On obesity

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Aedes

But you said: "It's the fear of poverty that alters the cells within the body through signals and likewise changes physiology."

One must ask how we might know that cells are altered by fear of poverty. We know an awful lot about cells. So what particular alteration are you speaking of that we can 1) know about and 2) is not measurable by scientific tools?

We know a lot about physiology. We know a lot about inter- and intra- cellular signals. So what specific alterations and what specific signal do you speak of?

Well, don't cells within the body work in communities just as we do out here? Do individual cells have basically the same systems as our physical being? Do cells have senses just as we have senses?

Cells would receive signals from the outside environment. Meaning that our senses of the physical world send signals to the cells. In turn, the cells in our body respond to the signals sent. If we are in fear, doesn't it make sense that those signals of perceived fear are also signals we send to our body?.. or cellular structure? Just as we react to the acceptance of signals or perception, wouldn't the cells react to that as well?

Just as any physical community respond to signals wouldn't the cells respond to signals as well? Just as the collective consciousness of America fears, these signals are received and accepted and likewise the cells respond to these signals. If it's a fear of poverty we send, then collective obesity could very well be the result.

Originally Posted by Aedes

And finally, when you attribute an end-effect to "fear of poverty", how do you know it's "fear of poverty" that is exerting any given change? How do you isolate fear of poverty from the effects of poverty?

I don't know, do we know? It's an effect world. We live in a world of effects. Doctors even treat effects. If this is in fact an electric-wave universe of mind in motion created by thought and perception, could we concluded that fears of something attract more of that which it fears?

Let's not forget that nothing is created in the physical world without first the seed of thought. So thought comes prior to creation. It would seem to me that we cannot create or express anything without the thought of it first.

Originally Posted by Aedes

I'm not trying to be a pain here, and you know that you and I have different viewpoints on this stuff. But there is something you need to reconcile here:

You highlighted the limitations of science in one sentence, but in the next sentence made a point using purely scientific terminology. So do you believe in science enough to invoke purely scientific outcome measures (like alterations of cellular physiology), but not enough to scrutinize whether we know whether "fear of poverty" per se has any effect?

This is good dialog, not a pain.

Yes I did and yes there are limitations of Science. Science is limited to what we can comprehend with our senses. The use of scientific terminology is purely semantics and a way of expressing words. Once again, science is merely a creation of thought and is measured with instruments and senses.

Partly mystic, partly science and partly religion and all Universal, it's obvious to me that fear creates the circumstances to create more of what we fear. Anything in a state of fear hinders growth. The only proof of life we have is growth.

Science has been around a long time yet has no answers for many of the great unanswered questions about life. We can measure, take apart and analyze through science and in science we use the 5 senses to measure the output and document effect, which limits science to the effects.

Originally Posted by Aedes

Why do I harp on this? It's not because I expect my friends here on this forum to use the same scientific rigor as a scientist might use. It's because the original post was ETHICAL, and ethics is philosophy in practice. It has to do with not just what we ponder, but what we DO. At least in science we can apply a specific question to a specific subject and measure a specific outcome.

As I've stated before, I'm not a scientist and have absolutely know qualifications in this at all and therefore will not confine myself to science just as I will not confine myself to religion. The original post was ethical and ethics is philosophy in practice... but it's dealing with and effect which we observe to be obesity and that's what we see. The topic is obesity no matter how we want to slice and dice it.

Aedes, I answer a lot of questions with more questions. It's not to be annoying but admittedly I don't all the answers and even if I did, stating them would do no good without those reading this find answers to the questions themselves or at least ponder them for a moment for themselves.

Science doesn't have all that answers and Religions don't have all the answers otherwise we wouldn't be in here asking them and discussing them. It's often good to take a look at all areas and not limit ourselves to what can be measured and documented through science alone. Science helps tremendously but has not answered some of the greatest unanswered questions of physical life... Why? How? What?

Good discussion my friend and many different ways of looking at it.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Justin

Well, don't cells within the body work in communities just as we do out here? Do individual cells have basically the same systems as our physical being? Do cells have senses just as we have senses?

