I consider Darwinian evolution the Achilles Heel of the libertarian movement. The political problem with many, if not most, libertarians, is their undiscriminating view of any restriction on what they see as their "freedoms" or "rights". By undiscriminating, I mean that they make no distinction between an abridgement of their "freedoms" by a local or state government and by the Federal government. They get as exorcised about a city council passing a restriction on the sale of fast food as they do about Federal wiretapping infringements. This has always bothered me about them and I have often asked myself, why can't they see that our government system was never intended to provide some sort of absolute freedom, but to provide checks on Federal government power.
The problem came to me forcefully in an experience I consider almost providential. I came home one night, picked up the paper from the porch and the mail from the mail box. The mail included a copy of "The Freeman", the journal of the Foundation for Economic Education. Glancing through both, I noticed that both contained an article by the libertarian economist, Walter Williams. As is my custom, I read the paper immediately and saved the journal for reading later in the evening. The article by Williams in the paper contained the best explanation of the problems with Nazi Germany that I have read anywhere in so short an exposition. Of course, von Mises's "Omnipotent Government" is better, but that is a book of 200-300 pages. I have always been interested in Nazi Germany because my father was involved in the war crimes trials and I grew up there and returned for my mission, where I talked with hundreds of Germans about their feelings about Hitler and the Third Reich. Williams explained that much of the problem stemmed from the Germans' willingness, even eagerness, to pass responsibility that rightly belonged to individuals, families, and local governments onto the Federal government. Later that evening I read Prof. Williams' article in the Freeman. It was almost a controdiction of his earlier article, if not directly, certainly in spirit. He castigated various city councils and county commissions for passing laws and ordinances with which he did not agree and called them "Lifestyle Nazis". From the earlier article it was perfectly clear that he knows that "Nazi" means "National Socialist" and whatever you may think of a person who passes a zoning law or a smoking restriction in a cafe, you certainly cannot accuse them of being either "National" or "Socialist" without greatly distorting the term. As I read his articles I asked, why are they that way?
It became clearer to me in another of Prof. Williams articles, when again he was denouncing a city commission for passing a smoking restriction of some kind. This time he exclaimed, "They are trying to take away my right to be unhealthy." I decided that the political problem with libertarinism is that they wage an idealogical battle for freedom on all fronts and ignore the real major problem. Rather like an army being attacked by tanks and missiles spending as much time looking for hornet's nests to eliminate. I am convinced that if the Libertarian Party is ever going to make an impact in America, that the one right they will have to give up is "their right to be unhealthy", but as a practical matter, (with the exception of some very outstanding libertarians like Ron Paul) that is the one right that they demand before all others. And I have to ask, why? And the answer is, of course, that they have some very bad habits which they are determined to defend before anything else.
Which brings me to Darwinian evolution. Why, in modern America, would anyone defend the use of even the mildest drugs, much less the more powerful recreational drugs such as cocaine and heroin? The answer is that they are powerfully stimulating and people enjoy using them. My own feeling, however, is that, for most people at least, they would loose their appeal if those people knew that they were self-destructive. They don't know that because they have been convinced by Darwinian thought that life at every level is reducible to chemistry and physics and therefore, no matter how irresponsible a person's lifestyle, i.e. no matter how much his lifestyle and habits may degrade his life, it can be restored, and maybe even enhanced, by the physical and chemical means.
We often hear that the polical spectrum forms a circle as opposed to a line, with the far right--the libertarians, meeting with the far left--the ultra-liberals, joining. On this issue this is largely true. They both have almost unbounded confidence in the ability of modern medicine to overcome any lifestyle problem with the application of physics and/or chemistry. What they disagree on, of course, at least nominally, is who should pay for that application. There is, however, I believe, a bit of residual and even rather deep-seated suspicion in the majority of our people, that "the right to be unhealthy" is not worth fighting for and even worth voting for.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Controversies--6--Darwinian Evolution--III
Scientific theories are known to most men almost exclusively through their applications to their lives. In the case of Darwinian evolution, the most important application has been to the practice of medicine and health care. A little thought will make it clear that there are at least three ideas stemming from Darwin's thought which have been devastating to the practice of medicine and health-care in general.
The first is the idea that man's body is a work in progress. This has resulted in the idea that certain of men's organs and body parts have become more or less superfluous through the process of evolution. Hence, it was the custom for many years to simply remove the tonsils upon the slightest provocation, or even on no provocation whatsoever. Because it has been found that the tonsils do indeed serve a purpose, there is an increasing reluctance to simply remove them when a child gets a sore throat. When I was young, the tonsils were routinely removed. I, and all my siblings, had our tonsils removed. Of my own children, only the eldest has lost his tonsils. Nevertheless, the tonsils, the appendix, the gall bladder, and probably other body organs are seen as removeable without serious side effect, because we have sort of evolved beyond their usefulness. Indeed, our whole attitude toward body organs has been deeply influenced by this thought. The emphasis in modern medicine is hardly what can we do to spare an organ, but can it be removed or replaced. In many ways this has grown almost frightful. Can anyone really believe that it will soon be that people who are rich or important have a right to the organs of those who are poor or unproductive or in some other way superfluous?
