Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO

[The Feral Underclass]

"UN health body says bacon, sausages and ham among most carcinogenic substances along with cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos and arsenic

Bacon, ham and sausages rank alongside cigarettes as a major cause of cancer, the World Health Organisation has said, placing cured and processed meats in the same category as asbestos, alcohol, arsenic and tobacco.

The report from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer said there was enough evidence to rank processed meats as group 1 carcinogens because of a causal link with bowel cancer.

It places red meat in group 2A, as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. Eating red meat is also linked to pancreatic and prostate cancer, the IARC says.

The IARC’s experts concluded that each 50-gram (1.8-ounce) portion of processed meat eaten daily increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages-processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Honestly....they aren't saying anything new here.

It's been well known that nitrates are potentially carcinogenic for decades.

My opinion? Moderation is still the best policy.

[bricolage]

The IARC’s experts concluded that each 50-gram (1.8-ounce) portion of processed meat eaten daily increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%."
Whereas the risks of cigarettes are in % of 1000s (although if you stop by 30 or 40 it decreases massively again). And the risk of arsenic I'm sure is even greater and is likely to kill you by other things as well. So these WHO groups just represent whether there is a casual link not how great those casual links actually are.

This is the kind of thing papers like the Daily Mail love cos you can slap as big headline on the front page but you have to really go deep into the lies, damned lies and statistics before you figure out what it's really about.

There's generally more cancer in Western countries because people are getting older and aren't dying of infectious diseases. Probably most things we do are likely to exacerbate them and it's pretty much always been known that red meat and processed meat has bad effects on the body. But you can either accept that (and yes moderating it is never a bad thing) or you can never drink, smoke or eat fatty food, live maybe ten years longer and be very smug about it.

In any case simply saying "cancer" is such a misleading thing. Identifying cancer at an early stage is so different from identifying it at a late stage that in terms of lived experience it might as well be a different disease. Get your check ups that's what I say.

[Shinyos]

To cure and prevent meats from microbial activity, an agent is added in order to render it safe to eat and to store it for long periods of time. This agent is known as an alkali metal nitrate, or more specifically, sodium nitrate and/or potassium nitrates. These are the same nitrates that are also present in plants and other vegetables, as well as ammonnium nitrate. When nitrates are ingested in the body, they need to be converted to an active metabolite that the body can use, for example, nitric oxide synthase needs nitrites to form nitric oxide, a potent vasodilator. Where the danger from the nitrites forms is when the free nitrite is combined with an amino acid to from nitrosamines, which are harmful to the body. However, this reaction can be avoided from the effects of antioxidants, one example is vitamin c.

That processed meats have the potential to cause cancer would also say that vegetables also cause cancer, which is incorrect and possibly harmful.

[Armchair Partisan]

I dunno about you, but the way I see it, there is some news of "commonly consumed substance X causes cancer!!!1!" every year and it tends to be mostly bullshit. Pardon me if I'm gonna be skeptical.


Eating red meat is also linked to pancreatic and prostate cancer, the IARC says.

This is exactly the kind of thing that sounds like correlation instead of causation - you can say "X is linked to Y" and justify it with some loose correlation (e.g.: Rise of global Earth temperature linked to increased US postage charges (http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/)).

[Sasha]

Eating lots of meat is bad for you, no shit, doesnt mean one should stop, just that you shouldnt do it everyday. There where plenty reasons before this not to do so already, good there is now one more but it wont convince me ti competely stop eating meat anymore than the many arguments against alcohol did...

[John Nada]

To cure and prevent meats from microbial activity, an agent is added in order to render it safe to eat and to store it for long periods of time. This agent is known as an alkali metal nitrate, or more specifically, sodium nitrate and/or potassium nitrates. These are the same nitrates that are also present in plants and other vegetables, as well as ammonnium nitrate. When nitrates are ingested in the body, they need to be converted to an active metabolite that the body can use, for example, nitric oxide synthase needs nitrites to form nitric oxide, a potent vasodilator. Where the danger from the nitrites forms is when the free nitrite is combined with an amino acid to from nitrosamines, which are harmful to the body. However, this reaction can be avoided from the effects of antioxidants, one example is vitamin c.

That processed meats have the potential to cause cancer would also say that vegetables also cause cancer, which is incorrect and possibly harmful.Close. It's sodium nitrite not nitrate. Plants reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium nitrite is added to prevent botulism(which the alternative, vitamin C doesn't) and as an anti-oxidant. Nitrite reacts with amino acids to make what was long know to be some of the most carcinogenic shit know, nitrosamines, like you said.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Death by bacon. There are worse causes of death.

[VCrakeV]

So, why is this not so dangerous/risky? If it can cause cancer, why is the chance so low? Are there just very few nitrites in processed meat? What about unprocessed meat?

[rylasasin]

What doesn't give you cancer these days?

[The Feral Underclass]

Eating lots of meat is bad for you, no shit, doesnt mean one should stop, just that you shouldnt do it everyday. There where plenty reasons before this not to do so already, good there is now one more but it wont convince me ti competely stop eating meat anymore than the many arguments against alcohol did...

Obviously people aren't going to stop eating large quantities of meat just because the WHO says it gives you cancer. Meat has been giving people deadly diseases for a long time and consumption has probably increased if anything. Meat as an industry hasn't just been killing humans it's been destroying the planet also. Again, consumption remains high. It is the same with cigarettes and fossil fuels. Human beings are essentially uninformed and/or indifferent to their demise, at least uninformed and indifferent enough not to take action to protect themselves and the planet from things that are dangerous for them.

The question is: why? Why do people do things that harm themselves? Why do people gamble with the future of our species? Maybe fundamentally human beings are just risk takers. Maybe we live in some existential denial. Perhaps it's a survival mechanism to protect us psychologically from dealing with our inevitable deaths. We eat meat, sugar, fat, smoke and use fossil fuels because these bad things can't happen to us. Maybe we all have some collective desire to kill ourselves slowly and painfully. Who can blame us when we consider the reality of present conditions. The problem with that of course is once we've all died of cancer and heart disease, there won't be much opportunity left to create a better world.

[Shinyos]

Close. It's sodium nitrite not nitrate. Plants reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium nitrite is added to prevent botulism(which the alternative, vitamin C doesn't) and as an anti-oxidant. Nitrite reacts with amino acids to make what was long know to be some of the most carcinogenic shit know, nitrosamines, like you said.

Thank you for the clarification. I meant to say that vitamin C ingested inside the body acts as an inhibitor to the formation of nitrosamine, not to the meat, though.



The question is: why? Why do people do things that harm themselves? Why do people gamble with the future of our species? Maybe fundamentally human beings are just risk takers. Maybe we live in some existential denial. Perhaps it's a survival mechanism to protect us psychologically from dealing with our inevitable deaths. We eat meat, sugar, fat, smoke and use fossil fuels because these bad things can't happen to us. Maybe we all have some collective desire to kill ourselves slowly and painfully. Who can blame us when we consider the reality of present conditions. The problem with that of course is once we've all died of cancer and heart disease, there won't be much opportunity left to create a better world.

Maybe people would like to do things that are potentially harmful to themselves because they have the choice to do so. Whether or not they may suffer the consequences of harming themselves, it is ultimately their choice and their life, regardless of how dangerous it may be to partake in those situations.

[Lobotomy]

The question is: why? Why do people do things that harm themselves? Why do people gamble with the future of our species? Maybe fundamentally human beings are just risk takers. Maybe we live in some existential denial. Perhaps it's a survival mechanism to protect us psychologically from dealing with our inevitable deaths. We eat meat, sugar, fat, smoke and use fossil fuels because these bad things can't happen to us. Maybe we all have some collective desire to kill ourselves slowly and painfully. Who can blame us when we consider the reality of present conditions. The problem with that of course is once we've all died of cancer and heart disease, there won't be much opportunity left to create a better world.

Eh I think it has more to do with the fact that these negative repercussions take a long time to develop. I'm in my mid 20s, so what if I eat a bunch of sausage today? My 60s feel eons away.

Anyways, I'm not surprised that red meat is harmful in large quantities. Our ancestors did not eat meat NEARLY as often as we do. Especially in the hunting-gathering part of our history, getting to eat meat was a special occasion, not a daily occurance. We didn't evolve with the equipment needed to process meat often in large quantities like carnivores do.

[Comrade Jacob]

It was pretty obvious. Just think of the shit in meat. (pork especially).

[Antiochus]

Yeah well I'd rather live to 75 eating meat than live till 76.2 eating food that tastes like ass.

[Rudolf]

Yeah well I'd rather live to 75 eating meat than live till 76.2 eating food that tastes like ass.



But ass is meat. Also meat has nothing on fruit. That shit is tastey as fuck.

[bricolage]

But ass is meat. Also meat has nothing on fruit. That shit is tastey as fuck.
But that's like comparing apples to... never mind...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Of course, percentages can be misleading. As I understand it, carcinogens from food (processed and red meat) cause 21% of all bowel cancers, compared to smoking which causes 78% of all lung cancers. So there is a 'high' risk, but it's not comparable to that of smoking, nor asbestos, especially as smoking tends to be an addiction, whereas research also tells us that eating 500g or less of red/processed meat per week can fit in as part of a healthy diet.

[The Feral Underclass]

Maybe people would like to do things that are potentially harmful to themselves because they have the choice to do so. Whether or not they may suffer the consequences of harming themselves, it is ultimately their choice and their life, regardless of how dangerous it may be to partake in those situations.

