Lloyd's 115th geezer rant

There's new books about health and diet coming out so fast, there's no way of keeping track of the reviews, let alone reading the books. The internet is such a miraculous thing. It has taken me a long time to just learn the basics of operating a computer. But now I don't watch TV at all. The internet is TV and books combined. If I watch TV, I'm in a really bad funk. Or under the weather. There's a kind of common thread in many of these new diet books. The recognition that obesity, heart disease, and diabetes are on the rise. And we are treating the symptoms of these diseases because we can't treat the cause. We can't treat the cause because we still have a long way to go in understanding the hugely complex metabolic system that is our body. It's the study of life itself. The uptick of these diseases has been in the last 25 to 40 years. Some hypothesize that these diseases are "diseases of civilization". That our "cave man" body is not ready for the flour and concentrated sugars and starches that come from no longer being a hunter/gatherer. No longer living from feast to famine. It's always a feast in the USA. The new diet books will tell you to stay out of the "middle aisles" of the grocery store. Buy the produce and meat from around the edges, but stay away from the "processed" food. The middle aisles are the constant feast with no famine. A feast specializing in foods that were not available to primitive man. A diet that may be bringing on the surge of these diseases. I believe this for the most part. But all I really care about is me. And the things that affect me. Yes I do go to the grocery store and I "hunt and gather" around the outside edges. But I do it for a low carb. diabetes diet, not because of a new "cave man diet" fad. Another reason for the "diseases of civilization" rise is simply that we live so much longer now, that we get a chance to get these diseases. 140 years ago our life expectancy (if we survived birth) was about 40 years. They say that gen X's kids will live to be 100. And they're searching for the "aging" genes in our DNA. And through my reading I have learned that "growth hormones" keep coming into play in the metabolic cycle. And that hormones and enzymes are molecules that act differently in different places and time in the blood or tissue. Book after book is being written about the hormone insulin. Of course it's not just for control of blood sugar! We are coming out of the dark ages in this metabolic cycle knowledge. And we don't agree about the cave man diet theory. We don't "agree". As if science is something a committee decides to agree on! People don't agree on science. Whether it's how the world began, whether man's use of the planet is causing global weather, whether stem cells should be used to further research, whether a low fat diet is best for us, whether caffeine, or wine, or animal fat, is bad for us. We don't know these things. But we will. So why can't people just wait for the knowledge instead of shooting off their mouth. You don't know. So start learning. Don't waste your time teaching me your "dark ages" fears, superstitions and habits. They are not knowledge. They never were.

make me king and i will send down new commandments

I read a piece the other day about social and legal systems. One of the things the writer said was: "You either have a system where people are controlled, or not controlled". The same day a friend e mailed me his opinion that some people want to be told what to do, and other people want to be left alone. These statements are so simple and general, that they are, of course, of little use. We all oversimplify things because of our limited understanding of things. If I had to simplify social and legal systems I would say: "It's the "haves" vs the " have nots". Generalizations do work, if only in defining where ideological differences lie. Whether it's a question of "control" or "not having", there really are not two sides. We all want control. We all want to "have". It's difficult to come up with a set of laws for everyone to live by. Folks are different. In culture, in need, in bias, in strengths, in weaknesses, in mores and morality. No matter what set of rules a society draws up, some won't like the rules. Others will "selectively enforce" the rules. Others will vie to change the rules. Some may want to "revolt" and put in a whole set of rules.
I think we live in interesting times. I think the internet has changed the entire dynamic of how "societies" will come together. Old "black and white" "yes or no" choices are fine perhaps for primitive cultures. Keep it simple. You steal something- we cut off your hand. You don't believe in the current "God" we cut off your head. Occasionally a new tribe comes in and kills us all and we start over again.
This old system has a set of rules called the "Ten Commandments". The Ten Commandments in today's world, just serve to hold us back. We need new commandments. Not sent down from an angry deity. Not anything to do with religion(except of course freedom of religion) Something along the lines of the bill of rights. I feel like I could write a few basic rules, but of course some would not like the new rules. Pretend that you were writing these new rules. What rules would you make? I hate the Ten Commandments, and it would take too long to explain all of the ten commandment's problems here. There are books dedicated to that. I'll just say one thing about the ten commandments which is so egregious I just have to mention it. The first four commandments have to do with "God" making clear that he is in charge, and can not be questioned. So the first 40% of the great ten commandments are written by a God who is extremely insecure in his authority. So insecure that he makes these "worship me" rules first on the list. On my list, I would use "thou shalt not steal". It's valid today. "Thou shalt not steal" also implies that there should be a right to private property. If I made commandments, I would like to have something in there about private property. Except my list would not include women and slaves as property as those old commandments do. Why again do we value the old commandments and want them as a "model" or "starting point" for modern rules? There's another old commandment I would use: the false witness one. I hate liars. So I would use two of the ten. I would want something in my commandments about basic human rights. When I think about my list of rules and how "right" it would be, it would still be subject to the caveats of life and it's gray areas. Let me list a few adjectives that I use to help define life, law and happiness. I've been saying these for years and they are in my wallet and on my wall at my desk. Everything in life is: TEMPORARY, SITUATIONAL, RELATIVE, PERSONAL, and CUMULATIVE. Without understanding the breadth of the gray areas, you can't even scratch the surface of what it means to make laws for mankind. Speaking of dilemmas, I am pro guns, and anti religion. Is there a wing nut wacko group out there for me?