One more study that suggests that having high blood sugar leads to lower quality of life as one ages--in this case, in the form of reduced cognitive functioning.
As Columbia University neuropsychologist Adam Brickman notes in the article, “there is now converging literature that implicates uncontrolled blood glucose levels with poor cognitive aging. While the mechanisms underlying that are still unclear, there have been enough … studies now to really raise our eyebrows.”
Type-2 Diabetes--caused by poor diet, too many processed foods, not enough physical activity--cuts the average lifespan by about 10 years, reduces sexual function, leads to blindness, now cognitive dysfunction. There's a clear benefit of maintaining a healthy diet: for ourselves, our families and the planet.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Goldilocks Story of Parenthood
Here's some new evidence that it's not just a mother's age but a father's that can affect the health of a baby.
The bottom line: after a father turns 40 chances of autism increase significantly.
Take home conclusion: it's good for the Earth if you don't have a child too early (see earlier post), but for your own child's sake, you don't want to have the child too late.
In other words, nature has taken a cue from Goldilocks and the Three Bears. This mother is too young, this father is too old, this one is just right! It appears that the best window of time to have a child is in the 30's--for both mother and father, not just the mother as is commonly believed.
New studies, however, are always coming out and research might find that with so much exposure to chemicals, maybe the reproductive system weakens earlier and so for safety sake a child in the late 20s might be best. Anyone know of studies investigating that question? Comparing birth defects in places with high chemical exposure at different ages and against populations with lower chemical exposures? Comment if so.
The bottom line: after a father turns 40 chances of autism increase significantly.
Take home conclusion: it's good for the Earth if you don't have a child too early (see earlier post), but for your own child's sake, you don't want to have the child too late.
In other words, nature has taken a cue from Goldilocks and the Three Bears. This mother is too young, this father is too old, this one is just right! It appears that the best window of time to have a child is in the 30's--for both mother and father, not just the mother as is commonly believed.
New studies, however, are always coming out and research might find that with so much exposure to chemicals, maybe the reproductive system weakens earlier and so for safety sake a child in the late 20s might be best. Anyone know of studies investigating that question? Comparing birth defects in places with high chemical exposure at different ages and against populations with lower chemical exposures? Comment if so.
Monday, February 2, 2009
A Family For All Families
Until the human population returns to a number that the Earth can healthily maintain, all couples should moderate their reproductive fruitfulness. Those wanting larger families should consider adopting as many children as they have the longing and means to raise. All families should focus on teaching their children to tread as lightly on the Earth as possible.
We need to shrink the human population as fast as humanely possible if we expect the majority of humans to live in anything but the most abject state of poverty on a disrupted planet with ecosystem services increasingly less able to sustain humanity. But a reduction of how much, exactly? The conservatively calculated Ecological Footprint indicator suggests that the Earth can sustain about 2.1 billion high-income individuals or 6.2 billion middle-income individuals or 13.6 billion low-income individuals (this assumes all of Earth’s biocapacity is used for humans). Few will be willing to return to a state of poverty, nor should they, so really we need to aim for either a high-income (“consumer”) population one-third of today’s population (and no one else), or, more realistically, a larger but still much-reduced middle-income population—one that maintains a simple but satisfying way of life.
So, the Earth can sustain 6 billion mindful individuals or fewer consumers—yet we’re en route to a total population of about 9 billion, including 2–4 billion consumers. That means our survival depends on an aggressive campaign to reduce population and consumption, starting right now. In part we can address this by offering opportunities to women to control their own reproductive choices. Many have written about this, including Worldwatch vice president Robert Engelman in his recent book More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want. In essence, he notes, “women aren’t seeking more children, but more for their children.” If we can provide education, support, and access to contraception, many women will choose to have fewer children.
Family planning efforts like the ones Engelman describes will help significantly, but they typically only focus on low and middle-income individuals. What about those women who are seeking more children in consumer countries, where each child has the impact of many children in low-income countries? The goal here also needs to be to encourage moderation in fruitfulness. Successful population management will most likely require not only good access to family planning but a new reproductive norm—that bearing one, or at very most two, children is the very best choice—whether through ecological education efforts, social marketing campaigns, or religious teachings.
