We Bite Back

Japanese government...
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Mal [ Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Japanese government...

Getting involved with your waistline!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world ... 0&emc=eta1

:clap: :clap: Go metabo! Go!

Author:  laura [ Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

in complete disbelief, please Canada don't get any ideas- there are other ways to save on healthcare costs.

Author:  Spender [ Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ummmm...I thought Japan had one of the fastest growing and highest rates of EDs now...what are they doing about underweight?

And the article is right; they'd be better off tackling smoking. I have never seen as many smokers in my life as when I was there...I think I stunk of cigarette smoke for weeks after I got home.

Author:  microwave [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:29 am ]
Post subject: 

'those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.'

'further reeducation'? really?
It's all going a bit too Orwellian for my liking.

Author:  Seekingnewpastures [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:51 am ]
Post subject: 

I read that before! It's Ridiculous. You're right Microwave...1984 here we come!

Author:  Recoveredandproud [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:05 am ]
Post subject: 

OMFG...... :shock:

I mean.... who the hell came up with this? And why? What the hell do they think it's going to achieve other than increase their lead in anorexia in the world...

Author:  shieldwolf [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's only for baby boomers, not the general population.

The Japanese are about a decade ahead of the curve with regards to baby boom/baby bust. They're about to have a societal collapse, and they're desperate to try to rein in the amount of medical intervention necessary as their population ages, because there aren't going to be enough young people to do the intervening.

The same type of thing is going to happen across the world. The only societies that will be immune will be those that didn't embrace birth control and non-traditional family values. Those that did are in for a decline reminiscent of the collapse of the Roman empire.

At the end of the day, they'll be better off if those boomers work hard right up until the day they quickly and quietly die. Preserving their health is not important except where it furthers this goal.

Author:  Recoveredandproud [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't really see how obsessing over their weight is going to help.. yeah guidance over what's healthy and what isn't but making it compulsory for people to have their waistlines measured isn't actually going to change anything...
The same type of thing is going to happen across the world. The only societies that will be immune will be those that didn't embrace birth control and non-traditional family values. Those that did are in for a decline reminiscent of the collapse of the Roman empire.

Erm.... how does birth control and modern rather than traditional ideals lead to the collapse of a nation?
Take China for example... they have a major problem with over population and a lot of poorer countires in places such as Africa could really do with some birth control in order to begin to allow people to be able to afford to feed their families and for it to be more economically pratical to get aid to all that live there... Countries like that are collapsing because they have no birth control.

Author:  shieldwolf [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:02 am ]
Post subject: 

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501f ... -bust.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Mar2.html


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... /index.htm

Basically, it's like this.

The wealth of a nation is in its working people. Everything stems from them.

The elderly who do not work are a drain on production.

The children who do not yet work are a drain on production.

So, if you have a baby boom, the parents bear the weight of looking after those children.

If you have a baby bust, those who would be parents are liberated to be more productive rather than raising children.

Imagine an island of 4 people. They're all young adults, working to look after themselves.

If they have 2 kids, 30 years later, those two kids have to care for 2 people each in addition to caring for themselves, and everyone is impoverished. But, until that 30 years passes, the 4 of them have more free time to enrich themselves with "stuff", because each of them cares for half a kid.

If they have 8 kids, 30 years later, those 8 kids only have to co-operate with one other kid to support the older generation. But, until that 30 years passes, those 4 adults have the burden of raising 2 children each in addition to caring for themselves.

If they have zero kids, they've got lots of free time to make pretty stuff to decorate their houses. But when they're too old to maintain their food supply, they die the next day, and everything stops, forever.

This is the nature of our current wealth.

There was a baby boom, things were tight. Then the children born in that time matured and then there was wealth. Then the boomers created a baby bust, followed by another baby bust, followed by another baby bust. So, the boomers were liberated to care only for themselves. Which is fine, until they get old and have to retire. Then, they starve to death because there aren't anywhere near enough people to look after them.

This isn't an opinion of mine. It's a global crisis, and it's going to change everything.

Author:  epic [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

Japan is graying faster than any other country in the western world. This means that the average age (on the whole) is going up every year, because as more people grow old and die, fewer people are being born to bring the average down... and as these people die the average jumps up higher. It's happening here in Canada as well (but not as fast), with the median age in my province just under 40 (and rising annually).

Social insurance/social security was originally designed with far more numbers in the working demographic than in the elderly demographic. We're moving to a situation where 60-65% of the population will be the elderly, while the other 35-40% will be made up of all other age categories. When this happens, that many elderly will be expecting to have pensions and social security checks and medicare and everything else they've come to expect... except there won't be enough people of employable age to be putting money in to social security to support them all. So... what happens? Massive cutbacks to social programs... or else, outrageous national debt as a large percentage of the national economy goes towards the care of the elderly rather than towards industry (producing things, doing things.)

Some countries will probably try to support everyone and try to keep things as normal for as long as possible.

Some might cut back on social programs realizing that there aren't enough people paying into things in order to maintain the social programs we've all taken for granted.

Some countries might spin it somehow... like saying that people have to have their waistlines measured and those who are larger will put on a mandatory diet. Or something silly like that. Like the Japan thing. I mean it's not completely out of the scope of possibility. Is it moral? You tell me. I'd be really happy if someone had a creative solution to this demographic situation most of us are entering...

Author:  Spender [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well...I don't have an "answer" per se, but there are things that we can start doing differently now, while we can make choices, or later, when we have no choice.

Something we will tackle eventually is end of life care; we have technology that allows us to keep people's bodies alive long after brain activity has ceased and our western attitudes toward death have prevented us from making tough choices about how health care resources will be allocated. We are now treating these issues as personal choices, yet some personal choices to prolong life for even a few days or weeks on machines cost a huge portion of health care budgets. I do not believe these should be personal choices, because at the end of it, we will run out of money and people to deliver services to even those with perfectly treatable conditions. Two tiered care - coming our way in the absence of meaningful discussions about how to allocate health care $$.

These difficult discussions are actively happening, mostly behind closed doors; for example, protocols are now being developed for use during the next pandemic around priorities for care of affected persons. As long as we continue to develop technologies that sustain life well past the 90's, 100, or (as I last heard) 150 years old, we are going to face a long, one-time glut on health services that will see many people not receiving care due to the paucity of numbers of health care professionals.

But this is much bigger than the development of public policy. As a society we first have to come to a different relationship with death, or no amount of public policy is going to have an impact.

Author:  shieldwolf [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:06 pm ]
Post subject: 


This is how you fix it. But don't expect anything but persecution from society, because both politically and economically, our societies are dominated by elderly who would rather those girls get on the pill, get a nursing degree and wipe their asses for them while they die in comfort.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 4 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group