Context courtesy of UrbanEconomist.
Gah, I hate it when my free market sensibilities and scientific
sensibilities go head to head. Fact is HFCS is vilified for
absolutely no good reason. But at the same time - if people don't
want it, they don't want it. I like how populist movements like this
do science - basically, they take advantage of the P < .05, and just
keep funding study after study until one of them, by pure chance,
shows HFCS is bad for you. Then we all decide "see! I knew it all
along!"
I *love* these fanciful streams of thought:
“Our bodies have been adapted over the years to metabolize sugar,
which is natural,” Mr. Royster says. “But the body doesn’t know what
to do with high-fructose corn syrup.”
Such a misunderstanding of evolution, especially when talking about an
omnivore who's 'body' adapted to withdraw calories from pretty much
anything it could put in its mouth that wasn't poisonous - and some
things that are. The 'body' is not this delicate system that requires
special care, it's a pretty ruggedized utilitarian machine that will
make due with anything it can.
And I'm all for giving both sides free say - but when one side is
presenting a huge mountain of scientific evidence, much of it coming
from folks who's biases usually lie elsewhere like the Center for
Science in the Public Interest (who believe me, if there were any
shred of evidence against HFCS they'd be on it), and the other side is
some guys facebook group who is simply "convinced diabetes has
something to do with HFCS", its laughable. This is magical thinking
people.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Healthcare Costs
We're not going to get the cost of healthcare down so long as we're on a populist witch hunt.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Don't get me wrong...
I think it's awesome that a sitting American president has won the Nobel Peace Prize. But...er, for what again, exactly?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Sad Thing Is...
Now that Republicans have their talking points together, i.e., offer insurance across state lines, close the loophole that gives employers cheaper health care than employees tax-wise, I'm relatively certain we won't see these things in any sort of compromise bill.
Why? Because they're too conservative for Democrats? Nah. They aren't crazy ideas at all. Unfortunately, they won't see the light of day because there CAN'T be a compromise bill. Republicans haven't learned that elections have consequences, and they'd rather attempt to torpedo any bill, whether it has their stuff in it or not, than actually try and use their few votes to get these ideas in.
Why? Because they're too conservative for Democrats? Nah. They aren't crazy ideas at all. Unfortunately, they won't see the light of day because there CAN'T be a compromise bill. Republicans haven't learned that elections have consequences, and they'd rather attempt to torpedo any bill, whether it has their stuff in it or not, than actually try and use their few votes to get these ideas in.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Sinner taxes
The "Soda tax" is rearing it's ugly, irrational head again. As is my role as the Skeptic, I offer no answers, only questions.
Correlation does not mean causation, we're always told, so correlative studies, such as the ones that show a link between soda consumption and obesity, are only hypothesis generating, not causation proving. How would you prove that soda consumption causes obesity? Well, you could either find people who don't drink soda and give them soda, or, alternatively, do what one of the studies cited in the above article did. Take soda away from some and see if they get thinner.
They didn't.
Yet, the argument for a soda tax continues? That's because it was never about the cause - correlation is all you need for intolerance and discrimination. Whether or not soda causes obesity, there's enough evidence out there to simply associate it with the obese, which is enough for most people to argue for taxing it.
Isn't it hate the sin, love the sinner? Yet when science shows that drinking soda is not, in fact, sinful, it becomes clear that we were pretty much always out to screw the sinner anyway. Every crisis needs a scapegoat, and our health care crisis is no different.
Correlation does not mean causation, we're always told, so correlative studies, such as the ones that show a link between soda consumption and obesity, are only hypothesis generating, not causation proving. How would you prove that soda consumption causes obesity? Well, you could either find people who don't drink soda and give them soda, or, alternatively, do what one of the studies cited in the above article did. Take soda away from some and see if they get thinner.
They didn't.
Yet, the argument for a soda tax continues? That's because it was never about the cause - correlation is all you need for intolerance and discrimination. Whether or not soda causes obesity, there's enough evidence out there to simply associate it with the obese, which is enough for most people to argue for taxing it.
Isn't it hate the sin, love the sinner? Yet when science shows that drinking soda is not, in fact, sinful, it becomes clear that we were pretty much always out to screw the sinner anyway. Every crisis needs a scapegoat, and our health care crisis is no different.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Father of the Green Revolution dies
On Saturday Norman Borlaug died. Mr. Borlaug was an agronomist who’s development of semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties are estimated to have saved the lives of at minimum 250 million, and as many as a billion people at risk of starvation. Although his accomplishments have hardly gone unnoticed (Norman is one of five people to have won the Noble Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal), his later years were marked with criticism by some who believe his methods of pesticides and genetically altered crops create dependency on monoculture crops and environmental degradation in poor countries.
Yet the father of the “Green Revolution” continued to be a dogged advocate for the use of science in agriculture into his 90s. His simple but persuasive argument against organic activists, who warned of the looming elimination of bio-diversity, was if we really want to promote bio-diversity the most important thing is to keep the most bio-diverse regions intact. That is to say, rainforests, the most bio-rich regions on earth, should not be deforested, yet with a growing population and an unchanging amount of farmland simple math tells us the only answer is to increase food production—which has the added convenience of bringing more food and more profits to those in the world who most need it.