The trend seems to be going in the other direction, at least in the United States, where families are having two, three, four, even 18 children in the case of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, a reproductively energetic family prominently showcased on the Discovery Health Channel. Yet what few U.S. or other consumer-class citizens fully understand is that even their smaller families consume staggering amounts of resources and thus have a hugely disproportionate impact. The average family has 2.1 children, yet from a global resource perspective each of these children uses the resources of 9.4 children in a low-income country. In other words, the average U.S. family has about the equivalent of 20 children (while the Duggars have 169). So the problem is more to be found in rich countries than in poor countries where families are having just three to five children.
While few people will be willing to forego children altogether, anyone truly committed to global justice, the environment, sustainability, ethical living, stewardship of God’s creation, or however one personally frame today’s converging social and ecological crises, must choose fewer children. A one-child goal, adopted as a personal choice and reinforced through tax incentives and the intentional cultivation of a new social norm, may be the best solution until population and consumption habits regain balance with the planet’s longterm capacities.
But isn’t it true that “only” children turn out to be spoiled brats? Writer Bill McKibben investigated this question in his book Maybe One: A Case for Smaller Families and found that single children were smarter, better motivated, and better adjusted than children with siblings. But if you don’t want to believe the research or you just want a big family, simply adopt more children—ideally kids who would have grown up in consumer families whom you can raise sustainably instead.
Along with choosing the number of children, parents have an important role to play both in the values they instill and how they raise their children. By teaching ecological values early—through the stories, lessons and activities they share—parents can help their children internalize these values, slowing down acculturation into consumerism and helping to create a new and lasting cultural norm. Parents can raise their children sustainably often by choosing the most traditional or natural options: breastfeeding when able, using cloth diapers, making their own baby food from organic and locally grown produce, reusing second-hand clothes and toys passed down from older friends and family members. Some will think this is unrealistic, but many of these changes will save money (used clothes and toys are free, self-made baby foods are cheaper and healthier, and cloth diapers can save thousands of dollars per child). And while some of these efforts take time or add work, giving birth to only one child reduces the workload and the necessary period of fulltime care. Of course, sustainable childcare could be promoted further if laws were widely adopted like those in Norway or Sweden that give primary caregivers 10 or 15 months of paid leave after birth to devote themselves fulltime to child care (though perhaps limiting this leave to just the first child).
Finally, one last question often neglected in this discussion: When to have a child? The answer: when you’re older—ideally around the age of 30 (though not much older, in order to avoid increased health and developmental risks). Waiting until that age helps slow population growth. Here’s an example: suppose that a 20-year-old woman gave birth to twin girls in 2000. One of the twins has a child at 20 (2020), the other at 30 (2030). Each of their children has one child each at 20 or 30, following their mothers’ leads (2040 and 2060 respectively), and this happens once again in 2060 and 2090. By 2060, the first sister has produced one more generation than the second. If each of the original twins gives birth to only one child, both have helped in slowing population growth, but the second sister has contributed a third less growth over the same period of time. Assuming this is happening among millions of families, this demographic shift could lead to the reduction of hundreds of thousands of people. And while western economists will say that this will disrupt the global economy, that is a shortsighted concern. Yes, social and economic changes will be necessary to cope with the shift (such as retiring later, rebuilding communities, altering migration patterns, and encouraging adult children to bring parents back into their homes), but these will be minor compared to the ecological collapse that failure to slow population growth will bring.
We need to shrink the human population as fast as humanely possible if we expect the majority of humans to live in anything but the most abject state of poverty on a disrupted planet with ecosystem services increasingly less able to sustain humanity. But a reduction of how much, exactly? The conservatively calculated Ecological Footprint indicator suggests that the Earth can sustain about 2.1 billion high-income individuals or 6.2 billion middle-income individuals or 13.6 billion low-income individuals (this assumes all of Earth’s biocapacity is used for humans). Few will be willing to return to a state of poverty, nor should they, so really we need to aim for either a high-income (“consumer”) population one-third of today’s population (and no one else), or, more realistically, a larger but still much-reduced middle-income population—one that maintains a simple but satisfying way of life.
So, the Earth can sustain 6 billion mindful individuals or fewer consumers—yet we’re en route to a total population of about 9 billion, including 2–4 billion consumers. That means our survival depends on an aggressive campaign to reduce population and consumption, starting right now. In part we can address this by offering opportunities to women to control their own reproductive choices. Many have written about this, including Worldwatch vice president Robert Engelman in his recent book More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want. In essence, he notes, “women aren’t seeking more children, but more for their children.” If we can provide education, support, and access to contraception, many women will choose to have fewer children.
