Against the Law to be Fat in Japan?

[Lateralus]

Are you saying that the ability to damage one's health through a combination of overeating and under-exercising should be a guaranteed right?

What I'm saying is that the government has as much power as you give it. If the government is going to subsidize a nation's health care then it has a fiscal responsibility to keep that cost reasonable. If you read my post carefully you'd see that I never stated the government should have the right to dictate personal behavior.

There's an awful lot of talk about rights these days but what about personal responsibility?

You seem to be missing my point. I agree that the government has a fiscal responsibility if it's subsidizing health care. Overeating is not the only unhealthy activity that individuals engage in. Sitting in front of your computer playing WoW is also unhealthy (I saw your post). If the government can ban overeating, they can ban WoW. The list of 'unhealthy' activities they can ban are infinite. The question is, where do you draw the line?

I'd rather keep the government out of the business, entirely, but most people don't seem to agree with me.

 

[Wyst]

While I don't agree with any county pronouncing regulations on its people's physical stats, I can understand its desire to want to curb a developing trend.

Let's take America, for example. What did Americans, look like 50-60 years ago? I'll bet that, for the most part, you had healthy people. Maybe an occasional overweight person but not the 1 out of 3 statistics we are starting to hit now.

What happened? The explosion of fast food and quick food. Restaurants and junk food, if you will. Junk food and fast food is now full of empty calories that are harmful to the human body - no wonder more people are getting cancer.



So Japan. 50 years ago nearly ALL Japanese people were skinny skinny skinny and looked like they needed to gain some weight. What happened? After WWII the western culture came like a deluge into their country and a couple of decades later the introduction of McDonalds and all kinds of chain stores from the West.

Japan isn't stupid. I think they just don't want things to go the way they are going for us in America. Too bad the way they're going about it isn't something isn't respecting people's freedom and privacy but I can certainly understand their motivation.

Remember all the fat people in Wall-e. Couldn't even get back in their chair without help from a robot. That isn't so unbelievable the way it would have been 60 years ago.

 

[nomadic]

NYC and LA both banned transfat or something like that.

a lot of things are possible overseas that isn't possible here.

For instance, overseas, democratic countries regularly call for impeachment of presidents that are corrupt or don't listen to the will of the people. even presidents that have strong ties to the military. and yes, there are MASSIVE protests, where hundreds of thousands of people will gather and protest together for an impeachment of a corrupt president with strong ties to the military.

such a thing is unthinkable in the US today. cultural, letter of the law, doesn't hold that much of a distinction for me.

 

[nomadic]

33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women

lol

why is the guideline for men stricter than the women? haha

but it seems like u just get reminded to lose weight and have to attend programs.

its like unemployment in the US. u get a reminder to look for a job from the gov't if u are unemployed etc... or help in looking for a job.

also, i believe Japan has a national health insurance plan... so there may be different concerns.

 

[nomadic]

I'd rather keep the government out of the business, entirely, but most people don't seem to agree with me.

i dunno. some industries u need gov't regulation.

for instance, food in china isn't regulated by the gov't very well.

-_-

 

[heart]

why is the guideline for men stricter than the women? haha

Baby got back...

 

[nomadic]

Baby got back...

lol

u and ur one liners!

:yim_rolling_on_the_

 

[nolla]

This is an interesting topic. Too bad it was in "Health and Fitness"... I don't hang around the gym that much. Never know what's happening here. Ok, first some quotes and then I will make a point that should be there...

My first reaction,was this is terrible, I'm against the government controlling the people when it comes to things like this. I hate the smoking ban for the same reason, but majority like it, so I guess I'll live.

Yes, my first impression also.

Are they crossing a personal boundary here? Do people have the right to be fat or unhealthy if they chose to be so?

I smoke, but I have no objection to limiting smoking to the smoking areas. It's not for my good, but for other peoples well-being and convenience, so I don't argue. I still get plenty of cancer to inhale.

