Of roads and rulers.

In the UK, unadopted roads can be well-maintained, or look like this...

Residents of Tennyson Avenue, Thorne, have been battling for years to have their unadopted road repaired. They have now been told that they need to pay £5,300 each for the road to be resurfaced. Pictured back l-r are Russ Clarke, Sue Taylor, Anne Kershaw, and her husband George. Front l-r are Lyn Shadlock, and Paul Willerton. Picture: Liz Mockler D2524LM

The following scenario is made-up. All characters are fictitious and any similarity to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental.

Nigel/Nigella lives on an unadopted road and got fed up riding his/her bicycle on the road as it was full of pot-holes. He/she called a residents meeting and made the following proposal:-

I will organise the repair of our road. I will phone some road repair companies and get them to quote for the repair of our road. I will call another residents meeting to tell you the pros and cons of each company and their quotes. We will then vote to decide which company gets the job. We will all contribute an equal amount to cover the cost of the repair plus a reasonable allowance for me, to cover my time spent.

Two outcomes come to mind.

1) Nigel/Nigella is a charismatic "people-person". All of the residents agree that Nigel/Nigella can organise the repair of the road and on his/her allowance. They later vote for a repairer and pay Nigel/Nigella the monies required. Nigel/Nigella gets the company to repair the road. Everyone is deliriously happy. Nigel/Nigella becomes head of the residents association. Nigel/Nigella becomes Mayor. Nigel/Nigella becomes MP. Nigel/Nigella becomes Prime Minister.

2) Nigel/Nigella is a nerd with poor social skills. One or more of the residents refuses to pay for repair of the road as they drive "Chelsea Tractors" (4x4s) and potholes are not a problem for them. The project is cancelled. Nigel/Nigella vows to not bother trying to make life better for people in future. The road remains full of pot-holes, like the one in the picture above.

The above scenario applies to residential roads. Who maintains non-residential roads? If no-one is in charge, all non-residential roads would need toll-barriers at entrances and exits, to collect monies for their maintenance. Alternatively, everyone pays road/council tax to some authority to cover the cost of road maintenance plus other essential services plus cost of organisation and lets the authority get on with it. "Top-down" authority has its advantages. We pay someone else to sweat the petty stuff.

Many years ago, life was simple. Things got done by individuals and groups of individuals. Nowadays, life is extremely complicated. To make things run relatively smoothly, we have laws, rules & regulations. Some laws, rules & regulations are good and some are stupid. The only way to get rid of the stupid ones is to vote for the person who pledges to abolish the largest number of stupid ones (and introduce the smallest number of new stupid ones) and hope that that person sticks to their pledges if they are elected.

Politics, Religion and Diet.

Three subjects that people love to fight about, as they are about beliefs ;-)

Human population vs Year.

 

Politics:

In Palaeolithic times, there weren't many people living on this planet. People hunted and gathered their food, and had relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. According to archaeologists, violence in hunter-gatherer societies was ubiquitous. Approximately 25% to 30% of adult male deaths in these societies were due to homicide, compared to an upper estimate of 3% of all deaths in the 20th century. The cause of this is near constant tribal warfare: "From the !Kung in the Kalahari to the Inuit in the Arctic and the aborigines in Australia, two-thirds of modern hunter-gatherers are in a state of almost constant tribal warfare, and nearly 90% go to war at least once a year." However, due to the extremely low population back then, extremely few people were killed in absolute terms. Then, around 10,000 BC, some bright spark/bulb invented agriculture...

Fast-forward a few thousand years to the time of Genghis Khan. He came to power by uniting many of the nomadic tribes of north-east Asia. The Mongol invasions resulted in wholesale massacres of civilian populations. His descendants went on to stretch the Mongol Empire across most of Eurasia by conquering or creating vassal states out of all of modern-day China, Korea, the Caucasus, Central Asian countries, and substantial portions of modern Eastern Europe, Russia and the Middle East. Many of these invasions repeated the earlier large-scale slaughters of local populations. However, due to the low population (around 300 million), few people were killed in absolute terms. Then, around 1,600 AD, some bright spark/bulb invented government...

As mentioned in How did we get to where we are today? Part 2., the invention of liberal government encouraged the exchange of ideas and entrepreneurship. Monarchies taxed people, but their bureaucracies stifled entrepreneurship, so the French and the Chinese invented loads of stuff that never saw the light of day. We Brits got lucky. As a result, the Industrial Revolution created wealth out of dirt, which led to rapid economic growth and rapid population growth. The Green Revolution led to more rapid population growth.

