Lower Air Pollution Means Longer Life 272
thefickler writes "A new study by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has found a strong link between air quality and life expectancy. The researchers looked at air pollution, deaths and census data for 51 metropolitan areas between 1978 and 2001, and what they found was a direct correlation between improving air quality and extending life expectancy. People lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution."
They needed a study? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:They needed a study? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They needed a study? (Score:5, Funny)
If common sense was a viable guide to life than we wouldn't need science.
Or most warning labels...
Re:They needed a study? (Score:5, Funny)
Or most warning labels...
Oblig. bash quote:
"I'm not saying we should kill all of the stupid people in the world, but maybe if we just removed all of the unnecessary warning labels the problem would correct itself"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"I'm not saying we should kill all of the stupid people in the world, but maybe if we just removed all of the unnecessary warning labels the problem would correct itself"
That would just ensure the survival of more lawyers. Ah hell those bastards would figure out a way to survive anyway, parasites are like that.
Re:They needed a study? (Score:4, Funny)
What if you are not smart enough to realize that you are one of the stupid people?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They needed a study? (Score:5, Informative)
It's more than that. While "lower air pollution equals longer life" is a safe assumption at this point, "A decrease in air pollution amounting to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of of (sic) particulates in the air led to an additional .61 years of life" is not so obvious, nor is it even obvious how direct or significant the correlation would be.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the time, but I'd like to see how they did the study.
In the US at least, exposure to more air pollution is probably directly correlated in how car-centric a city in, and I could easily see the decrease in exercise being the driving force for most of the reduction in life expectancy.
Comparing it worldwide gets even iffier -- lax air pollution standards probably correlates quite well with a poorer economy and lax standards in other areas.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an old story - 20 year or older - correlation between air pollution and life expectancy - Riversite CA is one of the worst on the West Coast.
Why is it still happening, who benefits and who looses if it stays that way?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good scientific method doesn't permit practitioners to make just any conclusion they want, especially not conclusions like that one which are unfounded and can easily be wrong. You have the benefit of their study to reach your conclusions, they didn't.
Without the study, there is no evidence to support the contention that there is a degree of correlation between 'heavy coughing' and longevity, or pollution and 'heavy coughing' or pollution and longevity.
In fact, to a large extent, they might be fairly
Stressed.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, maybe ppl in these areas (which likely aren't metro areas) don't live as stressful a life and get some extra life expectancy from that.
Or smog sucks.
Both?
-bZj
Great! - I live in Los Angeles :-( (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, yeah - it's better than the pure acid that was present in the 1970's, but the air still ranks worst in the country.
Worst yet is that there is little/no public transportation to speak of, and something like 40% of the population here drives a truck, SUV, or minivan.
But apparently China is much, much worse.
Re:Great! - I live in Los Angeles :-( (Score:5, Interesting)
True, there are tons of buses and you can to most places using public transportation [wikimedia.org]. The problem with LA public transit is it can be impractical to do so. This isn't a failing of the transit system necessarily, but because LA is the poster child for urban sprawl.
To get to work (an 18 mile drive) takes me just under 2 hours on the bus and I'd have to catch multiple buses. I can drive it in 30 mins -- with traffic.
Similarly, there are MANY miles of tracks for the Metro rail system too, but again, LA is too big and the accessibility of the rail system is limited at best. For example, the rail almost completely ignores West LA [wikimedia.org] (where I live).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry - while busing is available, sitting in traffic along with the other cars doesn't really help. Buses are meant to fill in gaps in a rail/subway system. On the Westside of L.A. the coverage is miserable.
Again bus coverage is reasonable in the rest of L.A., but it will take me over 2 hours to go 15 miles - that's just plain ridiculous.
It's not the heat... (Score:2)
No shit, there I was. Getting out of my prius (i actually just like the car..it's not a political statement), i noticed a dude staring at me as he got out of his 4-door F350. He kind of chuckled to himself a little. I said, "You think that's funny? Your kids are breathing your exhaust. Now THAT'S funny".
