"You Made Me Fat" and other weight loss taboo's

"You Made Me Fat" and other weight loss taboo's		supersized
		May 15 2008 18:54
Straight off this is a spin off thread from the "Is it just me or does everybody seem like PIGS" thread. NOTE: Just in case it comes up, I am in no way advocating harassing people about their weight, food choices, or grocery carts in a one-to-one scenario. The heat on the thread above came from the idea that an individual would look at another individual (in a store, in a food court, at their lunch desk) and think there were a "pig" for their food choices. It's hardly surprising that this was an inflammatory remark on a weight loss board. The second interesting flash point in the thread came when a poster said that it was this negative judgement of others that contributed to her eating more and continuing her over eating disorder (I would assume the same could be said for an under eating disorder). From these two comments we ended up with what I will call a strong support for rampant individualism. On one hand posters were outraged that people would have the audacity to judge the contents of someone else's grocery cart, because that is mean and rude (to summarize). On the other hand those who said it's those judgmental people who helped make me fat were also denigrated for not taking personal responsibility for their own eating choices. Basically the overwhelming consensus became what I eat is none of your business and what you eat is none of mine. I can't pin point exactly why but this rang as a really bad idea to me. It's hardly a secret that North America is engaged in an obesity epidemic. Over 50% of adult American's are overweight, the percentage of overweight and obese children is growing exponentially, and this generation is the first generation projected not to live as long as their parents. Ultimately what we put in our mouths is our decision, but a decision is reached from the choices available and I began to question how free our choices are. The individualist argument will tells us that we simply have to choose to eat healthy foods in moderate quantities and exercise. This is the secret to a healthy weight and lifestyle. If it is that simple I have to ask, why are so many of us increasingly overweight? I know I didn't wake up one morning and decide that I wanted to be overweight, I did not make a plan and decide to become overweight, I did not make an effort to become overweight. I suppose an argument can be made that I should have kept myself better informed as to what my nutritional requirements were and met them. I didn't. A lot of people didn't. In fact 50% of adult American's didn't. At this point I have to think that there is more at play here than my individual choice to choose a healthy lifestyle or not. My argument is that a healthy lifestyle is no longer intuitive. Or, that our intuition is so heavily bombarded by outside influences that it is rendered useless. Fast food is a multi-billion dollar industry, as is packaged goods, as are soft drinks. Fashion, cosmetics and the diet industries are each also multi-billion dollar industries. Our junk foods are heavily engineered products including taste and fragrance enhancers engineered to trigger our endorphins for pleasure. Billions of dollars tell Americans to find pleasure in fast food, and then to diet it off to fit into a size 0 dress. Jenny Craig is owned by Nestle (hardly the only major diet plan owned by a food company that also produces junk food). I can think of half a dozen fast food restaurants in less than 6 seconds (McDonalds, Wendy's, Arby's, Taco Bell, Burger King, Tim Hortons - yes I'm Canadian) but I can't think of one single healthy food choice restaurant that would have brand recognition internationally (or even nationally). Supermarkets are (in a well proportioned supermarket) 70% packaged goods. Retailing research helps lay out supermarkets to the extent that they have demographics on exactly which way the majority of people turn when they walk into a store (over 90% of people turn right by the way). With this kind of money, marketing and research behind the scenes of our food and image industries I really do have to question how much individual choice we really do have when choosing our foods. This is where I think judgment becomes important. Until we think about what we as a society are putting into our grocery carts we will not ask why. It's too easy and too reductionist to say that we are not influenced by or simply have to ignore the billion dollar a year food advertising industry. I think we are where smoking was 15 years ago. We now know without a doubt that obesity is bad for us. It's not just unfashionable, it's not just poor choices in clothes it's actually killing people at a higher rate than smoking ever was. Now sure, second hand fat doesn't kill.... well not in the same way that second hand smoke does... However if 50% of the adult American population is overweight then there is something in our culture that is making it acceptable for us to slowly kill ourselves this way, and it obviously does affect others (witness the growing rates of obesity). As I said at the top I'm not saying we should start picketing taco bell, or ridiculing the person in front of us at the grocery line... What we do need to think about is how far we're willing to push individual freedoms to allow ourselves to ignore a social epidemic.