Family planning efforts like the ones Engelman describes will help significantly, but they typically only focus on low and middle-income individuals. What about those women who are seeking more children in consumer countries, where each child has the impact of many children in low-income countries? The goal here also needs to be to encourage moderation in fruitfulness. Successful population management will most likely require not only good access to family planning but a new reproductive norm—that bearing one, or at very most two, children is the very best choice—whether through ecological education efforts, social marketing campaigns, or religious teachings.
The trend seems to be going in the other direction, at least in the United States, where families are having two, three, four, even 18 children in the case of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, a reproductively energetic family prominently showcased on the Discovery Health Channel. Yet what few U.S. or other consumer-class citizens fully understand is that even their smaller families consume staggering amounts of resources and thus have a hugely disproportionate impact. The average family has 2.1 children, yet from a global resource perspective each of these children uses the resources of 9.4 children in a low-income country. In other words, the average U.S. family has about the equivalent of 20 children (while the Duggars have 169). So the problem is more to be found in rich countries than in poor countries where families are having just three to five children.
While few people will be willing to forego children altogether, anyone truly committed to global justice, the environment, sustainability, ethical living, stewardship of God’s creation, or however one personally frame today’s converging social and ecological crises, must choose fewer children. A one-child goal, adopted as a personal choice and reinforced through tax incentives and the intentional cultivation of a new social norm, may be the best solution until population and consumption habits regain balance with the planet’s longterm capacities.
But isn’t it true that “only” children turn out to be spoiled brats? Writer Bill McKibben investigated this question in his book Maybe One: A Case for Smaller Families and found that single children were smarter, better motivated, and better adjusted than children with siblings. But if you don’t want to believe the research or you just want a big family, simply adopt more children—ideally kids who would have grown up in consumer families whom you can raise sustainably instead.
Along with choosing the number of children, parents have an important role to play both in the values they instill and how they raise their children. By teaching ecological values early—through the stories, lessons and activities they share—parents can help their children internalize these values, slowing down acculturation into consumerism and helping to create a new and lasting cultural norm. Parents can raise their children sustainably often by choosing the most traditional or natural options: breastfeeding when able, using cloth diapers, making their own baby food from organic and locally grown produce, reusing second-hand clothes and toys passed down from older friends and family members. Some will think this is unrealistic, but many of these changes will save money (used clothes and toys are free, self-made baby foods are cheaper and healthier, and cloth diapers can save thousands of dollars per child). And while some of these efforts take time or add work, giving birth to only one child reduces the workload and the necessary period of fulltime care. Of course, sustainable childcare could be promoted further if laws were widely adopted like those in Norway or Sweden that give primary caregivers 10 or 15 months of paid leave after birth to devote themselves fulltime to child care (though perhaps limiting this leave to just the first child).
Finally, one last question often neglected in this discussion: When to have a child? The answer: when you’re older—ideally around the age of 30 (though not much older, in order to avoid increased health and developmental risks). Waiting until that age helps slow population growth. Here’s an example: suppose that a 20-year-old woman gave birth to twin girls in 2000. One of the twins has a child at 20 (2020), the other at 30 (2030). Each of their children has one child each at 20 or 30, following their mothers’ leads (2040 and 2060 respectively), and this happens once again in 2060 and 2090. By 2060, the first sister has produced one more generation than the second. If each of the original twins gives birth to only one child, both have helped in slowing population growth, but the second sister has contributed a third less growth over the same period of time. Assuming this is happening among millions of families, this demographic shift could lead to the reduction of hundreds of thousands of people. And while western economists will say that this will disrupt the global economy, that is a shortsighted concern. Yes, social and economic changes will be necessary to cope with the shift (such as retiring later, rebuilding communities, altering migration patterns, and encouraging adult children to bring parents back into their homes), but these will be minor compared to the ecological collapse that failure to slow population growth will bring.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Fewer Calories, More Memories
Here's more evidence to support moderating one's calories: a BBC article that describes a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that found that a calorie restricted diet in 50 elderly volunteers improved their memories significantly. These same volunteers also had "fewer signs of inflammation" and decreased levels of insulin.
Want to live longer, feel better, have a smaller ecological impact, and now remember more? Eat fewer calories--and make those calories as nutritious, local, ecological and low on the food chain as possible. See the earlier essay on Right Diet for more on how to do this.