Wasn't there something like 4000 deaths in a few weeks in Victorian-era England due to coal smoke and a bad inversion? Like mother nature stuffing your underwear in your mouth...that'
Re:It's not the heat... (Score:5, Informative)
More recently than that, actually. The Great Smog of 1952. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_smog [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link.
One more example to give to anti-nuclear people that wouldn't see any problem heavily relying on coal!
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably thinking of "Great Smog of London" [wikipedia.org] which was actually in 1952! Not all that long ago really.
4000 people were killed during the smog event itself, but it's thought that about twice that number died from it even after the smog cleared; a total of 12k deaths.
This event definitely spurred on regulation of air quality in Britain.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't there something like 4000 deaths in a few weeks in Victorian-era England due to coal smoke and a bad inversion?
I think you're confusing the Victorian coal smoke problem with the killer smog during the 1950s. Though all those coal fires must have put out enough particulate to kill a lot of people, I doubt if there are any hard numbers.
An ironic detail: London used to be famous for its fog. A good way to add atmosphere to movies and fiction. There's even a brand of raincoat (American, of course) called "London Fog". Alas, the London Fog is no more: it was caused by that same particulate that killed so many people.
Re: (Score:2)
"You think that's funny? Your kids are breathing your exhaust. Now THAT'S funny".
The sad thing is, so are you, and your kids. Maybe that's why he's chuckling.
Don't jump the gun yet... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People on /. only fully appreciate that when the conclusion being jumped to is one they disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
People on /. only fully appreciate that when the conclusion being jumped to is one they disagree with.
Shame. I thought better of the people here!
Re:Don't jump the gun yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't get proven. That's the whole point of that objection. It allows the person making it to sound intellectual while tossing up a smokescreen where there's always some unspecified alternative explanation but there's never a specific one that the researchers can disprove or any point where the person chanting "correlation != causation" will ever concede anything. It's religious fundamentalism wrapped up in a pseudoscientific veneer where gosh they'd really like to believe this but their strong dedicat
More interested in quality of life (Score:5, Interesting)
I really don't care about an extra 2-3 years of nursing home hell where I'm fed through a tube and can't remember my own name. I'm sure I'll feel differently when I'm closer to that time of my life, but right now it's just not on my list of priorities to extend that part of my life which is certain not to be the best.
What I do care about is QUALITY of life. I bet the last few years those people who live in a more polutted place spend are not happy healthy years. Show me stats on the last 10 years of life and how sick people were.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright then, but do you really think spending the last few years of your life choking to death on air pollution clogged lungs is somehow 'better'?
Seriously. 'Better air quality' isn't some fairytail greenpeace myth thing. There are and can be demonstrable differences in the 'quality' of the air we breathe, and, according to this study, the better the air a person breathes, the longer they live.
Now, they're not saying that extra lifespan is spent in 'nursing home hell', but do you really want to die /sooner
Re: (Score:2)
A reasonable wish, I wish slashdotters were better informed about the science of how to improve air quality to we can better inform employers and voters. The U.S. is going through a massive 'coal bubble', dirty 'CLEAN (sic) coal' power plants are cropping up in place of nuclear or alongside massive hydroelectric power plants. [flickr.com] It won't be long before there won't be a safe place fro
Re:More interested in quality of life (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't care about an extra 2-3 years of nursing home hell where I'm fed through a tube and can't remember my own name...What I do care about is QUALITY of life. I bet the last few years those people who live in a more polutted place spend are not happy healthy years. Show me stats on the last 10 years of life and how sick people were.
but clean air isn't giving you 2-3 extra years in a nursing home.
With better air quality, you should stay healthier longer, and will be moving in to that nursing home 2-3 years later.
Cleaner air could give you 2-3 more good years.
Re: (Score:2)
That can't be stressed enough. Lung disease is the difference between playing golf and lying on a hospital bed sucking oxygen through a tube.
Re:More interested in quality of life (Score:4, Interesting)
It's more complicated than that.
What if you get to have a nice estate in the country with clean air and healthy exercise, because you skim extra profits by polluting other people's air? You in effect ensure yourself decades of healthy living by taking a little bit of a bunch of other peoples' lives.