No, you're raising analogies between cellular functions and non-cellular functions, but that's all they are. Just because a given cell is responsive to this or that hormone, this or that toxin, this or that ionic gradient, does not qualify it as a sense. Just because cells communicate with each other using endocrine or paracrine or chemokine or whatever signalling mechanisms doesn't mean the idea of "community" equally applies to them as to human beings. The word is the same, the broad concept is the same, the reality is entirely different.

If we are in fear, doesn't it make sense that those signals of perceived fear are also signals we send to our body?

No, because fear as we cognitively understand it is an enormous multitude of different biological things happening. Fear per se is not transmitted. But we do have increased sympathetic tone and increased cortisol secretion during times of fear, and there are downstream biological effects. But that's not the same as fear being transmitted -- there are things other than fear that cause the same end effects.

If this is in fact an electric-wave universe of mind in motion created by thought and perception

I don't agree that the universe is such a thing.

Let's not forget that nothing is created in the physical world without first the seed of thought.

So you believe that a volcano cannot produce molten lava without thought?

Yes I did and yes there are limitations of Science. Science is limited to what we can comprehend with our senses.

So is everything else. There would be no thought, no language, no cognition, no understanding, no metaphysics, no mysticism, nothing without sense data. Fetuses can hear their parents' voices, they can sense movement, they can respond to light and dark, they respond to changes in blood sugar, etc. Infants learn language only by being in a social environment and children learn abstract thought only after mastering concrete things that they can sense. Science is one systematic element of this, but in reality not even the purest, most abstract, most metaphysical idea ever generated by humans is independent of senses.

The use of scientific terminology is purely semantics and a way of expressing words.

But the words have specific meaning -- sure, you can use them in a literary or abstract way if you want, but you have to be careful to know the difference.

Science has been around a long time yet has no answers for many of the great unanswered questions about life.

But abstract speculation doesn't provide answers either -- it can only satisfy curiosity enough to abrogate one's inquisitiveness.

It's often good to take a look at all areas and not limit ourselves to what can be measured and documented through science alone.

Agreed -- my only point was to be careful of mixing disciplines here -- to say that "fear alters cells", for instance, means that you are proposing a specific cause for a pre-specified end-effect. So you need to beef up that proposition with a mechanism if you want that end-effect to have any meaning, because it indeed means something specific.

Good discussion my friend and many different ways of looking at it.

Agreed!

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by FatalMuse

What are society's obligations in regards to the health of the obese?

The market has spoken. And it is fair to help those who are genetically proned to becoming obese. However, I think that by getting these drugs at a stage that people can abuse themselves and have unhealthy lifestlyes knowing that " oh... I can just take these pills and everything will be better" is a very negative outcome. It would be opposing what we call humanity.

It's the same with the abortion thread. People can't abuse the technology, otherwise the ethical means, becoming useless. But such is the market, so technology is not about ethics, but about money. They are opposites.

The society gets benefit from this research though, more jobs open up to fill in the space, but that is the outcome of the system.

[Khethil]

Thank you Fatal - Very interesting issue. Most opening-post questions have been (at least initially) addressed. I'd like to sound off for what it's worth on this topic.

The vast majority of our medical industry (insofar as the united states is concerned), by and large, works on a for-profit basis. As long as this continues, every maxim of responsible, humane care (from the hyprocatical oath and forward) is practically meaningless and will only find expression in those few individuals who cling to an idealistic approach (bless them!).

In the way things are now, the medical industry has no more obligation to address this issue - in a practical sense - than Dairy Queen has to make Vanilla ice cream into air guitar-playing bunny shapes. What do customers want? What will sell? How can I get the largest monetary benefit for the least resource expenditure? This is sad, unethical and wantonly destructive - but it's how we're living I'm afraid.

As far as treatment, psychological effects, causes and such, Obesity is like any other disease and (imho) should be dealt with as such. I too have seen friends and family live with its negative effects. Genetic predispositions, many claim, play a part (and I don't doubt that this is true to some lesser or greater extent) as do the propensities of folks from lower-economic means. I have sneaking suspicions on the 'why', but am far from being able to give a cogent, credible answer.

I hope this isn't much of a topic-derailment. But when we examine the roles of a culture's medical profession key players, I believe we must take into account the framework in which they operate.

Thank you



------------------------
* I hope readers will excuse my rampant negativity on this issue. But I am more than a little chagrined by the effects of a "Health Care for Profit" set up.