The second is the idea that what goes on inside the body mirrors what goes on outside the body. If Darwinian evolution were a company instead of a theory, its motto would be "progress through violence". Just as life in society is viewed in the Darwinian world view as "survival of the fittest" in a "dog-eat-dog" world. So what goes on inside the body is viewed as a constant struggle between body parts that, for the most part, are kept in control when you are young or if you have very good genes, but as you age, or if you are genetically unlucky, parts of your body begin to overcome other parts. Your white corpuscles eat up your red corpuscles or vice versa. The sodium begins to overpower the potassium, the body cells in one part of the body become renegades and begin overpowering everything, one organ begins doing the work of another, and so on. And, of course, there is the ever on-going relentless struggle against germs of all kinds. This kind of thinking has so predominated our thinking about medicine and health that we almost worship youth and youthfulness. It seems impossible for us to believe that there are actually societies that revere age, not only for its wisdom and experience, but because, until extreme old age, the elderlly are the most productive and healthiest members of society.
The third is the idea that live at every level is reducible to physics and chemistry. This has led to the belief that life can be restored and even enhanced through physical and chemical means. Of the three ideas, this is the most destructive. It, more than any other idea, has led us to believe that we can live irresponsibly, and that with a pill, or an operation, be restored to "my old self".
The tragedy of this thinking is that we spend more time and money in escaping the consequences of poor choices than in correcting a poor lifestyle. Medicine has become an endless quest for new cures rather than a study of what we must do to live healthfully.
The first is the idea that man's body is a work in progress. This has resulted in the idea that certain of men's organs and body parts have become more or less superfluous through the process of evolution. Hence, it was the custom for many years to simply remove the tonsils upon the slightest provocation, or even on no provocation whatsoever. Because it has been found that the tonsils do indeed serve a purpose, there is an increasing reluctance to simply remove them when a child gets a sore throat. When I was young, the tonsils were routinely removed. I, and all my siblings, had our tonsils removed. Of my own children, only the eldest has lost his tonsils. Nevertheless, the tonsils, the appendix, the gall bladder, and probably other body organs are seen as removeable without serious side effect, because we have sort of evolved beyond their usefulness. Indeed, our whole attitude toward body organs has been deeply influenced by this thought. The emphasis in modern medicine is hardly what can we do to spare an organ, but can it be removed or replaced. In many ways this has grown almost frightful. Can anyone really believe that it will soon be that people who are rich or important have a right to the organs of those who are poor or unproductive or in some other way superfluous?
The second is the idea that what goes on inside the body mirrors what goes on outside the body. If Darwinian evolution were a company instead of a theory, its motto would be "progress through violence". Just as life in society is viewed in the Darwinian world view as "survival of the fittest" in a "dog-eat-dog" world. So what goes on inside the body is viewed as a constant struggle between body parts that, for the most part, are kept in control when you are young or if you have very good genes, but as you age, or if you are genetically unlucky, parts of your body begin to overcome other parts. Your white corpuscles eat up your red corpuscles or vice versa. The sodium begins to overpower the potassium, the body cells in one part of the body become renegades and begin overpowering everything, one organ begins doing the work of another, and so on. And, of course, there is the ever on-going relentless struggle against germs of all kinds. This kind of thinking has so predominated our thinking about medicine and health that we almost worship youth and youthfulness. It seems impossible for us to believe that there are actually societies that revere age, not only for its wisdom and experience, but because, until extreme old age, the elderlly are the most productive and healthiest members of society.
The third is the idea that live at every level is reducible to physics and chemistry. This has led to the belief that life can be restored and even enhanced through physical and chemical means. Of the three ideas, this is the most destructive. It, more than any other idea, has led us to believe that we can live irresponsibly, and that with a pill, or an operation, be restored to "my old self".
The tragedy of this thinking is that we spend more time and money in escaping the consequences of poor choices than in correcting a poor lifestyle. Medicine has become an endless quest for new cures rather than a study of what we must do to live healthfully.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Controversies--5--Darwinian Evolution--II
Although we tend to think of Darwin's theory of evolution as a scientific theory, we deal with it in popular discourse much more like a political theory or idea. The very fact that Darwin's theory is still a subject of debate after all these years is a clear indication that it has a very large political component. Compare Darwin's theory with other scientific theories or ideas that are important economically and even politically. For example, there is hardly any scientific concept more important to our way of life and our economy than the thermodynamic cycles that explain the operation of our large engines, particularly the Otto cycle that explains the operation of the internal combustion engine.
Suppose you go into an automobile dealership and the salesman approaches you and asks if he can help you. You respond that you are interested in buying a new car. The salesman in turn responds that he has many fine automobiles that he would be glad to show you, but before he does, so that he doesn't waste his time or yours, he requires you to sign a statement saying that you believe in the Otto cycle. The most likely response to such a request of 99.99% of the American public would be, "Otto cycle? What the blazes is this Otto cycle that I am supposed to believe in?" Fairly recently I have read two commentaries by prominent political pundits, George F. Will and Thomas Friedman, bemoaning American ignorance of Darwin's theory of evolution and yet Darwin is no where near as important in our day to day lives and our economic well being as the Otto cycle. Why don't they bemoan American ignorance of that? The fact is that compared with their knowledge of the Otto cycle, American high school students are positive whiz kids on their knowledge of Darwin.
We really don't even speak about "belief" in respect to scientific ideas. I doubt that there is even an engineer who has applied to work at an automobile company or teach at a university who is asked if he believes in the Otto cycle. Can you imagine an electrician showing up at your doorstep saying he would fix your house wiring only after you sign a statement assuring him that you believe in Maxwell's equations?