Obviously they make the decision because that have the choice, the question is why do they make a choice that is harmful for them and the world they live in.

[The Feral Underclass]

Eh I think it has more to do with the fact that these negative repercussions take a long time to develop. I'm in my mid 20s, so what if I eat a bunch of sausage today? My 60s feel eons away.

I think that view is largely based on being uninformed. You can develop type 2 diabetes and atherosclerosis fairly early on in your life. You can have diabetes in your 30s and die of a blocked artery by your 40s.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Either way, it's pretty awesome news for me rn. I've been in a deep depression and medicating myself on an all pizza diet so, with this study, my dream of commiting carbicide is scientifically possible.

[Црвена]

Isn't this just obvious? Consuming a shit-ton of anything is bad for you. Consuming a shit-ton of a substance which is already known to be linked to cancer might just cause cancer. Duh.

To echo what a bunch of people said...yeah, moderation. Luckily I was raised vegetarian, so I'm not going to have to start watching my red meat consumption because I can easily go without.

[John Nada]

So, why is this not so dangerous/risky? If it can cause cancer, why is the chance so low? Are there just very few nitrites in processed meat? What about unprocessed meat?Sometimes things can only slightly increase the risk of things like cancer or heart disease by like one in a thousand, but you multiply it to hundreds of millions or billions people with other risk factors over decades, you got capitalists responsible for mountains of bodies. They're then absolved from this mass murder because",Free Market, individual choice, eat that commie bastards!"

Sodium nitrite is used to speed up curing and make it more uniform. There's likely other methods of curing or modifications that could make it safer, or even just a big label with a warning that it can cause cancer, but that will just scare consumers into vegetarianism, parents will avoid buying it for kids and costs money that could be better spent on more yachts and mansions for "job-creators".
Thank you for the clarification. I meant to say that vitamin C ingested inside the body acts as an inhibitor to the formation of nitrosamine, not to the meat, though.It might. However a lot of nitrosamines are formed during cooking(particularly at high temperatures and longing cooking times), not just in the stomach(don't think it's mostly occurs in the bloodstream from free radicals, which vitamin C may help with). Heat and stomach acids drives the nitrite to nitrous acid(proven mutagen, and used as such to make mutated strains of plants), which reacts with amines to form nitrosamines. This doesn't damage DNA from free radicals, but the nitrosamines actually form compounds with DNA and damage it.

And vitamin C, though it's an anti-oxidant, can also act as an oxidant. It's an equilibrium that goes back and forth. According to this article, when combined with fats, this drives the redox reaction back towards oxidation and the vitamin C actually acts as a catalyst and increases nitrosamine production: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070903204800.htm
Obviously they make the decision because that have the choice, the question is why do they make a choice that is harmful for them and the world they live in.Besides cultural conditioning since childhood, the food industry intentionally tries to make food addictive. The amino acids in protein have an effect on the brain, in fact some of the fun neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine are synthesized from amino acids. Ketone's produced also have a depressant effect, which is exploited sometimes to treat epilepsy. The food industry exploits this, and conducts studies not unlike the tobacco companies to increase its addictiveness. It's no coincidence that big tobacco is heavily invested in food and agriculture, which increased after the lawsuits against them.

Even the meat industries paid apologist in the OP's article, called the vice president of "science affairs", said shit straight of the tobacco companies' playbook:
“The IARC says you can enjoy your yoga class, but don’t breathe air (class 1 carcinogen), sit near a sun-filled window (class 1), apply aloe vera (class 2B) if you get a sunburn, drink wine or coffee (class 1 and class 2B), or eat grilled food (class 2A). And if you are a hairdresser or do shift work (both class 2A), you should seek a new career.”This is the typical condescending bourgeois attitude towards workers, like "If you don't want to be paid minimum wage working in a death trap, just become homeless and die. It's your choice, don't blame me or capitalism". The "freedom" of choice is an illusion. It's bullshit.

[The Feral Underclass]

The "freedom" of choice is an illusion. It's bullshit.

I'm sorry, I just don't accept that argument. Comparing exploitation to smoking a cigarette is patently absurd. The idea that working class people cannot take responsibility for the choices they make is simply not true. In fact that is what is patronising. I don't doubt that substances are addictive, but the implication that the working class are just some feeble entity too incapable to overcome themselves is disempowering and defeatist, as well as being a lie. People are not compelled to smoke cigarettes or eat meat in the same way they are compelled to survive by selling their labour. People can stop putting carcinogens into their bodies if they want to; they cannot stop working. It is a choice people can make if they want to. The first step to ending addiction is to make the choice to end it.

[Antiochus]

I'm sorry, I just don't accept that argument. Comparing exploitation to smoking a cigarette is patently absurd. The idea that working class people cannot take responsibility for the choices they make is simply not true. In fact that is what is patronising. I don't doubt that substances are addictive, but the implication that the working class are just some feeble entity too incapable to overcome themselves is disempowering and defeatist, as well as being a lie. People are not compelled to smoke cigarettes or eat meat in the same way they are compelled to survive by selling their labour. People can stop putting carcinogens into their bodies if they want to; they cannot stop working. It is a choice people can make if they want to. The first step to ending addiction is to make the choice to end it.


But lol, they are. Just look at obesity rates. Obesity and poverty (in the U.S anyway) are directly correlated. Claiming that people can just "choose' not to do it, misses the point. So, can they "choose" to not smoke. Yeah, I suppose. They can also "choose" to work really hard in school, ace all their exams and be placed in a managerial position.

It is much easier to quit smoking when you are rich. It is much easier to lose weight when you are rich. And if all that fails, you still have a health service that can restore you back to health. Processed foods have a greater incidence of having carcinogens, but guess what? They are also cheaper, last longer and have more calories. Someone making $9 an hour can't "choose" to go to Trader Joes and buy those ridiculous "all organic" shit for $6 a pound.

[The Feral Underclass]

But lol, they are. Just look at obesity rates. Obesity and poverty (in the U.S anyway) are directly correlated. Claiming that people can just "choose' not to do it, misses the point. So, can they "choose" to not smoke. Yeah, I suppose. They can also "choose" to work really hard in school, ace all their exams and be placed in a managerial position.

I have no idea what that means.


It is much easier to quit smoking when you are rich. It is much easier to lose weight when you are rich. And if all that fails, you still have a health service that can restore you back to health.

I don't speak to the American experience, I speak to the British one. We have a free health service, including free services to help you stop smoking. Your GP will work with you to help you quit smoking as well as to lose weight. It's easier for rich people to do pretty much anything, but it is simply not true that being a working class person prohibits you from being healthy; not through cost or anything else.


Processed foods have a greater incidence of having carcinogens, but guess what? They are also cheaper, last longer and have more calories. Someone making $9 an hour can't "choose" to go to Trader Joes and buy those ridiculous "all organic" shit for $6 a pound. They are also cheaper, last longer and have more calories.

That's simply a lie. The idea that the choice is processed meats or expensive organic food is just nonsense. People don't just eat processed meats, do they? People also buy vegetables, pulses, pastas etcetera. Substituting the meat aspect of your diet with something that isn't meat isn't expensive or any more time consuming.

[John Nada]

I'm sorry, I just don't accept that argument. Comparing exploitation to smoking a cigarette is patently absurd. The idea that working class people cannot take responsibility for the choices they make is simply not true. In fact that is what is patronising. I don't doubt that substances are addictive, but the implication that the working class are just some feeble entity too incapable to overcome themselves is disempowering and defeatist, as well as being a lie. People are not compelled to smoke cigarettes or eat meat in the same way they are compelled to survive by selling their labour. People can stop putting carcinogens into their bodies if they want to; they cannot stop working. It is a choice people can make if they want to. The first step to ending addiction is to make the choice to end it. In Capital Marx gives examples of aduterated bread sold to the poor. They can't choose to stop putting addictive carcinogens in their bodies if they don't even know it's an addictive carcinogen in the first place, with a massive, decades long, well-funded misinformation campaign to deny this. I know many people with tobacco-related health problems from getting addicted to tobacco who started back when the tobacco companies were pulling this shit. Even in this thread some are saying,"Nah, it's probably not that bad". It's not just an "individual responsibility"(which individual worker can overcome it), but like addiction, a complex mix of socioeconomic factors. Just that the whole "individual responsibility" thing is used by the bourgeoisie as a justification on why pulling this shit is "all the buyers' fault".

You're selling your labor(if you're "lucky") to sustain yourself. In the case of alcohol or tobacco, a lot of jobs are so shitty and fucked up that that's one of the few things making it bearable and damn near required(even if unspoken and "official" frowned upon). Hell, in the good old day, some jobs had doctors on job sites prescribing amphetamines to keep the workers going in the long monotonous shifts, and now they wonder why addictions to stimulants is a problem.

Complete proteins are necessary to to sustain oneself. Meat is a readily available source of complete proteins, and in the past the only source of vitamin b12. But an alternative to this is mixing protein from various non-meat foods as a replacement, possibly with some vitamin supplements(which sadly aren't covered by food stamps in many US states). In fact, the poorest are often basically vegetarian because meat is more expensive. Most my older relatives were basically on a vegetarian diet out of poverty. Getting a few sliced of meat was a luxury.