Fast-forward to the 21st Century. Warfare has killed millions of people. Rulers have killed hundreds of millions of people (the vast majority by totalitarian & authoritarian regimes), according to Anarchy Begins at Home: The Blog Series Part 6 – Democide. However, due to the extremely high population, only approximately 5.6% of the total population have been killed by rulers. That's what I call relative peace.

EDIT: I don't want a system where entire populations can be slaughtered by armies led by a charismatic leader. I also don't want a system where the poor & underprivileged are "free" to die in poverty. Some people scrounge off Social Security, but the amount of money scrounged by them pales into insignificance compared to the amount of money scrounged off the rest of us by the wealthiest people on this planet.

 

Religion:

I'm not religious. I have no problem with people believing in God, as long as they have no problem with me not believing in God. A thought experiment that you may find interesting is God's Debris, by Scott Adams.

 

Diet:

Read the rest of my blog, dammit!

In other news...
Mum is now in a coma, but her breathing is regular.

Failure to communicate, civil wars and dim bulbs.

Hat-tip to marie (who's a very bright bulb indeed!) for the following video.


Whaz so civil 'bout war anyway?

The reason why I'm writing this is because there's (un)civil war on the internets between various "camps".

At any given moment:-
There are people who function physically & mentally at their best on VLC/Keto diets.
There are people who function physically & mentally at their best on LC diets.
There are people who function physically & mentally at their best on MC diets.
There are people who function physically & mentally at their best on HC diets.
There are people who function physically & mentally at their best on VHC diets.
As people's circumstances change, they move to a different category.

If you don't understand what I wrote above, you are a dim bulb.
If you think that insults can offend me, you are a dim bulb.
If you think that agreeing 90% with someone makes me an ass/arse-kisser, you are a dim bulb.
If you think that I'll take insults from you without retaliation, you are a dim bulb.
Sadly, due to the Dunning–Kruger effect, dim bulbs are too dim to know that they are dim bulbs!
If you are offended by anything that I wrote above, I don't care.

In other news...
Mum's condition has deteriorated to the point where she is unresponsive and no longer has a swallow reflex. It's just a matter of time before she dies. I've been prepared for this for quite some time.

Global Wealth Inequality - What you never knew you never knew.

Hat-tip to Johann Hari for the following video.


Wow, just wow.

How did we get to where we are today? Part 2.

If the video is deleted due to copyright infringement and is irreplaceable, I will delete the post.

From Why the Industrial Revolution Happened Here:-
"Professor Jeremy Black examines one of the most extraordinary periods in British history: the Industrial Revolution. He explains the unique economic, social and political conditions that by the 19th century, led to Britain becoming the richest, most powerful nation on Earth. It was a time that transformed the way people think, work and play forever.

He traces the unprecedented explosion of new ideas and technological inventions that transformed Britain's agricultural society into an increasingly industrial and urbanised one. Why the Industrial Revolution Happened Here explores two fascinating questions - why did the industrial revolution happen when it did, and why did it happen in Britain?

Professor Black discusses the reasons behind this transformation; from Britain's coal reserves, which gave it a seemingly inexhaustible source of power, to the ascendency of political liberalism, with engineers and industrialists able to meet and share ideas and inventions. He explains the influence that geniuses like Josiah Wedgewood had on the consumer revolution and travels to Antigua to examine the impact Britain's empire had on this extraordinary period of growth."

Health, wealth and happiness.

Uh-oh! Another title with three items.

The Three Stooges in 1938's Healthy, Wealthy and Dumb. L to R: Moe Howard, Curly Howard, Larry Fine

Which of the three things in the title is the most important?

I run a health blog, so you don't need to be a rocket scientist to guess my opinion. Health. As I mentioned in "The Diet Debacle" debacle, you are what you eat i.e. if you eat/drink rubbish, you get a rubbish body. Therefore, what people eat/drink is important in order to maximise their health.

Should "food" manufacturers (whose prime objective is to maximise their profits) have the right to unduly influence people's food choices (which results in them experiencing deteriorating health) by using cunning marketing methods? I say "No".

Should "food" manufacturers have the right to unduly influence politicians into subsidising the raw ingredients of their "food" by bribery lobbying? I say "No".

It's been argued that "food" manufacturers should have the right to free speech. I disagree, as the motives of a "food" manufacturer are completely different from the motives of an individual.

