2 years, 4 months ago
If people are killing the planet, and the longer you live, the more health care you need, shouldn't we be encouraging bad living?
If we drop seatbelt laws, helmet laws, transfat bans, and smoking bans, and encourage people to eat however they want and be sedentary, people would die younger. This would mean fewer people wrecking the planet and lower health care expenses as people succumbed to death early on. I mean, if you don't die in a car accident, you may waste away in a nursing home for 20 years.
(I'm playing devil's advocate, because I can't understand why many green advocates also seem to want government to protect us from hurting ourselves. )
(I'm playing devil's advocate, because I can't understand why many green advocates also seem to want government to protect us from hurting ourselves. )
Separate topics with commas, or by pressing return. Use the delete or backspace key to edit or remove existing topics.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
There are three main aspects to the answer to your question.
First, human population size is much more complicated than you are assuming. Although dying somewhat younger would tend to slightly reduce the population other factors, such as how early people have children and how many they have and food supply and epidemic diseases all affect it far more. This is especially true as most of the long term health problems addressed by public health affect people past their reproductive ages. So basically, the somewhat earlier deaths just aren't enough to matter to population size.
Second is that the people who harm themselves through avoidable risks don't just disappear cleanly without fuss. Bad diet leads to long term disabilities and large amounts of extra, expensive health care. For everyone killed outright in a car or motorcycle crash several are maimed, disabled, or otherwise requiring long term, expensive health care.
Lastly all these people-years lost are coming after society has invested massive ammounts in education, health, food etc just to get them to the point where they become unproductive.
The net sum of all this is that the benefits to population are very small and the costs to society are very great.
First, human population size is much more complicated than you are assuming. Although dying somewhat younger would tend to slightly reduce the population other factors, such as how early people have children and how many they have and food supply and epidemic diseases all affect it far more. This is especially true as most of the long term health problems addressed by public health affect people past their reproductive ages. So basically, the somewhat earlier deaths just aren't enough to matter to population size.
Second is that the people who harm themselves through avoidable risks don't just disappear cleanly without fuss. Bad diet leads to long term disabilities and large amounts of extra, expensive health care. For everyone killed outright in a car or motorcycle crash several are maimed, disabled, or otherwise requiring long term, expensive health care.
Lastly all these people-years lost are coming after society has invested massive ammounts in education, health, food etc just to get them to the point where they become unproductive.
The net sum of all this is that the benefits to population are very small and the costs to society are very great.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
If I interpret correctly, you are saying that there is no clear prediction on the outcome. Should we not then allow people to choose for themselves?
No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that the answer to your question about an apparent contradiction in the opinions of people who support both the environment and public health and safety is that the effects of their proposals on public health and safety do not in fact significantly harm the environment and do in fact help society. Both items are quite clear in their predictions and neither has anything to do with people choosing for themselves or not.