But in many areas, particularly impoverished ones, are food deserts with nothing but junk food. Also processed food, has a long shelf-life(it's not cheaper if it goes bad before eaten), and is quicker and easier when you're working long hours too. I go to supermarkets, or maybe some cheap menu on shitty fast food, and there's often nothing but garbage. The worse offenders were the cheapest. Working at a resurants and supermarkets, most the food was bascially the same unhealthy shit in different packages, even if advertised as "health food". That's what I mean when I said it's an illusion of choice.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

ut it is simply not true that being a working class person prohibits you from being healthy; not through cost or anything else.


Although of course health is more than what you eat, and more than 'choices'.

If you live in a damp house and can't afford regular heating, and work in a shitty environment doing physical work (or conversely, working in a seated position with few breaks in a poorly kept work office) then you are more likely to suffer for illness and injury, no matter what you eat.

I think there's also the psychological dimension; if you work a long ass day at work, you come home to a shitty house/flat, you might be more likely to make the decision that 4 wings and chips at £2 is a better bet than spending even a minimal amount of time preparing, cooking, and eating a nutritious meal at home.

All in all, it is fair to add the above environmental, social, and economic qualifiers to the 'choice' argument. The choice to eat healthily isn't total or free.

[The Feral Underclass]

Although of course health is more than what you eat, and more than 'choices'.

If you live in a damp house and can't afford regular heating, and work in a shitty environment doing physical work (or conversely, working in a seated position with few breaks in a poorly kept work office) then you are more likely to suffer for illness and injury, no matter what you eat.

I think there's also the psychological dimension; if you work a long ass day at work, you come home to a shitty house/flat, you might be more likely to make the decision that 4 wings and chips at £2 is a better bet than spending even a minimal amount of time preparing, cooking, and eating a nutritious meal at home.

All in all, it is fair to add the above environmental, social, and economic qualifiers to the 'choice' argument. The choice to eat healthily isn't total or free.

No, I don't accept this. I don't accept this Dickensian caricature of working class life. Plenty of people remain healthy despite their economic conditions. In fact, "the gym" is fast becoming a main source of social activity for many working class people -- mostly men. I am a working class student, practically on minimum wage, and I manage to eat healthily and pay for gym membership. I made these choices because I realised if I didn't I would die sooner rather than later.

I would argue that projecting these representations of working class life are what is debilitating. If we succumb to the self-imposed notion that being poor necessarily stops you from being healthy and fit then you are essentially accepting your own demise. The point is to say that this is not true. That there are means and methods to overcome the situation, and that does not mean waiting for communism to start eating more vegetables and exercising.

[Ele'ill]

so basically what's being said is that if you smoke ham or other lunch meat on a regular basis then you are completely fucked

[Црвена]

No, I don't accept this. I don't accept this Dickensian caricature of working class life. Plenty of people remain healthy despite their economic conditions. In fact, "the gym" is fast becoming a main source of social activity for many working class people -- mostly men. I am a working class student, practically on minimum wage, and I manage to eat healthily and pay for gym membership. I made these choices because I realised if I didn't I would die sooner rather than later.

I would argue that projecting these representations of working class life are what is debilitating. If we succumb to the self-imposed notion that being poor necessarily stops you from being healthy and fit then you are essentially accepting your own demise. The point is to say that this is not true. That there are means and methods to overcome the situation, and that does not mean waiting for communism to start eating more vegetables and exercising.

Being poor doesn't necessarily stop you from being healthy and fit, but the situation here is complicated and deserves more than a blanket statement that poor people "necessarily can" or "necessarily can't" live a healthy lifestyle. Every poor person has different specific circumstances which may, as VIL said, cause psychological barriers to a healthy lifestyle or non-nutritional health problems. In communism, these specific circumstances will not exist, so it will be much easier for people to choose to live healthily.

[Counterculturalist]

No, I don't accept this. I don't accept this Dickensian caricature of working class life. Plenty of people remain healthy despite their economic conditions. In fact, "the gym" is fast becoming a main source of social activity for many working class people -- mostly men. I am a working class student, practically on minimum wage, and I manage to eat healthily and pay for gym membership. I made these choices because I realised if I didn't I would die sooner rather than later.

I would argue that projecting these representations of working class life are what is debilitating. If we succumb to the self-imposed notion that being poor necessarily stops you from being healthy and fit then you are essentially accepting your own demise. The point is to say that this is not true. That there are means and methods to overcome the situation, and that does not mean waiting for communism to start eating more vegetables and exercising.

But a working class student on minimum wage is in a completely different position than, say, a working class single mother on minimum wage who has to contend with things like paying for daycare out of her own pocket. Also just being a student means one is more likely to have access to accurate education about healthier lifestyles, as well as a peer group that takes such information seriously, which is a major influence on individual behavior.

Please understand that I don't believe that it's impossible for working class people to understand the importance of nutrition and find ways to live a healthy lifestyle. It can be done and if we can encourage it, we should. But blaming and condescending to people who have not had the opportunity to do so reeks of the typical right-wing tactic of blaming individuals for structural problems. It's like when Fox News talking heads tell blacks that people who want to change the system are the real racists because they are "denying black people's agency" to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

so basically what's being said is that if you smoke ham or other lunch meat on a regular basis then you are completely fucked

Pretty much what I got out of it

[Zoop]

Jamie Oliver is going to have a field day with this information, and so are all the nauseating, self-righteous, pretentious diet pricks who look down on others for not eating what they insist we should all eat.

The health brigade are annoying AF. If I want to smoke cigs whilst drowning in booze and injecting Dr. Pepper into my veins, I will.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Jamie Oliver is going to have a field day with this information, and so are all the nauseating, self-righteous, pretentious diet pricks who look down on others for not eating what they insist we should all eat.

The health brigade are annoying AF. If I want to smoke cigs whilst drowning in booze and injecting Dr. Pepper into my veins, I will.

Yeah but you'd be a pretty shitty Dietician of you're advice to people is "just smoke all the meth and ciggies you want, you'll look great in no time" or "I know you want to lose weight but if you wanna eat sticks of butter that's ok too." It's literally their whole profession to encourage others to live a healthier, fitter lifestyle.

[The Feral Underclass]

Being poor doesn't necessarily stop you from being healthy and fit, but the situation here is complicated and deserves more than a blanket statement that poor people "necessarily can" or "necessarily can't" live a healthy lifestyle. Every poor person has different specific circumstances which may, as VIL said, cause psychological barriers to a healthy lifestyle or non-nutritional health problems. In communism, these specific circumstances will not exist, so it will be much easier for people to choose to live healthily.

What is a "poor person"? Sounds like something out of a Private Eye sketch.

My initial question was why do people choose to harm themselves. I was told that it's because working class people don't have a choice or are compelled to harm themselves because of economic conditions and addiction. My response is that this is nonsense. Whether someone has a psychological problem is neither here nor there.

[Zoop]

Yeah but you'd be a pretty shitty Dietician of you're advice to people is "just smoke all the meth and ciggies you want, you'll look great in no time" or "I know you want to lose weight but if you wanna eat sticks of butter that's ok too." It's literally their whole profession to encourage others to live a healthier, fitter lifestyle.

I was mainly referring to the self-righteous diet pricks, but the professional dieticians aren't immune to prickery either. Often you find them looking down upon those who don't look like they do. Me = good. You = bad.

The sort of shit gibbons with the "Dear fat people" mentality. You know the type.

[The Feral Underclass]

But a working class student on minimum wage is in a completely different position than, say, a working class single mother on minimum wage who has to contend with things like paying for daycare out of her own pocket. Also just being a student means one is more likely to have access to accurate education about healthier lifestyles, as well as a peer group that takes such information seriously, which is a major influence on individual behavior.

Ah, the single parent mother. I wondered how long it would be before she was trotted out.

My house mate is a single mother. My mother was a single mother. Some of my political colleagues are single parents. Being working class is tough. It is tough for every working class person. For some it is more tough, but in my experience being a single parent doesn't preclude being healthy. This argument that being healthy is expensive and that it's somehow a choice between being healthy or some other necessary thing is a false dichotomy. Parents don't have to decide between health and day care. Being healthy isn't some unattainable luxury. Even single parent mothers who have to pay for day care can do it.

I'm happy to accept that people are uninformed. I said so in this thread. This is clearly a very important problem that needs addressing. My issue, however, was directed towards those peopel who are educated and are informed.


Please understand that I don't believe that it's impossible for working class people to understand the importance of nutrition and find ways to live a healthy lifestyle. It can be done and if we can encourage it, we should. But blaming and condescending to people who have not had the opportunity to do so reeks of the typical right-wing tactic of blaming individuals for structural problems.

Sorry, telling people they can make different choices than stuffing their bodies with poisons and destroying the planet in the process isn't to condescend. Implying that working class people are somehow too precious to hear this is.

And my issue here is that being unhealthy isn't a structural problem. Working class people are not denied access to being healthy. You can exercise for free and vegetables are inexpensive. Capitalism doesn't want unhealthy workers. It wants healthy workers who are going to live a long time. This is why there is access to information everywhere. It's why the NHS are making such efforts to promote healthy living. Why do you think issues around cancer, diabetes, red meats and sugar are so widely discussed?


It's like when Fox News talking heads tell blacks that people who want to change the system are the real racists because they are "denying black people's agency" to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

This is utter babble. Comparing structural racism with the idea that people should buy more carrots instead of pig flesh, which is essentially what you're doing, is to clutch at straws.

[Counterculturalist]

Ah, the single parent mother. I wondered how long it would be before she was trotted out.