Obviously, we can have no quarrel with the biologist who assures us that because he understands Darwin, he is able to develop more disease resistant peaches, or the geologist who states that his understanding of Darwin enables him to better find oil. For my part, I would be a little sceptical of such statements, but I certainly cannot argue with them if I want better peaches or more oil. One reason I am sceptical of such claims stems from personal experience. I invite, for example, the reader to get a copy of the first edition of James Watson's "Microbiology of the cell" and read the paean to Darwin and compare it with the similar essay on Mendel in the same volume. Mendel's work relates very directly and very understandably to everything that follows. On the other hand, after waxing eloquent about what a wonderful guy Darwin was and how very important his work was, the only thing Dr. Watson can actually come up with to relate what follows in his volume to Darwin's work is that somehow it shows that cell biology follows the same rules as chemistry and physics. To someone in physics this is a stretch, although, Watson's partner, Francis Crick who was a physicist (Watson was a biologist), was a big fan of Darwin so he must of somehow made reconcilition, but the only reconciliation I ever heard in my studies was "life is an open system"--a rather lame reconciliation at best.
The point here is that we discuss and treat Darwin's theory different than any other scientific theory, and the way we treat it is really an indication that, in popular discourse at any rate, it is more in the political arena than the scientific arena. We will, in my opinion, never know the value of Darwin's theory until it is removed from the political arena, any more than we can know the value of anything that belongs in the free market, but is transferred into the poitical market.
In the next segment I will try to relate the problems that Darwinian thought has created for health care and thus relate the two controversies.
Suppose you go into an automobile dealership and the salesman approaches you and asks if he can help you. You respond that you are interested in buying a new car. The salesman in turn responds that he has many fine automobiles that he would be glad to show you, but before he does, so that he doesn't waste his time or yours, he requires you to sign a statement saying that you believe in the Otto cycle. The most likely response to such a request of 99.99% of the American public would be, "Otto cycle? What the blazes is this Otto cycle that I am supposed to believe in?" Fairly recently I have read two commentaries by prominent political pundits, George F. Will and Thomas Friedman, bemoaning American ignorance of Darwin's theory of evolution and yet Darwin is no where near as important in our day to day lives and our economic well being as the Otto cycle. Why don't they bemoan American ignorance of that? The fact is that compared with their knowledge of the Otto cycle, American high school students are positive whiz kids on their knowledge of Darwin.
We really don't even speak about "belief" in respect to scientific ideas. I doubt that there is even an engineer who has applied to work at an automobile company or teach at a university who is asked if he believes in the Otto cycle. Can you imagine an electrician showing up at your doorstep saying he would fix your house wiring only after you sign a statement assuring him that you believe in Maxwell's equations?
Obviously, we can have no quarrel with the biologist who assures us that because he understands Darwin, he is able to develop more disease resistant peaches, or the geologist who states that his understanding of Darwin enables him to better find oil. For my part, I would be a little sceptical of such statements, but I certainly cannot argue with them if I want better peaches or more oil. One reason I am sceptical of such claims stems from personal experience. I invite, for example, the reader to get a copy of the first edition of James Watson's "Microbiology of the cell" and read the paean to Darwin and compare it with the similar essay on Mendel in the same volume. Mendel's work relates very directly and very understandably to everything that follows. On the other hand, after waxing eloquent about what a wonderful guy Darwin was and how very important his work was, the only thing Dr. Watson can actually come up with to relate what follows in his volume to Darwin's work is that somehow it shows that cell biology follows the same rules as chemistry and physics. To someone in physics this is a stretch, although, Watson's partner, Francis Crick who was a physicist (Watson was a biologist), was a big fan of Darwin so he must of somehow made reconcilition, but the only reconciliation I ever heard in my studies was "life is an open system"--a rather lame reconciliation at best.
The point here is that we discuss and treat Darwin's theory different than any other scientific theory, and the way we treat it is really an indication that, in popular discourse at any rate, it is more in the political arena than the scientific arena. We will, in my opinion, never know the value of Darwin's theory until it is removed from the political arena, any more than we can know the value of anything that belongs in the free market, but is transferred into the poitical market.
In the next segment I will try to relate the problems that Darwinian thought has created for health care and thus relate the two controversies.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Controversies--4--Darwinian Evolution--1
In dealing with controversies I am still working with health care. I have in previous articles explored the political/economic policies that have contributed to our current poor state of health, e.g. the "Roosevelt" food plan that grew out of the farmer's subsidies and the "Truman" health care plan which grew out of the imposition of wage controls after WWII. I then looked at the implied policy, implied in that it is never explicitly stated as such, that because America is a "rich" country, that its citizens have the right to live as irresponsibly as the rich have traditionally lived. Today I begin an exploration into the deeper roots of our health problems. These extend back to the very beginning of our Republic and beyond to our European roots. I am going to do it in a rather round about way by looking at another controvery, i.e. Darwinian evolution.
It is important to recognize that although we discuss Darwinian evolution as a subject of science, the controversy that surrounds it has little to do with science and a great deal to do with politics. It is my firm belief that any object, theory or thing that properly belongs in the free market, whether that market is the market for sugar or homes, or capital, or ideas and theories, and is shifted to the political arena, where it really does not belong, determining the value of that thing/object/idea/theory becomes very difficult. Indeed, a great deal of the motivation to keep whatever it is that has been removed from the free market firmly in the political market place, is that those who keep it there are afraid that it (whatever "it" is) would be vastly undervalued in the free market. We will see how this applies to wages later. Today we are exploring this idea with respect to a theory--Darwin's theory of evolution.
