in message <[email hidden]>,
raisethe (') said:David Martin said:On a purely rationalist note, we shouldn't be worried about the death
rates from inactivity but the care costs per life versus the
productivity of that life.
Obviously, if someone is fitter, suffers less lost working years
through illness, and funds their retirement fully through their
pension then they could be better for society once the difference in
costs of taxes raised etc. are calculated (if you drive should you be
encouraged to smoke and drink as well? )
Surely its not that simple. Lazy fat people who die early will not
burden the state in their old age for state pension, hip replacements,
sheltered housing etc. so their care costs may be lower than that of a
fit person. It could go either way.
Think you're wrong, actually. From the state's point of view the best
citizens are those who work a long and healthy life with no chronic
illness and minimal acute illness, and then die suddenly of heart attack
or stroke.
The fat lazy unhealthy person probably has diabetes, arthritis and several
other serious chronic health problems which have to be managed from their
fifties until they cash in their chips.
Quoted message said:A utilitarian approach would be better: compare happiness per annum
multiplied by years lived for the cyclist and the fatty to see which
lifestyle should be emcouraged.
That's easier: the cyclists are happier /and/ live longer /and/ (on
average) cost the state less. There's a lot to be said for endorphin
therapy...
--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; my other religion is Emacs