I bring this up because viewing the atmosphere as a common cesspool hides the connection between the good quality of your life and the reduced length/quality of other peoples' lives. Yeah, you might say, it's too bad about the higher morbidity rate of people who don't have the gumption to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like I did, but it's not my problem. Except it should be your problem if what's really keeping you afloat isn't your bootstrap pulling, it's standing on somebody else's back.
The important thing about capital, the thing that makes it really useful and powerful, is the way it has of flowing towards opportunity. But if you look at that trait carefully, you'll also see that the very same behavior means that it runs away from problems. So you take your profits from your goldmine and liquidate the company before the arsenic in the tailings starts leaking out. The entity legally responsible for the problems is now an empty shell.
Any attempt to fix the incentive problem after the fact would undermine the positive functions of capitalism and corporations. Oh, I think there should be criminal prosecutions in such cases, don't get me wrong. But what you really have to do is to remove the ability to exploit the mobility of capital by creating problems and running away from them. People will bitch and moan that you're restricting capital's ability to build wealth, and they're right. But it doesn't restrict capital's real ability to generate value.
No sh*t Sherlock (Score:2)
I left a job in the NorthEast corridor almost 20 years ago because I couldn't breath. Yeah, that blue haze drifting around was "fog" all right. State had something like a 65 year average life expectancy. Glad to be back in a state with about a 78 year life expectancy even though I really liked the job.
What!? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am shocked. Shocked, I say! You mean to tell me that better health leads to a longer life!? Well sir, I have apparently been wrong my whole life; thank you Slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
Air filter? (Score:3, Interesting)
So by logical extension, would an air filter in the home help to some degree?
Obviously the effect is statistical in nature and even if there was any benefit to an individual, it wouldn't be as effective as living in an area with low pollution. But still...?
For particulate pollution, perhaps (Score:2)
A very fine filtration system might cut down on the amount of particulate matter (soot) that seemed to be the focus of this study. Won't help you while you're outside, or in your car, but can't hurt.
Filters can do nothing against other pollutants like, say, ozone or oxides of nitrogen. (Those "ionic" air "purifiers" actually very slightly increase the amount of ozone in the air.)
Re: (Score:2)
Unimpressive (Score:3, Insightful)
People lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution.
Of course, if we Americans would eat less crap, eat more healthy foods, and got out and exercised now and then, we'd extend our lifespans by a considerably greater amount.
Irony... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm in the petroleum biz (ooooh evil, yeah, yeah, i know)... but I get the freshest air every day. You couldn't pay me enough to live in a big metropolitan city. I've smelled NYC.
J
That's just what we need (Score:2)
More people living longer. Like the current population doesn't cause any problems in the world.
In a related research paper... (Score:2)
It's this type of unintuitive research that I'm proud to sponsor with my tax dollars.
I can't wait to read the upcoming report on the relationship between caloric consumption and obesity. I'm panting in anticipation of the latest research into the apparent connection between teenage intercourse and teenage pr
So basically ... (Score:2)
People lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution
So basically, the study found that you live on average 148 more days due to the lessened effect of air pollution. A whole four extra months living in a vegetative state in an old peoples sanctuary. Kind of gives us all hope for the future, doesn't it ?
Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting.... (Score:4, Funny)
I fart in your general direction.
Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pollution is bad for you. Well Duh...
Science is sometimes about proving (or occasionally disproving) the obvious.
However, in this case it has a lot to do with the fact that certain elements - those who earned big money on pollution being allowed to happen - for many decades did everything they could to stop the government from taking appropriate action. Just like for climate change now, there were "pollution sceptics" and people advocating "common sense" and "freedom".
Another thing is that the harm caused by pollution has been hard to quantify, and therefore it has been hard to come out and say "This industry produces this amount of pollution, which causes this amount of extra death and disease, which costs society this amount of money" - if we can put a clear cost on pollution, we can justify things like pollution taxes or economic sanctions.
Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the point about the people earning money by using the atmosphere as a cesspool is valid, but that's not why this is science.
Science often proves the obvious because the "obvious" has to be tested from time to time to keep it honest. Yes, it's obvious that pollution is bad. It's also obvious that radiation is "bad". You do not want to sleep on top of an unshielded nuclear reactor core, for example, even if you could avoid getting cooked. But at some point the effects of radiation aren't worth bothering about.