Page [1] 2 [3] [4] [5] of 5		Post Reply
#21	mspw	May 17 2008 00:39
post #11: (my vice was McD's Quaterpounder). I did wonder if it was the salt, but goodness only knows. What else could be put in food to make it addictive? Is is simply the addition of a particular flavour? or something more? I highly advise you to watch Fast Food Nation. I know what the "something more" is... fecal matter. Yep! The FDA knows, the cattle farmers all know. The processing plants know it. They all know it and don't care. They figure nobody will get sick as long as the meats cooked to a certain temp to kill the bacteria. That's the reason for that big processing plant getting shut down, after the massive ecoli outbreaks. Ecoli or not, the feces are in the meat. So eat 'em up! LOL!
#22	lessin08	May 17 2008 00:58
I skimmed through, but may have missed a few things. i do not think that this was mentioned... THE COST OF FOOD AND RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION. Are two of the primary causes of obesity... especially in less affluent communities. I actually studied this in school so hear me out. We live in cities that make it nearly impossible to walk anywhere. The store is miles... not blocks away. Our jobs are hours, not minutes away. As such we have engineered a society that makes us more mobile... but not physically mobile... technologically mobile. When is the last time you walked to the store...? How long is your commute? The cheapest and most convenient food, is the worst for us, and is more readily available than the healthier food... not to mention it is packaged to fit our "tech mobile lives... hence the drive through. When is the last time you saw a walk up window? Grocery store chains avoid less affluent areas, but fast food joints abound. The ratio in some poor areas is 3 to 1... or even 3 to 0. Yes... some neighborhoods do not have anything more than a convenience store... emphasis on "convenience". It is a social problem and an individual problem. We need to take personal responsibility, but we also need to take social responsibility for the problem.
#23	mpatitucci	May 17 2008 02:21
Lessin, I agree that the convenience store to grocery store ratio is a problem. In my neighborhood, the nearest grocery store, Pathmark, is 12 blocks away. That's not terrible, and I walk there to do my shopping, but there are five convenience stores between here and there. That's five convenience stores in eight blocks, not to mention a scattering of cheap Chinese-food places and a pizzeria. I didn't have anything to make for dinner tonight, and I very nearly decided to stop at one of the convenience stores for something quick. It took all the willpower I had not to, and to go to Pathmark instead on this cold and rainy night after a long day at work. Most people just won't do it, especially if they have to feed a family. I'm feeding just myself.
#24	defrog3	May 17 2008 13:31
Lessin08 and mpatitucci, I was listening to a discussion about the lack of high-quality groceries in NYC the other day on NPR. They had members from the community and the city council discussing how supermarkets are leaving even the affluent areas of NYC for a lot of reasons, including: 1) the high rent isn't covered by the low margins that are earned by groceries (a typical net margin for a supermarket is below 5%, which is very low, when compared to other industries); and, 2) landlords don't want to sign new or extend existing leases w/supermarkets b/c the produce deliveries typically occur in the early morning hours, say, 3am--and people don't want to deal with the truck noise in residential neighborhoods, so it depresses the value of the surrounding residential real estate. There were other reasons discussed that I can't remember now, too. One solution that they are discussing is to provide permits for more fruit/produce carts to operate on the streets, because now there are many swaths of the city (particularly the poorer areas) where the residents don't have local access to get fresh produce. The question is, will people patronize the carts, if they have access to a McD's or whatever fast food chain down the street?? I hope so, but 5 bananas for a dollar can seem a lot less appetizing than what's on the value menu... On another note, we should all be aware that the food industry is exactly that--an INDUSTRY--and it seeks to make a buck just as much as any other business. How to keep the earnings ever growing? Add volume--increase portion sizes; increase the frequency of eating; make the food a bit addictive, keep people eating. And, reduce input costs--wouldn't it be great if there was something that could do both?? Well, the food manufacturers figured out in the 1980s that high fructose corn syrup was cheaper than using real sugar, and so they started using HFCS in their manufacturing process instead of sugar. They also figured out that any type of sugar, when taken with the right amount of salt, will make us crave more food. Without mentioning any particular brand, I wonder why HFCS is needed in the "healthy" whole wheat snack crackers that we buy (read the labels)? Why is it needed in a supposedly healthy bran cereal? Why is it added to all sorts supposedly healthy foods? I think its all rather depressing, if I think about it too much...