My house mate is a single mother. My mother was a single mother. Some of my political colleagues are single parents. Being working class is tough. It is tough for every working class person. For some it is more tough, but in my experience being a single parent doesn't preclude being healthy. This argument that being healthy is expensive and that it's somehow a choice between being healthy or some other necessary thing is a false dichotomy. Parents don't have to decide between health and day care. Being healthy isn't some unattainable luxury. Even single parent mothers who have to pay for day care can do it.

Perhaps at least part of the problem here is that we are writing from different contexts and different experiences. In North America, as Juan pointed out, there are inner-city "food deserts" where people simply do not have access to healthy food in their neighborhood, and where most people who live there literally can't afford transportation to more affluent neighborhoods, nor will this be the first thing on their mind.


Sorry, telling people they can make different choices than stuffing their bodies with poisons and destroying the planet in the process isn't to condescend. Implying that working class people are somehow too precious to hear this is.

Informing people about health isn't condescending; I think we agree that it's a good thing to do. Treating people as inferior because of situations that are largely out of their control is. I know you don't believe that these situations are out of their control, though.


And my issue here is that being unhealthy isn't a structural problem. Working class people are not denied access to being healthy. You can exercise for free and vegetables are inexpensive. Capitalism doesn't want unhealthy workers. It wants healthy workers who are going to live a long time. This is why there is access to information everywhere. It's why the NHS are making such efforts to promote healthy living. Why do you think issues around cancer, diabetes, red meats and sugar are so widely discussed?

I disagree. Capitalism thrives on people who are just barely surviving, and who are beaten down physically and mentally, and who are far from achieving any sort of self-actualization. Ever worked 12 hours on an assembly line, or loading boxes onto a truck? The last thing you care about afterwords is going to a gym or cooking an elaborate meal. You're more likely to want to empty a few bottles. This is part and parcel of the feelings of alienation and hopelessness that capitalism's version of work instills in people - especially people who see no prospects of anything ever getting better for them, and for whom getting an education is about as likely as taking a trip to the moon.


This is utter babble. Comparing structural racism with the idea that people should buy more carrots instead of pig flesh, which is essentially what you're doing, is to clutch at straws.

Those are not the two things I'm comparing. What I'm comparing is the arguments used to denigrate people and to blame them for their own problems. The arguments, in both cases, are the same.

[bricolage]

Vegetables are inexpensive yes. And sure you can buy vegetables and rice and beans and cook them and feed yourself (and whoever else you have to feed) and it doesn't cost much money. But you get something with more calories, more salt (which tends to be what your body craves if you're tired and hungry), and with less energy if you go and buy some fried chicken or chinese food or pizza or whatever. You might think it's self-destructive behaviour but I don't think it's that hard to understand why people who work long days or strenuous job prefer to get fast food at the end of it rather than cook something themselves.

That being said this dichotomy is pretty useless. Most people do a bit both, they cook sometimes and they buy kebabs sometimes. It's rarely an either or.

[bricolage]

Perhaps at least part of the problem here is that we are writing from different contexts and different experiences. In North America, as Juan pointed out, there are inner-city "food deserts" where people simply do not have access to healthy food in their neighborhood, and where most people who live there literally can't afford transportation to more affluent neighborhoods, nor will this be the first thing on their mind.
This is actually true.
We often think that most things in the UK and the US are very similar but having moved from one to the other I'd say that it's pretty hard for people in the UK to fully comprehend the state of food deserts in the US.

[The Feral Underclass]

Perhaps at least part of the problem here is that we are writing from different contexts and different experiences. In North America, as Juan pointed out, there are inner-city "food deserts" where people simply do not have access to healthy food in their neighborhood, and where most people who live there literally can't afford transportation to more affluent neighborhoods, nor will this be the first thing on their mind.

Right, but I don't live in America and neither does the majority of the Western working class, so I don't really know what you expect me to say.


Informing people about health isn't condescending; I think we agree that it's a good thing to do. Treating people as inferior because of situations that are largely out of their control is. I know you don't believe that these situations are out of their control, though.

Why are you associating this objection with me? I've done nothing of the sort. And they're not out of their control. Just like resisting capitalism is not out of their control.


I disagree. Capitalism thrives on people who are just barely surviving, and who are beaten down physically and mentally, and who are far from achieving any sort of self-actualization.

Try telling that to Northern Europe.


Ever worked 12 hours on an assembly line, or loading boxes onto a truck? The last thing you care about afterwords is going to a gym or cooking an elaborate meal. You're more likely to want to empty a few bottles. This is part and parcel of the feelings of alienation and hopelessness that capitalism's version of work instills in people - especially people who see no prospects of anything ever getting better for them, and for whom getting an education is about as likely as taking a trip to the moon.

I think this is a very gendered view of working class life. I don't know any women that go home after working strenuous jobs and who stop thinking and just start drinking alcohol. They have families to take care of. Men may want to go home and drink lots of alcohol, but in most families, they don't have any responsibilities beyond working. Plus, you probably don't need to go to a gym if your job is so strenuous.

And we're not talking about elaborate meals here. I really don't understand this notion that not eating meat somehow means complex and expensive meals. All you're doing is substituting meat for something else. That's it. It's not some mysterious, beguiling alchemy.


Those are not the two things I'm comparing. What I'm comparing is the arguments used to denigrate people and to blame them for their own problems. The arguments, in both cases, are the same.

This has nothing to do with me or anything I've said, so why are you directing this opinion towards me?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No, I don't accept this. I don't accept this Dickensian caricature of working class life. Plenty of people remain healthy despite their economic conditions.

It's not a Dickensian caricature - we know that a housing crisis exists, we know that food banks exist en masse, we know that working people now have to work long hours for low pay, or subsidise their main job with a second (and third) job, or conversely don't have enough or any work and end up sat at home living on the dole, which has its own psychological scars.

Plenty of people remain healthy despite their economic conditions, yet plenty more don't. It's a fact that people living in poverty are more likely to be obese, more likely to suffer from disease and more likely to die young.


In fact, "the gym" is fast becoming a main source of social activity for many working class people -- mostly men.

Really? Gyms strike me as the last 'source of social activity'.


I am a working class student, practically on minimum wage, and I manage to eat healthily and pay for gym membership. I made these choices because I realised if I didn't I would die sooner rather than later.

I'm not denying it's not possible. I'm saying that the conditions of our existence make it more difficult, because there is more to consider than just lifting weights/running 3 times a week and eating healthily, as I outlined in my previous post.


I would argue that projecting these representations of working class life are what is debilitating.

What's debilitating is a lack of tenant's rights, a lack of social housing, and the imposition of cuts that mean people don't have the money to live a decent life. Irrespective of the dietary choices people make, you will find that in the long run these conditions combined will lead to poorer health and an earlier death for working people who have to endure them.


If we succumb to the self-imposed notion that being poor necessarily stops you from being healthy and fit then you are essentially accepting your own demise.

It's not accepting that it will happen, it's accepting that objectively, being a working class person means we will on the balance of probabilities not live as healthy a life as someone who can afford a personal trainer, 3 holidays a year, fresh food on tap, long-term economic comfort and retirement at 50 or 60 in comfort. And far from accepting our own demise, we should focus on the social, economic and environmental conditions that cause this unevenness in outcomes and defeating them.


The point is to say that this is not true. That there are means and methods to overcome the situation, and that does not mean waiting for communism to start eating more vegetables and exercising.

You're partially correct, and I hope you're not taking my analysis to mean that my conclusion is that we are justified in sitting like couch potatoes scoffing crap food. The point, though, is to acknowledge the disadvantage and greater difficulties that we face with limited means, poor quality housing and difficult working lives, and understand that without tackling these core issues we will not be as healthy or happy as we could be.

[Counterculturalist]

Right, but I don't live in America and neither does the majority of the Western working class, so I don't really know what you expect me to say.

The point is that this difference in perspective is coloring our exchange; we're both appealing to incompatible personal experiences. You claim that a Dickensian working-class is simply a caricature, while I have lived that "caricature" and have many friends who still do.


Why are you associating this objection with me? I've done nothing of the sort.

I may have been too quick on the trigger here, and for that, I apologize. I conflated your argument with that of the well-to-do liberal who looks disparagingly at the "unwashed masses" who just don't make the same enlightened decisions they do, while completely ignoring context and structural obstacles. Sometimes I'm hypersensitive about that sort of thing. My bad.


I think this is a very gendered view of working class life. I don't know any women that go home after working strenuous jobs and who stop thinking and just start drinking alcohol. They have families to take care of. Men may want to go home and drink lots of alcohol, but in most families, they don't have any responsibilities beyond working.

This is a fair point. When I worked in a factory, there were times when most of my coworkers were women, and I soon found out through conversations with them that they faced repression - both at work, from sexist bosses, and then at home, from jackass husbands who just wanted to get drunk - that made my own experiences in the factory look like child's play.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's not a Dickensian caricature - we know that a housing crisis exists, we know that food banks exist en masse, we know that working people now have to work long hours for low pay, or subsidise their main job with a second (and third) job, or conversely don't have enough or any work and end up sat at home living on the dole, which has its own psychological scars.

Plenty of people remain healthy despite their economic conditions, yet plenty more don't. It's a fact that people living in poverty are more likely to be obese, more likely to suffer from disease and more likely to die young.

According to the Trussell Trust there is less than 1% of working class people using food banks. The Chartered Institute of Housing -- through a review -- said that 33% of privately rented and 15% of socially rented housing is considered substandard. 18% of all housing is privately rented and 17% is rented socially. While that means that almost half of all rented property is substandard, it only actually accounts for 18% of all housing in the entire country. According to the ONS from statistics in 2013, that accounts for about 4 million homes out of almost 25 million. It's a lot, but it's no where near a majority.