The same goes for pollution. It's a valid question to say, at what point does reducing air pollution become irrational? This study shows we haven't passed that point yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is. Because as I pointed out elsewhere, the four months are not distributed evenly. Most people probably lose a lot less than four months. It could be that most people lose less than a months, fair number of people lose a year, and few lose a decade or more.
Plus, the run-up to slightly early death can be quite protracted and unpleasant. You might get yourself to within spitting distance of your natural lifespan by repeated rounds of chemotherapy, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Science is sometimes about proving (or occasionally disproving) the obvious.
In this case, nothing has been proved. Correlation/coincidence is not the same as causation. It's entirely possible the extra 2.7 years was caused by less stress thanks to country living, not less pollution. We don't know for sure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't have any links at hand, but there is some research that concluded that urban-life induces stress. Apparently, some people naturally go into stress mode in crowded places, which are fairly common in urban environments. All the noises, moving vehicles, flashing lights, etc can also induce additional stress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Just leave it to the government, it knows best: http://www.discussanything.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-69781.html [discussanything.com]
Yes, the government is truly your friend. The government always has your best interests at heart. The government would never do anything to harm you. You can trust the government. You need not worry. Government will tuck you in bed and say "Good Night".
The question is, of course, if you are able to wake up the next morning...
Re: (Score:2)
The GP was actually being critical towards the government.
Re:Air quality is for socialists. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't tell if the post I'm responding to was meant to be a trolling or flamebait comment but it certainly seemed that way. Pollution is the textbook example where even a libertarian needs to compromise to some extent. Pollution is an externality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [wikipedia.org]. That is, the harm created by it is highly diffuse and applies to people not involved with the original transactions that created it. Free markets solve for pretty much everything but externalities. This is because transaction costs (the cost of making deals) easily outweighs the benefit to not having the negative externality from any given single pollution source. So it isn't in anyone's incentive to make individual deals with each polluter to reduce pollution even if it is in everyone's best interest to reduce the pollution level. In such circumstances, the only solution is central regulation of some form.
Furthermore, there is a philosophical reason that pollution doesn't apply in the standard libertarian framework. The central philosophical idea behind most forms of libertarianism is that if I'm not harming anyone then I should have a right to do whatever I please. This is a strong argument. Unfortunately, pollution does harm other people. It isn't as direct or as obvious as murder or theft but it is harming people. It is again, just more diffuse and harder to pin down exactly who is harmed by which bit of pollution. For both economic and philosophical reasons even a hard-core libertarian should be ok with regulation of pollution.
Libertarians wish the problem away (Score:4, Insightful)
That should be the case. It's my observation that much of the time libertarians wish the problem away by downplaying the impacts of pollution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You hit the nail right on the head there. Libertarianism is another form of extremism, just like religious extremism. The followers actively try to suppress information that contradicts their ideology, and they're frequently in denial, rearranging the facts in their head to make them acceptable.
Even issues much smaller than this, like the Wiimote lawsuit, elicit denial. This [slashdot.org] got modded flamebait and troll because I pointed out that whether the wriststraps were defective and were breaking was relevant to the
Re: (Score:2)
Pollution, except in the unusual cases where it is actually properly contained, involves the polluter putting harmful compounds into other people's persons and property without their consent. The notion that state interference with pollution is anti-libertarian is about as silly as the notion that state interference with assault or trespassing is anti-libertarian
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. I consider myself to have strong libertarian leanings, and I couldn't agree with you more.
The governments only legitimate role in the market is one of regulating externalities and ensuring everyone operates legally.
Re: (Score:2)
You, Sir, have not had a conversation with a libertarian. Their One True Idea knows no compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a libertarian, and I still say that regulation is the wrong approach. Pollution creates identifiable and specific damages, and it is the responisibility of the state to use its proper available mechanisms (courts and taxing powers) to add costs to the entities causing the pollution. Provable pollutants (and that means b.s. like CO2 as a pollutant is not included) are charged according to the quantity generated. Diffuse pollutants hurt everyone, and can be applied to the general tax base. Concentrated p
Re:Air quality is for socialists. (Score:4, Insightful)
And here on your left, folks, is an example of Libertarianism in it's prime:
I am a libertarian, and I still say that regulation is the wrong approach.