#25	mpatitucci	May 17 2008 17:09
The main problem I see with fruit carts, at least for me (I live in NYC), is that I don't quite trust most things sold from a cart. I don't know how hygenic the cart owner is and how the food was handled. I know those problems exist in a supermarket, too, but at least there's the illusion that a manager oversees things. And I worry about accountability from a business that could disappear tomorrow and go to another corner.
#26	supersized	May 17 2008 17:55
Wow I really didn't know how this thread would be received, but there is a lot of great information here. I'd like to get deeper into some of those issues in my next post. First I'll address the minority of what I called rampant individualism that (unsurprisingly) emerged. timmcdonald44 post #3I see no civic responsibility to look beyond myself (and my children). We are each responsible for our own actions or lack thereof, and YOUR eating habits and YOUR exercise habits are not my responsibility (and none of my business). and scubatoy post #8Unless you are going to buy my food, come to my home and cook it up for me, then yeah I say what I eat is none of your business... It doesn't matter to me if you or someone else is a fat pig as long as it isn't me. It just makes me look that much hotter! The two quotes above are likely the best examples of what I mean by rampant individualism. I guess the first thing that I would point to is that as citizens of a country and of the world there is a basic moral obligation to consider your fellow human beings beyond yourself and your children. It never fails to shock me how dismissive some people can be of their fellow human beings. I think this mentality of I'm fine Jack too bad about you.... is what allows all of the social evils in our societies. I can ask a lot of "why's" here about pollution, poverty, war, but for a rampant individualist those will all be cast off as "bleeding heart liberal". It's interesting that the extreme individualist position can rarely be defended in any other way than by trying to name call the opposite view point. The hard facts are that we are social creatures, we would not have schools for our children, grocery markets to shop in, or basic economic structures if we as humans did not cooperate and form civic society. The first mistake in the individualist argument is assuming that to fix or care about social problems means taking responsibility for other people's actions, when it is in fact the exact opposite. To fix social problems and change social structures what most often needs to be changed is our own actions. To put it another way if 50% of a adult Americans started dying of an unidentified disease and passing it on to their children there would be a huge public outcry to find the disease and the cure. When we speak about social responsibility we're not talking about the more government intervention or the food police coming to your door to monitor dinner. If there were a few people in this country / these countries dying from obesity we could consider it poor personal choice. When it is as widespread as 50% of adults, then we need to ask what has gone wrong in the society. The second mistake of the individualist argument is to assume that social responsibility negates personal responsibility. This is not a zero sum game. It is not a choice between social and personal responsibility but a reconciliation of the two to maximize both. Choice is a decision based on the options available. The individual is responsible for making the best possible choice given the options available. The society is responsible for providing the options. If we as a society make it 10 times more expensive to feed a family of 4 on healthy options as it is to feed them on junk food, that is a social problem. If we as a society design our urban and suburban planning to discourage physical recreation and communal spaces that is a social problem. If we as a society permit and demand billions more dollars to be spent in the junk food industries than we do in nutritional information that is a social problem. How we educate our future generations and the tools that we give them to be able to decipher the options in front of them to make the choices they will make as adults is a social problem.
#27	defrog3	May 17 2008 18:00
Ah, agreed with your concerns on the cleanliness and consistency of the fruit carts. I work in midtown, and there's one guy there who is just plain dirty and sells rotten fruit. I avoid buying from him, yuck! But, perhaps there would be increased regulation/monitoring of the carts, if there was an increase in the number? Not that I'm for government regulation, but in some cases it might be helpful?