Japan and many east asian countries are more 'communal minded' societies where individuals are able to sublimate their individuality for the greater good.

So it's a different sense of 'personal boundaries' versus community responsibility/citizenship, etc.

Good point to remind.

We're constantly told from one quarter that we as humans need to minimise our effect on the planet, and from another quarter that we need to be as healthy as possible. These two ideas completely oppose each other. Surely the best way to minimise human effect is to MIMINISE THE HUMANS!

If governments enforce people to gain an extra ten years on their lives, that's just more resources they're going to take and a larger trail of shit left in their wake.

Anyway, I think this topic in general is pretty interesting. I suppose the underlying argument is should you be forced to do something that is ultimately good for you.

As for the efficacy of health care costs, I think that's a moot point for reasons mentioned and probably just politic rhetoric to get it passed. The REAL issue here about overweight people is how energy inefficient they are (in food costs, not just fuel) and how we cater to the sins of sloth in this country. I'm so tired of seeing fat people, as well as perfectly fit ones, ride the elevator up two stories when it would be better for them, as well as others, to just suck it up and take the stairs and get that extra bit of excercise. Walk instead of driving a half mile to the corner station or liquor store. It's not that hard, but people feel so entitled to do the bare minimum because they have a "right to be fat". Fine, be overweight, but don't be pissed when the whole that carries thier own weight and costs better than you do want to tax you for your extra burden. I hope Japan gets it passed.

Here we are getting close to my way of thinking. It's not that it bugs me that people are lazy, what bugs me is that the food is running out. It has lots of reasons, partly tied to the fuel prizes and biofuel and so on, but also on meat consumption. This is a major issue. I dont care if people are fat-asses, thats not a big deal. If they die younger, all the same. But if some folks don't have enough to eat because the country on the other side of the world has people three times bigger eating all the food... now, that is not fair.

Dont get me wrong, Im not that big a world-saver. I eat meat. But I wouldn't have any problem with not eating it if no one else will either and it saves some people somewhere. I wouldn't have problem with one-child-policy if it keeps the world overpopulation in control. Just give me the right reasons for this kind of policy and I'm behind it.

 

[booyalab]

But if some folks don't have enough to eat because the country on the other side of the world has people three times bigger eating all the food... now, that is not fair.

are you serious? Do you honestly think this is logical?

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I remember reading in a Newsweek or Time article somewhere... God, someone help me remember which article this was... that if Americans earning something like $250,000 or above donated just 10% of their earnings to a properly-run resource allocation charity, they'd cut world hunger by 30 or 40% or something... I don't remember the percentages, but it was astonishing.... even if the percentage of world hunger reduced was 10 or 20%, wouldn't it be worth it?!?!??!?

The Islamic edict of zakaat, the universal donation of [Edit: 2.5%...]* of one's wealth to the poor, would be an excellent principle for people of all groups to follow, Muslim and non-Muslim, theist or atheist, alike.

* I'd originally written 10% and was corrected.

_________________

As for the drive to reduce obesity in Japan, I think it's a good idea... as long as it doesn't become draconian, like the beastly Indira Gandhi and her "labia-lipped" (thanks Rushdie) son's, Sanjay Gandhi's, crazy forced sterilization campaign.

 

[runvardh]

I guess my question is, who pays for medical over there?

 

[heart]

I smoke, but I have no objection to limiting smoking to the smoking areas. It's not for my good, but for other peoples well-being and convenience, so I don't argue. I still get plenty of cancer to inhale.

This law in Japan is more like if they came into your private home and said you couldn't smoke there.

Here we are getting close to my way of thinking. It's not that it bugs me that people are lazy, what bugs me is that the food is running out. It has lots of reasons, partly tied to the fuel prizes and biofuel and so on, but also on meat consumption. This is a major issue. I dont care if people are fat-asses, thats not a big deal. If they die younger, all the same. But if some folks don't have enough to eat because the country on the other side of the world has people three times bigger eating all the food... now, that is not fair.