Yes, the standard rant.
Pollution creates identifiable and specific damages...
Good so far. We could, in practice, identify all polluters and properly force them to cover the true costs of their activities. FOrce them to cover their externalities.
...it is the responisibility of the state to use its proper available mechanisms (courts and taxing powers) to add costs to the entities causing the pollution.
Wow. That, but not regulation. Hmm. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
Provable pollutants (and that means b.s. like CO2 as a pollutant is not included) are charged according to the quantity generated.
Right, just the things that *you* think are pollutants. The "provable" pollutants. How many decades fight was it before cigarette manufacturers agreed that their products were "provably" harmful? What's that? They still say that cigartettes aren't harmful? Hmm.
The result is an economic incentive to do the right thing, rather than an arbitrary application of inflexible power implied by the word "regulation".
Um, hello? Do you know what most "regulations" entail? Try this - they generally define an accepted and acceptable method of doing business with economic incentives (such as fines) for not doing so.
Congratulations, on having decided that regulation is the best method for dealing with pollution. Oh, only just don't call it "regulation" - that's a bad word, even if it describes the approach you wish to take.
More Kool-aid?
Re:Air quality is for socialists. (Score:5, Funny)
But hey, you'll live 5 months longer than me. Whooptee doo.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...we will have built giant space-faring pleasure yachts...
BAH! You will have built Ferengi Marauders and will be selling planetary time shares.
Re:Air quality is for socialists. (Score:4, Funny)
And that gives us a solution to the libertarian problem. Throw them all together in a small area, let them regulate themselves, and the destruction the wreck on the land and air will kill them all off.
And you hate and despise us Libertarians why? All we want is FREEDOM.
Of course, I can understand perfectly well if you would rather have fascists control your life instead.
Of course, I am wondering what this has to do with air quality.
But I am used to it.
Well, I guess you just can't please everybody. Sigh.
Re:Air quality is for socialists. (Score:5, Insightful)
"And you hate and despise us Libertarians why? All we want is FREEDOM." ... to kill the environment and abuse your employees, load down nations with debts they can never pay back, and gain exclusive monopoly control over land, air and water - and then watch those die who can't pay. Or shoot them with your own hand if they try to 'steal' 'your' 'hard-earned' resources.
At least that's the kind of 'freedom' most anarcho-capitalists I've seen dream about. And unrestricted, unregulated, corporate iron fist and death to the teeming masses.
The absolute freedom to take everything you want and give nothing back.
If you're not into that kind of 'freedom', we have something in common.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is the old adage that "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
So corporations are also free as long as they do no harm to individuals. Iron Fists are excluded. And the free consumer is educated as to what the corporations are doing, and will "vote" with his wallet where he wishes to do business.
So corporations who violate these principles will find thems
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the old adage that "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
So you're a liberal?
I mean, if my freedom ends where my nose is, and yours is too, then you're not free to enforce your freedom on me, because it infringes on my freedom. What's the solution?
A GOVERNMENT.
Libertarianism is one logical step away from liberalism but ideologically similar to conservatism.
contracts (Score:4, Insightful)
You signed your name on the dotted line? You live up to that contract. You breach? You pay the penalty.
Consumer contracts are written by teams of bright well-educated lawyers who commonly bill $200 to $700 per lawyer per hour.
Consumers commonly make $10 per hour and are over their heads in debt. About half of them have below-average intelligence. About 5/6 of them are not truly literate even for regular newspaper-like text, never mind a legal document. Consumers are given one-sided contracts with no reasonable alternative. There is no practical opportunity (time) or financial ability to seek the advice of counsel, and no alternative provider of services.
This is a fundamentally cruel situation. Even as arrogant and elitist as I am, I can see that this is harmful to society. It encourages contempt for our legal system, general distrust, and a feeling of unfairness. All of that encourages corruption, which of course hurts everybody.
