In other news

Lol at "professional" agitators.

MUST BE HAMAS

Did not watch but it's pathetic bemoaning any politician when you grovel to a lying grifting rapist felonious conman.

Except they delivered him directly to a prison. And they are sending other people to countries they didn't come from. Seems like a pretty severe punishment to be sent to South Sudan.

are you racist against south sudan? according to the gospel of the left every place on earth is literally identical to the USA which is why people coming from any place on earth are identical (every place is exactly what the people living there make of it, so that's the corollary)

What colour is the sky in your world ?

Chemtrail Mist obv

Well, one of my political hot takes is that you have have an ethical obligation to stay fit.

One could argue this from the perspective of utilitarianism. On average, keeping fit will make you happier, more productive and less of a burden to people close to you and society. Barring extreme levels of fitness (athletes, serious fitness hobbyists etc), avoiding obesity will likely also make you consume far less.

Though, that is really not my rationale, I take the more selfish route that the moral responsibility is towards yourself. There is a duty to improve physically and mentally, and if that is not possible then there is a duty to maintain as best you can.

Of course, I am not blind to the fact that this is far simpler for some than others. I've been lucky enough in my life that early on I had jobs where you were in part paid to keep fit, and later in life I mostly had jobs with benefits that made is simple to be active.

Barring a few very specific professions, there is also a very clear socio-economic divide here, one which heavily favors people more well off. I think that barrier should be removed.

I can see some ethical obligations in putting some effort with diet, exercise and so on.

But the main problem for that set of topics is that the effort required by different people to achieve a modicum of decency is so incredibly different, it's not very moral to prescribe the same to all people.

Genetics , as for literally everything else in human life, matter a great deal there, as everyone who knows people who smoked and reached 85+ and others who had their throat cut to save their lives at 55 because of smoking do. And no it's not randomness, it's mostly genetic predispositions.

Same applies to every health outcome including staying fit.

You mention that, but that IS the problem basically.

The socio-economic divide though absolutely doesn't exist, as proven by the fitness of north koreans.

Let's pretend you didn't say that.

Barring some rare conditions, genetics is irrelevant outside competitions / athletics. And that is such a specific use-case that it is close to irrelevant for the purposes of this debate, but even in that category genetics is not all that relevant except in the top echelon of performers.

What matters is doing the work and putting some hours in. A contrary to myths populated in media and social media where the volume is always cranked to the max, you don't really need to make it a lifestyle... or rather, you don't need to build your life around it.

Given that that the destitute's sole right in North Korea is to be disappeared in a shallow mass grave after they are worked to death, your example isn't nearly as clever as you probably think it is.

Of course, there is certainly a parallel to that and how the poor are treated in the developed world. Meaning they are mostly treated as disposable. Even for the political left they are little more than props to be used in political rhetoric. In reality, we seem to have developed a mostly Rayndian world-view in regards to the more well-off. Which is both naive and stupid.

if you can be fit in one of the poorest countries in the world as a member of the oppressed population, you can 100% be fit at every level of income in the USA, it's entirely up to you and your genes, not income.

Dunno why that sounds weird to you.

If a so-called 'food' didn't exist in 1850, then we probably shouldn't be eating it now.

Processed food is the killer.

This is just absurd. Some people have less hunger , so the effort needed to eat proper amount of food for them is lower, so it's exceptionally easier for them to be fit, and that's all genetics.

Then there is willpower (the ability to act differently from your pulsions), which is... genetically determined to a large extent. So for some people it's far far harder to shut down the hunger signal than it is for other (at the same amount of hunger signal, which isn't the same per the above anyway).

I am fit with very little effort for example, but i don't brag that as being far more ethical about self-preservation than others. I just have good genes for that specific outcome. It's easy for me to skip meals, it's easy for me to get satisfied and filled with healthy food. I dislike sweets and desserts so that removes a whole set of very nasty foods other people have often to treat like addictions.

I am also italian and that gave me a better food culture from the beginning sure. But the italian diet is more optimal for italians for obvious genetical reasons to begin with.

It's like claiming that almost anyone can beat nl25 and genetics don't play any role for it, and they only matter to become a great winner at poker. Lol no, for some people beatin gnl25 would require much more effort than for others, for genetic reasons. That can be true even if at a given time, with *enough effort* anyone could beat it.

IQ is genetic, reflexes (needed to table a lot with a decent quality of play online) are genetically determined, acceptance of variance (risk aversion or lack thereof) is genetic, willpower (the fortitude to keep going to achieve your goals when facing temporary bad outcomes) is genetic and so on. Anf they matter at nl25 and at nl10k+.

I believe genetics is the single-best indicator for longevity.

If your parents lived to be old, then you probably will live to be old, too.

Far better to check the tree more but yes. But the fact is the same is true for everything measurable in your life basically. Including any behavioral propensity.

My Dad's parents passed away at 89 and 96. His grandfather lived to be around 93.

My Dad passed away a few months ago at age 94, and he wasn't especially health-conscious.

On the basis of that utilitarianism everyone should kill themselves (or be killed) as soon as they become a net negative to society. It gives facism a good name.

The more selfish route is to maximise your satisfaction. For me that includes a lot of 7 pints and a vindaloo while avoidign the gym. I dont wish to impose that on anyone even though i think many would be a lot happier..

That might be true with respect to Act-Utilitarianism, but not necessarily with respect to Rule-Utilitarianism.

Most likely true to a significant extent but increasingly we can tell genetics where to get off.

That's even more facist but ok if we're doing that then definitely impose the 7 pints (proper beer obv) and a vindaloo no gym regime. And make all kids watch test cricket all summer.

Becoming a parent is mostly genetic: If your parents didn't have kids, you won't either.