#28	supersized	May 17 2008 18:41
The good news is that the vast majority of people on this thread can locate their sense of civic responsibility. So lets challenge ourselves not to change the minds of the rampant individualists but to ask ourselves if we can see the problem can we talk about solutions. To mspw's point the internet is a global community so let's try to get some global thinking on these issues. First, let's take a look at some of the contributing factors to the obesity epidemic. I'm trying to pull these factors from the posts we have so far, I'm sure there are more we can add to the list. The list is also not in any particular order of priority. Nutritional Information / Education Portion Control Santonacci post #2As for packaged, processed, and junk foods - yes, they contribute to the problem. But a person can still get fat eating "healthy food" too. Nutritional Education HealthFirst post #4until we really understand and address the factors that contributed to our weight gain, we cannot truly get past it and keep the weight off for good. Early Nutritional Education Thinthought post #5With more parents working full time or single parent homes with the parent working there is not much of an education for children on the side of health- and then it becomes much more difficult for the child when they become an adult to break those habits. Treenut18 Post #17Many schools are not required to teach physical education. Overweight children are almost 2/3 at risk of becoming obese adults. It's cyclical Advertising "Health" labels Karozel post #9there are a lot of mis-leading products and labels out there and the average consumer doesn't always realize (or care) what they are getting.They see some box that say "1/3 less sugar" and get it thinking it's healthier, actually reading the box shows that it has more sodium, added fat, and more calories, but yes, there is less sugar. General Sungamb post #18I'd just like to add that although individuals have the ability to make choices those choices are heavily influenced by advertising - if they weren't then companies like macdonalds wouldn't spend huge amounts of money advertising. Which implies that advertising works at a different level to just conscious choices (why ban smoking adverts if they are not going to cause non-smokers to start smoking). So as long as big companies are trying to make more and more money they will use advertising to sell more of their product to customers, so not necessarily just an issue of conscious choice. Food Engineering Synthetic & Chemical Food Enhancers Andybarc post #11For a while now, I have been interested in the idea that food producers are deliberately making food addictive. I simply don't know enough about the subject unfortunately. However, there have been times when I have consitently eaten foods that I knew to be awful yet I didn't understand why I was drawn to them (my vice was McD's Quaterpounder). I did wonder if it was the salt, but goodness only knows. What else could be put in food to make it addictive? Is is simply the addition of a particular flavour? or something more? defrog3 post #24Well, the food manufacturers figured out in the 1980s that high fructose corn syrup was cheaper than using real sugar, and so they started using HFCS in their manufacturing process instead of sugar. They also figured out that any type of sugar, when taken with the right amount of salt, will make us crave more food. Social Interaction & Cultural Norms Acceptable Recreation Andybarc post #11I work as a lawyer specialising in child law. It seems that in almost every case I see someone asked what they do when exercising contact with their kids, the answer is take them to McDonalds. Nobody bats an eyelid! Just once I'd love to hear someone say, we cook a meal together. Of course they also say he/she plays on the Playstation, when I want to hear about trips to the park but that's a different story! Family Food - Teaching children best food practices mpatitucci post #16 I was even forced to eat more than I wanted because my mother was part of the clean-plate club. My mother wasn't abusive: She truly thought she knew what was best. And those habits are incredibly hard to break once they are formed. Consumer Culture treenut18 post #17 But obesity is a down right epidemic in America--we all wonder how it happened, but when we look back at the history of industry, it all makes sense; we wanted to see more of everything, faster, and for cheap. If you are looking for a good read (and quick, I promise), check out Fat Land by Greg Critser. It summarizes how we became a nation obsessed with food. Socio-Economic Divisions Economics of Food treenut18 post #17obesity has somehow become an income issue. You would think that low-income families would not be able to afford all they can eat, but remember all those lovely fast food places you just named? How expensive is the dollar menu? You can feed your entire family for under $15. Residential Segregation lessin08 post #22We live in cities that make it nearly impossible to walk anywhere. The store is miles... not blocks away. Our jobs are hours, not minutes away. As such we have engineered a society that makes us more mobile... but not physically mobile... technologically mobile. ...The cheapest and most convenient food, is the worst for us, and is more readily available than the healthier food... I'm not sure where to put mspw's points on the impacts of consumer food culture on the environment. They are certainly valid and well taken. I'm not sure if they directly contribute to obesity. However, it is certainly the same attitude that would say "to hell with the environment as long as I can drive my SUV to work" that would also not consider the environmental impacts of eating. Next steps for me are talking about solutions. There are obviously some social ground swells that are creating demand and putting emphasis on solving obesity and social eating in a positive community aware way (no I do not mean government intervention). Some examples I would look to would be the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty (changing our perceptions of normal body images for women), the rise in Organic food lines in small and large grocery stores and chains alike, and the increasing popularity and awareness of the slow food movement and the 100 mile diet. How have these movements grown and built awareness and what can we do as civic minded citizens to increase accessibility and awareness of these and other programs or movements that could be equally as beneficial.
#29	gettinglucky	May 18 2008 04:10
The real epidemic is insecurities and stress management. How many people are overweight because they seek food for comfort? How many people lash out at others because they need to put someone down to lift themselves up? I would vote for more affordable and available counseling. Losing weight is as difficult as beating an addiction. It requires a change in lifestyle while dealing with the mental reliance that developed the addiction in the first place. Those people who hold the rampant individualism are basically saying "I have my own problems that I'm struggling with, I can't help you with yours!" but they lack the self security to say that they need the help with those problems.
