To what extent should a community attend to it's health and fitness?
That is, as individual members of that community, should we accept responsibility for improving overall community health? Should we concern ourselves with the effects of smoking, alcohol, pollution, obesity, safety from accident, and so on?
Hi Dozy, In your question, I would want to be really careful with the definition of "attend"... If attending is offered in the way of opportunities - walk/bike trails, OPTIONAL dietary classes by the Seventh Day Adventists and so forth, then yes, imo.
However, if the community takes it upon themselves to MANDATE...I get nervous. My own experience with my health is that traditional medicine did not know what they were doing, they bungled badly, and people died...it's why I was glad to see the US Congress dismantle the ACA; ACA was mandatory.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 1, 2017 6:26 PM MST
You're right. I was careless with the wording. I was thinking more of the desirability of each of us (as far as we are able) accepting responsibility for our own well-being and thus, passing on the collective benefit to the community.
Hey Didge. I think, as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water...
People still have a right be sedentary, eat Cheetos, smoke Camels, and drink too much. I know some of these types who'd compare a brisk walk on the beach to the Bataan Death March. There is no joy in knowing they won't be around long to complain about their mounting health problems. Maybe we can convince by example, that better choices can make life better. But then, that is subjective.
True. I wasn't thinking of making anything compulsory but if, over a period of time, we could tilt community attitudes toward healthier living, it would certainly lead to better use of resources. Might lead to less employment in the health and cemetery industries, but most folk would be winners.
And as for that quote, Dorothy Parker gave it a twist: "You can lead a horticulture but you ca't make her think."
I get suspicious any time somebody starts talking about "health". Even the original health magazine, "Prevention", eventually degraded into a catalog of fads touting foods, exercises, and unproven anti-aging drugs.
"Healthier living" is a non-starter because it means mostly raw veggies from your own garden, and very few people want to do that much work. They mostly just want to wear tight pants and sweat in formations. I am related to one of those and I got so tired of her sticking her butt in my face on Facebook that I unfriended her. I admire that she lost 170 pounds, but that doesn't mean I want to see her purple yoga pants five times every day.
I recall a comment by Adelle Davis: "I wonder what such people plan to do with good health if they ever acquire it." http://www.amazon.com/Adelle-Davis/e/B001J3RULO
That's one of the hidden costs of Facebook, Jewels: being forced to see stuff that other people think you should be deighted to see. It's the main reason I closed my account after only a couple of months.
Benedict Arnold 