Americans sicker than English
CNN.com - Study: Americans sicker than English - May 2, 2006
Well, what to say?
Actually, having lived in both countries I am not totally surprised. You see, while America is the "richest country" in the world, there is no reason to associate that with overall health. The general perception is that the greater the wealth a country has the more it spends per capita on its population, and therefore the greater the health of its citizenry.
But historically that is not the case. First of all there is the whole problem of defining "wealth." What is a "wealthy" country? Is it the country that has the highest GNP? If that is the case, then those countries with the largest proportion of rich families will skew the results (there is, afterall, a difference between mean and median, as well as modal, incomes). But it is even more complicated then that.
In an historical consideration, human beings often become less healthy the "wealthier" they become. This is because "wealth" does not necessarily correlate with health. Why? Because wealth is usually defined as surplus, or extra, of something. To have an excess of something is not necessarily to create a healthier situation. When humans first started to invest in domestication- of crops, animals, whatever- they created greater excess, and therefore, wealth, but in the process they seriously restricted their nutritional diet (domestication provides for larger quantites of a resource, but at the expense of less access to more varied resources). This led to poorer health, but greater wealth.
So is it a surpise that the US is wealthier than England and yet not as healthy? (it still confuses me- is England a country? Or is it merely part of a country? Evidently CNN doesn't know!) I would expect that the wealth of the US would free the population from constraints on diet, leading then to poorer diets (because excess allows people to eat what they want, as opposed to what they can get), which, hence, results in poorer health.
This leads to the question- would we rather be wealthy or healthy? I ask this because some studies show that, at least in mice, restricted diets tend to lead to longer lives. So, if we have to choose between living a long, yet somewhat deminished, life versus a short, but more enjoyable (i.e. do/eat whatever we want) life, which would we choose?
I think I'd go for the shorter, fuller life. But, then again, ask me in 20 years, I might have a different answer.
Well, what to say?
Actually, having lived in both countries I am not totally surprised. You see, while America is the "richest country" in the world, there is no reason to associate that with overall health. The general perception is that the greater the wealth a country has the more it spends per capita on its population, and therefore the greater the health of its citizenry.
But historically that is not the case. First of all there is the whole problem of defining "wealth." What is a "wealthy" country? Is it the country that has the highest GNP? If that is the case, then those countries with the largest proportion of rich families will skew the results (there is, afterall, a difference between mean and median, as well as modal, incomes). But it is even more complicated then that.
In an historical consideration, human beings often become less healthy the "wealthier" they become. This is because "wealth" does not necessarily correlate with health. Why? Because wealth is usually defined as surplus, or extra, of something. To have an excess of something is not necessarily to create a healthier situation. When humans first started to invest in domestication- of crops, animals, whatever- they created greater excess, and therefore, wealth, but in the process they seriously restricted their nutritional diet (domestication provides for larger quantites of a resource, but at the expense of less access to more varied resources). This led to poorer health, but greater wealth.
So is it a surpise that the US is wealthier than England and yet not as healthy? (it still confuses me- is England a country? Or is it merely part of a country? Evidently CNN doesn't know!) I would expect that the wealth of the US would free the population from constraints on diet, leading then to poorer diets (because excess allows people to eat what they want, as opposed to what they can get), which, hence, results in poorer health.
This leads to the question- would we rather be wealthy or healthy? I ask this because some studies show that, at least in mice, restricted diets tend to lead to longer lives. So, if we have to choose between living a long, yet somewhat deminished, life versus a short, but more enjoyable (i.e. do/eat whatever we want) life, which would we choose?
I think I'd go for the shorter, fuller life. But, then again, ask me in 20 years, I might have a different answer.
posted by Fool Ishy at 9:05 PM
3 Comments:
HEY! ya it works !!!!! took me forever! no im not in Tokyo right now. I will be moveing back to Tokyo in 2 months. Im gona do a vido blog of my life in Japan. Right now im in TN:( O well, i dont know how to email so i just comment on here. Your blog looks very political! keep up the good work
Well, I think the sickness has to do with the obesity problem. (See my blog for that one.) Anyway, obesity is directly related to poverity. The poorer people are the less healthy the foods are that they eat (poor rural kids in Mississippi have a propensity for pork rinds--too much alliteration there). Anyway, obesity, I'm sure is related to our poor American health. Ergo, we're sick because we eat too much. We eat too much because we're poor. I don't know if that's true, but it doens't have to be for me to say it.
Chris (My Blog)
New update? I'm waiting patiently.
Chris (My Blog)
Post a Comment
<< Home