For me, this is best illustrated by my own experience, which I offer forewith.
When I began my graduate school studies in biophysics, the physics department was about equally divided on the subject of evolution. About half said they were sceptical about it due to 2nd law (of thermodynamics) considerations and the other half essentially said, "The geologists and biologists accept it. They are scientists. I am a scientist. I wouldn't like them making declarations about my science, I don't think that I should make declarations about theirs." When, and if pressed, they would add, "Besides life is an open system and the 2nd law doesn't apply." My own major professor, and the university's only biophysicist had not made his view known, so I was eager to hear what he would say when he was asked to give a lecture on Darwinian evolution. The lecture was a part of a series of lectures on controversial topics, most of them, of course, political in nature. Dr. Dibble, my major professor, began his lecture by citing several of the examples provided to him by the geologists and biologists when they heard that he was to give the lecture. He said that he was impressed with all these "proofs" but that they did not overcome his own doubts due to the 2nd law considerations. In short, he could not accept the validity of the theory of evolution as expounded by Darwin because, he felt, it violated the 2nd law.
Had he been asked to give that lecture at the end of my graduate career, I suspect that he would have been forced to temper his conclusion considerably. The reason was that in the interim the legislature of Lousiana, in an effort to stem the outflow of students in the public school whose parents were using alternatives because of the objection to materials being taught, notably evolution, passed a law saying that if Darwinian evolution were taught an alternative should also be taught. Not surprisingly, the geological society and the biological society objected. Unfortunately, the American Physical Society, whose business, in my opinion, it was none of, also issued a statement of protest and added effectively, that anyone wishing to consider themselves a part of the physics community would back them up. This, of course, would have been only so much hot air, were it not for the fact that the American Physical Society wields a great deal of influence in deciding who gets government research grants. In other words, if you wanted to get any government money for your research, you better not be making any anti-Darwinian comments.
As a sop to the members of the society who had 2nd law objections, the society magazine "Physics Today" published an article by a Russian physicist showing, he claimed, at least, that at the beginning of every physical process there is a very short period of time when entropy decreases (i.e. the 2nd law is effectively violated). Conviently, he made the period of time for any observable process (such as an explosion) so short that his theory was not really experimentally verifiable. (For example, in a process such as an explosion which from beginning to end might last 30 seconds, the period of entropy increase was only one trilloneth of a second). His "proof" consisted largley of a series of rather complex statistical themodynamic equations. Since I was taking a graduate class in statistical themodynamics at the time, I suggested to the instructor that going over the equations in this article might afford a better example than the ones in the text book. He initially agreed, but later changed his mind saying that he didn't have time in the class to do it. My own guess is that he either didn't understand the equations himself or decided that the whole subject was too politically charged to get involved with.
In the next post I will continue this subject by looking at the difference in the way we look at typical science theories and the way we look at Darwinian evolution. For now, I merely wish to state that my own experiences, including the one detailed above have convinced me that knowing the truth of Darwin's theory--indeed of any theory--so long as it remains in the political arena is very difficult, if not impossible.
It is important to recognize that although we discuss Darwinian evolution as a subject of science, the controversy that surrounds it has little to do with science and a great deal to do with politics. It is my firm belief that any object, theory or thing that properly belongs in the free market, whether that market is the market for sugar or homes, or capital, or ideas and theories, and is shifted to the political arena, where it really does not belong, determining the value of that thing/object/idea/theory becomes very difficult. Indeed, a great deal of the motivation to keep whatever it is that has been removed from the free market firmly in the political market place, is that those who keep it there are afraid that it (whatever "it" is) would be vastly undervalued in the free market. We will see how this applies to wages later. Today we are exploring this idea with respect to a theory--Darwin's theory of evolution.
For me, this is best illustrated by my own experience, which I offer forewith.
When I began my graduate school studies in biophysics, the physics department was about equally divided on the subject of evolution. About half said they were sceptical about it due to 2nd law (of thermodynamics) considerations and the other half essentially said, "The geologists and biologists accept it. They are scientists. I am a scientist. I wouldn't like them making declarations about my science, I don't think that I should make declarations about theirs." When, and if pressed, they would add, "Besides life is an open system and the 2nd law doesn't apply." My own major professor, and the university's only biophysicist had not made his view known, so I was eager to hear what he would say when he was asked to give a lecture on Darwinian evolution. The lecture was a part of a series of lectures on controversial topics, most of them, of course, political in nature. Dr. Dibble, my major professor, began his lecture by citing several of the examples provided to him by the geologists and biologists when they heard that he was to give the lecture. He said that he was impressed with all these "proofs" but that they did not overcome his own doubts due to the 2nd law considerations. In short, he could not accept the validity of the theory of evolution as expounded by Darwin because, he felt, it violated the 2nd law.
