Informed Decisions

Rob Lyons of Spiked doesn't think that listing calories next to the menu is a good idea. He writes:

Food should be both sustenance and pleasure. The demand that we constantly check our desires against some government-imposed calorie-related target robs us of this joy, replacing it with guilt and fear instead; such schemes serve no other purpose than to persuade us that we must trust in the advice of the health authorities.

Rather than labeling everything we eat with calorie and fat contents, a far healthier attitude would be to leave us to make up our own minds about what we consume. We should be lickin’ our fingers, not counting calories on them.

Rob states that checking the calorie count robs us of the pleasure of eating and leaves us with guilt and fear. Does he mean that the average man has to eat more than the recommended calories/meal in order to derive pleasure out of eating? Rob's essentially implying that the government's stipulations for calories/meal are much less than what one needs to eat in order to remain healthy. Come on, we're dealing with first world countries and nobody (at least an overwhelming majority) is going to die of malnutrition.

This point rings close to this piece I wrote about a year ago -- how scientific authority is in some circles trying to replace moral & religious authorities. But now, I agree with one of the comments (by Viswanathan) there. He wrote "The shades of fun ( or pain) of owning up responsibilities can still be there, even under the illumination by science. Science can tell us the dangers of excess calories,or excess alcohol or that of tobacco. Knowing fully well the facts, one can still over eat, drink or smoke.The burden of responsibility is only heightened- not lessened- by knowledge."

There's nobody from the local health office sitting next to you watching how many calories you gobble when you stack up your double cheese burgers. You are warned, now it's upto you.

Update: This is an embarassing spelling error to admit.  I wanted to write 'Come on' and instead wrote 'Common'.  I've corrected the error.

The.Moral.Science

In a piece that starts softly, wavers a little bit but then progresses strongly and ends with a bang, Frank Furedi writes:

The slippage between a scientific fact and moral exhortation is accomplished with remarkable ease in a world where people lack the confidence to speak in the language of right and wrong. But turning science into an arbiter of policy and behaviour only serves to confuse matters. Science can provide facts about the way the world works, but it cannot say very much about what it all means and what we should do about it. Yes, the search for truth requires scientific experimentation and the discovery of new facts; but it also demands answers about the meaning of those facts, and those answers can only be clarified through moral, philosophical investigation and debate.

Frank brilliantly argues how under-informed, misguided people are trying to replace moral & religious authorities with a shadow of science. In most cases, I try to be a man driven by reason and science is a wonderful tool that helps me wade through the multitude of options available on a daily basis ranging from the trivial like the brand of tooth paste to weighty issues like child psychology.

But an extreme insistence on science in every walk of life (anatomically comfortable sexual position, your TV viewing angle shouldn't exceed 30 degrees, sun screen lotion with an SPF of 12.5.....) makes decision-making robotically boring. As humans with free will (don't we?) the fun comes with owning responsibilities for our actions. By thoroughly turning towards scientific proofs/experiments we deny ourselves in breathing a fresh whiff of air.