#30	enchantingimage	May 19 2008 16:56
Quoted : "It's hardly a secret that North America is engaged in an obesity epidemic. Over 50% of adult American's are overweight, the percentage of overweight and obese children is growing exponentially, and this generation is the first generation projected not to live as long as their parents. Ultimately what we put in our mouths is our decision, but a decision is reached from the choices available and I began to question how free our choices are. The individualist argument will tells us that we simply have to choose to eat healthy foods in moderate quantities and exercise. This is the secret to a healthy weight and lifestyle. If it is that simple I have to ask, why are so many of us increasingly overweight? I know I didn't wake up one morning and decide that I wanted to be overweight, I did not make a plan and decide to become overweight, I did not make an effort to become overweight. I suppose an argument can be made that I should have kept myself better informed as to what my nutritional requirements were and met them. I didn't. A lot of people didn't. In fact 50% of adult American's didn't. At this point I have to think that there is more at play here than my individual choice to choose a healthy lifestyle or not. " This is a very common misunderstanding for parents and individuals raised living by the same concept. " I didn't raise my child to be a druggie " " I didn't raise my children to be obese. " " I wasn't raised to be this lazy. " " I didn't decide to be overweight. " ect The whole " I didn't wake up one morning and decide that I wanted to be overweight, I did not make a plan and decide to become overweight, I did not make an effort to become overweight. What did you do??? What did you raise your child to be? What did you do in order help them become that? What were you raised to become?What did you decide to do? What plan did you make? What did you decide to be? What did you do in order to become that? If the answer is " You didn't " than you made yourself what you currently are. You made yourself fat and you made your children fat. The same concept applies in other areas of life. The same goes for saying you've been influenced.Or your children have been influenced to make unhealthy decisions. Or bad decisions in general.That's also your doing. There are a lots of voices in our children's heads. As their parent you should be the loudest one. Just as it was your parents job to be the loudest one in yours as a child. As an adult regardless of past you should be accountable for your own actions or lack there of. Deciding what you allow through your filter.
#31	mysticjbyrd	May 19 2008 17:58
Original Post by mspw: Re: post #3: And I see no civic responsibility to look beyond myself (and my children). We are each responsible for our own actions or lack thereof, and YOUR eating habits and YOUR exercise habits are not my responsibility (and none of my business). Wow! I haven't read too far but I already have an objection. We all share the same environment, this planet we call home. It is absolutely my civic responsibility to look beyond myself and my 'nuclear family' to the entire planet. I don't eat organic, recycle and drive a fuel-efficient car for sheer ego-stroking. I do it for the welfare of our planetary community. The health of our planet is greatly effected by the health of it's inhabitants. If someone doesn't care about polluting their body they probably don't care about polluting the planet. As within is without. Consideration of this planet is my prime civic duty. Every time someone buys and eats a burger from a fast-food chain, they are supporting the decimation of rain forests for cheap cattle-grazing. Whenever someone buys a pint of ice-cream they are helping one of the largest contributing industries to global warming, dairy. Whenever someone buys individually wrapped cheese food product they are including themselves in the equation which necessitates enormous consumption of energy in order to process and package that product. I'm not saying that I look down on those who buy these and other similar products and services occasionally, but consider the impact our country has on our environment, shared by the entire planet, and then consider how we got to be THE LARGEST polluting country, per capita, and still refuse to take responsibility by joining the Kyoto accord. It's this 'nuclear family' ideology that got us into this mess to begin with. It's apathy, lack of compassion for anything that doesn't affect me personally. It's an old paradigm that needs to end, now. We are a global community. What better expression/manifestation of this state do we need than the internet? It's learning better living habits to save our environment that will eventually, maybe, save us as a species. We need to wake up and shift this destructive, exclusionist paradigm. When I fart in an elevator with you, do you not smell it? Ifin you really care about the planet then you should help reduce the surplus population. I say dispose of any1 that cannot contribute to society.
