Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Marie Kennedy's avatar

It’s cliche/overly simple, but certainly America’s culture of individualism/liberty/“muh freedoms” or whatever you want to call it comes into play. Americans of both parties place high value on allowing other people to do what they want, or at least they themselves being free from the moralizing and micromanaging of people who think they know better. And the clear outcome at a societal level is, people die. Now I sound weird and authoritarian. But it’s pretty simple- most moral pressure in groups is rooted in the idea that if everyone did X, we’d see better group outcomes, even if individuals might feel a little stifled. It’s easy to see that on things you agree with- “if no one had guns, we’d have fewer deaths!” vs things that code as “the other guys”- “if no one had sex til they were married, we’d have fewer out-of-wedlock kids and they’d grow up in more stable homes!” (See also Nellie Bowles’ piece on liberals who fight for the right of people to choose to die on the streets of SF.) Anyway I could go on and on here. But your thesis is refreshingly straightforward- what can we do from a *policy* perspective? And I just caution that any policy that aims at expanding life expectancy runs the risk of being coded by the voters as “nanny state thinks they know better than me how to run my life!” which is political poison in our culture. That said I think it’s possible to thread the needle, and your ideas aren’t bad. But gas and sugar taxes won’t be popular. (Also I thought this piece was very interesting and well-done and I learned quite a bit!!)

Expand full comment
Tdubs's avatar

I really thought footnote 1 was just going to say "Fuck Yeah".

Expand full comment
379 more comments...

No posts