However Borlaug’s arguments have done little to change the minds of those who believe the costs of using such technology in crop production outweigh the benefits. Indeed the man who went to Mexico’s desperately poor Yaqui Valley in 1944 to dig in the dirt and toll in a lab and who’s work would by 1950 double Mexico’s wheat production, a phenomenon that spread like wildfire to Pakistan, India and throughout Asia, has become a lightning rod for environmentalists.
To give Borlaug’s critics their due, we do need to be aware how genetic mutations and pesticides can alter an ecosystem, especially when incentive structures develop where agro-businesses can extract a profit from an unsustainable product. But more dangerous is the instinct to draw upon first world values to deal with the developing world’s problems. The growing environmental awareness of Americans and Europeans has created the opportunity for global progress on issues such as climate change and renewable energy—topics that have a profound impact on those in the poorest countries. Yet it is nothing short of a tragedy when such interests are taken as more important than they are. Quite simply, when the choice is as Norman Borlaug faced, between more single strain crops and more starving children dying in the sun, the moral calculus is unequivocally weighted towards the latter.
Norman Borlaugh saved the lives of millions of the world’s most needy. For that he will forever in my mind remain one of the greatest Americans of the 21st century.
Yet the father of the “Green Revolution” continued to be a dogged advocate for the use of science in agriculture into his 90s. His simple but persuasive argument against organic activists, who warned of the looming elimination of bio-diversity, was if we really want to promote bio-diversity the most important thing is to keep the most bio-diverse regions intact. That is to say, rainforests, the most bio-rich regions on earth, should not be deforested, yet with a growing population and an unchanging amount of farmland simple math tells us the only answer is to increase food production—which has the added convenience of bringing more food and more profits to those in the world who most need it.
However Borlaug’s arguments have done little to change the minds of those who believe the costs of using such technology in crop production outweigh the benefits. Indeed the man who went to Mexico’s desperately poor Yaqui Valley in 1944 to dig in the dirt and toll in a lab and who’s work would by 1950 double Mexico’s wheat production, a phenomenon that spread like wildfire to Pakistan, India and throughout Asia, has become a lightning rod for environmentalists.
To give Borlaug’s critics their due, we do need to be aware how genetic mutations and pesticides can alter an ecosystem, especially when incentive structures develop where agro-businesses can extract a profit from an unsustainable product. But more dangerous is the instinct to draw upon first world values to deal with the developing world’s problems. The growing environmental awareness of Americans and Europeans has created the opportunity for global progress on issues such as climate change and renewable energy—topics that have a profound impact on those in the poorest countries. Yet it is nothing short of a tragedy when such interests are taken as more important than they are. Quite simply, when the choice is as Norman Borlaug faced, between more single strain crops and more starving children dying in the sun, the moral calculus is unequivocally weighted towards the latter.
Norman Borlaugh saved the lives of millions of the world’s most needy. For that he will forever in my mind remain one of the greatest Americans of the 21st century.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The growing "Joe Wilson" complex
Congressman Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst during President Obama’s address before Congress was a breach of decorum and as such was widely chastised. In Mr. Wilson’s "defense" he said he simply lost control of his emotions. Indeed he did, yet what is more shocking and unfortunate is how common deep-seeded hatred such as Rep. Wilson’s has become in the political sphere. No doubt, those who argue that political disrespect and polarization are new elements of American politics have short memories; liberals hated Bush at least as much as conservatives hate Obama and hated Bill Clinton. Indeed, one needs to only read archived op-eds from the Vietnam era to find a history rich with polarized viewpoints and disrespect in the public square. Yet after watching a few of the most popular news shows, such as Bill O’Reilly, Keith Olbermann, or Glenn Beck, listening to the maddening crowds at town hall meetings, and seeing the disdain public officials so blatantly show for those on the other side of the aisle, one can’t help but get the feeling things aren’t getting better and they very may well be getting worse.
According to Bill Bishop, author of the book, The Big Sort, Americans are grouping themselves into communities of like-minded individuals like never before. Take the example of the growing political homogeneity of America’s neighborhoods. In the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter only 24 percent of counties that voted President Carter were landslides (over sixty percent voting for Carter). However, in 2004 over 48 percent of counties that voted for President Obama were landslides—double that of 1976. Bishop’s thesis is that Americans have a growing interest in being around and associated with those who are as like them as possible, and with the average American moving once every five years, the phenomenon is increasing.
Yet polarization is not only expanding in our neighbors, its also growing inside our online networks. The internet—arguably the greatest platform for communication the world has ever known—with its ability to bring different people from differences places together with a click of a mouse might seem like an unlikely place for group polarization, but with endless opportunities for self-selection it’s a prime environment for group-think. Harvard professor Robert Putnam makes such a prediction in his book Bowling Alone, Putnam argues that by eliminating the constraints of geography organizations can create themselves in whatever way they want, eliminating stragglers, dissenters, and black swans. For example, if you were a car enthusiast in 1970 and you wanted to join a car club with your 1964 cherry-red Mustang, you would be forced to join the local car club where inevitably you would have to interact with other enthusiasts with different makes and models. Today, with a quick Google search you could find a virtual group of only those who own other 1964 cherry-red Mustangs. In such an environment you would surely learn more about your Mustang but you wouldn’t know anything about your next door neighbor’s lighting-blue 1960 Chevy.