Re:Air quality is for socialists. (Score:4, Insightful)
And that gives us a solution to the libertarian problem. Throw them all together in a small area, let them regulate themselves, and the destruction the wreck on the land and air will kill them all off.
And you hate and despise us Libertarians why? All we want is FREEDOM.
Sigh, we don't despise Libertarians, many of us have just lived happened to have lived in some coutries that are libertarian (read lawless), and shudder to remember them.
Remember, noble lofty ideals can always be twisted one way or another, and exploited, including your lofty libertarian ideal of freedom. Incidentally, the closest things we have to libertarian societies are the wartorn and corrupt african republics that you hear about on CNN. Just how FREE are they? Well:
Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.
It just goes on...
Of course, I can understand perfectly well if you would rather have fascists control your life instead.
No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.
Of course, I am wondering what this has to do with air quality.
But I am used to it.
Well, I guess you just can't please everybody. Sigh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh, we don't despise Libertarians, many of us have just lived happened to have lived in some coutries that are libertarian (read lawless), and shudder to remember them.
Arrrgh! Libertarianism does not equal lawlessness! How these two get confused is beyond me.
Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.
Again, this is perversion. The FREEDOM I speak of is FREEDOM to do whatever you want -- including owning guns -- as long as you don't unduly and unjustifiably harm someone else. But some fear this freedom and seek to paint libertarianism in a bad light, including trying to equate it with lawlessness. Nothing can be further from the truth.
No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.
You may, and that is your choice that you are free to make, just as long as you d
Re:Air quality is for socialists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Arrrgh! Libertarianism does not equal lawlessness! How these two get confused is beyond me.
Easy: I've never had it explained to me how you would go about preventing the former from sliding into the latter pretty quickly. That is, in a way that didn't sound inhumane (well, if they can't defend themselves they probably weren't going to survive anyway), farcical (oh, everyone will just get along and not hurt one another because everyone will just love having freedom so much), or sociopathic (I'll defend myself with strenght and weapons).
Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.
Again, this is perversion. The FREEDOM I speak of is FREEDOM to do whatever you want -- including owning guns -- as long as you don't unduly and unjustifiably harm someone else. But some fear this freedom and seek to paint libertarianism in a bad light, including trying to equate it with lawlessness. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Again, how would you stop someone from "unduly and unjustifiably harming someone else" without hurting someone else? What about gray area situations, like abortion, euthenasia, soft crimes, the death penalty etc...
What exactly is your practical libertarian method of maintaining social order in a modern society the size of, say, Canada?
No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.
You may, and that is your choice that you are free to make, just as long as you don't make that choice for me. I want NO ONE controlling my life but ME.
Sorry to say buddy, but you already do. The government controls the lives of most people. Sure that may suck when you have to pay taxes, or you get a ticket for speeding, but on the other hand, that bored borderline sociopathic teenager from the rougher sides of town will actually think twice about breaking into your house, because the executive branch of the law will probably catch up with him and he will be in shit.
Anyway, I don't actually want to control your life. You'll find most socialists don't either. They're just happy to vote the way they feel things should go.
Incidentaly, did you vote Ron Paul? If so, good on ya for at least putting your money where your mouth is. If not...
Re: (Score:2)
You live in a big country, if you really don't want anyone controlling your life why don't you move to a place where your life won't be controlled? Do it right and you won't have to pay taxes or be a hypocrite by using the things those taxes payed for.
Just pick a random spot on the Alaska highway and head into the bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarianism is not anarchism; they are very different concepts. One sees a need for minimal government, and one eschews government entirely. I don't think there are or recently have been any countries that have a libertarian system of government.
Libertarians do not find the police and judicial system to be "restricting annoyances." They are absolutely necessary to the enforcement of the law. Libertarians do have a use for laws against things like theft, rape, and murder, as these cover the 'unwanted
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for a lucid and informative post. I actually do support a more minimal form of government as well, and am appaled by what the government in my country is doing now (OZ) to erode our civil liberties.