Dont get me wrong, Im not that big a world-saver. I eat meat. But I wouldn't have any problem with not eating it if no one else will either and it saves some people somewhere. I wouldn't have problem with one-child-policy if it keeps the world overpopulation in control. Just give me the right reasons for this kind of policy and I'm behind it.

The people who like to control others will always come up with some kind of dire dialectic that makes it seem all reasonable and rational to follow their edicts.

They won't necessarily die younger either. My MIL is obese and way into her late 70s, my brother was a string bean his whole life, dead at 51 from diabetes complications and stroke. Genetics plays as large a part in degenerative diseases as lifestyle habits.

As for the drive to reduce obesity in Japan, I think it's a good idea... as long as it doesn't become draconian,

It is already dracionian when employement is tied to it. When they can order you measured and harassed at work.

 

[Little Linguist]

I still think this is classic!

 

[heart]

I remember reading in a Newsweek or Time article somewhere... God, someone help me remember which article this was... that if Americans earning something like $250,000 or above donated just 10% of their earnings to a properly-run resource allocation charity, they'd cut world hunger by 30 or 40% or something... I don't remember the percentages, but it was astonishing.... even if the percentage of world hunger reduced was 10 or 20%, wouldn't it be worth it?!?!??!?

The Islamic edict of zakaat, the universal donation of 10% of one's wealth to the poor, would be an excellent principle for people of all groups to follow, Muslim and non-Muslim, theist or atheist, alike.

_________________

As for the drive to reduce obesity in Japan, I think it's a good idea... as long as it doesn't become draconian, like the beastly Indira Gandhi and her "labia-lipped" (thanks Rushdie) son's, Sanjay Gandhi's, crazy forced sterilization campaign.

I don't understand how the argument becomes about affluent people being selfish, frequenty people with the poorest grocery budgets end up overweight because they don't have enough money for produce and low fat and end up filling up on more fattening, unpreshible, processed foods.

 

[Lateralus]

I remember reading in a Newsweek or Time article somewhere... God, someone help me remember which article this was... that if Americans earning something like $250,000 or above donated just 10% of their earnings to a properly-run resource allocation charity, they'd cut world hunger by 30 or 40% or something... I don't remember the percentages, but it was astonishing.... even if the percentage of world hunger reduced was 10 or 20%, wouldn't it be worth it?!?!??!?

That would increase unemployment, domestically. That would also serve to undermine farmers in those nations where there are food shortages. And even if hunger was reduced by 10-20%, I don't believe it would be 'worth it'.

Publications like Newsweek and Time are pretty left-wing. Their ideology tends to lean toward what seems 'right', rather than what actually works. In other words, intent is more important than results. The only situations where giving aid actually works is with catastrophes. That's where organizations like the Red Cross step in. People who categorically support giving aid to third world nations don't seem to take economic expectations into account.

The Islamic edict of zakaat, the universal donation of 10% of one's wealth to the poor, would be an excellent principle for people of all groups to follow, Muslim and non-Muslim, theist or atheist, alike.

Is it really 10%? I thought it was closer to something like 2%.

 

[nolla]

are you serious? Do you honestly think this is logical?

As I said there are other factors, like fuel. When fuel goes up, the farmers will pay more to produce food. This means that there will be more and more people not able to pay for it.

If we didn't have the luxury stuff like meat every day there would be a lot more grain and such. World hunger would be very much lower without us rich feeding our beef with food of the poor.

The Islamic edict of zakaat, the universal donation of 10% of one's wealth to the poor, would be an excellent principle for people of all groups to follow, Muslim and non-Muslim, theist or atheist, alike.

Yes, but I think this should be done on government level. It is hard for a private person to get generous.

The people who like to control others will always come up with some kind of dire dialectic that makes it seem all reasonable and rational to follow their edicts.

