No, if I did not make it clear, then let me say that I think it much better if there is no obesity. But better a society grappling with overeating than starvation, I think
As for Carl's point -
"Gee, Yoshie, you just don't appreciate subtle thinking! James' conclusion shares much the same the rigorous reasoning shown by US forces in Vietnam, i.e.: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." :)
the analogy is just too subtle for me...
And Doug:
"So obesity has very little to do with "real social advance." It has a lot more to do with maldistribution, poverty, and depression (which is what makes a lot of people eat compulsively). Of course, we can produce vast quantities of food, which theoretically offfers the possibility of the eradication of hunger, but it ain't gonna happen under present social arrangements. If the morosity were motivated by anguish over those arrangements, it might be worthwhile, but it probably has more to do with the upper classes moralizing about the pathological self-indulgence of the lower."
I guess that Britain must be much richer than America then, because there is no starvation here - apart of course from that associated with anorexia nervosa and bulimia.
As for depression and overeating, these are personally tragic circumstances, but I am not sure that you can blame capitalism for people's own self-destructive behaviour - not unless you think that people ought to be relieved of all responsibility for their own decisions. My point was clear enough, it is possible to overeat because food is so cheap, that nobody needs to starve in the developed countries.
And yes, incidentally the US, like the EU does indeed dump its food surpluses on the Third World - though in such a way as to jeopardise local production - under public law 480. The US is also a food exporter, as is the EU.
-- James Heartfield
http://www.heartfield.demon.co.uk/james1.htm