Had he been asked to give that lecture at the end of my graduate career, I suspect that he would have been forced to temper his conclusion considerably. The reason was that in the interim the legislature of Lousiana, in an effort to stem the outflow of students in the public school whose parents were using alternatives because of the objection to materials being taught, notably evolution, passed a law saying that if Darwinian evolution were taught an alternative should also be taught. Not surprisingly, the geological society and the biological society objected. Unfortunately, the American Physical Society, whose business, in my opinion, it was none of, also issued a statement of protest and added effectively, that anyone wishing to consider themselves a part of the physics community would back them up. This, of course, would have been only so much hot air, were it not for the fact that the American Physical Society wields a great deal of influence in deciding who gets government research grants. In other words, if you wanted to get any government money for your research, you better not be making any anti-Darwinian comments.
As a sop to the members of the society who had 2nd law objections, the society magazine "Physics Today" published an article by a Russian physicist showing, he claimed, at least, that at the beginning of every physical process there is a very short period of time when entropy decreases (i.e. the 2nd law is effectively violated). Conviently, he made the period of time for any observable process (such as an explosion) so short that his theory was not really experimentally verifiable. (For example, in a process such as an explosion which from beginning to end might last 30 seconds, the period of entropy increase was only one trilloneth of a second). His "proof" consisted largley of a series of rather complex statistical themodynamic equations. Since I was taking a graduate class in statistical themodynamics at the time, I suggested to the instructor that going over the equations in this article might afford a better example than the ones in the text book. He initially agreed, but later changed his mind saying that he didn't have time in the class to do it. My own guess is that he either didn't understand the equations himself or decided that the whole subject was too politically charged to get involved with.
In the next post I will continue this subject by looking at the difference in the way we look at typical science theories and the way we look at Darwinian evolution. For now, I merely wish to state that my own experiences, including the one detailed above have convinced me that knowing the truth of Darwin's theory--indeed of any theory--so long as it remains in the political arena is very difficult, if not impossible.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Controversies--3--Healthcare--II
Supposing I come to you with the following proposition: "I know you hate to eat vegtables. I hate it too, but here is what I will do for you. For a price, of course, I will eat your vegtables. You can eat pies, cakes, cookies, hot dogs, fries, chips, anything you want and not worry about it, because you know that I will be eating spinach, lettuce, carrots, beets, broccoli and all that sort of thing, for you." I suspect that most people would say that closing with such a bargain would be stupid. But the important question is, "since almost all Americans would say that closing such a bargain would be insane, why do they actually eat as though they had closed it? I think there are at least two answers. First, most Americans do not really believe that what they eat is all that important. And second, Americans have been fed so much information and misinformation about what is best to eat, that they are hopelessly confused, and simply give up and eat whatever they want.
Let's deal with the second problem first. In his excellent book, "The China Study", T. Colin Campbell lists a typical days menu that falls within the current government recommendations for a healthy diet. For breakfast he suggests a bowl of Fruit Loops with low fat milk, with M&M candies for dessert. For lunch and double cheeseburger is recommended. Since that isn't much, a big meal is called for dinner consisting of 3 large slices of pizza, a large glass of soda pop, and a hearty helping of sugar cookies for dessert. He breaks this down and shows exactly how this menu fits into the current government guidelines for a healthy diet. The key, of course, is that if you do eat that way you have to take a multi-vitamin pill. So essentially, the government bureaucrats paid to recommend our lifestyle and diet, are saying that we can eat whatever we want as long as we take a multivitamin.
Now to the first problem. Essentially, that problem is why do Americans believe this. Do they really think that they can be healthy on a diet of Fruit Loops, M&Ms, cheeseburgers, pizza and sugar cookies as long as they take a multivitamin pill? The answer is that they probably don't think about it. They are convinced, because our political leaders have essentially told them so, that because they are Americans, they can live as irresponsibly as the rich have traditionally lived. And just as the rich have assumed they could in some way buy themselves out of the consequences of that irresponsibility, so Americans are told that if they vote for the right people, those people will see that their irresponsibility is paid for.
The consequences of both of these problems is, of course, tragic. At enormous cost, our people are indeed surviving many years with cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, osteoporosis, and numerous other chronic diseases. But how long will we be able to pay the cost?
Let's deal with the second problem first. In his excellent book, "The China Study", T. Colin Campbell lists a typical days menu that falls within the current government recommendations for a healthy diet. For breakfast he suggests a bowl of Fruit Loops with low fat milk, with M&M candies for dessert. For lunch and double cheeseburger is recommended. Since that isn't much, a big meal is called for dinner consisting of 3 large slices of pizza, a large glass of soda pop, and a hearty helping of sugar cookies for dessert. He breaks this down and shows exactly how this menu fits into the current government guidelines for a healthy diet. The key, of course, is that if you do eat that way you have to take a multi-vitamin pill. So essentially, the government bureaucrats paid to recommend our lifestyle and diet, are saying that we can eat whatever we want as long as we take a multivitamin.
Now to the first problem. Essentially, that problem is why do Americans believe this. Do they really think that they can be healthy on a diet of Fruit Loops, M&Ms, cheeseburgers, pizza and sugar cookies as long as they take a multivitamin pill? The answer is that they probably don't think about it. They are convinced, because our political leaders have essentially told them so, that because they are Americans, they can live as irresponsibly as the rich have traditionally lived. And just as the rich have assumed they could in some way buy themselves out of the consequences of that irresponsibility, so Americans are told that if they vote for the right people, those people will see that their irresponsibility is paid for.
The consequences of both of these problems is, of course, tragic. At enormous cost, our people are indeed surviving many years with cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, osteoporosis, and numerous other chronic diseases. But how long will we be able to pay the cost?