Want to live longer, feel better, have a smaller ecological impact, and now remember more? Eat fewer calories--and make those calories as nutritious, local, ecological and low on the food chain as possible. See the earlier essay on Right Diet for more on how to do this.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Exercise and healthy diet keeps memory strong
A new study finds that elevated blood sugar levels can have a detrimental effect on the memory. Bottom line: eat healthy (particularly fewer refined high sugar foods) and exercise. Enough said.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Wanted: Moles at ExxonMobil
Here's a little more support for the idea of pursuing a just livelihood--regardless of where you work or what you do, even if that means whistleblowing or footdragging. The author, Auden Schendler, a sustainability officer at a ski resort, noted the following in Orion Magazine recently:
Now, he doesn't mention footdragging but he said we need moles. What does that mean? Ideally, in his context, the worker is pressuring his colleagues, superiors and subordinates to focus more on sustainability. But how overtly? In some companies--ExxonMobil is Auden's example--how openly can you be a mole (and by definition a mole is an animal that lives underground, quietly tearing things up)? When one can't overtly change a system without risk to oneself, then whistleblowing or footdragging become justifiable. Final question: shouldn't one just leave the job, assuming one can find another job? There are arguments on both side: If you do and find a job working for a company that is receptive to becoming more sustainable, then you might be doing a more useful service in the world, helping that company grow and grow greener. But that means someone that is probably less interested in sustainability would replace you at ExxonMobil. And thus the company continues on destroying the planet with a workforce even less concerned about the consequences. But really, the world isn't this straightforward. Jobs aren't infinite and neither are workers' skills. So sometimes one can't just easily switch jobs. The big point is that if you are concerned about the long-term state of the planet (which will determine the ability of humanity to thrive in the future), then you must use your job--wherever and whatever it is--to push for sustainable business practices: whether out front in a supportive business environment, or at worst, as a mole, a whistleblower, or a footdragger.
"To someone who asks, “I want to establish a relationship with the divine. Can I come to your monastery?” Keating might reply, “You can have that relationship anywhere, and should.” My conversation with Keating reminded me of the many phone calls I get from eager, young, well-educated college graduates who desperately want to get into the “sustainability field.” My response is that given the scale of the problems, every job must become a sustainability job. So one approach is to look for ways to turn your own position into one that addresses climate change. If every job doesn’t become a climate job, we’re not going to solve the problem. Even if you work for the worst of the worst—let’s say it’s ExxonMobil—we need people inside the beast. We need moles. And there isn’t a job in the world that doesn’t somehow influence the changing climate."
Now, he doesn't mention footdragging but he said we need moles. What does that mean? Ideally, in his context, the worker is pressuring his colleagues, superiors and subordinates to focus more on sustainability. But how overtly? In some companies--ExxonMobil is Auden's example--how openly can you be a mole (and by definition a mole is an animal that lives underground, quietly tearing things up)? When one can't overtly change a system without risk to oneself, then whistleblowing or footdragging become justifiable. Final question: shouldn't one just leave the job, assuming one can find another job? There are arguments on both side: If you do and find a job working for a company that is receptive to becoming more sustainable, then you might be doing a more useful service in the world, helping that company grow and grow greener. But that means someone that is probably less interested in sustainability would replace you at ExxonMobil. And thus the company continues on destroying the planet with a workforce even less concerned about the consequences. But really, the world isn't this straightforward. Jobs aren't infinite and neither are workers' skills. So sometimes one can't just easily switch jobs. The big point is that if you are concerned about the long-term state of the planet (which will determine the ability of humanity to thrive in the future), then you must use your job--wherever and whatever it is--to push for sustainable business practices: whether out front in a supportive business environment, or at worst, as a mole, a whistleblower, or a footdragger.
On the Ethics of Foot Dragging
I received a comment recently on the essay "Just Livelihood" from a reader (through World Watch magazine so I won't post the name here in case the author did not expect this to be available in electronic format):
"I am writing to object to a strategy recommended by Erik Assadourian under the banner "The Living Earth Ethical Principles" (pgs 30-31 of World Watch Magazine, Jan/Feb 2009).
Where is the ethics in Mr. Assadourian's recommendation to employees of "foot dragging, an effective tactic to imperceptibly slow down down, whether by moving just a bit more slowly, filing papers incorrectly, or entering data with a small error (just a few examples). If done right, managers won't detect it's intentional (or you!)"
