Were humans meant to live as long as we do?  The current life expectancy in the USA is around 80 years old, and this is similar in any civilized country.  However, many people live out the end of their lives on various medications that they need to take in order to not feel pain, or even just to survive.  Furthermore, some body parts lose some of their function (eyes, reproductive organs), and many older people have trouble just getting around the grocery store.  I was just reading that men are 70% more likely to be infertile after age 40 than men who are 30.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this.  It’s awesome that we’re able to live so long.  I’m just curious how long humans would actually live if you didn’t count all the people on life-sustaining medicines.

I don’t know why, but I always feel like I’m in a hurry to go somewhere when I’m transporting myself from one destination to another.  Take, for instance, on my way to work today.  I was getting off the metro at 7:40, and after a five minute walk to my job I was fifteen minutes early!  But I still squeezed my way to the front of the metro car to try to get the best positioning I could so I could move quickly.

Why do I feel the need to be in such a hurry when it doesn’t really matter?  I’m not sure, but there are tons of other people who act the same way.  There are plenty of people driving around on weekends who drive like maniacs trying to get somewhere quickly.  I’m sure some of them have some place to be, but there’s probably just as many that just feel the need to get somewhere quickly.  I don’t drive fast or anything, but when I get stuck in traffic - even if I have nowhere to be, I get angry.

Apparently, bullying can keep overweight kids from exercising. A recent study was published which looked at 100 children who were overweight or “at risk” for being overweight. They found:

… as rates of peer victimization among overweight kids went up, rates of physical activity went down…

This leads to a pretty sad and vicious cycle, one that needs to stop yet seems very difficult to terminate. In our society today, the concept of overweight is considered a nasty thing. In later childhood and adulthood, people seem to be able to be somewhat “accepting” of those who are plump. However, young children do not have that restraint, and when they encounter something that is considered negative, often they will tease and bully it.

This inconveniently starts plump children on the bad end of a physical and psychological cycle. EX: They gain a little weight and don’t do so well in sports, which causes them to get teased, which causes them to avoid sports which could help them lose weight [insert anything physical in here instead of sports].

In light of recent events involving the Kennedy clan of Rhode Island, I think we can draw comparisons to my little note on risk perception (outrage + real risk) to the spin control here on Patrick Kennedy’s behalf.

Once again, a fairly prominent member of society has a drug (or alcohol) addiction that has come into the public eye. It just kinda rubs me the wrong way when somebody talks about it being a “disease”. On one hand, yes, he is a Kennedy and the family has had more than their share of public addictions. And this isn’t a one sided Kennedy bashing, its just as wrong that Rush Limbaugh has drug issues.

Using the term “disease” just looks like an attempt to reduce the public outrage. By having a connotation of being an innocent afflicted with a “disease” that they have “caught” from just walking around, like “stomach flu”.

I guess what bothers me is that people buy it, especially from Patrick Kennedy. It isn’t a biological weakness, it is a character weakness. By his time, Patrick knows the family weaknesses. This isn’t catching a cold, this is arrogance in either ignoring family history (if you believe the genetic stuff).

In today’s society, getting a tan has a positive connotation, where smoking a cigarette has a negative one. However, the two are remarkably similar: they both cause cancer!

Furthermore, both have used, or are currently using, marketing strategies aimed at high school students. Virtually everyone is familiar with marketing strategies of tobacco firms. Many of these firms specifically targeted younger people so that they could be addicted early. They did this by using cartoon characters and other aspects that would appeal to youth.

Tanning salons are doing the same thing. Studies have found that tanning salons are marketing heavily towards the younger generations, even putting advertisements in high school newspapers. Further studies have found that tanning can be addictive. So, like a cigarette firm, the tanning salon business can get children hooked early, and have them as a customer for life.

The question is, should we go ahead and restrict tanning advertisements to protect children from becoming addicted to something dangerous and carcinogenic? Is a tanning bed really as deadly as smoking a few cigarettes?