I'm not arguing for a ban on the marketing of non-food items or stopping government subsidies for non-food items. Am I really asking so much?

The above are moot points, as "food" manufacturers and governments are very powerful, and nobody wants to give up power. Therefore, nothing much will change unless you people out there can persuade other people to do what you are doing by leading by example, and so on. If enough people stop buying "food" (and I'm using quotes deliberately, as a lot of "food" isn't fit for pig-swill, let alone human consumption) and start buying, cooking & eating real food, some "food" manufacturers might experience such a large drop in profits that they go out of business.

"The Diet Debacle" debacle.

What's that funny smell?

According to Robert H. Lustig in The Diet Debacle,"If a calorie is a calorie, then any food can be part of a balanced diet; and, if we are what we eat, then everyone chooses what they eat."

Firstly, the first nutritional maxim isn't "A calorie is a calorie". It's actually "Where bodyweight is concerned, a calorie is a calorie". Leaving out the first four words makes a huge difference to the meaning.

Secondly, the second nutritional maxim actually means "Your body is made out of what you eat. Therefore, if you eat/drink rubbish, you get a rubbish body.

Apart from that, the rest of the article is absolutely fine*.

*The above sentence ending in "*" is pure irony. See also Review & Critique: The Skinny on Obesity ~ Intro and Part I and Review & Critique: The Skinny on Obesity ~ Part II Sickeningly Inaccurate.

The sad thing is that I actually sympathise with Robert H. Lustig's aim, which is to reduce the humongous amount of sugar that Americans shove down their throats in solid or liquid form.

I don't want to come across as a Socialist Asshole (it's Arsehole, Sean!), but intervention is sometimes needed to stop certain humans and groups thereof (e.g. companies/corporations) from harming other humans and groups thereof (e.g. the general population).

In City of New York Bureau of Food Discipline, Sean wrote "Never mind that the record of government diet intervention is abysmal, this time it will work." I can't speak for the US, as I don't know how things work over there. Here in the U.K, DEFRA aims to maintain standards in the way that crops that are grown and in the management of farm animals. The FSA aims to maintain standards for food safety, although they do occasionally come out with some dubious nutritional advice (read the comments to see some familiar names).

Just because government agencies occasionally cock things up, does that mean that we should have zero government intervention where food is concerned? I obviously think not!

See also What Is Food? and Former Coke executive slams ‘share of stomach’ marketing campaign.

Addendum: If (as I believe) corporations should be prevented from unduly influencing the general population in their food choices by banning all advertisements for foods & drinks, then governments should also be prevented from unduly influencing the general population in their food choices by banning food policies and crop subsidies. All that governments should do food-wise is enforce food safety standards.

Google giggles.

If it's good enough for CarbSane, it's good enough for me!

Somebody found my blog by Googling for:-

nigeepoo idiocy

It's probably due to the ongoing discussions about politics! ;-p

In other news, I noticed that another four rooms on mum's floor (high-dependence) of the care home no longer had names by the doors. This means that another four old folk just died. That's five deaths on mum's floor in one week.

Mum was on good form on Monday. I gave her somebody's thrown-away Daily Mail (don't shoot me!) and she enjoyed looking through it, though I had to turn the pages for her. She managed to read some words out loud and even recognised Dustin Hoffman in a picture.

I supplied the nurse with an unopened bottle of Seven Seas high-strength fish oil and an unopened tub of Epsom Salts with instructions on daily dosage.

Don't you wish you were as smart as the Finns?

The title is blatant plagiarism from Don’t You Wish You Were As Smart as Lyle McDonald?

Firstly, Lyle McDonald is very, very smart indeed. So smart that Richard Nikoley now accepts the fact that, where weight gain/loss is concerned, calories count.

Secondly, there's a video being promulgated by government-haters. Here it is:-


I have two questions for the government-haters.

1) Who funds money-pits such as Accident & Emergency services?
2) Who funds money-pits such as Social Security?

Finland has a Socialist Democracy with minimal corruption. Finland runs like clockwork and, apart from depression caused by a lack of you-know-what, Finns are basically happy. In fact:-




In other news, the chief carer on mum's floor told me that mum recognised me and my sister in the pictures on the wall in her room. My chattiness has stimulated her brain!

When nerds attack!

Things can get pretty steamy. As I mentioned in Both Sides Now: Nerds!, we can be a little obsessive.