So yes, it is a caricature. It is a traditional left-wing caricature used to construct the working class as some kind of hapless damsel in distress that serves the left's Knight in Shining armour narrative. If you portray the working class as these overweight, destitute addicts living in workhouse conditions and surviving on tins of beans and packets of soup, then you can build a self-aggrandising account of yourselves as the people to swoop in and save the day. The legend of the worker and the mighty revolutionary has long served the self-invented fictions of the left-wing and their tired, useless strategies.

The fact is, it is a fiction. Yes, there are communities that live in poverty and who endure slum like conditions and have to eat from food banks, but this is not the lived experience of the vast majority of working class people in Britain. The vast majority of working class people in Britain own their own homes, have a job and enjoy a higher standard of living because of credit.


Really? Gyms strike me as the last 'source of social activity'.

I don't know how many working class communities you have experienced, but sports and exercise tend to be the primary source of social activity (that and drinking) -- especially amongst men -- because it is inexpensive.


I'm not denying it's not possible. I'm saying that the conditions of our existence make it more difficult, because there is more to consider than just lifting weights/running 3 times a week and eating healthily, as I outlined in my previous post.

But these things we're supposed to consider aren't real. They don't correlate with facts.


What's debilitating is a lack of tenant's rights, a lack of social housing, and the imposition of cuts that mean people don't have the money to live a decent life. Irrespective of the dietary choices people make, you will find that in the long run these conditions combined will lead to poorer health and an earlier death for working people who have to endure them.

What is a decent life? Can you quantify for me what exactly this decent life looks like? The lack of social housing and the denial of rights for tenant's isn't what is making people unhealthy.


It's not accepting that it will happen, it's accepting that objectively, being a working class person means we will on the balance of probabilities not live as healthy a life as someone who can afford a personal trainer, 3 holidays a year, fresh food on tap, long-term economic comfort and retirement at 50 or 60 in comfort. And far from accepting our own demise, we should focus on the social, economic and environmental conditions that cause this unevenness in outcomes and defeating them.

Yes, being wealthy is more healthy than being working class. I'm not denying that. But you are peddling a narrative that being working class necessarily means that not being wealthy means that you are forced to make unhealthy choices. That's demonstrable false!


You're partially correct, and I hope you're not taking my analysis to mean that my conclusion is that we are justified in sitting like couch potatoes scoffing crap food. The point, though, is to acknowledge the disadvantage and greater difficulties that we face with limited means, poor quality housing and difficult working lives, and understand that without tackling these core issues we will not be as healthy or happy as we could be.

Well, to be honest I don't think you've really provided an analysis. What you've done is described the same tired, patronising trad leftist caricature of the working class that they've been making since it was actually true 200 years ago.

The issue here is the question of whether working class people can make healthy choices and what prohibits them from doing so. The majority of working class people in the UK don't have limited means, they don't have poor quality housing and while their working lives may be difficult and boring, these things are not prohibitive towards making healthy choices like not spending money on cigarettes and eating more vegetables.

[RedWorker]

or you can never drink, smoke or eat fatty food, live maybe ten years longer and be very smug about it.

And what the fuck is so hard about this? How can you even trivialize living "maybe ten years longer"? If you're too lazy to maintain long-term behaviour or take control of your life, that's okay, but there's no need to justify this as if you're some sort of neutral observer or speak for the common human through ridiculous arguments.

[The Feral Underclass]

you can never drink, smoke or eat fatty food, live maybe ten years longer and be very smug about it.

Actually, with modern medicine, you're more likely to live twenty, thirty, forty years longer compared to someone who drinks, smokes and eats saturated fats. My grandmother has never drunk alcohol in excess, has never smoked her entire life and has had a well-balanced diet, even when she was living in the slums of Birmingham in the 1920s. She is now 93, has never had any debilitating illness, has full capacity and still drives a car.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=The Feral Underclass;2855523]According to the Trussell Trust there is less than 1% of working class people using food banks. The Chartered Institute of Housing -- through a review -- said that 33% of privately rented and 15% of socially rented housing is considered substandard. 18% of all housing is privately rented and 17% is rented socially. While that means that almost half of all rented property is substandard, it only actually accounts for 18% of all housing in the entire country. According to the ONS from statistics in 2013, that accounts for about 4 million homes out of almost 25 million. It's a lot, but it's no where near a majority.

Of course, theses statistics don't tell the whole truth. They tell us the number of people that use food banks, but not for what reasons and not for how long. And they don't tell us what food they have access too when they use these food banks, nor the consequences for people's dietary health after using food banks, compared to not using food banks.

And 'substandard' isn't defined, meaning that it could be anything from lacking power, to mould, to infestations of maggots or rodents, which obviously makes a difference.

According to Barnados, there are clear negative health outcomes associated with poverty. For example,
three-year-olds in households with incomes below about £10,000 are 2.5 times more likely to suffer chronic illness than children in households with incomes above £52,000;
Infant mortality is 10% higher for infants in the lower social group than the average;
Only 48 per cent of 5 year olds entitled to free school meals have a good level of development at the end of their reception year, compared to 65 per cent of all other pupils;
Less than half of pupils entitled to free school meals (just 34 per cent) achieve 5 GCSEs at C or above, including English and Maths, this compares to 61 per cent of pupils who are not eligible;

These points show that being poor affects our development at the youngest of ages, which as research has shown has a relatively permanent effect on all sorts of outcomes later in life - job prospects; life expectancy and so on; the cycle of poverty across generations is well documented.

Evidence from Child Poverty Action Group research further shows that child poverty affected 28% of all children last year, and that growing up in deprived areas (as clearly a significant minority of working people do and will continue to do) leads to on average a life expectancy 9.2 years shorter than in least deprived areas.


So yes, it is a caricature. It is a traditional left-wing caricature used to construct the working class as some kind of hapless damsel in distress that serves the left's Knight in Shining armour narrative. If you portray the working class as these overweight, destitute addicts living in workhouse conditions and surviving on tins of beans and packets of soup, then you can build a self-aggrandising account of yourselves as the people to swoop in and save the day. The legend of the worker and the mighty revolutionary has long served the self-invented fictions of the left-wing and their tired, useless strategies.

So i'm sorry, but the evidence clearly shows that it is not a caricature to suggest that working people's health suffers as a direct consequence of the conditions they find themselves in. From a young age, it has been documented that students who rely on Free School Meals and may live in poor housing conditions have a significantly worse outlook, in general, than those who come from wealthier backgrounds.

(http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures)


The fact is, it is a fiction. Yes, there are communities that live in poverty and who endure slum like conditions and have to eat from food banks, but this is not the lived experience of the vast majority of working class people in Britain. The vast majority of working class people in Britain own their own homes, have a job and enjoy a higher standard of living because of credit.

I will leave you to apply subjective labels to the numbers, but the numbers presented above show that 28% of ALL children are affected by poverty and its associated ill effects - obviously this percentage only increases if you analyse the working class in isolation.

In terms of the rate of home ownership, far from being a dickensian caricature, this statistic has actually been declining in recent years. The ONS' own figures show that home ownership has declined significantly in all age groups under 65 years old, showing that the trend for home ownership has declined and is continuing to decline precipitously.

Indeed it shows that in 2011/12, 10% of 16-24 year olds owned their own home, rising to just over 40% of 25-34 year olds and just over 60% of 35-44 year olds. The trend here is clear: today working people are far less likely to own their own homes than ever before, relying instead on over-priced private rented accomodation where their rights are little protected and, as you say, conditions may be sub-standard.

Secondly, let's talk about employment. As of 2012 (can't find more recent data on the ONS website), the unemployment rate varied by region between 6.2% (South East) and 11.5% (North East). However, this does not imply that the other 90-95% or so of people have comfortable, full-time jobs, or even jobs for that matter. The official unemployment rate masks actual, mass unemployment which is hidden in the statistics for economic activity, which is defined as those not wanting a job, seeking a job in the last four weeks nor able to start in the next two weeks. This might include some retired folk, but also the long-term unemployed. Indeed the economic inactivity rate is highest in London (25.2%), probably due to the large congregation of students, and lowest in the East of England, at 19.6%.

Indeed, further figures from the ONS dating back to 2001 (though arguably figures can be taken from the trend) shows that in 2001 there were just over 9 million people out of work, of whom 3.6 million wanted a job. Out of those 3.6 million, 1.6 million were seeking a job and 1.4 million were available for work. Those 1.4 million made it on to the 'unemployment rate' figures. The other 2 million not actively seeking a job do not make it onto the unemployment rate figures and are simply 'hidden' unemployed. In other words, as early as 2001 the true rate of non-employment could be more than doubled simply by uncovering those non-retired folk who wanted work but were not actively looking for work (for example, because they were long-term unemployed, welfare-dependent etc.).

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=economic+inactivity+definition+uk - first link

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-labour/regional-labour-market-statistics/may-2012/stb-regional-labour-market-april-2012.html

So it's really difficult to say that the 'vast majority' of working people are in comfortable, full-time work. Rather, the picture looks more fragmented, with some being officially unemployed, a great many more being economically inactive, and as we know within the employment figures a great many more will be 'under-employed', on zero hours contracts, or work that pays below a living wage for their area/region.


I don't know how many working class communities you have experienced, but sports and exercise tend to be the primary source of social activity (that and drinking) -- especially amongst men -- because it is inexpensive.

