think short-range because of self-indulgent disregard for preparedness, because they lack information, or because they have a subjective disdain for objective reality. Critical thinking is loathsome to them because it entails self-discipline and judgement, whether of conditions they would prefer not to know about, or judgement of others, which they fear will be reciprocated.

Survival requires objectivity and critical thinking. We cannot always rely on the support of others. You would have disdain for these qualities, but call upon others to exercise them? Your disdain is shared by them, so you might be placing your life in the hands of disinterested savours. Self-preparedness is your most practical form of survival. This might seem like a burden until you recognise that such preparedness is actually a source of wisdom, efficacy and pride. When you realise that, you will actually embrace the process. Disdain is a position of ignorance or disempowerment.

------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com