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Controversies--2--Healthcare--I
For the past twenty years, the most consistent controversy in American politics has been over health care. Currently, as the economy is struggling, that controversy takes the front page, but even in that case a good deal of the controversy swirls around the fact that when a person loses his job, he typically also loses his health insurance, i.e. his access to "affordable health care". Even among those in our population who currently consider themselves relatively healthy there is great concern about health. Few of them do not have a parent, a sibling, a close relative or friend who do not struggle with a very expensive, chronic disease. And, although our life span is increasing, or at least, if you believe the media reports, it is. It is becoming enormously expensive to keep it increasing. When I was grade school we talked about cancer in health class and, knowing it was a dread disease, I was enormously relieved to read in the text that it was almost (with the exception of leukemia) exclusively and entirely a disease afflicting the very aged and that anyone under 60 need not worry about it. Anyone who has read through the obituaries lately knows that that is no longer the case. Likewise, adult onset diabetes was a relatively rare disease. I personally knew or even knew of on one that had it. Now, among my older friends, there are very few who don't. I remember a statement by Paul Dudley White, famous as President Eisenhower's heart doctor, that in the early days of his practice, the average American doctor had never even seen a case of heart disease. The backdrop for the controversy over health care in America is the terribly poor health of the American people. But why are they in such poor condition?
The first, and possibly most important thing to recognize about American health is that it has never been good. Americans from the earliest days of our country's founding have suffered from poor health. My own feeling is that the reason for this is that Americans have always turned a large measure of the responsibility for their health over to government. This was, of course, a tradition that they inherited from Europe. There medical doctors were trained in government schools and were typically the third and fourth sons of nobility, i.e. those for whom a position had to be provided. The tradition of government control of medical schools passed on almost seamlessly to America even after it won independence from Britain. Benjamen Rush, a prominent founding father and medical doctor, is reported to have called for freedom of medicine during the early debates about our government, but obviously that call was never incorporated into the Constitution. Of course, had an amendment been passed in the Bill of Rights requiring freedom of medical practice, it would have had little effect until after the Civil War, because until then all regulation was at the state level, but it would certainly have an enormous impact today.
Actually, there came a time when we did experience a sort of freedom of medical practice. This occurred in the middle of the nineteenth century, when discontent with the standard medical practice became so widespread that a number of alternatives sprang up. But rather, than give up control of medicine, most state legislatures merely expanded the franchise. Many students who have a favorite alternative health practice such as Hygiene (my own favorite), hydropathy, natureopathy, osteopathy, etc, are surprised to discover as they study its history that many of the early practiciners of that alternative had MD degrees. This was due to the fact that many states would allow schools teaching those alternatives to grant MD degrees. After the Civil War, and particularly, after the formation of the AMA, this franchise was again narrowed down to allopathic schools, and the practiioners in other alternatives had to award different degrees, if, in fact, the practice of that alternative was allowed at all.
The control of medicine remained largely with the state governments until the beginning of the 20th century when, with the creation of the FDA, it passed increasingly to the federal government. Because medicine has always been government controlled in our country, the corollary has been that our people have always believed that health could, to a certain extent, be bought. But that belief was tempered a great deal, even in my youth, to the belief that only in a very limited way could health be bought. It has only been in the past 30 years or so that a many, if not most Americans, have subscribed to the idea that more money translated into more health. In fact, that health requires so much money that for the average person to enjoy maximum health, the cost must somehow be passed onto others. The reason that people were sceptical about that idea when I was young and before, in my opinion, is the common observation, that rich people, those who could afford unlimited health care, were not particularly healthy. They were the ones suffering from the host of chronic diseases. One, osteporosis, was even named Dowager's Hump, meaning rich woman's hump.
Two government policies have, in my opinion, contributed greatly to the demise of American health. Both came as "unintended consequences" of poor economic policies. The first, and most devastating, came with the decision by the Roosevelt Administration to subsidize the most politically powerful farmers, the cattlemen, the dairy farmers and the large grain growers. This in turn led to the promotion by the government of these crops which promotion was canoized as the "Four Food Group" plan. Under this plan, the American people were told that three-fourths of their food (by weight--a further addition to the deception) should come from very calorically dense foods, leaving the American people to get 100% of their nutrition from less than 5% of their calories. Indeed, if the government had not required that these foods be "enriched", Americans would have been dying from Third World deficiency diseases such as beriberi, rickets, and scurvy. As the government has become more involved financially with health, there has been a growing discension within the government itself about this food plan. The first result was the push to reduce the fat content of the items in the meat and dairy groups so that, if Americans chose to use low fat meats and dairy products, they would increase the nutritious portion of their diets to as much as 10%. Later, of course, the four food group plan was scrapped altogether in favor of the "Pyramid" which is a slight, albeit, very slight, improvement.
The other disaster was the implementation by the Truman Administration of wage and price controls after WWII. Since the Democratic party was largely dependent upon labor union support, they had to give concessions to the wage freezes and the concessions they gave were to allow benefits to be increased and not counted as wage increases. The result was the health care system as we know it. Because it was not really designed with health in mind at all, but rather as an under-the-counter wage increase, the result has been to harm, more than help, health. Indeed, any objective observer would not call it a "health-care" system at all. It is, in fact, for the young and early middle aged a system of symptom alleviation, and even, symptom supression, and for the older middle aged and elderly a system of disease management.