I was challenging your assertion that gyms are a hub for social activity. But who is making a caricature now - working men just like football and beer? I know a significant number of anecdotal cases where that isn't the case and, where it is true that we like football and beer, it isn't something that defines us according to the George Orwell-style stereotype of 'the proles'.


But these things we're supposed to consider aren't real. They don't correlate with facts.

The evidence suggests a more mixed picture than the limited statistics you presented suggest. I don't suggest you're totally wrong, but it's also undeniable that it is more difficult for working people - particularly those who live in deprived neighbourhoods and grew up in poverty as children - to live as healthy or as long a life as people who are wealthier and live in wealthier areas.


What is a decent life? Can you quantify for me what exactly this decent life looks like? The lack of social housing and the denial of rights for tenant's isn't what is making people unhealthy.

The poverty that is a result of unaffordable housing, low wages, and mass under-employment is a causal factor for poor living standards for working people. Another is the un-even state of healthcare provision across the country - but not time to discuss that fully here.

Broadly speaking, decent access to housing, education, healthcare, and leisure time/activities combined with basic liberal freedoms are the cornerstone to a decent, happy, fulfilled life. But as demonstrated, and as you only have to venture outside to urban centres to see, basic needs such as those above are currently left unfulfilled on a mass basis, leading to negative social, economic, and health outcomes for working people.


Yes, being wealthy is more healthy than being working class. I'm not denying that. But you are peddling a narrative that being working class necessarily means that not being wealthy means that you are forced to make unhealthy choices. That's demonstrable false!

This is a strawman, I never said that if you read my posts. I am making the point that if you are working class and living in poverty, particularly as a young person, you are more likely on average to achieve poorer health outcomes.



The issue here is the question of whether working class people can make healthy choices and what prohibits them from doing so.

This is exactly what i'm trying to get at; and doing so by pointing to the clear, socio-economic and environmental factors that prohibit many working people/families from achieving good health outcomes.

It is obviously a misnomer to focus on 'whether working class people can make healthy choices' - where a choice is possible it is up to the individual to make that choice. A better focus is surely to analyse where 'choices' have been turned into 'lack of opportunities/choices'.


The majority of working class people in the UK don't have limited means, they don't have poor quality housing and while their working lives may be difficult and boring, these things are not prohibitive towards making healthy choices like not spending money on cigarettes and eating more vegetables.

As I said before, good health outcomes are about more than not smoking and eating your 5 a day. Most children, for example, are not mature enough nor educated enough to make these choices. Given a couple of quid in their pockets, even outwardly healthy kids will go to a PFC and buy some wings over something 'healthy'. As someone who works in a school, I see this every day and kids say this to me every day. As demonstrated above, children who rely on Free School Meals and do not have comfortable housing struggle their whole lives socially, economically, and in terms of health outcomes precisely because they form bad habits when they are young and are more likely to come from families that themselves have grown up in the same way and are therefore ignorant of what it means to make healthy choices. By this I don't mean that they think smoking or KFC is healthy, but that they have never been educated on what constitutes a healthy diet. Combined with environmental factors beyond their control (poor housing, lack of access to good healthcare, poor dietary/exercise habits when younger) this has clear, statistically demonstrated negative impacts on their health throughout their lives.

[The Feral Underclass]

I love how you just chop and change the focus of your argument depending on where the evidence lies. You're a fucking nightmare to have a conversation with.

[The Feral Underclass]

Of course, theses statistics don't tell the whole truth. They tell us the number of people that use food banks, but not for what reasons and not for how long. And they don't tell us what food they have access too when they use these food banks, nor the consequences for people's dietary health after using food banks, compared to not using food banks.

And 'substandard' isn't defined, meaning that it could be anything from lacking power, to mould, to infestations of maggots or rodents, which obviously makes a difference.

None of that is relevant to the point. You attempted to create a picture of working class life that doesn't exit.


According to Barnados, there are clear negative health outcomes associated with poverty. For example,
three-year-olds in households with incomes below about £10,000 are 2.5 times more likely to suffer chronic illness than children in households with incomes above £52,000;
Infant mortality is 10% higher for infants in the lower social group than the average;
Only 48 per cent of 5 year olds entitled to free school meals have a good level of development at the end of their reception year, compared to 65 per cent of all other pupils;
Less than half of pupils entitled to free school meals (just 34 per cent) achieve 5 GCSEs at C or above, including English and Maths, this compares to 61 per cent of pupils who are not eligible;

These points show that being poor affects our development at the youngest of ages, which as research has shown has a relatively permanent effect on all sorts of outcomes later in life - job prospects; life expectancy and so on; the cycle of poverty across generations is well documented.

Evidence from Child Poverty Action Group research further shows that child poverty affected 28% of all children last year, and that growing up in deprived areas (as clearly a significant minority of working people do and will continue to do) leads to on average a life expectancy 9.2 years shorter than in least deprived areas.

As I said, I'm not denying that poverty has adverse affects on health. What I am saying is that you have attempted to attribute this as the lived experience of the majority of working class people. That is simply false.


So i'm sorry, but the evidence clearly shows that it is not a caricature to suggest that working people's health suffers as a direct consequence of the conditions they find themselves in. From a young age, it has been documented that students who rely on Free School Meals and may live in poor housing conditions have a significantly worse outlook, in general, than those who come from wealthier backgrounds.

In a conversation about life for working class people, you said, "If you live in a damp house and can't afford regular heating, and work in a shitty environment doing physical work (or conversely, working in a seated position with few breaks in a poorly kept work office) then you are more likely to suffer for illness and injury, no matter what you eat." That's the caricature. Trying to portray working class life in this way is factually inaccurate. That's not the lived experience of the vast majority of working class people. So my question still remains: Why do people make harmful choices?


I will leave you to apply subjective labels to the numbers, but the numbers presented above show that 28% of ALL children are affected by poverty and its associated ill effects - obviously this percentage only increases if you analyse the working class in isolation.

In terms of the rate of home ownership, far from being a dickensian caricature, this statistic has actually been declining in recent years. The ONS' own figures show that home ownership has declined significantly in all age groups under 65 years old, showing that the trend for home ownership has declined and is continuing to decline precipitously.

Indeed it shows that in 2011/12, 10% of 16-24 year olds owned their own home, rising to just over 40% of 25-34 year olds and just over 60% of 35-44 year olds. The trend here is clear: today working people are far less likely to own their own homes than ever before, relying instead on over-priced private rented accomodation where their rights are little protected and, as you say, conditions may be sub-standard.

Secondly, let's talk about employment. As of 2012 (can't find more recent data on the ONS website), the unemployment rate varied by region between 6.2% (South East) and 11.5% (North East). However, this does not imply that the other 90-95% or so of people have comfortable, full-time jobs, or even jobs for that matter. The official unemployment rate masks actual, mass unemployment which is hidden in the statistics for economic activity, which is defined as those not wanting a job, seeking a job in the last four weeks nor able to start in the next two weeks. This might include some retired folk, but also the long-term unemployed. Indeed the economic inactivity rate is highest in London (25.2%), probably due to the large congregation of students, and lowest in the East of England, at 19.6%.

Indeed, further figures from the ONS dating back to 2001 (though arguably figures can be taken from the trend) shows that in 2001 there were just over 9 million people out of work, of whom 3.6 million wanted a job. Out of those 3.6 million, 1.6 million were seeking a job and 1.4 million were available for work. Those 1.4 million made it on to the 'unemployment rate' figures. The other 2 million not actively seeking a job do not make it onto the unemployment rate figures and are simply 'hidden' unemployed. In other words, as early as 2001 the true rate of non-employment could be more than doubled simply by uncovering those non-retired folk who wanted work but were not actively looking for work (for example, because they were long-term unemployed, welfare-dependent etc.).

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=economic+inactivity+definition+uk - first link

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-labour/regional-labour-market-statistics/may-2012/stb-regional-labour-market-april-2012.html

So it's really difficult to say that the 'vast majority' of working people are in comfortable, full-time work. Rather, the picture looks more fragmented, with some being officially unemployed, a great many more being economically inactive, and as we know within the employment figures a great many more will be 'under-employed', on zero hours contracts, or work that pays below a living wage for their area/region.

Well, for a start, I didn't say working people are in "comfortable, full-time work." The point is, that accepting all of these statistics does not corroborate your claim about working class life, nor does it prohibit the vast majority of working class people from making healthy choices.


I was challenging your assertion that gyms are a hub for social activity. But who is making a caricature now - working men just like football and beer? I know a significant number of anecdotal cases where that isn't the case and, where it is true that we like football and beer, it isn't something that defines us according to the George Orwell-style stereotype of 'the proles'.

What are you talking about? I didn't say that working class men just like football and beer. What I said was that sports and exercise is a primary social activity amongst working class people.


The evidence suggests a more mixed picture than the limited statistics you presented suggest. I don't suggest you're totally wrong, but it's also undeniable that it is more difficult for working people - particularly those who live in deprived neighbourhoods and grew up in poverty as children - to live as healthy or as long a life as people who are wealthier and live in wealthier areas.

I am not denying that people who live in deprived neighbourhoods and grow up in poverty have a hard time being healthy. What I am denying is that this is the lived experience for the vast majority of working class people. People who do not live in deprived neighbourhoods and who don't grow up in poverty also make bad choices and that's the issue here.


The poverty that is a result of unaffordable housing, low wages, and mass under-employment is a causal factor for poor living standards for working people. Another is the un-even state of healthcare provision across the country - but not time to discuss that fully here.