I think it is very important to see if the reasons are right. If they do it only for to get their businesses more productive it is not that right. But there is a limit when individual rights are overrun by some more important issues. World hunger is one of them. If we wait until the oil is so expensive that the rich countries start to suffer, its too late. Then it will be no rights or freedoms for anyone.

I don't understand how the argument becomes about affluent people being selfish, frequenty people with the poorest grocery budgets end up overweight because they don't have enough money for produce and low fat and end up filling up on more fattening, unpreshible, processed foods.

Yeah, Ive heard about this. Its absurd that it is more expensive to buy healthy food in the states... I really cant comprehend...

 

[kiddykat]

I assume that it's mostly for practical reasons. I mean, it's pretty pragmatic to pass on a law like that, especially since their healthcare system is universal. It would make sense to require that people stay within a healthy range in order to prevent diseases such as obesity/diabetes, which in the end, cuts down on medical costs.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I don't understand how the argument becomes about affluent people being selfish, frequenty people with the poorest grocery budgets end up overweight because they don't have enough money for produce and low fat and end up filling up on more fattening, unpreshible, processed foods.

I wasn't saying they were selfish. This was a value-neutral assessment of how much raw wealth would be required to drastically cut down on malnourishment. The talk of the wealthiest Americans was merely a way to put it all in perspective. If they gave you a massive number in the tens or hundreds of billions, the quantity wouldn't be nearly as easily grasped as with the analysis they gave. And it's one report. Economics is notorious for producing ten answers to one question, all with impeccable calculations based on shaky or controversial variables and constants.

That would increase unemployment, domestically. That would also serve to undermine farmers in those nations where there are food shortages. And even if hunger was reduced by 10-20%, I don't believe it would be 'worth it'.

I think this is a poor argument. The food would go to people who are starving and to whom those poor farmers aren't sending their crops! These are the people who don't get anything, who have distended bellies and can't even think about a minimal 2,200 calorie-a-day diet.


As for zakaat, pardon my complete mess-up of the figure... I was basing the 10% figure on hearsay (surprisingly from a Muslim friend)... it's actually about 2.5% and it's only incumbent on people who have the werewithal to give it.

As for which policies work, none of the right (political spectrum) policies have been working either. So it's worth a try.

 

[Lateralus]

I think this is a poor argument. The food would go to people who are starving and to whom those poor farmers aren't sending their crops! These are the people who don't get anything, who have distended bellies and can't even think about a minimal 2,200 calorie-a-day diet.

This is such an idealistic stance that has no basis in reality. I've already explained the problems with your perspective, but if you just ignore what I said, there's nothing else that's worth saying.

As for which policies work, none of the right (political spectrum) policies have been working either. So it's worth a try.

We (western first-world nations) have never allowed the third world to develop on its own. To say that 'right wing' policies haven't worked is true only in that we haven't tried them. We keep intervening, either out of self-interest or self-proclaimed altruism (which is really just self-interest).

 

[nolla]

We (western first-world nations) have never allowed the third world to develop on its own. To say that 'right wing' policies haven't worked is true only in that we haven't tried them. We keep intervening, either out of self-interest or self-proclaimed altruism (which is really just self-interest).

You are right about the altruism not being real altruism. But I doubt that the dying people care if it's real or not.

For how long has the western world been doing everything it can to get the most out of those countries that are poor? I think its "ok" to give something back, or at least try not to spend it all too quickly. The Japanese way sounds very practical, actually, to get the consumption down. If it went global, it could easily save many lives.

Ok, here's some numbers. I got them from this place: Calories Per Day Calculator - Basal Metabolic Rate. I don't know how reliable this is, but the results are so dramatic that even if it isn't accurate, it should give a message.

My daily need of energy at the moment is 2281 calories. If I was two times bigger, my consumption would be 3289. Basically that means that there are 1000 more calories to go around in the world. You see what this means on the big scale? Everyone who eats more than they need is responsible for the food prices going up. The same goes for eating overproduced food, or food that is shipped long distances. 1000 calories is a huge difference to those starving.