If Mr. Assadourian and by association his employer the World Watch Institute advocate for subterfuge and deception, let it not be under the banner of "Ethical Principles."
I am truly dismayed by the lack of personal integrity and ethics put forth by this staff member of World Watch."
And so I respond:
In his book, Rules for Radicals, community organizer Saul Alinsky updated Machiavelli’s statement “The ends justify the means,” with a question “Does this particular end justify this particular means?” Of course, the ethics of any action depends not only on the action itself but the intention behind the action (i.e. the end one pursues).
With footdragging (slowing down one’s work), if the end in mind is to get back at a boss you don’t like or because you don’t enjoy your job anymore, as happens today with millions of Americans (according to the book, I Quit But I forgot To Tell You) then the action of footdragging is unambiguously unethical. But if the end in mind is to slow down the destruction of the planet, the poisoning of communities with toxic chemicals, or the reduction of profit of a corporation that benefits from the above (ethical ends), then footdragging in this case would be an ethical means.
I admit this description of ethics is not as black and white as most people would like but neither is the real world. So let me reiterate what I said in the essay: footdragging is not the first or best option. Of course one should try to change the behavior of the company (directly through discussion or if impossible through “whistleblowing”), or if that doesn’t work, find a new job. But if those are not options, then should one do her job as effectively as possible when that means more efficiently sickening the planet or killing innocent people (even if that’s just an unintended consequence of the business)? Or should one redefine one’s job to: doing it more de-lib-er-ate-ly, more me-thod-i-cal-ly, (ok, more slow-ly), hoping in a small way to save lives and slow down the system while others build new responsible businesses that eventually replace their unsustainable competitors? Particularly in oppressive economic climates, where job opportunities are limited and overt dissent could lead to imprisonment or worse, quiet footdragging may be the only means of resistance available (as anthropologist James Scott notes in his book Weapons of the Weak). To dismiss this tactic out of hand is unrealistic at best, unethical at worst.
"I am writing to object to a strategy recommended by Erik Assadourian under the banner "The Living Earth Ethical Principles" (pgs 30-31 of World Watch Magazine, Jan/Feb 2009).
Where is the ethics in Mr. Assadourian's recommendation to employees of "foot dragging, an effective tactic to imperceptibly slow down down, whether by moving just a bit more slowly, filing papers incorrectly, or entering data with a small error (just a few examples). If done right, managers won't detect it's intentional (or you!)"
If Mr. Assadourian and by association his employer the World Watch Institute advocate for subterfuge and deception, let it not be under the banner of "Ethical Principles."
I am truly dismayed by the lack of personal integrity and ethics put forth by this staff member of World Watch."
And so I respond:
In his book, Rules for Radicals, community organizer Saul Alinsky updated Machiavelli’s statement “The ends justify the means,” with a question “Does this particular end justify this particular means?” Of course, the ethics of any action depends not only on the action itself but the intention behind the action (i.e. the end one pursues).
With footdragging (slowing down one’s work), if the end in mind is to get back at a boss you don’t like or because you don’t enjoy your job anymore, as happens today with millions of Americans (according to the book, I Quit But I forgot To Tell You) then the action of footdragging is unambiguously unethical. But if the end in mind is to slow down the destruction of the planet, the poisoning of communities with toxic chemicals, or the reduction of profit of a corporation that benefits from the above (ethical ends), then footdragging in this case would be an ethical means.
I admit this description of ethics is not as black and white as most people would like but neither is the real world. So let me reiterate what I said in the essay: footdragging is not the first or best option. Of course one should try to change the behavior of the company (directly through discussion or if impossible through “whistleblowing”), or if that doesn’t work, find a new job. But if those are not options, then should one do her job as effectively as possible when that means more efficiently sickening the planet or killing innocent people (even if that’s just an unintended consequence of the business)? Or should one redefine one’s job to: doing it more de-lib-er-ate-ly, more me-thod-i-cal-ly, (ok, more slow-ly), hoping in a small way to save lives and slow down the system while others build new responsible businesses that eventually replace their unsustainable competitors? Particularly in oppressive economic climates, where job opportunities are limited and overt dissent could lead to imprisonment or worse, quiet footdragging may be the only means of resistance available (as anthropologist James Scott notes in his book Weapons of the Weak). To dismiss this tactic out of hand is unrealistic at best, unethical at worst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
