Positive Liberty

Leitmotif: A person who has subdued the senses and completely renounced the fruits of all works, dwells happily in the City of Nine Gates, neither performing nor directing action. — The Bagavad Gita

Stoic ponderings below the fold.

Amber asks, “Other than Dr. House, how many openly atheistic characters are there on television?” Discussion ensues.

Zach Wendling looks at the science and ethics of dieting:

After decades of being told that the relevant factors are diet and exercise, it seems instead that twin pillars of weight regulation are appetite and metabolism…

[T]here is now considerable evidence that diets don’t work; initial losses are small, and in the long-term, dieters even end up gaining. Diet has complex interactions with both appetite and metabolism… [E]very individual has a set range of weight, 10-20 pounds, in which they will normally fluctuate. This range acts like a thermostat, and when pushed outside that range, the “complex web of feedback loops” will return a person to his normal weight through metabolism and appetite.

We can work down to the lower end of each of our ranges, so it is possible to lose 10 lbs. with some self-discipline. But even this expenditure of will-power takes a lot of effort, and remember, will-power is a limited resource. How much harder must it be for the obese, who must push far below their range to fall into what our culture deems normal? Their conscious expenditure of will-power must overcome crippling biological impulses. Their bodies are sending out every signal that they are starving, metabolism slows, and appetite skyrockets.

I can see the counter-argument already. It runs as follows: Every bite of food is a willed act. People therefore necessarily choose to be fat. You can hem and haw all you like, but it absolutely is a moral failing, and if you deny this, you are denying simple free will. You, Zach, an apologist for immorality.

No, I don’t believe it for a moment. I find it a gross oversimplification of what’s really going on. But it’s also an appealing oversimplification, because it seems to apply to a wide variety of situations, including drug addictions, sexual activity, compulsive behaviors, and probably others that I can’t think of at the moment. Part of living rationally (and therefore morally) is to learn how to manage our dispositions in all of these areas using a wide variety of strategies dependent on context. These strategies may include abstinence, careful indulgence, moral suasion, technology, developing good habits, or simply arranging to be where temptation is not. If our goal is to master our appetites rather than be mastered by them, it does not necessarily follow that willpower must do it alone.

I think the best question to ask is as follows: Given the natural variations in appetite and metabolism, a natural variation in weight will necessarily arise. Taking into account moral, medical, and aesthetic considerations, at what point do we intervene to alter these natural variations, whether through diet, exercise, drugs, surgery, or other means?

(For the record, I eat whatever I feel like eating, which is usually healthy but always in large portions. I am 6′2″ and have never weighed over 185 pounds.)

George Will says reluctant but kind things about Barack Obama’s economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee. I think Obama is more likely to stop the war than Clinton, so if a Democrat is to be the nation’s choice, I’d rather it be him.

Yours Truly once answered some criticisms of Wal-Mart as follows:

…there is nothing inevitable or unstoppable in the way that Wal-Mart competes. It’s just doing better, for the moment, at providing Americans what they want. And we ought to appreciate it for doing so, rather than looking down at it as so many people do, particularly if they are wealthy and liberal.

Also, let me ask you something… How would you go about providing “good” jobs in an economically depressed area, while also providing goods and/or services at competitive prices, and while also keeping the investors happy enough to fund your business? This, I think, is the biggest question of all. It admits of no easy answers, and if Wal-Mart doesn’t have the best answer, then I think the chances are good that someone will soon come along to do better.

It seems that increasingly, other retailers are taking up the charge:

Using a combination of low prices and relentless expansion, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. emerged from rural Arkansas in the 1970s to reshape the world’s largest economy. Its co-founder, Sam Walton, taught Americans to demand ever-lower prices and instructed businesses on running a lean company. His company helped boost America’s overall productivity, lowered the inflation rate, and strengthened the buying power for millions of people. Over time, it also accelerated the drive to manufacture products in Asia, drove countless small shops out of business, and sped the decline of Main Street. Those changes are permanent.

Today, though, Wal-Mart’s influence over the retail universe is slipping. In fact, the industry’s titan is scrambling to keep up with swifter rivals that are redefining the business all around it. It can still disrupt prices, as it did last year by cutting some generic prescriptions to $4. But success is no longer guaranteed.

Rival retailers lured Americans away from Wal-Mart’s low-price promise by offering greater convenience, more selection, higher quality, or better service. Amid the country’s growing affluence, Wal-Mart has struggled to overhaul its down-market, politically incorrect image while other discounters pitched themselves as more upscale and more palatable alternatives. The Internet has changed shoppers’ preferences and eroded the commanding influence Wal-Mart had over its suppliers.

[The] very focus on scale is now a weakness, for the world has changed on Wal-Mart. The big-box retailing formula that drove Wal-Mart’s success is making it difficult for the retailer to evolve. Consumers are demanding more freshness and choice, which means that foods and new clothing designs must appear on shelves more frequently. They are also demanding more personalized service. Making such changes is difficult for Wal-Mart’s supercenters, which ascended to the top of retailing by superior efficiency, uniformity and scale.

This is how capitalism works: If you find a good solution to a difficult problem, people throw money at you. If someone else finds a better solution to the same problem, they stop throwing it your way. This compares favorably to systems of distribution in which people throw bombs, bullets, spears, or tax assessments. (And I almost imagine that someone will have to take Wal-Mart to task for providing $4 prescription drugs. Really, how dare they?)

Osama bin Laden hates microfinance. Interesting article, but I think the reason why is very simple: Bin Laden, as a Muslim fundamentalist, is a throwback to attitudes about money that were near-universal in the ancient world. Mohammed hated interest; so did Aristotle; so did most Christian thinkers until the modern era.

The Mosaic law was remarkable in that it permitted lending money at interest to foreigners. Even this — which no doubt seemed discriminatory for most of its history — was a step in the right direction. Money has opportunity cost, and that opportunity cost means that we would prefer to have the money now rather than later. This relativity of value — now is worth more than later — scared the ancients, particularly those like Mohamed who hoped to establish a universal system of both spiritual and material values. Equanimity in the face of changing material values is part of the modern system of market discipline, which allocates resources not just in space, but over time as well, through the use of money and credit.

Terra Nova continues to fascinate. Let the following words be set in stone:

The crazy stuff *you* like to do on the weekends is an expensive, unintelligent, possibly evil, certainly deviant time-waster that deserves to be: A) taxed; B) forbidden; C) moved to Vegas. The elegant, intricate, specific and detailed stuff *I* do on the weekend is a hobby or possibly even an art. Golf is stoopid. You should be fly fishing.

…from a fascinating discussion on (of all things) paternalism in MMORPGs. Read the whole thing, though for the record I think World of Warcraft gets a bum rap here. There are plenty of activities in the game besides grinding for items, and the environment is rich enough that a creative guild can make up elegant, intricate, specific, detailed stuff to do as well.

China Miéville attracts the ire of Patri Friedman at the Distributed Republic. And a reply from Miéville about attribution and borrowing.

Trackback URI |