And this effects a small percentage of working class people overall, it does not effect the vast majority of working class people, many of whom continue to make bad choices despite being able to make different ones.


This is a strawman, I never said that if you read my posts. I am making the point that if you are working class and living in poverty, particularly as a young person, you are more likely on average to achieve poorer health outcomes.

If this is really the point you're making, why have you made it?


This is exactly what i'm trying to get at; and doing so by pointing to the clear, socio-economic and environmental factors that prohibit many working people/families from achieving good health outcomes.

Not many. A small percentage.


As I said before, good health outcomes are about more than not smoking and eating your 5 a day.

Well not really. Not putting poison into your body and eating healthily is pretty much the basis of being healthy.


Most children, for example, are not mature enough nor educated enough to make these choices. Given a couple of quid in their pockets, even outwardly healthy kids will go to a PFC and buy some wings over something 'healthy'. As someone who works in a school, I see this every day and kids say this to me every day. As demonstrated above, children who rely on Free School Meals and do not have comfortable housing struggle their whole lives socially, economically, and in terms of health outcomes precisely because they form bad habits when they are young and are more likely to come from families that themselves have grown up in the same way and are therefore ignorant of what it means to make healthy choices. By this I don't mean that they think smoking or KFC is healthy, but that they have never been educated on what constitutes a healthy diet. Combined with environmental factors beyond their control (poor housing, lack of access to good healthcare, poor dietary/exercise habits when younger) this has clear, statistically demonstrated negative impacts on their health throughout their lives.

Yes, people who live in poverty make bad choices because of the things you describe. But I am not talking about this minority of working class people who live in poverty. I am talking about the majority of working class people who do not and still make choices that are detrimental to themselves and to the planet. Trying to say that economic conditions compels these choices for the majority for working class people is inaccurate and therefore requires a different answer to the people you are talking about.

[Quail]

I think people make harmful choices because of the adverse mental health effects of being poor. Basically everyone I know suffers from anxiety or depression or something along those lines, and I honestly think that suffering from anxiety is the natural state of being when you're living precariously, as I tend to assume a decent proportion of the population are. Struggling with rent and relying on an unreliable benefits system to top up low wages is stressful. I think I'm relatively well off but there are still weeks where we go skipping because we have no money for food, and months where we can't pay the rent and bills on time. It takes its toll. I'm an anxious person anyway, but the stress and precariousness of not having much money must be enough to mess with anyone's head.

When you have mental health problems, it becomes a lot harder to do stuff like spend ages cooking healthy meals or quit smoking or drink less or stop taking drugs or avoid junk food which gives you a cheap hit of feel-good chemicals.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Most of the time it's not terribly complicated to eat healthily if one desires to (if you live in a developed nation, that is). You can go to the grocery store where I live and buy a big bag of broccoli and cauliflower for a couple dollars. It's pre-washed, all you have to do is shove it into your face. Unhealthy food tastes better to a lot of people, though, who tend to like higher concentrations of fat, sodium and sugar. You can "re-train" your tastes to desire different things, including healthy food, but that takes time and effort.

I'd feel hypocritical harping on people for living an unhealthy lifestyle, as I live a very unhealthy lifestyle. I think it's amusing when people with one kind of vice look down on others with different vices...it reminds me of a friend of mine (and a heroin addict) complaining about how supposedly unhealthy artificial sweeteners were...meanwhile I doubt the fat glob of tar she was smoking was terribly good for her health.

I lived my whole early life on an extremely healthy diet combined with lots of exercise as a youth, then contracted an autoimmune disorder for which there is no known cause and no known cure, though, so admittedly I'm pretty nihilistic on the subject of health and lifestyle choices. I have sympathy for the people who just say "fuck it"

[The Feral Underclass]

I think people make harmful choices because of the adverse mental health effects of being poor.

Could you provided some kind of reference for this assertion? It seems like a wildly bold claim and I'm not entirely sure what it's based on.


Basically everyone I know suffers from anxiety or depression or something along those lines, and I honestly think that suffering from anxiety is the natural state of being when you're living precariously, as I tend to assume a decent proportion of the population are.

Extrapolating the mental health of a "decent proportion of the population" based on the experiences of your group of friends is not really very reliable model for understanding why working class people make harmful choices.

This is dangerous territory, because more often than not, if someone questions the veracity of mental health culture, there is this a shrill response about "shaming," which basically just shuts down any conversation about it, but I think there is value in looking at what mental health problems actually are, what mental health actually is and how it is used in a bourgeois society, how the label of 'mental health problem' is assigned and how we respond to the culture that has emerged around mental health issues.

[John Nada]

What I found condescending was the statement from the North American Meat Institute about hairdressers and shift workers(not The Feral Underclass's suggestion that we should eat better, which is true). There's this image that coal/asbestos miners are the ones who get cancer from their jobs. Yet shift workers are at an increased risk of a bunch of health problems: http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/3/127.long Hair dressers and barbers have an increased risk of cancer and lung problems: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/6/1512.full https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20587102

And what was conveniently left out on what else can cause cancer besides the sun, shift work, hairdressers and wine is workers in the meat industry, who have a higher risk of cancer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763658/ They breath in an aerosol of meat, blood and shit all day, which fucks up their lungs. The chemicals used to process the meat are potential carcinogens. And the meat itself harbors germs that can cause infections and even cancer. The meat industries' bourgeoisie selling shit that's been know for decades to cause cancer in "their" workers.

Food is psychoactive. Red meat has been shown to reduce depression and anxiety, yet it can also increase depression in excess. It's entirely possible the food industry is modifying the meat to increase the positive reinforcement from eating it. In fact, in the case of grains and milk products, there's peptides that have an opiate effect. This is why designing new food products is done by scientists and not chiefs.

This is reminiscent of what was done to opium and tobacco. Imperialist-capitalist from Europe, North America and Japan, studied how to chemically alter opium to making it more smokable, increase it's addictiveness and alter its chemical composer to get more sales. The same was done with tobacco about the same time. Both made these natural product far more toxic, yet it was the cheapest to mass produce and increased sales. Result of both was a pandemic of addiction and a massive theft from colonized countries.

I theorize that the meat industry is doing something not unlike the opium and tobacco cartels. They're sell an addictive, toxic commodity, bad for the environment and workers, with customers hooked at a young age. It's possible that the meat could be made less unhealthy, and the workers don't have to be subjected to lethal working conditions. But to sell more commodities and maximize profits, the bourgeoisie is willing to kill a fuckload of people in the name of profit.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

if i poison myself with asbestos and arsenic do i get a prize for collecting all five?

[hexaune]

I think people make harmful choices because of the adverse mental health effects of being poor. Basically everyone I know suffers from anxiety or depression or something along those lines, and I honestly think that suffering from anxiety is the natural state of being when you're living precariously, as I tend to assume a decent proportion of the population are. Struggling with rent and relying on an unreliable benefits system to top up low wages is stressful. I think I'm relatively well off but there are still weeks where we go skipping because we have no money for food, and months where we can't pay the rent and bills on time. It takes its toll. I'm an anxious person anyway, but the stress and precariousness of not having much money must be enough to mess with anyone's head.

When you have mental health problems, it becomes a lot harder to do stuff like spend ages cooking healthy meals or quit smoking or drink less or stop taking drugs or avoid junk food which gives you a cheap hit of feel-good chemicals.

I'd agree 100% with this, I spent the first 3-4 years after moving out an joining the working world, in a reasonable well paying and secure job. I enjoyed cooking my own well cooked, healthy meals. I then lost all of that job security after a nasty breakdown/spate of depression that took me a couple of years to get out of. Even though I've been a lot better mentally, this last few years, financially things have been extremely precarious and month after month of constant stressing over the landlord kicking you out, bailiffs taking your shit... takes its toll and I find myself drawn to fatty, salty easy comfort food.

When your head is in a bad place getting the drive to do basic things like cooking, exercising, even having a shower on some days is extremely hard and I think that most people that end up trapped in a precarious financial situation struggle in the same way.

[BIXX]

Apparently the govt retracted their recommended diet based on this study

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To help keep this discussion focused on the evidence, I thought this article might be helpful for people in this thread:

http://streetskitchen.co.uk/?p=3504

[The Feral Underclass]

To help keep this discussion focused on the evidence, I thought this article might be helpful for people in this thread:

http://streetskitchen.co.uk/?p=3504

Evidence for what, though?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

on a more serious note (one i bet has probably already been mentioned but oh well) if i recall correctly this study isn't exactly new news. I remember my mum talking about the link between bowel cancers and red meat consumption in the 90's when i was a little kid (usually in reference to my youngest brother's incredibly picky eating habits.) Earlier joking aside it's something I'm cutting out of my life (alarmingly with rather less success than cutting out menthol superkings)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Evidence for what, though?

That negative health outcomes are not some imagined caricature, but a real consequence of capitalism; in particular, the harsher capital's policies against workers (i.e. austerity post-2008), the greater the negative effects.

[The Feral Underclass]

That negative health outcomes are not some imagined caricature, but a real consequence of capitalism; in particular, the harsher capital's policies against workers (i.e. austerity post-2008), the greater the negative effects.

In an effort to disprove a Dickensian caricature you have posted an article that shows how 0.0003% of the working class have Victorian era illnesses. Is that a joke? :laugh:

Malnutrition is obviously an important issue, but it effects 0.0003% of the working class. Gout is not a poverty related illness and TB affects even less people than malnutrition.

