From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Thu May 17 2007 - 11:20:21 EDT
Take the example of food production or the production of intoxicating substances like, whiskey, tobacco and cocaine. We know that given free choices of these goods after being subject to advertising, that a large fraction of people will choose to consume things that are inimical to their well being. If vodka, cocaine and tobbaco were available on the market at prices proportionate to their labour contents, rather than being taxed or restricted, then addiction to these toxins would be even higher than it now is. One has only to look at the increase in alcohol related deaths in the former USSR once restrictions on vodka production were lifted to see this. But a similar issue exists with high fat and high sugar foods. With these products it is possible to ascertain scientifically what human needs are, and to plan production in accordance with these needs. For instance, appropriate planning of agricultural production, would address the problem of excess sugar and saturated fat consumption at source by reducing the amount being made. ============================================================= Hi Paul C: I'm not really comfortable with the process you are suggesting. What to produce should be decided by the people themselves rather than an elite -- in this case, the "scientists". If the scientists decide that a product is harmful and some segment of the people still want it, then that leads in the direction of a black market in your socialist economy. One could argue that education is key, and that's true. It's also true that scientists and health professionals have _a_ role in the process of health education. But, this is by no means an easy process, especially if we are referring to addictive substances. There were campaigns in the former USSR and in some Eastern European nations against the negative health consequences of (over-) consuming vodka, but that didn't stop the practice. Nor does making its consumption illegal lead to profound changes in consumption patterns - the most likely consequence is merely an increase in price and the creation of an underground - and unregulated - part of the economy. Changes in cultural norms and practices will take time to change. They won't be profoundly altered by decrees from an authority, including decrees from scientific authorities. Yet, _some_ cultural practices will _have_ to change and change quickly (especially if there are negative environmental consequences) so there is no easy solution to this problem. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 31 2007 - 00:00:08 EDT