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