Basically, everybody who blogs about Diet & Nutrition is a nerd to some degree. If you're that obsessive about your diet that you've achieved success with it, you must be nerdly inclined. So here's a list (nerds love to make lists) of some nerdy bloggers. This is meant to be a bit of fun, so don't go all nerdy on me and shoot the messenger!

In no particular order, but ladies first:-

1) ItsTheWooo: I really like Wooo, because under that nerdy exterior lies a heart of gold. She out-nerds me by miles, though!

2) CarbSane: I deliberately put Evelyn next to Woo as that's about as close as these two are ever going to get! I like Evelyn because of her no-nonsense style.

3) Denise Minger: Denise cracks me up with some of the stuff she comes out with. She has an infectious giggle when she's lecturing. She also has the cojones to take on giants like T. Colon Campbell (oops!).

4) Kurt Harris MD: This chap really knows his stuff. I majorly pissed Kurt off last year by nerdily sticking-up for Aldi's "Solesta" EVOO (it only has 6.6% pufas!).

5) Richard Nikoley: This chap really knows his stuff (except for one topic ;-D). I majorly pissed Richard off recently by discussing politics with him. We have totally different views. I goaded Richard into calling me a "miserable, dishonest, lying f*ck of a wasted f*ck." We seem to be getting on better now. I mentioned politics once, but I think I got away with it!

6) Sean: An ex-engineer, so a top bloke. I goaded Sean into calling me a "hysterical c*nt". My bad!

7) Lyle McDonald: What Lyle doesn't know about Diet & Nutrition fits on a postage stamp. I've probably pissed him off as well!

8) LeonRover: Not a blogger, but he has proved invaluable in correcting expressions such as "Stone the flaming crows" and "No way, José".

Anyway, enough of all this silliness. It's time to visit mum.

You can’t please all of the people...

...all of the time. I see that I've lost a few followers recently. I guess some of my recent posts have been too controversial. The triple-whammy of bad things that happened last year (and which sent me into several months of depression) have all been resolved and my mood is now very positive.

I don't write posts to gain followers. I'm not trying to start a new religion. I write in order to dump my thoughts to hard copy so that I can go over them and also so that you can critique them.

I've just added Food Politics to my blog list. Marion Nestle writes about it, so I don't have to.

Bias, Part 2.

I know what I like! Here's Genesis from their "Seconds Out" concert.



If you like/trust somebody/some organisation, they can do no wrong. Everything that they say/do is interpreted in the best possible light.

If you dislike/distrust somebody/some organisation, they can do no right. Everything that they say/do is interpreted in the worst possible light.

I like/trust people. I give people the benefit of the doubt. Three strikes and they're out, though! Ditto for tradespeople and small businesses. To minimise the chance of getting ripped-off, I use personal recommendations and sites like http://www.checkatrade.com/

I don't dislike large organisations, but I don't trust them. I consider big businesses to be soulless money-making machines, and governments to be incompetent and/or corrupt (to varying degrees) people-ruling machines.

This post is also about arguments on the internet. My plea is this:-
Please support your likes/trusts and dislikes/distrusts with evidence if at all possible. If you want to get rid of something that you dislike/distrust, please suggest a workable alternative.

How did we get to where we are today?

Uh-oh. Here comes another political post. But first...


Someone (now dead) wrote "You tend to get what you accept". In a democracy, it's more a case of "You tend to get what the majority accept". Why did the majority accept things that took away their freedom? Adam Curtis has a few ideas (surprise, surprise!)

1) The state promised prosperity through rationality, science and technology.


2) The state manipulated history and our memories.


3) The state promised happiness through consumerism and by giving us what we wanted.


4) The state got us to give away our freedom by scaring the shit out of us.


5) The state exploited our natural distrust and selfishness.


Enjoy the dream.


So yeah, I know what the state (aided and abetted by big business) got/gets up to to keep the "peace".

Lessons in life.

I'm writing this, as I'm having a bitter argument with somebody. First, a music video.



At low population densities, humans are social, as mutual co-operation favours survival. Humans naturally form groups of about 150. At low population densities, anarchy works - for a while. However, inevitably, somebody starts cheating on somebody else. Cheating is beneficial to the cheater (until they get caught) and detrimental to the cheated. Cheaters may be physically punished, or evicted.

Nowadays, we have purpose-built places to which we evict cheaters. I know that modern-day prisons also contain people who have broken pointless laws.