I just feel that most of the libertarians I've met or had dealings with when get into a deep discussion (read: argument) just end up making it about hating having to pay tax, and nothing more lofty than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The railways came about by the government stealing land and giving it to the railway corperatins as a grant. Much easier to borrow money when you own a strip of land right across the country and much easier to raise money by selling land when someone stole it and gave it to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your house, just sitting there, not even including your furnace, air conditioner, or toilet and septic, are putting off far more toxins per day than a smoker. Think about all the plastic, the paint on the walls, the shingles on your roof, the insulation and tar-paper, the chemicals in the treated wood, got a paved driveway?...
The amount of power your PC used during your comment, is probably indirectly equal to 1 cigarette, via the power station, even if it's hydro, the damn because of the raised water level
Re: (Score:2)
"...the damn because..."
Dam* ...lol
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've noticed this argument before. "Natural tobacco is perfectly safe, because it's pure".
Pure hogwash, you mean...
Don't forget oil is natural too. Problem is, the gases it produces when you burn it are toxic.
Same problem with all natural plants and woods. When you burn them, you create lots of complicated carbon based molecules and many of them are toxic.
Sap from the natural taxus tree kills you dead. They even use it to treat some forms of cancer. They call it chemo-therapy then...
Your ideas about '
Re: (Score:2)
"...cutting down on those additives would almost have the same effect as stopping smoking entirely..."
What I meant was that pure tobacco, especially secondary, would be about the same as your normal intake of toxins, if you are around someone who is smoking, for say a couple cigarettes, then it would be about the same as another day, when your neighbours chimney smoke happened to drift your way, or you burnt off the dead grass in the spring, etc.. I never said it was healthy, only that it was immensely more
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that you take extra special care to take as much of the delicious tobacco smoke in your lungs as possible. Your neighbour's chimney was designed specifically to keep the smoke out of his lungs. And when you're burning grasses you get out of the way of the smoke.
So, yes, in theory natural tobacco smoke is probably not more toxic than any other organic smoke, but in practice smokers and people who stay in the same rooms tend to inhale much more of the latter. Sniffing smoke from your neighbo
Re:Correlation is not Causation (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Correlation is not Causation (Score:4, Insightful)
If correlation never implies causation, then every study ever done is invalidated.
Sure you can take something and twist facts any way you want to make something correlate to something else, and in that case, sure correlation does not imply causation. And perhaps an initial correlation does not imply causation, but typically warrants further investigation and studies. But when you have a studies that take years of data, good, large, samples, and some generally smart people doing it, saying "correlation is not causation", especially without any argument or justification, is just silly.
Parent is either +1 Funny or -1 Troll.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If correlation never implies causation, then every study ever done is invalidated.
Correlation does not PROVE causation.
A high degree of correlation may imply causality. It can indicate that further study is worthwhile. It is not proof.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's a useful phrase on slashdot. If someone uses it at the beginning of their post, I can safely assume they don't know what they're talking about and ignore the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
And, even in cases when correlation is not causation, there's still usually pertinent information.
Take, for instance, the classic case of pirates and global warming. Clearly, any logical person can see that a lack of piracy has no direct effect on releasing greenhouse gases. However, if one knew a lot about pirates, and nothing about global warming you could figure some of it out. Caribbean piracy was largely motivated by getting around the mercantilist policies of the European powers. However, the ind
Re: (Score:2)
I really hate this phrase. The more I see it used, the more I'm convinced it's just people trying to sound smart.
If correlation never implies causation, then every study ever done is invalidated.
Well, maybe http://xkcd.com/552/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah sorry
I will
try. I'm working
on it
but sometimes it's so
hard. I do my best. :)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new h
*looks at uid*
... never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I can see one big way that there may not be causation, namely that places with a lot of pollution (big cities) tend to be higher in crime and traffic accidents.
I didn't read the study, so I can't say if they accounter for this or not.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work that way. It's more like adjusting the odds on the lottery. Most people breathe crap faithfully every day of their lives yet still up dying of something unrelated like pancreatic cancer at age 80. A relatively small number of people win the air pollution fatality lottery and get to check out at age 50.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually read the paper you will see that they do not account for these things. They don't even account for improvements in medical technology. The closest they get is to try and account for the change in prevalence of smoking.
Therefore, this is absolutely the correct time to stand up and state that correlation is not causation and they needed to do better to compensate for other factors.