The result of all this has been that the American people have been consistently misled as to what constitues real health and many have been convinced that they have the absolute right to live as irresponsibly as the wealthy have generally lived with respect to health. The real controversy should not center around how can we get someone else to pay to get us healthy. The real controversy should be, how can we develop a true "health care" system.
There
The first, and possibly most important thing to recognize about American health is that it has never been good. Americans from the earliest days of our country's founding have suffered from poor health. My own feeling is that the reason for this is that Americans have always turned a large measure of the responsibility for their health over to government. This was, of course, a tradition that they inherited from Europe. There medical doctors were trained in government schools and were typically the third and fourth sons of nobility, i.e. those for whom a position had to be provided. The tradition of government control of medical schools passed on almost seamlessly to America even after it won independence from Britain. Benjamen Rush, a prominent founding father and medical doctor, is reported to have called for freedom of medicine during the early debates about our government, but obviously that call was never incorporated into the Constitution. Of course, had an amendment been passed in the Bill of Rights requiring freedom of medical practice, it would have had little effect until after the Civil War, because until then all regulation was at the state level, but it would certainly have an enormous impact today.
Actually, there came a time when we did experience a sort of freedom of medical practice. This occurred in the middle of the nineteenth century, when discontent with the standard medical practice became so widespread that a number of alternatives sprang up. But rather, than give up control of medicine, most state legislatures merely expanded the franchise. Many students who have a favorite alternative health practice such as Hygiene (my own favorite), hydropathy, natureopathy, osteopathy, etc, are surprised to discover as they study its history that many of the early practiciners of that alternative had MD degrees. This was due to the fact that many states would allow schools teaching those alternatives to grant MD degrees. After the Civil War, and particularly, after the formation of the AMA, this franchise was again narrowed down to allopathic schools, and the practiioners in other alternatives had to award different degrees, if, in fact, the practice of that alternative was allowed at all.
The control of medicine remained largely with the state governments until the beginning of the 20th century when, with the creation of the FDA, it passed increasingly to the federal government. Because medicine has always been government controlled in our country, the corollary has been that our people have always believed that health could, to a certain extent, be bought. But that belief was tempered a great deal, even in my youth, to the belief that only in a very limited way could health be bought. It has only been in the past 30 years or so that a many, if not most Americans, have subscribed to the idea that more money translated into more health. In fact, that health requires so much money that for the average person to enjoy maximum health, the cost must somehow be passed onto others. The reason that people were sceptical about that idea when I was young and before, in my opinion, is the common observation, that rich people, those who could afford unlimited health care, were not particularly healthy. They were the ones suffering from the host of chronic diseases. One, osteporosis, was even named Dowager's Hump, meaning rich woman's hump.
Two government policies have, in my opinion, contributed greatly to the demise of American health. Both came as "unintended consequences" of poor economic policies. The first, and most devastating, came with the decision by the Roosevelt Administration to subsidize the most politically powerful farmers, the cattlemen, the dairy farmers and the large grain growers. This in turn led to the promotion by the government of these crops which promotion was canoized as the "Four Food Group" plan. Under this plan, the American people were told that three-fourths of their food (by weight--a further addition to the deception) should come from very calorically dense foods, leaving the American people to get 100% of their nutrition from less than 5% of their calories. Indeed, if the government had not required that these foods be "enriched", Americans would have been dying from Third World deficiency diseases such as beriberi, rickets, and scurvy. As the government has become more involved financially with health, there has been a growing discension within the government itself about this food plan. The first result was the push to reduce the fat content of the items in the meat and dairy groups so that, if Americans chose to use low fat meats and dairy products, they would increase the nutritious portion of their diets to as much as 10%. Later, of course, the four food group plan was scrapped altogether in favor of the "Pyramid" which is a slight, albeit, very slight, improvement.
The other disaster was the implementation by the Truman Administration of wage and price controls after WWII. Since the Democratic party was largely dependent upon labor union support, they had to give concessions to the wage freezes and the concessions they gave were to allow benefits to be increased and not counted as wage increases. The result was the health care system as we know it. Because it was not really designed with health in mind at all, but rather as an under-the-counter wage increase, the result has been to harm, more than help, health. Indeed, any objective observer would not call it a "health-care" system at all. It is, in fact, for the young and early middle aged a system of symptom alleviation, and even, symptom supression, and for the older middle aged and elderly a system of disease management.
The result of all this has been that the American people have been consistently misled as to what constitues real health and many have been convinced that they have the absolute right to live as irresponsibly as the wealthy have generally lived with respect to health. The real controversy should not center around how can we get someone else to pay to get us healthy. The real controversy should be, how can we develop a true "health care" system.
There
Monday, August 4, 2008
Controversies--1--The Great American Dream
Early to Bed, Early to Rise
Makes a Man Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise.
Politicians talk a great deal about the "American Dream". In recent years, indeed, through my whole lifetime, politicians have reduced that dream to material terms. When I was young, it was "own your own business", during the Carter years, as interest rates and inflation rates soared, putting housing out of reach for many, it was "own your own home". Now, based on the rhetorick of the current candidates for political office, the current "American dream" has been reduced to owning a car with a full tank of gas, or being able to go to the doctor and still buy groceries. I suspect that the American dream has more or less evaporated and been replaced by the "European dream" as it has become more and more a political commodity.