As population density increases, unrest increases. There are power struggles & disputes.
In male-dominated societies, disputes are resolved by violence and murder.

In female-dominated societies, disputes are resolved by sex. N.B. Scenes of violence, murder and sex.

I know which society I'd prefer.

As population density increases, an increasing percentage of the population are antisocial.
EDIT: As population heterogeneity increases, an increasing percentage of the population are antisocial, due to group snobbery.

In the US, there is a high population density, also high heterogeneity. What do you think will happen if US citizens (who are free to carry guns) are left to run themselves? See 2012 - 2013 Violent Welfare Riots/ Looting spread across America - Gun confiscation in major cities. I predict rioting, looting and carnage.

In the UK, there is a very high population density, also high heterogeneity. What do you think will happen if UK citizens are left to run themselves? See UK - London Riots, BBC News: "Andy, we'll leave it there". I predict rioting & looting.

Rioting & looting are bad for business and are therefore not allowed.

I believe it's a sad fact of human nature that large, dense, human populations need to be controlled.

Bias.

All lies and jest. Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Here's a lovely song by Simon & Garfunkel.



I watched the Paranoia video from my last post a few times and I couldn't help but notice how balanced it was. The Labour party (Roy Jenkins) was praised, the Conservative party (Margaret Thatcher) was praised and capitalists (Rupert Murdoch) were praised. Nixon's politics were never mentioned. He was simply power-mad. The more power/influence/money that someone has, the more they have to lose and therefore the more distrustful & paranoid they become.

Since the Hutton Inquiry, the BBC has bent over backwards to appear balanced and impartial. There's probably still bias in it, but I can't see it. That's because I'm biased!

I see a lot of Confirmation bias. There are various theories out there which try to explain the recent huge rise in rates of obesity and morbid obesity, as these conditions are occurring in ever-younger people. Morbid obesity in childhood is a disaster, as it leads to fat mass hyperplasia, (rather than fat mass hypertrophy), which leads to hypoleptinaemia when significant fat mass is lost and a lifetime of low metabolic rate & excessive hunger.

There's Taubes' (Wrong) Insulin & Carbohydrate Theory Of Obesity, which makes the acronym TWICHOO.

There's Guyenet's Food Reward Theory Of Obesity, which doesn't make an acronym.

There are opposing camps of people who believe that one theory is right and the other is wrong, and they cherry-pick evidence to "prove" it. However, the two theories are not mutually exclusive. I believe that refined carbohydrates (and thus insulin) have a large influence on fat mass in people with poor blood glucose control, due to roller-coaster blood glucose & insulin levels causing lethargy and subsequent overeating. I believe that food reward has a large influence on fat mass, due to it causing overeating.

That's why I'm in favour of REAL food diets, as they reduce both blood glucose & insulin fluctuations and food reward. Please note that reward is not the same thing as deliciousness. Fries/chips aren't delicious but they are moreish. Real foods can be delicious without being moreish.

Why have we all become paranoid weirdos?

Except for you & me, and I'm not too sure about you!

Please note: "Why have we become increasingly distrustful and afraid?" is far more accurate, but nowhere near as attention-grabbing.

Adam Curtis has a few ideas.



For more Adam Curtis videos, see http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=%22Adam+Curtis%22

Politics - Bleurgh!

Just recently, I've been lying in my bed, thoughts running through my head. This always happens when I come out of a long period of depression. Here's a nice song from Robbie Williams.



When I started this blog, I made a decision to not discuss politics & religion, as they are about beliefs rather than evidence (I don't believe in angels, by the way). However...

Governments influence what we eat & drink with "Healthy Eating" guidelines.
Governments influence what we eat & drink with subsidies & taxes.
I therefore need to discuss politics.

In an ideal world:-
Governments discourage people & organisations from doing harm.
Governments discourage people & organisations from being A-holes (IMO), as A-holes make the world a worse place to live in for everyone.

In the real world:-
Governments are influenceable.
More money = more influence.
Crap-in-a-Bag/Box/Bottle (CIAB) makers make humongous profits turning cheap (and often heavily-subsidised) crops into CIAB. They have loads of money.
Fat people eat more CIAB than thin people. More fat people = increased profits.
See where this is going?

Governments do bad things. I'm not under any illusions. Governments also do good things.
I believe that greed & corruption in government is the problem, not government itself. How to solve the problem of greed & corruption in government? Answers on a postcard, please.