So we live, socialize, work, vote, and pray with those who think the way we do, what’s the problem? Surely, there are advantages to being with those we feel connected to. Indeed, Richard Florida in his book The Creative Class argues innovation-clusters and the economic gains that follow, are created in urban communities that bring together vibrant, creative, and artistic people. Similarly, in a report I co-authored ranking U.S. states based on their development towards the New Economy, the technology- and innovation-leaders were landslide states for Barack Obama (Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey took the top five spots).
First, it’s unclear if the gains that are made from a creative and highly-educated population could not be achieved to a greater degree in diverse communities. In fact, in Why Societies Need Dissent Harvard University professor Cass Sunstein points out that boards of directors who tend to disagree often are financially more successful then those who predominately share views. Second, by isolating ourselves to those whom we agree we limit our propensity for intellectual progress. In the word of Professor Sunstein, “Democracy is contingent on unplanned, unanticipated interactions with those whom are unlike ourselves.”
In reality, isolating ourselves to those who share our viewpoints restricts our ability to explore new territory and sharpen our understanding of the world. Yet as technology and higher standards of living make it easier to self-select associations, we need to make explicit efforts to seek out the opinions and viewpoints that differ from our own. Although I have a long way to go before fully taking my own advice, I do have a small ritual I perform to learn about the viewpoints of those I disagree with. Fridays are what I call “Speaker’s Corner Fridays”, where I read at least four things I know at the onset I’ll probably disagree with. The origin of this little tradition came from when I was living in London and I would run on Fridays through Hyde Park past Speaker’s Corner, where the craziest dissenters got their say. Although the concept is slightly silly, I believe it has actually helped me developed a much more rounded worldview and a keener understanding of public policy.
According to Bill Bishop, author of the book, The Big Sort, Americans are grouping themselves into communities of like-minded individuals like never before. Take the example of the growing political homogeneity of America’s neighborhoods. In the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter only 24 percent of counties that voted President Carter were landslides (over sixty percent voting for Carter). However, in 2004 over 48 percent of counties that voted for President Obama were landslides—double that of 1976. Bishop’s thesis is that Americans have a growing interest in being around and associated with those who are as like them as possible, and with the average American moving once every five years, the phenomenon is increasing.
Yet polarization is not only expanding in our neighbors, its also growing inside our online networks. The internet—arguably the greatest platform for communication the world has ever known—with its ability to bring different people from differences places together with a click of a mouse might seem like an unlikely place for group polarization, but with endless opportunities for self-selection it’s a prime environment for group-think. Harvard professor Robert Putnam makes such a prediction in his book Bowling Alone, Putnam argues that by eliminating the constraints of geography organizations can create themselves in whatever way they want, eliminating stragglers, dissenters, and black swans. For example, if you were a car enthusiast in 1970 and you wanted to join a car club with your 1964 cherry-red Mustang, you would be forced to join the local car club where inevitably you would have to interact with other enthusiasts with different makes and models. Today, with a quick Google search you could find a virtual group of only those who own other 1964 cherry-red Mustangs. In such an environment you would surely learn more about your Mustang but you wouldn’t know anything about your next door neighbor’s lighting-blue 1960 Chevy.
So we live, socialize, work, vote, and pray with those who think the way we do, what’s the problem? Surely, there are advantages to being with those we feel connected to. Indeed, Richard Florida in his book The Creative Class argues innovation-clusters and the economic gains that follow, are created in urban communities that bring together vibrant, creative, and artistic people. Similarly, in a report I co-authored ranking U.S. states based on their development towards the New Economy, the technology- and innovation-leaders were landslide states for Barack Obama (Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey took the top five spots).
First, it’s unclear if the gains that are made from a creative and highly-educated population could not be achieved to a greater degree in diverse communities. In fact, in Why Societies Need Dissent Harvard University professor Cass Sunstein points out that boards of directors who tend to disagree often are financially more successful then those who predominately share views. Second, by isolating ourselves to those whom we agree we limit our propensity for intellectual progress. In the word of Professor Sunstein, “Democracy is contingent on unplanned, unanticipated interactions with those whom are unlike ourselves.”
In reality, isolating ourselves to those who share our viewpoints restricts our ability to explore new territory and sharpen our understanding of the world. Yet as technology and higher standards of living make it easier to self-select associations, we need to make explicit efforts to seek out the opinions and viewpoints that differ from our own. Although I have a long way to go before fully taking my own advice, I do have a small ritual I perform to learn about the viewpoints of those I disagree with. Fridays are what I call “Speaker’s Corner Fridays”, where I read at least four things I know at the onset I’ll probably disagree with. The origin of this little tradition came from when I was living in London and I would run on Fridays through Hyde Park past Speaker’s Corner, where the craziest dissenters got their say. Although the concept is slightly silly, I believe it has actually helped me developed a much more rounded worldview and a keener understanding of public policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)