Therefore, it is good, I believe, to review a little history. Roger Babson, in his delightful little book, "The Fundamentals of Prosperity" says that people in the US are comparitively well off and those in Latin America are comparitively poor because those who came to this country came seeking God and those who came to Central and South America came seeking gold. Of course, this is a generalization that anyone who has seen Disney's Pocahontas knows is not entirely correct. Babson was, of course, thinking of the Pilgrims and the Puritans that settled New England. There is no question that for the majority of those people, the "American Dream" was to establish "the city set on a hill", the Zion society to which God would send only those predestined to be saved.
By the time of the American revolution, the dream for most Americans had become more individualized or, at least, family directed. The hope of establishing an entire Zion society, had given way to the idea of individual and family success. The man that best characterizes the American Dream of that era is Benjamin Franklin. Here is a highly successful businessman, artisan, author, inventor, scientist--all very individual achievements. At the same time, Franklin recognised the importance of social co-operation and good government as well. He established a public library, worked toward many public works in his home town of Philadelphia and was active in local government. At the same time, he recognized the importance of good state and national government. He was active at both the state and national level. He is, of course, best remembered for his work at the latter--his effort to get the Declaration of Independence written and approved, his efforts to get French support for the American Revolution, and finally, his effort to get the Constitution written and accepted.
We are alway told that Franklin was a Deist, but his comments at the constitutional convention lead me to believe that he had moved from the position of Des Carte to that of Newton. His very famous comment there was, of course, that if the govenor of the universe will not suffer a sparrow to fall without his notice, is it likely that He will help a great nation to arise without his assistance? Like Franklin, most Americans saw the American Dream as firmly rooted in indivdual responsibility and achievement, at the same time recognizing the importance of the need for social assistance. The government's role was seen largely as negative, i. e. eliminating those from the scene who want to live exclusively, or almost so, at the expense of others. That was seen as the "European Dream".
I have quoted Franklin's most famous couplet above, because I believe, until fairly recently, the achievement of health, wealth, and wisdom in some form, and in some combination, was the primary goal of most Americans, i. e. the achievement of one or more, or even all, was the "American Dream" and it was widely believed that this was achieved best without government assistance and with as little government interference as possible.
We will look at each in turn, because, of course, all three, have become in our day, very much the stuff of political controversy and we will contrast them with the American Dream and visions of other countries. We begin with "Health" largely because the "American dream" in that area has never been realized or even explained very well and we will look for possible reasons why in future articles.
Makes a Man Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise.
Politicians talk a great deal about the "American Dream". In recent years, indeed, through my whole lifetime, politicians have reduced that dream to material terms. When I was young, it was "own your own business", during the Carter years, as interest rates and inflation rates soared, putting housing out of reach for many, it was "own your own home". Now, based on the rhetorick of the current candidates for political office, the current "American dream" has been reduced to owning a car with a full tank of gas, or being able to go to the doctor and still buy groceries. I suspect that the American dream has more or less evaporated and been replaced by the "European dream" as it has become more and more a political commodity.
Therefore, it is good, I believe, to review a little history. Roger Babson, in his delightful little book, "The Fundamentals of Prosperity" says that people in the US are comparitively well off and those in Latin America are comparitively poor because those who came to this country came seeking God and those who came to Central and South America came seeking gold. Of course, this is a generalization that anyone who has seen Disney's Pocahontas knows is not entirely correct. Babson was, of course, thinking of the Pilgrims and the Puritans that settled New England. There is no question that for the majority of those people, the "American Dream" was to establish "the city set on a hill", the Zion society to which God would send only those predestined to be saved.
By the time of the American revolution, the dream for most Americans had become more individualized or, at least, family directed. The hope of establishing an entire Zion society, had given way to the idea of individual and family success. The man that best characterizes the American Dream of that era is Benjamin Franklin. Here is a highly successful businessman, artisan, author, inventor, scientist--all very individual achievements. At the same time, Franklin recognised the importance of social co-operation and good government as well. He established a public library, worked toward many public works in his home town of Philadelphia and was active in local government. At the same time, he recognized the importance of good state and national government. He was active at both the state and national level. He is, of course, best remembered for his work at the latter--his effort to get the Declaration of Independence written and approved, his efforts to get French support for the American Revolution, and finally, his effort to get the Constitution written and accepted.
We are alway told that Franklin was a Deist, but his comments at the constitutional convention lead me to believe that he had moved from the position of Des Carte to that of Newton. His very famous comment there was, of course, that if the govenor of the universe will not suffer a sparrow to fall without his notice, is it likely that He will help a great nation to arise without his assistance? Like Franklin, most Americans saw the American Dream as firmly rooted in indivdual responsibility and achievement, at the same time recognizing the importance of the need for social assistance. The government's role was seen largely as negative, i. e. eliminating those from the scene who want to live exclusively, or almost so, at the expense of others. That was seen as the "European Dream".
I have quoted Franklin's most famous couplet above, because I believe, until fairly recently, the achievement of health, wealth, and wisdom in some form, and in some combination, was the primary goal of most Americans, i. e. the achievement of one or more, or even all, was the "American Dream" and it was widely believed that this was achieved best without government assistance and with as little government interference as possible.
We will look at each in turn, because, of course, all three, have become in our day, very much the stuff of political controversy and we will contrast them with the American Dream and visions of other countries. We begin with "Health" largely because the "American dream" in that area has never been realized or even explained very well and we will look for possible reasons why in future articles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)