#32	enchantingimage	May 19 2008 18:14
It's unnerving when people act like you dislike them, because you dislike an attribute or quality they possess. Something that they simply do or do not do. There all sorts of things people do that you may or may not dislike. That doesn't mean we should lie to those that do things we dislike. They shouldn't consider it a personal insult to themselves. It's a generalized statement to our preference. There are things we like and dislike in everyone. Aspects that we could do without by preference, but that doesn't mean we could or want to do without the person that possesses it. Or that we should be reprimanded for being honest. " I say dispose of any1 that cannot contribute to society." That's tricky. What makes you qualified to decide what does or does not contribute to society? I doubt you'd be given the approval to put you in that position of power. Views collide. There will always be an objection in some form. Deleting people doesn't delete the problem or argument. Unless you'd like to go around killing everyone that's views do not coincide with that of your own.
#33	andybarc	May 19 2008 18:17
"I say dispose of any1 that cannot contribute to society." I'm pretty sure this is a wind up?
#34	anndjoe	May 19 2008 19:07
"YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE IT DRINK" At the end of the day no matter what you do to try and rectify what people eat people will still eat what they want! We all know how bad smoking is, but folk still do it. We all know how bad drugs are, but folk still do it. We all know how bad excessive alcohol is, but folk still do it. We all know how bad fatty foods are, but folk still do it. etc etc etc Everything in excess is bad for you no matter what it is, but modern day life is fast and stressful so folk find something that "they" think makes them feel better and relaxed whether that be any of the above or something else like religion, collecting things, shopping, exercise. People pick their own crutch to lean on to get them through each day, and whether you admit it or not we all have "A CRUTCH".
#35	enchantingimage	May 19 2008 19:14
Agreed. Some of us maintain balance in our life. It's acknowledge by some of us because we're accountable. Emotions, behavior, actions, lack there of, ect. . Whereas, others blame or make excuses for theirs. It's ridiculous people show no ownership of their crutch.
#36	anndjoe	May 19 2008 19:25
Original Post by enchantingimage: Agreed. Some of us maintain balance in our life. It's acknowledge by some of us because we're accountable. Emotions, behavior, actions, lack there of, ect. . Whereas, others blame or make excuses for theirs. Also agreed.....and they can't be forced no matter how much pressure is put on them to do so.
#37	enchantingimage	May 19 2008 19:31
That's interesting. Those that retired from serving our country in the military are wasted space? They're no longer contributing? The fact they contributed in a way to protect generations before us means nothing? Some people earnt their retirement. That's right!It's deserved. You are in no position to judge who does and who does not contribute. If you cared so much about fixing the matter... Perhaps, you should volunteer to even out the ratio. Oooh. Wait. In your view you contribute greatly. It's much easier to just point fingers. " You should die. " " and you... " ... and " You too. "
#38	enchantingimage	May 19 2008 20:05
" It's hardly a secret that North America is engaged in an obesity epidemic. Over 50% of adult American's are overweight, the percentage of overweight and obese children is growing exponentially, and this generation is the first generation projected not to live as long as their parents." That news should make you very happy, Mysticjbyrd. Perhaps, you should just go rest in peace. Knowing that obesity may be the answer to your dilemma.
#39	enchantingimage	May 19 2008 20:10
See there. Isn't it amazing how the list seems to grow. This is why it's tricky deciphering who is and who isn't contributing. Now there is heath criteria one must meet in order to be used to contribute to society? Nice. It's a dictatorship. Might as well say who is and who isn't allowed to have children too while you're at it. Perhaps, then.... You should go ahead and limit the gender allowed to be born during different spurts. That way we always have some balance in gender. Wouldn't want to be over populated with one gender....... Seriously. If you don't see how radical your views are you're lying to yourself.
#40	mysticjbyrd	May 19 2008 20:22
Original Post by enchantingimage: See there. Isn't it amazing how the list seems to grow. This is why it's tricky deciphering who is and who isn't contributing. Now there is heath criteria one must meet in order to be used to contribute to society? Nice. It's a dictatorship. Might as well say who is and who isn't allowed to have children too while you're at it. Perhaps, then.... You should go ahead and limit the gender allowed to be born during different spurts. That way we always have some balance in gender. Wouldn't want to be over populated with one gender....... Seriously. If you don't see how radical your views are you're lying to yourself. Of course they are radical. It has to be a radical change in order to solve these problems. I still havent seen your idea. Please tell me how the 4 groups of ppl I listed contribute to society. Hmm... an IQ test to determine your worthiness of breeding is a pretty good idea.
Page [1] 2 [3] [4] [5] of 5		Post Reply