Those darned fat people!

Another problem, ho hum
(as reported by the beloved bbc)

The London School of Hygiene and Topical Medicine calculated the obese consume 18% more calories than the average person (isn't the average person overweight? Is this just in England, or worldwide?). They are also responsible for using more fuel, which has an environmental impact and drives up food prices as transport and agriculture both use oil. The result is that the poor struggle to afford food and greenhouse gas emissions rise, the Lancet reports. It comes as the World Health Organization predicts the obese population will double by 2015 to 700m.

The team found that obese people require 1,680 daily calories to sustain normal energy and another 1,280 to maintain daily activities - a fifth more than normal. The higher consumption of food has a two-fold effect, researchers said.

The increasing demand for food, drives up, first of all, production. This means that agricultural processes are using more oil to meet demand, which contributes to the rising cost of fuel.
The cost of fuel is then passed on in the cost of food, making it more difficult for poorer populations/areas to afford it. (I understand "agricultural processes" to mean oil based fertilizers and tractor/harvester fuel).

Secondly, "obese people are likely to rely on transport more and put more strain on that transport because of their mass, which again drives up prices and usage." (I take this to mean not that the obese drive more to the market, which may be true, but that transporting the food from suppliers to market consumes extra fuel).

The solution? Walking, bicycling. This will result in less oil consumption, less demand for food, lower prices, and a better environment. The authors do admit that the obese make an easy target, and that food price, fuel price, and environmental problems have many, many other causative factors.

Also, I take the opening statement back. It's not another problem. It's the same problem I addressed under "obesity," couched in different consequences (everybody else's health/pocketbook, not just their own, and a higher adverse effect on the poor).

Of course, the causes of obesity are many and diverse, with differing percentages for each one. And the consequences of obesity are also many and diverse, with differing percentages for each.
I think all the world's problems should be broken into their component causes (ranked by percentage), so we can get a solid mathematical look at what we all should do.

For example, obesity is caused, as we all know by overeating. But it is also caused by lack of exercise, and genetics. Lack of exercise is caused by television, for example, or computer, or living in a bad neighborhood, or shame, or even an aversion to sweat. Genetics is caused by your parents, but parents also play a role in setting an example for future lifestyle. Love of sports, or proximity to a gym, or having active friends, all this plays a role. Past experience of feeling a runner's high or feeling attractive or experiencing a surge of endorphins or feeling strong and happy after exercise or more powerful after tae bo or whatever is important. Being around, or being, a good cook, who either makes healthy or unhealthy meals, is of course a large factor. So I suppose there's alot going on. Freud talked about people in the oral stage. All people (?) eat more if there's more served to them. Culturally, the Japanese live longer because they eat a bit less than what will fill them, which has a longevity effect.

I'm actually not quite so sure about this supposed mathematical approach now. I think you just have to lay out the facts, educate everyone who needs to know them, and help them achieve their goals through motivation, example, support, and laying out the various options, and making these solutions available, as cheaply as possible.