So yeah, this is evidence that coalition and Tory policies have had an adverse effect on life for a tiny section of the working class, but it does not account for the vast majority of the working class who do not live in these Victorian conditions and who make harmful choices. That's the issue.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You would of course expect that actual number of people expected by malnutrition and diet-related diseases to be far higher, but I take your point that issues being discussed here may affect different groups of workers to different degrees.

I'm still a little confused, though, why you are adopting the language of workers 'making harmful choices', in terms of their own diet & health exclusively. Do you not think, as some other have described here, that the 'choices' made by people in terms of (lack of) diet, (lack of exercise), and (lack of healthy) lifestyle are strongly influenced by the conditions they live in? As has been well documented by writers from Marx to the present day, labouring as a worker has an alienating effect; alienating workers not just from the means of production but from elements of society itself. This could present as diagnosed mental health issues, or more generally as malaise and detachment. Further, as I have previously explained, do you not think it is also possible that the combination of long-hours of alienated labour combined with sub-standard or poor housing conditions (or if not 'substandard' then precarious for those who live in the private rented sector) and attacks on people's liberties (for example for those from certain oppressed minority groups) have a detrimental effect on the choices people make, including dietary, exercise, and lifestyle choices?

I'm just asking the questions because if we just accept that 'workers are unhealthy because they make bad choices' then, just like the bourgeois individualists, we leave ourselves little from to develop meaningful conclusions other than 'its people's individual responsibilities to be healthy', rather than looking at wider societal changes that could have a positive impact on individual and public health.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'd say that it's pretty hard for people in the UK to fully comprehend the state of food deserts in the US.
Exactly. It's probably hard for many in the US to comprehend them as well if they haven't lived in one.

[Aussie]

Every other day the media (sorry for the broad classification) comes up with another thing that causes cancer except this time they're basing it of something that the WHO has said. Giving them 'credibility' of a sort which just causes more paranoia amongst the majority of the population (at least that's what's happening where I live).

[Quail]

Could you provided some kind of reference for this assertion? It seems like a wildly bold claim and I'm not entirely sure what it's based on.

I don't have a specific reference in mind, other than the experiences of myself and others. But tbh, I don't think it is such a bold claim - shit happens, people turn to booze, unhealthy food and drugs. When you're at the bottom of the social ladder, more shit things are going to happen to you.


Extrapolating the mental health of a "decent proportion of the population" based on the experiences of your group of friends is not really very reliable model for understanding why working class people make harmful choices.
Statistically it's a poor sample, can't be generalised to the whole population, blah blah blah, but it is evidence that the strain of living precariously makes some subset of people anxious/depressed and therefore more likely to make "bad" choices to deal with it.


This is dangerous territory, because more often than not, if someone questions the veracity of mental health culture, there is this a shrill response about "shaming," which basically just shuts down any conversation about it, but I think there is value in looking at what mental health problems actually are, what mental health actually is and how it is used in a bourgeois society, how the label of 'mental health problem' is assigned and how we respond to the culture that has emerged around mental health issues.
This might not be very scientific but I'm generally of the opinion that many "mental health issues" are a reaction to living under capitalism (and patriarchy, etc). It's no coincidence that (for example) when there's no money in our household that both me and my partner get extra-anxious. It's no coincidence that when it feels as though every door has been slammed in my face my mental health worsens. It doesn't make sense to assume that we're unique in our responses to such stimuli. Maybe in a perfect world people would still be anxious or depressed but they wouldn't be constantly, repeatedly and systematically kicked while they were down, which would maybe allow them to take more control over their destructive habits.

I also get the impression that the mental health services available are designed to make you adapt to be happy with your lot in life as opposed to questioning why everything is so fucking shit. I've been referred to the "Short Term Educational Service," which almost sounds like a dystopian re-education programme for unproductive workers. Treatment is all geared towards individually managing your own symptoms, as though your mental health and the outside world, your living conditions, are completely separate things.


I suppose my main point can be summed up by "the crappy conditions people live in cause them to do unhealthy things to make themselves feel better." I know for sure I'm not alone in reaching for unhealthy food, alcohol or drugs when life feels impossible and I'm somewhat surprised to see you on such a high horse about the choices people make. Choices don't always feel like choices, and I don't think it's my place to judge people for their bad choices when I make (and have made) so many myself.

[cyu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_ Always_Do_Better

physical health, mental health, drug abuse, imprisonment, trust and community life, violence, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries


mental health services available are designed to make you adapt to be happy with your lot in life as opposed to questioning why everything is so fucking shit. I've been referred to the "Short Term Educational Service," which almost sounds like a dystopian re-education programme for unproductive workers.

The system didn't fail you. You failed the system. Why can't you be like the other slaves - well-adjusted and happy?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm still a little confused, though, why you are adopting the language of workers 'making harmful choices', in terms of their own diet & health exclusively. Do you not think, as some other have described here, that the 'choices' made by people in terms of (lack of) diet, (lack of exercise), and (lack of healthy) lifestyle are strongly influenced by the conditions they live in? As has been well documented by writers from Marx to the present day, labouring as a worker has an alienating effect; alienating workers not just from the means of production but from elements of society itself. This could present as diagnosed mental health issues, or more generally as malaise and detachment. Further, as I have previously explained, do you not think it is also possible that the combination of long-hours of alienated labour combined with sub-standard or poor housing conditions (or if not 'substandard' then precarious for those who live in the private rented sector) and attacks on people's liberties (for example for those from certain oppressed minority groups) have a detrimental effect on the choices people make, including dietary, exercise, and lifestyle choices?

I'm just asking the questions because if we just accept that 'workers are unhealthy because they make bad choices' then, just like the bourgeois individualists, we leave ourselves little from to develop meaningful conclusions other than 'its people's individual responsibilities to be healthy', rather than looking at wider societal changes that could have a positive impact on individual and public health.

I've spent the last few days considering your argument and I think I have to concede that you are right. The nature of alienation is not just that the worker is detached from work and working due to realities of capitalist production, but that this alienation in turn results in the worker being detached from themselves as actors in their own narratives. The consequence of this is of course a disengagement with what being human is. In this case a living, healthy, contented and self-possessing animal.

I do not, however, accept your caricature of working class life as you have presented it in this thread. While I accept that alienation plays a fundamental part in influencing the way people view their health, I do not accept that this is done primarily within the picture you and Quail have attempted to create. Working class communities are not predominately these shit holes full of depressed and anxiety ridden people that you imply they are. If we are going to use experience as the basis of understanding the reality of working class life, then I have lived and worked in some of the most deprived communities in the UK (first in Birmingham and then in Sheffield) and what you are saying does not corroborate my experiences.

[The Feral Underclass]

I suppose my main point can be summed up by "the crappy conditions people live in cause them to do unhealthy things to make themselves feel better." I know for sure I'm not alone in reaching for unhealthy food, alcohol or drugs when life feels impossible and I'm somewhat surprised to see you on such a high horse about the choices people make. Choices don't always feel like choices, and I don't think it's my place to judge people for their bad choices when I make (and have made) so many myself.

I'm not on a high horse, nor am I judging anyone, I just don't agree with your or VIL's caricature of working class life, especially when it's only based on experiences.

[Khalistani]

You will have to kill me to take away my meat.

[The Feral Underclass]

You will have to kill me to take away my meat.

It's not your meat.

[Khalistani]

It's not your meat.

Yes, it is my meat, and you can't take it away from me. Just you try.

[Khalistani]

It's not your meat.

No. Pork or beef, it's my meat, and you can't have it.

Just you try and take it away from me.

[The Feral Underclass]

No. Pork or beef, it's my meat, and you can't have it.

The meat on a pig or cow's bones is no more yours, than the meat on your bones is mine.


Just you try and take it away from me.

:rolleyes:

[Khalistani]

The meat on a pig or cow's bones is no more yours, than the meat on your bones is mine.

Everything has a purpose in life, and everything consumes the life of another for more energy. If you think that plants are not living creatures just because they're not sentient, then I'm not sure what you're on about.




:rolleyes:

That's what I thought.

[The Feral Underclass]

Everything has a purpose in life, and everything consumes the life of another for more energy. If you think that plants are not living creatures just because they're not sentient, then I'm not sure what you're on about.

They're living, yes, but they're not "creatures."

Things only have a purpose in life if you project a purpose onto them. Objectively a human has no more purpose than a pig. You can justify your exploitation of animals by prescribing a purpose to it, which conveniently means you get to eat its flesh, but that doesn't make what you're saying objectively true.


That's what I thought.

I'm not really interested in your macho posturing. U'm sure your very big and tough and you could win me in a meat stealing fight.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I've spent the last few days considering your argument and I think I have to concede that you are right. The nature of alienation is not just that the worker is detached from work and working due to realities of capitalist production, but that this alienation in turn results in the worker being detached from themselves as actors in their own narratives. The consequence of this is of course a disengagement with what being human is. In this case a living, healthy, contented and self-possessing animal.

Indeed. Something i've considered in the last few months, having struggled with quasi-depressive episodes over the years, is the extent to which the day-to-day stresses of working life constitute a continuing psychological and emotional trauma that is, in essence, chronic and I guess can range from mild to - in the worst cases where there is no access to decent housing, to work, and no disposable income to spend on leisure activities - debilitating.

[Comrade #138672]

Some people seem to think that because many things in life can increase the probability of getting cancer that it is all made-up bullshit. This is simply not true.