Letters to the Editor
healthyskeptic
Published Letters: 671 Editor's Choice: 14
-
anthropomorphisms
[Read the article: "The World Without Us"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you want to see nature in action, you'll find it as easily in a chickadee flock, which typically includes dozens of other species all moving about in a cooperative band, sharing resources and defending themselves by vigilance and knowing when they SHOULD "cut and run," knowing predators are always about, but the more time and resources they spend focused on engaging rather than eluding those predators, the less time and resources they have to spend on feeding, singing, raising young, and living their lives.
-- chickadee
That's so wrong on a number of levels. You're totally anthropomorphizing the chickadee.
First of all, a chickadee is prey to many predators. I doubt it exactly likes being eaten, in what little thoughts it has at all, but it doesn't have the intelligence to do much about it. It relies on hiding and avoidance as well as reproducing in large enough quantities that it can afford to lose many to predators. That's it's presently evolved survival strategy, because it's big ancestors the dinosaurs were eradicated by a meteorite they never saw coming, having no concept of what a meteorite even is.
It's not freely chosen or in any way moral. It's totally amoral, as are the predators who prey upon it. Like clockwork.
The chickadee doesn't "cooperate" in the human sense. Our instincts for morality and empathy are far beyond that of the chickadee, and our social interaction far more complex. The chickadee is a very unintelligent creature with just enough sense to eat, lay eggs, and signal the approach of predators so that only some are killed. I'm not denying it's overall beauty in the clockwork of nature, but nor am I going to romanticize it either any more than the alligator or other creatures, some of which seem more or less beautiful but themselves have no concept of beauty as humans understand it.
Lastly, the chickadee doesn't have the intelligence to comprehend any of the romantic notions you're ascribing to it. Yes we're on a continuum, and our consciousness is biological and yes they have a limited sort of intelligence too. But my computer is more intelligent in some regards and when I play music on it, or run a program to procedurally generate art, I don't imagine for a second it's experiencing some sort of human-like happiness at doing so, any more than the chickadee singing songs and such in a almost robotic manner.
And btw, if you think they're such wonderful gentle creatures, try putting one on your face near your eyes sometime.
-
As I already posted:
[Read the article: Anorexia: It's not just for teens]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From wikipedia:
"The majority of research into the incidence and prevalence of anorexia has been done in Western industrialized countries, so results are generally not applicable outside these areas. However, recent reviews[35][36] of studies on the epidemiology of anorexia have suggested an incidence of between 8 and 13 cases per 100,000 persons per year and an average prevalence of 0.3% using strict criteria for diagnosis. These studies also confirm the view that the condition largely affects young adolescent females, with females aged between 15 and 19 making up 40% of all cases. Furthermore, the majority of cases are unlikely to be in contact with mental health services. As a whole, about 90% of people with anorexia will be female."
As can be confirmed by reading the studies they cite. If you want to better inform yourself I recommend a search on Nature or Science (the journals). Or, if one reads scientific journals on a regular basis, as I do, then one may have read a few major studies on the subject over the years. Which is how I know the "5%" figure is complete garbage and the product of political propaganda. I'd avoid national health agencies or activist web sites as their public consumption copy is written by political hacks. If you want the facts you have to look at studies and hard data in actual science publications. Even the science page on the NYT frequently shades studies to fit an agenda on the left or right depending on the audience (which shouldn't be surprising to anyone anymore considering the WMD are still missing.)
Anyways, "between 8 and 13 cases of anorexia in 100,000" is not even close to 5%. Furthermore, only a small percentage of those few cases are morbid anorexia, with the vast majority being mild anorexia which is corrected via nutritional supplement and therapy, or may simply pass with adulthood. So, it should't be ignored, and the few people who do have morbid anorexia absolutely do need medical treatment.
But it's hardly a major health epidemic or even a statistical blip. A young girl (or boy) is statistically several orders of magnitude more likely to overeat and under exercise than to be anorexic. And with "normal" now being so unhealthily overweight, you'd really notice if someone was actually anorexic. Also, there are tests for nutritional adequacy that a doctor can give, so there isn't some big diagnosis mystery.
Regardless, kids are supposed to be skinny and look like beanpoles for the most part, far skinnier than adults, especially the overweight adults so prevalent now. Kids should not look like adults or have even healthy adult levels of body fat. Young girls should not typically have large breasts or adult levels of fat deposits. Young boys should not on average be husky or look like little football players. They may like to look more adult sooner, but it doesn't typically stop there, and will lead to obesity by mid 20's or 30's.
Children need high levels of protein, calcium and such nutrients for growth and brain development, but not body fat. It's because they have a higher metabolism, higher heart rate, higher body temp, more hormones and adrenaline, etc.